Bits Bucket for January 20, 2012
Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
June 2025 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
January 19, 2012 5:01 AM
Federal-State Meeting Planned to Rally for Foreclosure Accord
Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — State attorneys general are being invited to meet with U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and a Justice Department official to rally support for a proposed settlement with banks over foreclosure practices, said the Iowa Attorney General’s Office.
Materials about the proposed deal are being sent to all states, and Democratic attorneys general have been asked to meet on Jan. 23 with Miller, Donovan and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, said Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.
State and federal officials have been negotiating a settlement with the five largest mortgage servicers, including Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., which would set requirements for conducting foreclosures and provide mortgage relief to homeowners. Miller, a Democrat, has been leading negotiations for the states.
The attorneys general from all 50 states announced in 2010 they were investigating bank foreclosure practices after disclosures that the companies were using faulty documents in seizing homes.
At the Jan. 23 meeting in Chicago, the federal and state officials will answer questions and discuss details of the potential deal in an effort to win support, Greenwood said. Republican attorneys general will separately discuss the proposed settlement by phone the same day with their Republican counterparts on the negotiating committee in addition to Donovan and Perrelli, Greenwood said.
The sessions come after about a dozen state attorneys general met last week to discuss their mortgage investigations and how they might work together, people familiar with the matter said at the time.
New York, California
The group included New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, California Attorney General Kamala Harris and others who have said any foreclosure settlement shouldn’t protect banks from mortgage-related investigations that haven’t yet been resolved.
Harris and Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto announced in December they were collaborating in their mortgage and foreclosure investigations. Schneiderman and Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden are also cooperating. In December, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley sued Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, New York-based JPMorgan, Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Ally Financial Inc., accusing them of conducting unlawful foreclosures and deceiving homeowners.
…
“which would set requirements for conducting foreclosures”
+
“who have said any foreclosure settlement shouldn’t protect banks from mortgage-related investigations that haven’t yet been resolved.”
Millions upon millions of documents with “kinda/sorta/somewhat” legal signage requirement$ & legal john & jane Doe rubberstamp representatives.
“They” ought use that Latin saying they use on toothless vagrants that steal a $9.99 pizza:
Dura lex sid lex: “These laws is hard, but it is the law.”
Oh, and they apply to EVERYONE equally!
That’s just crazy socialist talk!
Let’s see….
How do we create a controversy that will put a 6-12 month delay into the foreclosure process… Robo Signing scandal.
Hey, as a side-effect, what if we do a “settlement” that gives a minor principal adjustment to the people already in foreclosure, without making it an incentive for even more people to stop paying in hopes of a principal reduction…
Hey, let’s make the fine for robo signing be lowering people already in foreclosure’s principal… The “fine” will just be money we were going to lose in foreclosure anyway!
Hey, that’s a win-win-win.
We slow down foreclosures and losses.
We come up with a way to lower principal for people already in default, that doesn’t apply to new people going into default so is not an incentive to stop paying.
We look like we were punished, but really we’re just paying ourselves money we were going to lose in the foreclosures in the first place!
We have a winner.
And we get to tell everyone that the big pesky meddling government forced us into this settlement.
The group included New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, California Attorney General Kamala Harris and others who have said any foreclosure settlement shouldn’t protect banks from mortgage-related investigations that haven’t yet been resolved.
I hope that Harris and Schneiderman hold their ground on this point. Too many banksters skating away scot-free. They need to be held to account.
“held to account”
How quaint. Someone who actually believes that some of the banksters deserve to be/should be in jail.
That ship sailed a long time ago.
The banksters knew what they were doing. They wrote the laws then got rich within the law. The whole, “They didn’t break the law because they are the law” situation.
Is Foreclosure Processing Deal in its Final Act?
January 19, 2012
The final curtain could soon be coming down on the robo-signing saga, ending a months-long investigation into U.S. banks’ foreclosure-processing practices.
State attorneys general and federal officials are “very close” to a settlement with banks involved in the robo-signing scandal, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, which would benefit about one million homeowners by reducing the amount they owe on their mortgages.
“It would be a very important step…short of legislation, perhaps the most important step we can take in the short term to help the housing market,” Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said at a conference of U.S. mayors meeting in Washington, D.C. Wednesday.
…
Does anyone besides me see irony in the notion of a handful of monopoly banks holding so much market power in the mortgage arena that they have to negotiate a settlement with the states over “shoddy” foreclosure practices? Why not break up the too-big-to-fail banks into non-systemically-risky pieces as part of the deal? Or figure out if criminal intent was involved in approving robo-signing practices, and prosecute the perpetrators?
MARKETS
JANUARY 19, 2012, 1:06 A.M. ET
U.S., Banks Near ‘Robo-Signing’ Settlement
By ALAN ZIBEL, MATTHIAS RIEKER and NICK TIMIRAOS
A pending settlement of an investigation into U.S. banks’ foreclosure-processing problems would benefit about one million families with cuts in the amount they owe on their home loans, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said Wednesday.
Administration officials and attorneys general are “very close” to a settlement with major banks of the so-called robo-signing issues after about a year of negotiations, Mr. Donovan said at a conference of U.S. mayors meeting in Washington.
The reductions in borrowers’ principal balances contained in the settlement, Mr. Donovan said, will be “far and away the largest principal reduction of the [housing] crisis” and will benefit the broader housing market and economy.
“It would be a very important step … short of legislation, perhaps the most important step we can take in the short term to help the housing market,” Mr. Donovan said.
A settlement would end monthslong negotiations among federal officials, state attorneys general and at least five of the nation’s largest mortgage servicers: Ally Financial Inc., Bank of America Corp. Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. The talks center on “robo-signing,” in which bank employees approved legal documents without proper review, and other questionable foreclosure practices.
The five banks and the state attorneys general and Obama administration officials are pushing a deal of $19 billion or more, depending on how many states join the settlement. The size of the settlement could grow if regional banks are included, although those banks could settle separately.
…
Swindle hundreds of billions, stick taxpayers with trillions in financial liabilities, then settle for a piddling $19 billion with no criminal prosecutions and immunity from further legal action. Isn’t crony capitalism grand?
but eyes thought “Capitali$m” was a “get-out-of-jail/justice” card frequently & fervently carried by the party known as the GOP?
GOP = Grand Old Protectionista’$
You, sir, are a tool. Both wings of the Republicrat Duopoly are equally corrupt and in cahoots when it comes to perpetuating our crony capitalist system.
Agreed. My impression is that HUD (under a Democrat administration) is the key player in pushing hard for this settlement to “help the housing market” in an election year. The deal is being packaged as a program to help millions of families.
US HUD’s Donovan: ‘Very Close’ To Robo-Signing Settlement
Written By (Updates with details throughout)
Published January 18, 2012
Dow Jones Newswires
WASHINGTON – U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said Wednesday that a pending settlement of an investigation into banks’ foreclosure-processing problems would benefit about 1 million families with cuts in the amount they owe on their home loans.
Administration officials and attorneys general are “very close” to a settlement with major banks of the so-called robo-signing issues after more than a year of negotiations, Donovan said at a conference of U.S. mayors.
The reductions’ in borrowers’ principal balances contained in the settlement, Donovan said, will be “far and away the largest principal reduction of the crisis” and will benefit the broader housing market and economy.
“I think it can have a substantial impact on the housing market nationally,” Donovan said. “It would be a very important step…short of legislation, perhaps the most important step we can take in the short term to help the housing market.”
…
“You, sir, are a tool.”
Still seeking that “perfect world” according to Sammy?, Oh, look another dawn… slipped right by ya Sammy.
Here’s HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan’s email in case you’d like to send him a letter telling him how you feel about this proposed cramdown….
Secretary.Donovan@hud.gov
“Isn’t crony capitalism grand?”
Depends on which side of it you’re on.
Here’s to hoping HBBers will bother to closely monitor the operationalization and follow-through of whatever comes down as a robo-signing foreclosure settlement.
‘Robo’ Foreclosure Settlement Turns Political
Published: Thursday, 19 Jan 2012 | 11:09 AM ET
By: Diana Olick
CNBC Real Estate Reporter
At a meeting of Mayors Wednesday, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, mentioned that a settlement would include principal reduction for about a million borrowers.
