Bits Bucket for May 10, 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
-
April 2024 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
“Comment by Robin
2012-05-09 23:00:10
Go mugg yourself with 4 D cells! - :)”
Every time I post the Flobots you get all hot and bothered. You must be one of the ladies that can’t watch Goodfellas without getting excited.
I’m sorry you love violence and tough guys so much.
“can’t watch Goodfellas”
….. “if you deliver one more piece of mail from school to that house… in the f_cking oven you go!”
“You’re a funny guy” Mugz.
I preferred Casino. There’s a great vid on Youtube which compiles all the F-bombs, and only the F-bombs, in Casino. It’s four minutes long.
But GoodFellas was a true and accurate representation of Arthur Ave ginzo-world. Even the backyard bbq’s looked exactly like a backyard in the Bronx.
““You’re a funny guy” Mugz.”
Funny how?
Dude…. it’s the scene in the restaurant when Liotta said to Pesci, “you’re a funny guy”.
What’s funny about it?
You’re a funny guy is all.
What did you say?
“Oh, so I amuuuse you?”
…. just… how you tell a story… you’re funny.
“Oh, so I amuuuse you?”
Easy, easy, you got it all wrong Muggy….
Realtors Are Swindlers®
Wall street investment houses are bigger swindlers. I wonder how much they will make on facebook paper?
politicians are even bigger swindlers.
Good of place as any…
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — America has a serious problem saving for retirement.
About 49% of Americans say they aren’t contributing to any retirement plan, according to a new survey conducted by LIMRA, a trade association for the financial services industry.
Like I’ve frequently posted here, 1950-2000 was the golden age of retirement, limited only to wealthy countries. Before that time, and now in decline and likely to disappear for all but the 1%, retirement as we currently know it will cease to exist.
“1950-2000 was the golden age of retirement”
Although I’m betting the golden age could have been stretched futher if ‘we’ hadn’t spent so much on fancy houses and other luxuries.
I’m betting the golden age could have been stretched futher if ‘we’ hadn’t
spent so much on fancy houses and other luxuries.fallen for trickle down economics, and allowed the 1% to rewrite the tax codes.Fixed it for you.
+1 Alpha
You gotta hand it to the 1%’ers, they’ve done a great job of brainwashing the masses.
fallen for trickle down economics, and allowed the 1% to rewrite the tax codes.
You can’t blame it all on the tax codes. In the aggregate, our aggregate ability to retire depends upon our society _producing_ enough to support those in retirement.
We’re obviously producing a lot less here than we used to.
We’re obviously producing a lot less here than we used to.
And who made the decision to offshore everything that wasn’t nailed down?
And who made the decision to offshore everything that wasn’t nailed down?
Nobody did. It was the economic reality. I know some people don’t want to wake up.
You can’t blame it all on the tax codes…our aggregate ability to retire depends upon our society _producing_ enough to support those in retirement.
Remove the income cap from social security taxes and we’ve got enough to maintain social security as it is. So the tax codes do matter.
But note I also mentioned trickle down economics as a culprit.
It was the economic reality.
Someone should have told the Germans. Those poor schmucks kept hold of their industrial base, and look how that’s worked out. Stuck with a bunch of money.
I’m talking about the personal choice of save vs consume. The 1%ers certainly did a good job of convincing the masses that they ‘need’ the fancy house and car and expensive vacations, but ultimately it’s a personal choice.
“Nobody did. It was the economic reality.”
Is that why we give tax breaks for offshoring?
But note I also mentioned trickle down economics as a culprit.
Fair point; sorry I glossed over that part.
But I also don’t think that the two together adequately explain the hollowing out of our economy that has been caused by globalization.
I wasn’t trying to say that the tax code doesn’t have an effect; clearly it does, and your example of the SS cap is a good one. I was merely trying to say that I don’t think it alone (or even combined with trickle-down) are the whole explanation.
I was merely trying to say that I don’t think it alone (or even combined with trickle-down) are the whole explanation.
Nor do I, there are obviously going to be big changes to your industrial base as other countries, many much poorer, start to compete with you. But that doesn’t mean we have to encourage such problems. The Germans- and the Japanese- were wise enough to see the value of an intact, modern industrial base in a globalized economy. They worked hard- even using the government!- to preserve theirs, and it’s paid off handsomely. We short-sightedly sold ours off as quickly and easily as possible, benefiting the few, because we were spun fantasies about a service-based economy where none of us ever got our hands dirty.