For over a year now, state attorneys general have been negotiating some kind of settlement deal with the nations four largest lenders, as well as several smaller ones.
The settlement pertains to faulty foreclosure processing, first uncovered in October of 2010 and now commonly referred to as “Robo-signing.”
Rather than dozens of lawsuits, the states initially were looking to assess one great punishment on the lenders and thereby appease borrowers who felt they were wronged. The banks were looking for wider immunity from securitization issues, and that is largely what has held up the negotiations for so long.
Now, suddenly, after umpteen “we’re close to a deal”s, apparently we’re now really close to a deal, largely because the State of the Union address is next Tuesday, and this is an election year. So at a meeting of Mayors Wednesday, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, mentioned that a settlement would include principal reduction for about a million borrowers.
“With few other tools to help housing, the administration sees the deal as a way to take credit for helping underwater borrowers without exposing taxpayers to loss,” says Jaret Seiberg at Guggenheim partners, noting that the deal may not fully be in place by Tuesday, but a “framework” could be announced. “If this deal does score enough political points, then it will dampen calls for the administration to roll out more housing help such as a mass refinancing. As we remain dubious about the real impact of a deal, our view is that the administration will face pressure this spring to do more. That means more refinancings of GSE loans will still be on the table,” he adds.
Of course we already know the basic framework of the deal, which would involve up to $25 billion from the banks, though only a small portion of that would be a cash settlement. The bulk of the money would be used to do principal write downs, short sales, and more aggressive loan modifications. Unfortunately, several key states, including Massachusetts, California, New York, Delaware and Nevada have expressed serious concerns about the deal currently on the table, and some bank sources are telling us that without California and New York, it’s hard to see how there would be a deal.
If there is a deal, beyond the politics, it could have a larger effect on the state of the housing market and its recovery. Remember, this deal is about foreclosure processing, which has been nearly stalled in many states. “To that end, it will give banks some increased certainty about their ability to foreclose in those states that sign on to the agreement. As a result, we may see foreclosures ramp up fairly quickly in those states,” says Josh Rosner of Graham-Fisher.
Rosner calls the deal “somewhat nonsensical,” even without knowing the full details, as he believes it offers no assurances to any state regarding specific amounts of relief, not to mention leaving questions about the credibility of the monitoring, oversight, compliance and enforcement of the deal terms. “The expected political calculus is that the public will see the headline and will not bother to watch the operationalization or follow-through,” says Rosner.
…
“To that end, it will give banks some increased certainty about their ability to foreclose in those states
What is giving them uncertainty? We’ve been told again and again that the banks just ‘got ahead of themselves’ or something, and that’s why they started ‘robosigning’. This makes it sound like there really is some basic question as to the banks’ ability to legally foreclose at all. (Which is what I’ve been saying all along.)
O-oh, MERSy, MERSy me…
In a non-banana republic, forging financial documents is ILLEGAL and subject to CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. Done on a large scale it is racketeering which could land the 99% in a Federal pound-me-in-the-a$$ prison. In our crony capitalist system, however, it is viewed as a bookkeeping error that can be forgiven once token fines and the requisite political donations are made.
Fines put money in the state coffers. And honestly, unless someone was dumb enough to write a memo officially changing company policy to be non-compliant with state law (here’s a hint, they didn’t), you are never going to be able to catch the real higher ups with a beyond reasonable doubt standard.
Hmm…make money and get it off my desk vs. spend my entire attorney general’s budget getting probation for the lowest guys on the ladder and nothing for the higher ups? Which would you choose when you also have murderers and rapists to deal with?
The illegal stuff worth pursuing is at investment banker level and it involves constructing bond tranches to fail while selling them without disclosing it. The SEC is slogging through it, but since their laws aren’t criminal, no one is going to jail. I still have hope that someone at Corzine’s shop did something spectacularly criminal and that they will get caught, but it is going to take a while.
“The SEC is slogging through it, but since their laws aren’t criminal, no one is going to jail.”
I guess that explains why we should expect lots more high-level financial fraud in the coming years. Millions of dollars in fines is a small cost of doing business to earn billions and billions of dollars in fraudulently-earned profits.
I guess that explains why we should expect lots more high-level financial fraud in the coming years. Millions of dollars in fines is a small cost of doing business to earn billions and billions of dollars in fraudulently-earned profits.
Keep in mind that it’s our debt that’s helping them earn those fraudulent profits. Or, in other words:
Our Debt Is Their Wealth
“I guess that explains why we should expect lots more high-level financial fraud in the coming years. Million$ of dollar$ in fines is a $mall co$t of doing busine$$ to earn billion$ and billion$ of dollar$ in fraudulently-earned profit$.”
Crime$ (- punishment) = $mart monie$ & plethora of $miles
“In a non-banana republic, forging financial documents is ILLEGAL and subject to CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.”
Bingo! Why can’t the MSM point this out?
Why can’t the MSM point this out?
“You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.” -Morpheus
Does Bain Capital really own Clear Channel?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-07/clear-channel-seeks-amendment-to-refinance-some-of-20-6-billion-lbo-debt.html
If it does, well, there’s a good chunk of the answer.
Doesn’t GE own NBC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBCUniversal
and mention the 900 dj’s production people the high priced help they just fired all to get Ryan seacrest on every farm in america…
http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/98162/clear-channel-reduction-in-force-begins
Yeah Sammy it sucks, but as polly says, there was and is so much fraud out there that it’s going to take a while to get to it all.
But if you’ve kept up with the news, they ARE slowly but surely starting to nail the Wall St “playas.”
Heard about the hedge fund indictments? Or the million mortgage fraudsters going to jail?
It’s happening, but it’s going to take lot of time due to the sheer volume.
Maybe if the Bush White House hadn’t DIRECTLY told the FBI to concentrate on “terra” instead of the alarming increase in mortgage and financial fraud they saw, we might have seen this done quicker.
Sorry.
“…million dollar mortgage fraudsters…”
And of course the fraud has been outsourced to outside firms like LPS to give the servicers and banksters “Clean Hands.”
JimA’s point is where the brilliance of it is. As long as the contract with an entirely separate entity says that they are required to comply with all laws, the people at the bank have very, very plausible deniability. Unless someone can find minutes of a meeting where the contractor tells the higher ups that in order to do their work at the price offered, they will have to skip required state-level legal requirements and the bank agrees to it, you are stuck. All you have is the bank relying on its contractor fulfilling the requirements they agreed to in their contract.
Now, once the contractor is proven to have not done what is reqired, they can’t rely anymore, but that is only going forward. It doesn’t impact what they didn’t do a few years ago.
“All you have is the bank relying on its contractor fulfilling the requirements they agreed to in their contract.”
Ah, the power of a contract with a silent wink
(It’s well & good that the American “legal system” never gets around to punishing “Intent”)
in·tent
noun
1.
something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the “Bidne$$” was to benefit the general welfare of America.
2.
the act or fact of intending, as to do something: criminal intent.
3.
Law . the state of a SCOTU$ person’s mind that directs their action$ toward $pecific object$.
Origin:
1175–1225; Middle English < Late Latin intentus an aim, purpose, Latin: a stretching out ( inten ( dere ) to intend + -tus suffix of v. action)
If you sign a contract with someone, and KNOW that the only way they can comply with the terms of the contract is by cheating/stealing/breaking laws, how does this give anyone a free pass?
If I ever need anyone whacked, I’ll make sure I have a signed contract with my local gangster/hitman that says they will make the target “no longer be a concern/problem”, and also says the hitman has to “comply with all state and Federal laws”.
X-GFr at the District Attorney’s office: “Hey, I just paid him to fix the problem, legally….. I didn’t pay him to shoot that 12 Gauge in his face…….”
Because you don’t “know” in any meaningful way. The companies who did the processing were making huge profits. It is plausible that they could have done the work and not lost money (or even made a lesser profit) at the level they were being paid.
Look, I don’t know the details. But my understanding is that problems are mostly because the robo-signer said they reviewed the original documents. That is what is required under state law. Original documents. But the original documents are in some warehouse somewhere, and weren’t accessed at all, and though most of them can be retrieved eventually, it takes a while. What was reviewed (and I do think there was some review going on, or the number of people getting foreclosed on despite not being in default at all would be higher) was either scans of the documents, or a screen of information about the documents that was input when the original pools of mortgages were put in the trust. Not good enough under state law. But the idea that the bankers had some insight about how long it would take to do a review that does not comply with state law vs. one that does is laughable. They probably didn’t even know how many people the contractor/law firm had as employees. They certainly didn’t know how much those employees made per hour.
Yes, you could make some assumptions (must take at least 2 hours to do a good review at an average hourly wage of $15 an hour with overhead expenses of another $15 an hour and therefore anything under $60 per transation is suspect. Maybe. But they probably didn’t. And if anyone out there knew there was a smoking memo doing that analysis, they certainly were barred from volunteering the information by their nondisclosure agreement. There is no way the prosecutors can prove it.
And like I said, the people doing the reviews were making huge profits. It is plausible that the money they were paid was enough to do it right. They chose not to. So they could keep more of the money. Then the person at the other end of the contract has even better plausible deniability.
Where is Englishman in NJ? Isn’t he actually involved with this stuff directly? I doubt he could tell us much, but he might be able to spill a few beans.
Polly, I would argue that there is a lot of fraud where said contractors created fraudulent, backdated documents to support whatever showed up on their computer screens. And did it SO poorly that in many cases this was obvious to anyone who actually DID review them. Things like notary stamps dated before the notaries in question got their licenses. Or assignments and allonges that were on behalf of companies that didn’t exist on the supposed dates of execution.
Nobody really disputes that the borrower agreed to a series of payments and that he offered the property as collateral. The problem is that the banks and MERS have so screwed up the paperwork that it is difficult or impossible to establish on whom’s behalf the current servicer is supposed to be foreclosing on.
Nobody really disputes that the borrower agreed to a series of payments and that he offered the property as collateral. The problem is that the banks and MERS have so screwed up the paperwork that it is difficult or impossible to establish on whom’s behalf the current servicer is supposed to be foreclosing on.
Seconded.
But the original documents are in some warehouse somewhere, and weren’t accessed at all, and though most of them can be retrieved eventually, it takes a while.
I’m starting to doubt the existence of that warehouse. It’s not at all hard to imagine the banks (or MERS, or whomever) just chucking the original (legal) documents,and doing everything on-line, which is easier, cheaper, but alas, not legal, when it comes time to foreclose.
the banks and MERS have so screwed up the paperwork that it is difficult or impossible to establish on whom’s behalf the current servicer is supposed to be foreclosing on.
That’s what I’m sayin’.
If I ever need anyone whacked, I’ll make sure I have a signed contract with my local gangster/hitman that says they will make the target “no longer be a concern/problem”, and also says the hitman has to “comply with all state and Federal laws”.
I got to read the Blackwater contract of my nephew prior to him being killed in Iraq. It said that if you violated local laws you were on your own.
“And did it SO poorly that in many cases this was obvious to anyone who actually DID review them. Things like notary stamps dated before the notaries in question got their licenses. Or assignments and allonges that were on behalf of companies that didn’t exist on the supposed dates of execution.”
Yup. But are those the people you want to prosecute? A few thousand secretaries putting together bad paperwork? The people who will get on the stand and cry about thinking that it was OK because otherwise how were they to get through everything and they HAD to process so many of them in a day and they needed the job? The bosses protected themselves from this. And fraud requires proof of knowledge. I don’t know if any of the states involved have a “know or should have known” standard instead of a regular old “know” standard for the falsity of what was said, but it isn’t part of the standard definitions of fraud.
Polly thats why for years I’ve been saying they hire the dumbest little chicky-poos and gamer guys and put them on the front lines….now hopefully everyone knows that’s a bright red flag.
———
The bosses protected themselves from this. And fraud requires proof of knowledge.
The problem is that the banks and MERS have so screwed up the paperwork that it is difficult or impossible to establish on whom’s behalf the current servicer is supposed to be foreclosing on.
The numerous counties in every state could simply lien sale every property that has back taxes due. Then sell them at auction on the court house steps. Problem solved. Buck the Fanks and their matrix of owners and MERS too!
The numerous counties in every state could simply lien sale every property that has back taxes due.
Not if the servicers are paying the property taxes. My impression (based on an admittedly small sample size) is that they are paying them.
I wonder what the precedent will be coming out of this.
What if someone were to robo-sign an foreclosure on my house? I don’t have a mortgage.
Somehow, I think that any deal that lets them off for those who did in fact have a mortgage will allow them to foreclose on those who don’t as well.
Part of the agreements is for them to comply with state law going forward.
Whether the attorneys general would have the money/resources to prosecute if they don’t do it is a question for the future.
“The expected political calculus is that the public will see the headline and will not bother to watch the operationalization or follow-through,” says Rosner.”
I bet HBB will watch it
“Overtaxed, the other day someone posted an article stating how FL residents are overpaying for homewners ins. i.e. a woman with a $50,000 replacement cost home paying @$1,600 premium, on an inland home. Shouldn’t your $500,000 home, near or on the water, be at least $10,000/yr, for ins alone? or do the little people subsidize the well-off in lovely Floriduh.”
My homeowners insurance is $1,813/yr for 550K in coverage, 2500 deductible; 11K hurricane deductible. My flood insurance is 473/yr for 250K in coverage. I would assume I’m in the “worst” band for insurance (my back yard is mangroves on the ICW).
I have no idea how a 50K house winds up with a 1.6K premium, but, that women needs to shop her insurance. Typical down here is about .5% of value for houses like mine (5K/yr for a 1M dollar house). I’m a little lower than typical because my house has a lot of “hurricane features”. Also, as you can see, the deductible on hurricanes is pretty outrageous (and that’s the best you can typically get), not many folks can afford a loss like that.
The flood insurance is highly subsidized. I’m not really sure about the homeowners; they may punish the “little guy” to give breaks to the more well off; wouldn’t surprise me one bit. Welcome to FL.
Do they consider FICO scores? Doesn’t seem like it ought to correlate to property damage, but it is supposed to impact your insurance rates. I always thought that referred to car insurance, but it could also mean other types.
” Welcome to Florida” Fl is very welcoming, if your well off. Thanks for your honesty but, I guess it’s your ‘overtaxed’ moniker that irks me. Fl has no state income tax, yet your overtaxed. You pay the exact same homeowners ins as my sister, who lives 5 miles inland and has $ 90,000 of coverage ( yes, she shopped around). My daughter attends the Fl honors college, in Sarasota. Her two, very well off, room mates pay under $3,000/yr (out-of-state cost $41,000) because of brightfutures state scholarships. Brightfutures has NO INCOME restrictions. How do you qualify? top 10% of your H.S. class…whoopde-effin-doo !! My daughter had to tutor these brilliant students to pass bio 101. FL red-necked republicans have to be the stupidest voters in the USA. Gray-haired tea party loyalists are the most naive. If I was well off in Fl, I would keep my mouth shut on national politics and just thank God I live in the great state of Floriduh.
Life is good for my kind. Let’s face it, if you are a college educated Southern, Anglo-Scot, male and live anywhere in the southeast, life is good. Why all of these Tea-Baggers and Bible-thumpers are so angry is beyond me. I don’t get it.
Why all of these Tea-Baggers and Bible-thumpers are so angry is beyond me. I don’t get it.
In Will Bunch’s book, The Backlash, he suggests that a lot of the Tea Partiers’ anger is driven by involuntary idleness. As in, these are people who were laid off or downsized, took early retirement because they couldn’t find jobs, are on disability, or they had a 20-year military career and are living on the pension because no one will hire them.
In other words, the job market doesn’t have a place for them, and they have a lot of time to fill. They’ve filled it with the Tea Party, where they meet other angry people who can’t find a place in this society, and things heat up from there.
In other words, the job market doesn’t have a place for them.
Good thing they know how to retain that good-ol’ fashioned “stick-to-it-ness”
Phyllis: “I worked at Dunder-Mifflin in accounting for 30 years”
Phyllis (downtrodden) : “enroll in a welding class?, geez how can that possibly relate to art?”