Ok, when you put it that way, I am in complete agreement.
Is that why we give tax breaks for offshoring?
I think that’s for still keeping some jobs here.
Someone should have told the Germans. Those poor schmucks kept hold of their industrial base, and look how that’s worked out. Stuck with a bunch of money.
The losses of Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc are Germany’s gains. It will not last long. Take the Euro out, Germany would be back to having 10% “structural unemployment.”
+1 Alpha
You gotta hand it to the 1%’ers, they’ve done a great job of brainwashing the masses.
Is that a group think or what? I am sorry I didn’t know the 1% had a gun in my head forcing me to live a life that I can’t afford.
Is that a group think or what? I am sorry I didn’t know the 1% had a gun in my head forcing me to live a life that I can’t afford.
That wasn’t my point. The point was making us believe that we wrecked the economy by buying stuff, when in reality the economy was wrecked by offshoring.
First place to put a reply to this:
It was the economic reality.
More likely: It was the economic reality after inflation caused wage/price spirals that put our cost of labor far beyond that of our competitors.
That labor cost spiking inflation would be the tandem work of the Treasury/Fed Reserve, no?
That and the thought you can work for 30 years as an adult (25-55) and then retire with a median life expectancy of 77.
after inflation caused wage/price spirals that put our cost of labor far beyond that of our competitors.
Our cost of labor was never far beyond that of our competitors and even if it was our “American way of life” should not have been off-shored so we could have cheaper toasters. We off-shored so the rich could make billions for maybe a 10-15% savings on our consumer goods and services. This whole “not competitive” meme is jive to serve the .01%.
Ventoro LLC survey found that only 9% of any cost shavings from offshore outsourcing was the result of lower overseas labor costs. The cost savings from offshore outsourcing was not in the 35-40% range that many corporations assumed they would gain went they decided to go overseas. Savings averaged slightly less than 10% for all the offshore outsourcing projects that Ventoro reviewed. Ventoro LLC
Butters, just what kind of life can one afford on $500/week? Or is health insurance livin’ the high life?
The future belongs to Foxconn City
“Fixed it for you.”
Alpha-sloth, you can’t deny that the middle class CHOSE to load up on debt. Nobody forced them to do it. They were only ‘cheated’ in the way that you can cheat a dishonest man, which is to say the way you can’t cheat an honest one. They knew globalism was going to drop the American wage; instead of adapting (paying down debts, growing a garden, becoming skilled in local support, becoming more energy efficient), they CHOSE to go on an orgy of spending and debt.
It’s like somebody told you that eventually you’d get old, so you decided to go out and party harder than Charlie Sheen. Don’t blame the bartender and drug dealer so much for helping you along.
In Colorado said: “The point was making us believe that we wrecked the economy by buying stuff, when in reality the economy was wrecked by offshoring.”
Oh, please. Both were responsible. Offshoring was capitalized by the USA, but our continued buying of those offshored products kept the trend going.
And when you say “buy”, you should be saying “borrowed money to buy”. It’s consumer DEBT that is part of the problem, and there’s no sane reason for people to run up that much debt. You don’t even need to take on debt to buy housing for yourself; there are enough ways to live cheap for long enough that you can save up enough money to buy housing for cash. It’s what I did, and I wasn’t even fully employed in that 24-yr period. (Now I’ll never have to pay a bank or landlord; and that’s a GOOD thing for everyone.)
What happened was a dance, and there were two partners like usual: Growers and eaters. Makers and takers. Buyers and sellers. Lenders and borrowers. However you like to name them, it still took two to tango.
the middle class CHOSE to load up on debt. Nobody forced them to do it.
Ahh the old “nobody put a gun to their head” apology for the corporatist takeover of America. Nobody “chooses” to live in a stacked-deck system where costs of needs, healthcare, education, housing are manipulated upwards much faster than the rate of inflation while predatory, TBTF banks are given free-reign to over-lend while the BK laws are changed.
They knew globalism was going to drop the American wage;
Really? Who knew? Who told us? We were told the opposite on GAO, NAFTA, etc. Ross Perot told us but Gore and Clinton And Bush and Bush and Reagan told us Globalization would increase American’s standard of living. They also told us taxCutsForTheRich would “create jobs”. Now you may not remember this stuff but many do.