Kirisdad,
I’m not blaming FL for my “overtaxed” status. But, nonetheless, I do feel that I pay a rather absurd amount to federal income tax. And property taxes in FL are pretty high as well (close to 10K for my house).
Close to 1/2 of this country pay 0 in federal income taxes (yes, I realize they pay SS taxes, but that’s really a forced saving plan, not truly a “tax”). I’m paying around 100K a year, coupled with my fiance; we’re paying well over that to the federal government each year. This year is going to be even worse; after we’re married, our taxes are going to go up thousands.
I’m very lucky and happy with my life. But I feel that the amount (as a percentage of income) of taxes that I’m paying is a bit absurd. I’m in that “doughnut hole”; I don’t make enough to be really “high income” and shelter my income (or live off capital gains), and make significantly more than the median. I’ve been hit with the AMT most years recently, and have pretty much lost all my tax deductions for anything except interest (and will likely lose them all when I’m married). So now I pay tax on tax.
I love FL, and am very happy to live here. And I agree with you, most of FL is great for the well off (and a lot less great for the other 90% of the population of the state). Doesn’t change my sentiment that I’m paying some outrageous amounts of tax though. Not to get off on the political bent, but I hate conservative social policy, but I’m desperate for someone who will get into office and cut the size of federal government. I’m also a big proponent of “everyone should pay something”. Even if it’s a 1% tax, it get’s people involved in the process. If you’re in the 50% of the country that pays nothing in federal income tax, how do we expect them to be “vested” in the debate about federal spending?
If you’re in the 50% of the country that pays nothing in federal income tax, how do we expect them to be “vested” in the debate about federal spending?
Precisely the problem when the top 1% snatch all the income (and pay lower tax rates while doing it) from the productivity gains made by the country as a whole- the little guys have nothing to lose by upsetting the apple cart.
Count yourself lucky you have it so good. In any other civilized country in the world, you’d be paying more in taxes.
FL red-necked republicans have to be the stupidest voters in the USA. Gray-haired tea party loyalists are the most naive.
+1 However those FL democrats living in dependency and producing childrens [sic] don’t inspire confidence either.
Rms, at least they vote for their own interests (if they vote). It’s the low income worker/old retiree voter that I don’t get. Take the brightfutures scholarships for example. The Fl university system is going broke but, wealthy parents get to send their kids to college for free. When an income based referendum was brought up, the great majority screamed nooooooo!! judging by the letters to the editor most of those screaming probably earn less than $30,000/yr. All they see is the handouts to the poor and never realize they’re closer to the poor than they are to the rich.
What is the “income based referendum”? To give the scholarships based on economic need? Why did they say no to that if they are in the group that would get the scholarships anyway?
Unless they are really sophisticated political strategists who understand that once the program doesn’t help the wealthy, it will get chopped entirely within a few years.
Florida is different, the median wage is ~31k. This means that anyone above median seems pretty well off, and those in the top 25% (above ~48k) are doing well. Or at least were, until home prices went up by 125% due to out of state speculators.
It’s hard to explain why, but once you see it many people vote against their own self interests in Florida.
When an income based referendum was brought up, the great majority screamed nooooooo!! judging by the letters to the editor most of those screaming probably earn less than $30,000/yr. All they see is the handouts to the poor and never realize they’re closer to the poor than they are to the rich.
I hear ‘ya loud and clear. There are a number of pious conservatives in my corner of the world with morbidly obese wives who receive dialysis treatment, and they are devoutly against welfare. Really?
“at least they vote for their own interests (if they vote).”
Someone here at hbb is fond of quoting Churchill’s “argument against democracy” line (”a five-minute conversation with the average voter”). While on one hand it’s comforting to know that my generation isn’t uniquely stupid, I get a headache with the phrase “voting your own interests”. WTF do most people know that will help them cast a meaningful vote in their own long-term interest? ZERO. I have nothing against giving it a shot, but I still hate the terminology, as most people, probably myself included, know not what is in our interest.
Overtaxed,
The only reason you are able to buy insurance at all is because of Citizens Insurance, aka socialized insurance. For a little history, just look at what Citizens’ has done; charge non-actuarily sound premiums and driven all the regular providers out of the state. Why is this, you ask? Because the insurance of your 550k would be much higher than 1800/yr if it was on the private market, and there is a chance that you wouldn’t be able to buy insurance at all. One day a hurricane will come through and wipe out Citizens, and leave us taxpayers with a hefty burden.
The sooner Citizen’s is abolished the better, IMO. It will most certainly have a negative effect on coastal property values, but so be it.
From Politico - ‘Occupy Courts’ to hit Citizens United
“Demonstrators are planning to “occupy” courthouses in cities across the country on Friday, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in a show of protest against the two-year anniversary of the controversial Citizens United ruling.
In the nation’s capitol, demonstrators dressed up as Supreme Court justices are scheduled to perform and dance to songs by “The Supremes” and hold a photo-op a little before noon, and various activists are scheduled to speak near the Supreme Court throughout the day.
“Why the courts? Because frankly folks, that’s the scene of the crime,” said David Cobb, an organizer of Friday’s protests. “Corporate personhood and money equals political speech are court-created doctrines. We the people never decided it; our elected representatives didn’t decide it; ordinary people like me and you never decided it. The court created these doctrines and it’s going to take a movement to overturn it.”
Awesome!
modified:
“Judge Roberts Corporate per$onhood and money equals political speech are court-created doctrine$. We the people never decided it; our elected representatives didn’t decide it; ordinary people like me and you never decided it. The court created these doctrine$ and it’s going to take a movement to overturn it.”
A Heaping Helping of Ridicule for the Fed, Please
By Dean Baker
January 18, 2012
In keeping with its policy of releasing transcripts with a five-year lag, the Federal Reserve Board just released the transcripts from its 2006 Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings. There is much there to cause pain and amusement.
In the latter category, there is probably nothing that can beat Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (then the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank) telling outgoing Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan:
“I’d like the record to show that I think you’re pretty terrific, too. And thinking in terms of probabilities, I think the risk that we decide in the future that you’re even better than we think is higher than the alternative.”
But there is more than obsequiousness on display here. There is also profound ignorance of the economy among the nation’s top economic policymakers.
Keep in mind 2006 is the year that the $8 trillion housing bubble hit its peak and began to deflate. In other words, this covers the period in which the Titanic hit the iceberg and began to take on water. But no one on this sinking ship is even thinking about the lifeboats.
There is no one in the eight FOMC meetings who suggests that the economy faces any serious turbulence ahead. There is not even discussion that a mild recession could be in sight.
In fact at the last meeting of 2006, we hear Janet Yellen, who was then the President of the San Francisco Bank and is now vice-chair of the Board of governors, comment that:
“there are some encouraging signs that the demand for housing may be stabilizing. … After a precipitous fall, home sales appear to have leveled off. … Finally, the gap between housing prices and fundamentals might not be as large as some calculations suggest….”
Needless to say, this wasn’t quite right. Monthly home sales fell by almost 40 percent over the course of 2007. House prices, which were just edging downward month to month up to that point, would begin to decline far more rapidly. By the end of 2007 there were falling at a rate of almost 2 percent a month.
http://globalgeopolitics.net/wordpress/2012/01/18/alan-greenspans-ship-of-fools/ - 50k -
Keep in mind 2006 is the year that the $8 trillion housing bubble hit its peak and began to deflate. In other words, this covers the period in which the Titanic hit the iceberg and began to take on water. But no one on this sinking ship is even thinking about the lifeboats.
There is no one in the eight FOMC meetings who suggests that the economy faces any serious turbulence ahead. There is not even discussion that a mild recession could be in sight.
The year 2006 was when my own business situation started to get wobbly. And I really appreciate the Fed’s concern for the economy back then. It means so much to me now.
I’ll turn my sarcasm off now.
A re-post from late last night.
>>
Remember when there were vast herds of buffalo roaming the vast prairies? Once unrestricted hunting began we nearly made then extinct in just a few years.
A few days ago I mentioned that the collapse of natural gas prices would have a Black Swan effect. Nobody saw this coming I bet. Highly leveraged bets on forward contracts of all kinds of natural resources are the new version of MBS CDO’s.
First we see what happens when a 43 billion takeover was built on the assumption that nat. gas would remain over $6 mcf.
—
Bond investors doubt more than ever KKR & Co. and TPG Capital’s chances of salvaging the biggest leveraged buyout in history, their $43.2 billion purchase in 2007 of the former TXU Corp. Since the private equity firms bought the Dallas-based company, now known as Energy Future Holdings Corp., natural gas prices have tumbled 50 percent, as shale gas floods the U.S. market. That, in turn, has slashed Texas wholesale electricity prices and trimmed EFH’s revenue, although EFH uses natural gas hedges to lessen the impact.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/19/3673160/investors-doubtful-about-salvage.html#storylink=cpy
Next we can see what happens when 38% of N. Texas growth is tied to the nat. gas. This was Rick Perry’s Texas jobs miracle.
—
Natural gas price free-fall can’t be good for North Texas.
Economist Ray Perryman, said that 38.5 percent of the economic growth in 24 North Texas counties since 2001 has been due to Barnett Shale drilling and production. The natural gas industry supports about 8.5 percent of the local economy, the study said.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/19/3673402/natural-gas-price-free-fall-cant.html#storylink=cpy
Drill, baby, drill, fiscal inferno!
(70s disco reference, for you young punkz.)
Hmmmm. If a lot of drilling for natural gas is done then a lot of natural gas will be brought to market, right?
And if a lot of naturas gas is brought to market then the price for natural gas should decline, yes?
And if the price for natural gas declines then the profit for drilling vanishes, and if the profit vanishes then the need for drillers also vanishes.
So, why is this a surprise?
If an industry has a history of a boom followed by a bust (as many industries do) and one is currently involved in a boom then it is logical that he should expect and he should get ready to experience a bust.
Combo, you’re assuming all the natural gas is bought to market. Just like foreclosures it can be manipulated.
” … it can be manipulated.”
Jimmay Durante: “Whata woman!, er, I mean concept.”
The US is now an exporter of natural gas.
Now why is that a bad thing?
I think the bigger point was how leveraged the TXU takeover was to natural gas. A default on 40+ billion will end up being passed on to the consumer in higher prices to bail out the company. I’m guessing the money that would have gone to upgrading the grid will end up being given to the bond holders so the effect of this will last for years to the consumer.
I don’t dispute the good part about exporting but any profit we get from selling this a CNG will end up in the hands of the 1% not me or you.
For the same reason OPEC likes high oil prices… this is a non-renewable resource and depleting it at low prices due to a supply glut may not be in the long-term best interest to the country.
” this is a non-renewable resource”
Plan B “coming $oon”: renewable + efficiency + a well made hippie-sheep colored sweater.
Ben Jones can probably speak to this very specifically. Remember those post-1980s bumper stickers?
“God please give us another oil boom, this time we won’t screw it up.”
We are going to find out if they screwed it up.
Hint hint gas guys, lots of people in the Northeast still pay up the wazoo to heat with out. Big market there.
“Big market there”
Yes, but nobody wants to pay for the infrastructure to get it there, thus the high prices (according to my nat gas trader friend). Canada just built a series of nat gas pipeline and there’s cheap gas for the consumer. Businesses seem to enjoy using infrastructure that is in place but then don’t spend money keeping it up or improving it at all. I wonder why that it? Heh.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/fed-sells-7-billion-of-mortgage-bonds-from-aig-s-rescue-to-credit-suisse.html
“Maiden Lane” package of MBS securities that the Fed acquired (at a cost to taxpayers of countless billions) from AIG has been offloaded onto Credit Suisse. Go to Youtube to see Alan Grayson’s reminder to the sheeple that they now owned the bankrupt Red Roof Inn and $29 billion in other toxic mortgages transferred from Bear Stearns to the public account.
package of MB$ securitie$:
Red Roof Inn = “A”
Four $eason’s = “A++”
Motel 6 in Newberry Springs = “A-”
Someone left the Wall $t. $lices & Dice$ blender running again… OK, who’s the “guilty” party?
[You can never find a "True$erialEnabler" to help clean up the dirty dishes, (screen door slams shut, Hwy glaces at the Kitchen back door) ... "Hey, who just $lipped out the back door?"]
offloaded onto Credit Suisse.
I thought the Fed had said when they acquired these that they would likely hold them to maturity… Hmmm… Something stinks here.
Another flapping head political hack on CNBC this AM, “If we would just go back to the policies of the 1980s, everything would be wonderful.”
Federal Reserve Z.1:
Total public and Private debt:
1980: $3.9T
2011: $37.8T
Census; # of households
1980: 81 million
2011: 118 million.
Median household income:
1980: $16.8K
2010: $49.4K
$3.9T/81M/$16.8K = $48K debt per household = 2.85x median income.
$37.8T/118M/$49.4K = $320K debt per household = 6.64xmedian income
So, if we really want to go back to 1980s policies and assume everything is really going to be all better… first we either need to magically poof 43% of debt out of existence OR poof everyone a 133% raise.
If we go back to the pre-1913 era and end the Fed, that would be a good start toward addressing the root cause of our economic and societal decline.
“the root cause of our economic and societal decline”
(Hwy would settle for them just to care for their non-expensive suited American citizen/ neighbors & for ALL ‘em to “$traighten up and fly right!”)
“Oh my my, look at all that tar on everyone’s heel$!”
The root cause of our post WWII economic decline is free trade with nations that have 1/10th the wage we do. This has put downward pressure on wages and made us dependent on ever increasing debt, as well as greasing the wills to widening wealth disparity.
As for societal decline, I guess you’d have to assume that Civil Rights for minorities, women and others, greater freedom, and evolving morals is a decline.
So the period since the end of WWII has brought about greater freedom? In which country? I wanna live there.
Even in areas that affect just the individual, we have less freedom now. Exhibit A: Seat belt laws.
Humankind exists on a continuum, with complete freedom at one end and complete slavery on the other. Where on that continuum we are at the moment can be debated, but the direction we’re heading should be obvious to everyone.
Even in areas that affect just the individual, we have less freedom now. Exhibit A: Seat belt laws.
Back when I was visiting family on the other side of the pond in the late 1970s, the British were big on seat belt billboards. One that really caught my eye showed a guy in a wheelchair. Caption said that he didn’t wear his belt because it was too confining.
Well, being an American, I thought seat belts were pretty confining. Recall that the USA was still in the thick of the “Buckle Up for Safety” PR campaigns. Mandatory seat belt laws hadn’t been passed yet.
I shared my feelings with my cousins, who told me in no uncertain terms that you don’t just wear the seat belt for yourself. You do it for society. Because if you don’t wear it, guess who picks up the tab?
That pretty well shut me up on the topic.
Even in areas that affect just the individual, we have less freedom now.
Thank your Federal/State legislature… they seem to need to justify their existance by creating and passing new laws that end up restricting our freedom on a daily basis… the number of laws on the books today is mind-boggling, such that a day doesn’t go by when you are bound to break some law at some level just by leaving your house… same goes for corporations.
NDAA was a good one… as was the ill-named “Patriot Act”. Heck, Mayor Menino fought last yeat for a law prohibiting junk food in school vending machines in Boston schools… seriously. The state as nutritionist. What a joke.
Heck, Mayor Menino fought last yeat for a law prohibiting junk food in school vending machines in Boston schools… seriously.
When I was growing up, there was no junk food in the school vending machines. Matter of fact, I don’t recall any vending machines until I got to high school.
Matter of fact, I don’t recall any vending machines until I got to high school.
What’s your point? Life is about making choices… learn to make the right choices and you will do well, learn to make the wrong choices and things go badly.
Just because vending machines in schools in Boston no longer contain “junk food”, doesn’t prevent that child from being exposed to junk food options everywhere else. That child hasn’t “learned” anything, nor has overall behavior been modified by the law as the child can get that junk food almost anywhere else in the city. Teach people to make correct decisions and the nanny state doesn’t need to exist.
You’re right Northeastner, but unfortunately, our 24/7 mass media teaches people to make bad decisions for corporate profit.
Very few people can stand up against an onslaught like that and those that do run the VERY real risk of being shunned by the rest of the society. A fate with REAL consequences.
The “rugged individual” is mostly a myth.