Makers and takers.
The buzzwords make it pretty clear where you are coming from now.
Rio said: “Ahh the old “nobody put a gun to their head” apology for the corporatist takeover of America.”
You are trying my patience. They can’t actually take things over if you willingly take on all that debt. Any for the record: You can’t go into debt for health care unless you CHOOSE to do it. Education? Same thing. Housing? Same thing.
You sound like way too many Americans who try the same B.S. line on me about “needing” all the crap that they buy (and then borrow to continue buying). You don’t need education, for instance… not when it casts you into that much debt. You don’t need a new house; live with mom and dad, or find roommates to share the rent. Etc. The issue your sort of people keep having is that when the price rises, YOU DON’T SIGNAL THE SELLER BY REFUSING TO BUY. Instead, you borrow to keep buying, and now you’re all pissy angry that prices have risen even more steeply. The existence of credit drives up prices. To fight back, you shouldn’t buy.
It really is that simple.
Rio said: “Really? Who knew? Who told us?”
Reality told us. Anyone with half a brain and one eye open could tell that the system was issuing false information from the top to the bottom. But skepticism dies when people get stupid. Stupidity isn’t a defense. You’re still responsible for how you think no matter how much propaganda that your society throws at you.
We’ve had too much of a taste already, Rio, of how a guy like you would arrange society: Packs of Liberals, all steeped in Liberal bulldada, taking control of people with the same sort of ridiculous propaganda systems. You can’t fight propaganda with propaganda. They also can’t look after our interests, for two reasons: They are morons, but most importantly it violates the most basic principle of liberty, where you’re responsible for looking after your interests.
At any rate, none of this matters. Americans will keep digging their own graves, economically speaking. Accepting Libertarianism is too scary for them, so they bounce back and forth between conservative and liberal scams, pretty much trying to recover from one fraud by becoming embroiled in another.
Anyone…could tell that the system was issuing false information from the top to the bottom.
Wrong bitter. You said people “knew” their wages would fall with NAFTA, GAT etc. We were sold a bill of goods. They said “free-trade” would raise our standard of living.
of how a guy like you would arrange society: Packs of Liberals,
You sound like a Rush Limbaugh clown posse member. (But I mean that the best way!)
you borrow to keep buying, and now you’re all pissy angry that prices have risen even more steeply.
Dude Please. I have no debt, a paid off house and some dough. I just care about my fellow Americans more than you “libertarian” falsely self-pictured “cowboys”.
You are trying my patience.
Gosh. What are you going to do? Call me a “liberal”? LOL
Accepting Libertarianism is too scary for them
We don’t want to accept flaming hypocrisy is all.
You can’t go into debt for health care unless you CHOOSE to do it…..You don’t need education
OK Pink Floyd. After that ignorant statement, apparently you do need some education.
your sort of people
Thank you Archie Bunker.
No, they aren’t. The entire business model of the investment banks should have fallen apart a decade ago. There is no reason why most IPOs (but especially those of companies that are very visible to the public) shouldn’t be run as dutch auctions on-line. No investment bank creating some magic offering price that is always too low because they would actually have some money at risk if it was too high. No only selling at that artificially low price to the Investment Bank’s “special” customers who get the first day’s bump up and can sell right away for a huge profit. No the investment bank buying at that special low price for its own portfolio. No diverting all that capital from the company that needs it to grow its business to the investment banks and their special customers.
They need the securities lawyers to put together the prospectus. They need team of advertising/marketing people to let people know the offering is happening and explain the business model and maybe some valuation numbers. After that, take bids on what people are willing to pay for however many shares for a few days. Cut off date. Put the bids in order from highest bid price to lowest. Walk down the list until you’ve sold all the shares you said you would sell. The company gets the maximum money it could have gotten. The lawyers and marketing people get fair compensation for the time they put in. Any person with access to the internet can try to buy initial shares. No special deals for the investment banks. No special deals for the insiders. No starving the company for capital it needs to shove it at the bankers and insiders. The company can work on real capital (not debt) for longer than it otherwise would.
Politicians are barely getting the dribs and drabs in comparison to what is going on now.
Walk down the list until you’ve sold all the shares you said you would sell.
I agree, polly. This is essentially what Google did, right?