Very few people can stand up against an onslaught like that and those that do run the VERY real risk of being shunned by the rest of the society.
I consider myself to be largely unaffected by mass-media advertising. I have never felt shunned, and have many close friends, though I’m sure I would be thought strange or “fringe” by many.
Perhaps the key is to learn not to care what “most people” think about you.
Of course Prime, but there are many times and for most people “when what people think” directly affects ones income.
Glad you haven’t been affected in that way, but that makes you part of a very small minority.
“I consider myself to be largely unaffected by mass-media advertising. I have never felt shunned…”
You’re probably not in highschool.
You’re probably not in highschool.
Come to think of it, Al, I was not all that popular when I was in high school. Not that I cared a whit to be.
So the period since the end of WWII has brought about greater freedom? In which country? I wanna live there.
You already do. Just ask any black person in your state, if they’re freer now than they were before WW2. Or a woman, Or a gay person. Or pretty much anyone other than a well-connected white Christian male.
The root cause of our “societal decline” can be traced directly to the break down of the traditional family unit structure, i.e. too many divorces, too many single parent families, and the intrusion of the State into the operational aspects of raising children.
When you do have a traditional family structure, too often you have both parents in the workforce to make ends meet, thus creating absentee parents and forcing them to raise their children by proxy… i.e. public schools, day care, nannies, etc.
This from a parent of two school-age children in a traditional 2-working-parent family…
Hmmm, I came from a two-parent household in which both adults worked at full-time-and-then-some jobs. And I went to public schools. And, for some strange reason, I think I’ve turned out okay.
Talk to public educators and public school psychologists and then tell me because you turned out ok, everything must be all right with the world. They will give you a differnt picture…
Both I and my wife work full-time jobs and we’re doing the best we can to raise our children to be responsible, caring, intelligent people. Having said that, even in our family, because we both work, often on different schedules and with long commutes, there is no “family time” except on Sunday. Trying to prepare healthy foods, help with homework, getting kids to bed early enough so they aren’t tired is a constant struggle because we both work/commute. Now take 1 parent out of the equation and it becomes impossible… something has to give.
Like engineers will tell you, “you can have it fast, you can have it cheap, you can have it with all the bells and whistles. Pick any two.” The reality is life has become quite complex in the industrialized world and unless you are wealthy, you will struggle to find balance. Unfortunately children today take the brunt of that, to our future society’s detriment.
My “incubator” stayed home. She wasn’t an involved, role modeling, guiding mother. A stay at home mom isn’t the issue, it’s the two adults involved. Period.
My late father was actually a better parent,minus his anger issues.
Agree completely with your point about involvement. Time and money are not substitutes for good parents or parenting… However, my point was that even in the case of a traditional family structure, often times involvement is limited do to the time constraints of work for both parents.
“Trying to prepare healthy foods, help with homework, getting kids to bed early enough so they aren’t tired is a constant struggle because we both work/commute.”
Northeastener
Hey, eyes was you, 30 years ago.
Looking & listening alls about, eyes vote it’s even worser. lots worser. today.
(cell phones & lap tops might of reduced the pains a tad.)
It’s been a different route with Mr. Cole (age 10) than with the previous x3 …
The reality is life has become quite complex in the industrialized world and unless you are wealthy, you will struggle to find balance. Unfortunately children today take the brunt of that, to our future society’s detriment.
There have always been screwed up parents, but now there are more and more screwed up absent parents.
Surgeon general reported a while back that half of all pregnancies are unplanned (did not delve into how many were unwanted, ie., you may have wanted kids but just not at that time compared to, “oh f%$k I don’t really want kids at all”).
Having had 2 kids myself, and wanting them and going out of my way to get them (children of gays and lesbians are almost all intentional), raising kids is still a boatload of work, and raising them well is even harder.
Add poverty, lack of education, and single parenting into the mix…
…and then send that kid into a classroom with 30 other kids in the same situation.
Slim,
My comment wasn’t really addressed to you, and I didn’t make that clear, my apology. I agree with all your opinions on this topic.
I came from a dysfunctional family, so when it was time to reproduce I decided I wasn’t qualified. I wish more people took a look in the fit/qualify to be parent mirror.
Northeastener
You sound like qualified parents, and no doubt with the cost of raising kids these days, you both need to work.
I send you kudos.
“OR poof everyone a 133% raise.”
Huh?
It is a slow day in the East Texas town of Madisonville.
It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich tourist from the East is driving through town.
He enters the only hotel in the sleepy town and lays a hundred dollar bill on the desk stating he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
As soon as the man walks up the stairs, the hotel proprietor takes the hundred dollar bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to pay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer then takes the $100 and heads off to pay his debt to the supplier of feed and fuel.
The guy at the Farmer’s Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has lately had to offer her “services” on credit.
The hooker runs to the hotel and pays off her debt with the $100 to the hotel proprietor, paying for the rooms that she had rented when she brought clients to that establishment.
The hotel proprietor then lays the $100 bill back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.
At that moment the traveler from the East walks back down the stairs, after inspecting the rooms.
He picks up the $100 bill and states that the rooms are not satisfactory… Pockets the money and walks out the door and leaves town.
No one earned anything. However the whole town is now out of debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism.
Funny—I have been tempted to post a similar (if simpler) example of how debt is not equal to money in all cases.
Your example does it pretty nicely, though. Thanks for posting!
Darrell, any thoughts?
Sorry, I had the inverse on the amount of debt we need to poof out of existence to get back to 1980 debt/median income. It is 57% not 43%. Duh.
So, everyone with money, poof you have 43% as much as you had.
Or, everyone with employees, poof, you have to pay them 2.2x as much.
Unfortunately all the public assets that the “Policies of the 1980’s” liberated have been looted, so returning to them would be pointless.
Perhaps we should develop a “policy” of renationalizing them, say, by instituting much-higher tax rates on those who did the looting? Or if they bridle at that, we could just take them back….
Oil, utilities, health infrastructure, airports, banks, defense, communications; all answerable to the electorate. But that would be (shudder,) socialism.
But that would be (shudder,) socialism
Umm, yeah, because socialism has worked so well for Europe to date (PIIGS debt collapse anyone?), and socialism’s big brother communism worked for…former Soviet Union/China/North Korea/Cuba/Venezuala? Every one a shambles except China, which embraced a form of capitalism.
The answer has never been “we need more socialism and less capitalism”. Rather, we need a tax system overhaul so that capital does not get peferential treatment over labor and corporations don’t get tax breaks that allow them to defer profits/taxes and use overseas operations as shelters.
Also, the entire lobbiest/campaign finance system needs to be scrapped as corporate/banking lobby is entirely too strong. Lastly, government needs to get out of the business of telling business what it can and can’t do on a day-to-day basis: like preventing Boeing from relocating a manufacturing plant in a “right-to-work” state where it is cheaper for it to do business.
If government wants to make itself useful, stop interfering with domestic enterprise and start interfering with international/global enterprise… If Germany and China can compete globally while protecting their domestic markets, I’m pretty sure we can too.
because socialism has worked so well for Europe to date
You are aware that Germany is socialist, too, right?
like preventing Boeing from relocating a manufacturing plant in a “right-to-work” state where it is cheaper for it to do business.
Precisely the kind of thing the German government would be involved in, siding with the pro-union position.
Yes, I am aware that Germany is socialist, as is most of Western Europe, which is why I asked how it has worked out so far… ask the resident of the PIIGS.
Germany has business leaders and politicians who are “NATIONALISTIC”. So when you say the german government would be involved in a decision to limit a German company from relocating to another, cheaper, country, you are correct. They protect their industry and their economy… but they put German interests first.
Did you read my post or were your liberal reading glasses distorting the words. Read the last statement again:
If government wants to make itself useful, stop interfering with domestic enterprise and start interfering with international/global enterprise…
I don’t care if Boeing builds planes in Washington or South Carolina (let the company decide). What I care about is that they aren’t sourcing all the components manufactured for the planes overseas. Get it? NATIONALISM, not GLOBALISM. No need to go all liberal socialist to fight the globalists…
1980 - Government Spending as a percent of GDP - 33.7%
2010 - Government Spending as a percent of GDP - 40.6%
www dot usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
It appears that I am developing a fan base. I wonder why they didn`t delete this comment?
Hell hath no fury like a Dedabeat scorned.
Fourth-quarter spurt in home-building Palm Beach County’s best since 2008
By Kimberly Miller
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Posted: 9:54 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012
Last year ended with a small boon in home building, as Palm Beach County experienced a 27 percent spike that marked the busiest construction pace since 2008.
8 COMMENTS
Hey, Where’s Jeff “know-it-all” Saturday to tell us how this is all wrong and the world is going to end? Where’s Jeff “I’m the best and you ****” Saturday, who has never taken a misstep in his life to tell all the underwater homebuyers how they are “deadbeats” and “schmucks.” Seriously, Jeff Saturday, you’re slipping.
where’s Jeff “know-it-all” Sat
8:22 AM, 1/20/2012
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/real-estate/fourth-quarter-spurt-in-home-building-palm-beach-2112918.html - 75k
Money as debt is a two-way social contract.
People borrow money into existence, to allow others to earn it. Then, the others HAVE to spend it, or the people with the debt will not be able to repay.
Why do we have special loathing for those that can’t get money to repay their debts because the people with the money refuse to spend it, but hold those with money that refuse to spend it in such high regard.
If not for the people borrowing money into existence, no one would have been able to earn it. If the people with money continue to refuse to spend it, then the debt will default and we will plunge into depression.
Which one of these is the person deserving of scorn?
jeff saturday = Zoombie$ $layer
You’s gonna be busy son …
(reminds Hwy of a genetics class, prof is showing a clip of the mechanistic motions/”interactions” of the penis & vagina, Prof: “…any questions?”
(x1 hand in the back of the room)
student: “How that happen?”
prof: “What?”
Student: “How’d those two get in THAT POSITION in the 1st place?”)
Hey, Where’s Jeff “know-it-all” Saturday to tell us how this is all wrong and the world is going to end? ”
haha thats cool
Jeff, you have defined the word!
Hell hath no fury like a Dedabeat scorned.
This morning I caught one of those “special reports on housing” on CNBC.
Leisman showed things like housing start vs. interest rates and house prices vs. GDP…. The common theme is this time it is different. Interest rates down, housing starts down instead of up. GDP up, house prices down instead of up.
Like, what’s the difference this time man, I don’t get it?
Hey morons!!!!!
$3.9T/81M/$16.8K = $48K debt per household = 2.85x median income.
$37.8T/118M/$49.4K = $320K debt per household = 6.64xmedian income
We’re tapped out.
We’re not in a cyclical downturn; we’re at the structural dead-end of the debt based economy.
“We’re not in a cyclical downturn; we’re at the structural dead-end of the debt based economy”
+1
+2
we’re at the structural dead-end of the debt based economy.
+ SQRT(1^1,000,000)!
+ SQRT(1^1,000,000)!
So… Is that a very enthusiastic plus-one?
So… Is that a very enthusiastic plus-one?
It is.
Rather than cause inflation I stuck with (1).
I like it.
So… Is that a very enthusiastic plus-one?
BTW, that was a factorial, not excitement.
Even better! I totally missed seeing that possibility.
Interest rates down, housing starts down instead of up. GDP up, house prices down instead of up.
Like, what’s the difference this time man, I don’t get it?
The explanation is straightforward. There are millions of empty houses all over the country. That’s a force that is pushing down house prices. It is also a reason why there is no need to build more.
Is he saying different = good, as in “now’s a great time to buy” or different = bad, as in “nobody coulda seen it, and it’s about to get worse”?
We’re not in a cyclical downturn; we’re at the structural dead-end of the debt based economy.”
I think that’s why Washington is prepared to let the FED banks buy 1 Trillon dollars of mortgages. The state of the union speech will be a good time to tell us about it.
Maybe the cram down deal is also on the table.
I don’t think the government believes in the free market when they own the risk.
If this doesn’t work expect another 1 trillon in a few years.
I think that’s why Washington is prepared to let the FED banks buy 1 Trillon dollars of mortgages. The state of the union speech will be a good time to tell us about it.
Aw, darn. I’m going to have to make the supreme sacrifice and move my radio dial over to NPR so I can listen to the dang speech. Or else find a bar where the State of the Union drinking game is played.
Question for the HBB brain trust: A website that I frequent (not this one) was hacked. Along with thousands of other people, my personal information was stolen.
Is there some place where you can go to freeze your credit so that identity thieves have a harder time getting credit in your name? And what else should I do?
You can request the freezing of any new credit individually from each of the three credit bureaus. They will require any new credit be verified with by you personally by phone. Additionally, if you tell them your financial information/personal information was stolen, they can flag your account to watch for unusual activity.
You can also pay for the service of monitoring your credit/financial/identity through something like Lifelock.
Lifelock, isn’t a panacea, and had bad reviews in a periodical I read a while ago.
I would go directly to Fair Issacs Co website or call an 800 # for free for starters.
Have done it. All financial institutions will let you further protect your account(s) with a password. Online and in person.
Been there, done that.
You might need to get a police report, although if yours was well publicized maybe they will waive that. The local police office had a nice info packet on identity theft and what to do.
A website that I frequent (not this one) was hacked. ”
this website should offer to pay for you to sign up for a credit watch. For a few years at least.
Is there some place where you can go to freeze your credit so that identity thieves have a harder time getting credit in your name? And what else should I do?
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/index.shtml
Here’s one of the big 3 credit monitoring agencies, Equifax:
http://www.equifax.com/home/en_us
Equifax, Experian and Transunion are the big three credit monitoring agencies. I think if you browse that site, they may have some information. But the ftc.gov site rms posted seems like a good starting point too.
There’s plenty of scareware there, of course, which costs a monthly fee. I’m thinking start with the government websites.
The section she is asking about to freeze here credit is here: LINK
Thanks to Northeasterner and everyone else who weighed in!
.Stephen Schwarzman, one of Wall Street’s most prominent deal makers, is going out of his way to keep the details of his personal fortune a closely held secret.
Blackstone Group LP is changing the structure of its investment in a Florida bank after Mr. Schwarzman, founder and chief executive of the private-equity firm, balked at providing information about his personal finances to the Federal Reserv
lackstone is converting part of its 14.1% stake in BankUnited Inc. to nonvoting preferred stock, these people said. The deal will shrink its voting stake to less than 10%, pushing the New York firm below the level at which the Fed requires personal financial data
Principals of the private-equity firms WL Ross & Co., Carlyle Group and Centerbridge Partners, all of which also have more than 10% stakes in BankUnited, are willing to provide their personal financial information
BankUnited was acquired by a group of private-equity firms, along with New York banker John Kanas, after it failed in May 2009. The investors bought BankUnited for $945 million. They then received $2.2 billion in cash from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which also agreed to reimburse up to $10.5 billion in future loan losses.
The terms of the deal were considered to be unusually generous. The FDIC subsequently tightened its rules on private-equity ownership of banks.
Yep the elite earn their wealth and deserve to pay lower tax rates than the rest of us.
finance.yahoo.com/news/schwarzman–none-of-your-business-.html
Let’s lower the taxes to below 15% for the 99ers. That should fix it.
FICA alone is 15%. Basically, you’d only have the 1% paying income tax, compared with probably 3% paying income tax back when it was first introduced in 1913.
Income tax was created during the civil war.
Let’s lower the taxes to below 15% for the 99ers. That should fix it.
Better yet, why pay taxes at all? Can’t the Federal Reserve just (electronically) print all the money the government needs?
Sarc off
If $1.3 or $1.5T or $1.7T… or whatever the official deficit numbers are, are not a problem, then why not $3.7T?
Exactly… but then we get into conversations about the eventual run out of dollars and dollar-denominated debt as faith is lost in the currency and hyperinflation/revaluation sets in.
I guess this is a case of it doesn’t matter, until it does. Why do I feel like a frog in a pot of water… is it getting hot in here?
I wonder when they say they are insured for up to 10 billion in losses who determines when a loss has occurred. ie if the bank takes MBS worth 60 cents on the dollar at the time of purchase and sells it to a friend for 20 cents on the dollar can they then go and claim a loss of 40 cents??
Anything even remotely affordable (a relative term here in SF) in a safe neighborhood is showing a “pending” status within 2-3 weeks.
From SF Chronicle: http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2012/01/20/sf-becoming-a-sellers-market/?tsp=1
Back in October, we wrote about the lack of homes for sale. Despite what one would think about a still very weak housing market where prices continue to trend down, the supply of available homes for sale is following suit. In December, the number of homes for sale in San Francisco hit a 12 month low. Digging into the raw data, our analytical friends over at Redfin found that given the relatively sparse number of homes on the market, it’s becoming more of a – surprise! – seller’s market out there.
In a balanced market, we’d see five to six months of supply, which is the time it would take to sell all the homes on the market given the pace of sales. In San Francisco, December hit a 12-month low with 1.6 months of supply, meaning it’s even more of a seller’s market.
With less and less homes on the market, is it becoming a seller’s market?
But appearances can be deceiving, and it remains to be seen whether the drop is the beginning of a real recovery or if inventory is being held down by sellers waiting for prices to pick up and banks moving slowly on foreclosures.
House prices are based on one core thing - the ability of a buyer to raise money. If lenders are more concerned with repayment risk, it’s going to be harder for a buyer to raise vast sums.
The mortgage market is special because it has government insurance and the government buys the mortgages. Nowadays a lot of places have some minimum downpayment requirement, frequently like 10 to 20%. However, the government is still buying 3.5% down loans:
“The lender’s decision to use mortgage insurance is driven by the requirements of investors in the mortgage market. Because of the losses that could occur, major investors require mortgage insurance on all loans made with low down payments.
The three primary investors in home loans are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). By purchasing and selling residential mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac help keep money available for homes across the country.
Unlike Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae does not actually buy the mortgages. It adds the guarantee of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government to mortgage securities issued by private lenders.
[...]
The minimum effective down payment FHA requires is less than 3 percent. For single-family homes, there is a limit on the loan amount that varies according to geographic area.
Although anyone can apply for FHA insurance, the other two government mortgage guarantee programs are much more targeted. The VA program is limited to qualified, eligible veterans and reservists. The USDA Rural Housing Service insures loans for the construction and purchase of homes in rural communities. These programs are very specialized, so contact your lender for details.”
http://publications.usa.gov/epublications/low_down/low_down.htm
Here’s the point - “buyer’s market”, “seller’s market” - this stuff is utterly irrelevant marketing-speak. It’s the price you’re concerned with. And the ability to raise money - get loans - is what determines the real estate price.
Currently california law requires all drivers to have a license and insurance. However, Illegals (since they are currently breaking the law), do not have the right to get a licence. Based on current law, if caught, their car is impounded for 30 days! It does not matter if you are an illegal or a citizen who had your license suspended or revoked, your car is impounded for 30 days. (fair for all)
Now chief Beck, wants to change the laws, and only apply it to citizens! that is the real problem here. Not equal justice, different justice!
As for giving a license to Illegals, No/never give them a license! yes it may be easier to track them, but driving is a privlage not a right! if you do not follow the laws, you are not allowd to drive. When you violate our countries boarders, you break the law! you should not now be rewarded with the privilage reserved for citizens!
Giving a license to an illegal, is like letting Bank robbers keep the money so they do not commit the crime again!
Now on the other hand, let’s say when they apply for a licnese, if they are here illegaly you arrest them, that would be a good theing. But then they would not apply for a license. So once again the problem is not solved.
Thank You Mayor Villard(Villagrosa is a stage name) and Chief of Police! You are failing miserbly at your jobs. It is time to do a recall and save LA from the Latino mafia, before it turns into Detroit.
Some animals are more equal than others…
I would think illegals would be able to drive with their Mexico or other nation of origin license. No?
Population changes will affect many things here in the US.
“balance the needs of all segments of our community ”
“Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said the department changed rules for impounding cars of unlicensed drivers at sobriety checkpoints in part because he didn’t think it was being done properly.
Previously, LAPD officers at such checkpoints followed stringent protocols that called for them to impound a car whenever the driver was found not to have a valid license, regardless of whether the driver had been drinking. Those rules have drawn the ire of immigration advocacy groups that said they disproportionately targeted undocumented immigrants, who are not able to obtain licenses legally in nearly all U.S. states.
The new LAPD guidelines soften the department’s stance somewhat. Police will be required to make an attempt to contact the registered owner of the stopped vehicle. If the owner is a licensed driver and can respond to the checkpoint in “a reasonable period of time,” the officers will release the car to him or her. If the owner is unlicensed, officers will permit another person who is a licensed driver to take the car. If no one with a license is available, police will impound a vehicle. In any case, police will issue a citation to the unlicensed driver.
Beck said that since he took over the department more than a year ago, the checkpoint policy had “stuck in my craw as one of the things we weren’t doing the right way.” Beck said he decided to make the change after immigration rights advocates raised the issue with him anew in meetings this week.
“I’m tired of casting the net so wide,” he said. “This is the right thing to do. There is a fairness issue here … and we’re trying to balance the needs of all segments of our community and keep the roads safe.”
sold in 04
Loved your rant and thruthiness. I can tell you live in So Ca. We had to let our Kaiser go due to unaffordable premiums. Criminal Invaders get free healthcare without even a co-pay.
If you have an anchor or two, the bennies come rolling in, yet Americans who need help seem to have a hard time getting it.
The two rule system for us and them has been baked in the cake (so to speak) for a while now. So Ca has gone to the “dogs”.
Why are Realtors advising the public to buy housing when prices are falling?
Because they want commissions.
It is never a bad time to buy when your paycheck is based on other people buying.
BlueStar
“I think Obama did the right thing here. We need to free our self from all foreign oil imports. That includes Canada and Mexico as well as the OPEC gang.”
If you could, I would think that would be desirable. But how, with wind, water power, solar, shale oil, nuclear, thermal, etc? Put it all together and you still will not have enough energy - within the next 50 years.
The tar sands will more than help you bridge the gap.
BTW, when you have your next boat trip on the Trent or Rideau I wonder what kind of alternative energy you will use to energize it.
You are always welcome though, whatever energy you use. We love those “Yankee” dollars. Please bring up several bushels full.
BTW, when you have your next boat trip on the Trent or Rideau I wonder what kind of alternative energy you will use to energize it.
Based on this boating reference, I think you must have meant to address it to Blue Skye, not BlueStar.
Yahoo had an article on the light stock market volume.
The comment section is a hoot.
A summation
1. The markets are rigged and people with money would rather let it sit in a bank then risk it in the market.
2. Mom and Pop investors have no money.
The last poster sug that the sharks will soon start feeding on themselves. Already started w MF Global.
I work in a high tech company here in CA but guess who really owns it ?
Fwd: Happy Chinese New Year — Lunch Monday 1/23
follow the money
This could be a game-changer. From Reuters:
Insight: Top Justice officials connected to mortgage banks
“U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, were partners for years at a Washington law firm that represented a Who’s Who of big banks and other companies at the center of alleged foreclosure fraud, a Reuters inquiry shows.”
Nice one!
from the article:
As Reuters reported in 2011, public records show large numbers of mortgage promissory notes with apparently forged endorsements that were submitted as evidence to courts.
There also is evidence of almost routine manufacturing of false mortgage assignments, documents that transfer ownership of mortgages between banks or to groups of investors. In foreclosure actions in courts mortgage assignments are required to show that a bank has the legal right to foreclose.
In an interview in late 2011, Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School who has written about foreclosure practices said, “I think it’s difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history.”
I honestly don’t think there’s a legal chain of ownership on most of the mortgages out there, at least the ones made during the height of the boom. What will come of that, I don’t know.
San Diego home prices over shot, now under valued?
Click my link for full article:
Rich Tascano:
“Six-plus years after reaching 71 percent above the historical median, San Diego’s home price to income ratio is now 10 percent below that median.
Next up is a similar graph for the ratio between the typical San Diego home price and average San Diego rent. The price to rent ratio is 4 percent below its median value”
So a home priced at roughly 7.2 x income is a great deal?
sorry Ben, have to post to test a new feature of the JT extension…
and the test..
test…