Shouldn’t everyone pay the “marginal” price, though–e.g. the price of the lowest satisfied bid? You didn’t mention that, but I’m assuming that is what you meant.
I do wonder, though: what is the right thing to do if the offering is under-subscribed? Do you just cancel the auction?
That isn’t what I actually meant, but you could do it that way too. But if you have every investor determing what the shares are worth to her, why wouldn’t she have to pay that amount? Letting every one pay the lowest bid could result in some weird collusion with smaller companies. In any event, the purpose of an IPO is to get working capital into the company. Whatever maximizes that working capital is what the *company* should want to do. And it is their IPO and therefore their game up to the moment they violate securities laws.
“No, they aren’t.”
i think they are…since the buck (pun intended) stops with them.
“politicians are even bigger swindlers”
Definition of swindlers: A person who cheats or defrauds another of money or property
The politicians have NOTHING on the banks when it comes to swindling. Remember, my exposition was only about their alleged core business. The rest is selling bonds and shares to the public, selling financing schemes to businesses and governments, creating derivatives and trading on their own portfolios.
Politicians are pikers compared to these guys. Besides, they mostly deliver the goods to their largest donors, so those people aren’t being swindled at all. They are getting good value for their money.
the taxpayers are getting swindled out of trillions of dollars because of politicians and their connections.
There is no reason why most IPOs (but especially those of companies that are very visible to the public) shouldn’t be run as dutch auctions on-line.
Sounds like a good business idea. Anyone else want to pursue it?
C’mon, HBB, let’s do something positive to change things for the better.
I have a friend who can handle the securities end of things. I can do the taxes. Slim can design the website(s). We need the pr/marketing/whatever end of things.
Oh, and a lot of money. Lots and lots and lots of money.
Oops.
Darn that money thing!
Combo’s got all the cash!
Oh, and a lot of money. Lots and lots and lots of money.
Why would it take so much money, polly? I could do the computing end of it without much investment.
Why would it take so much money, polly? I could do the computing end of it without much investment.
Okay, here goes — tasks and people:
Application Development: Prime_Is_Contained
Securities Issues: polly’s friend
Tax Issues: polly
Website: Yours Truly
So, team, waddya say? Why don’t we do this thing?
Regulatory issues seem like the scariest part to me. But that is probably just be my ignorance talking.
It does seem like there would be demand for such a service.
Bank of America offering thousands of homeowners 6-figure loan discounts
To be eligible, a homeowner must be underwater and at least 60 days behind on payments
By Kimberly Miller Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Posted: 10:25 p.m. Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Eligible Florida homeowners will begin getting notices this week about a Bank of America push to reduce their loan balances, and the discounts have been doozies.
The average nationwide price cut for an initial group of 5,000 approved homeowners was about $145,000 per borrower.
The plan, part of a $25 billion settlement among lenders and state attorneys general, is targeting 200,000 underwater homeowners nationwide, with the highest concentrations in California and Florida.
While Bank of America officials caution that not every homeowner should expect a loan reduction of $145,000, they predict an average savings of 30 percent on monthly mortgage payments.
Still, the idea of having a loan reduced by more than $100,000 was a surprise to Florida International University real estate economist Ken Johnson. But he said it could make sense in South Florida, where home values have plummeted from the peak of the market.
“I’m really shocked and don’t quite know what to make of that number,” Johnson said of the $145,000 figure. “If they are trying to get balances so they are no longer underwater, that sounds very much like Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach, where we lost 50 percent value.”
Although the borrower doesn’t have to live in the home, the home is required to have been owner-occupied when the loan was awarded.
Loans backed by federal mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not eligible because they aren’t included in the February agreement among 49 attorneys general and the nation’s five largest banks.
But jumbo home loans are allowed, and borrowers don’t have to prove a hardship such as job loss, sickness or death of a spouse.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/real-estate/bank-of-america-offering-thousands-of-homeowners-6bank-of-america-offering-thousands-of-homeowners-6-2346829.html -
…and as we have seen, BofA will find some way to nullify the offer after the fact AND fault the homeowner, then foreclose.
Damn! It just dawned on me! If they modify (discount) the loan, that means on paper, they lose less on the actual foreclosure.
Except they do have a real obligation to forgive some loans in that settlement with the state AGs. It is much more efficient for them to do it quickly, with very large discounts to only a few thousand people and be done with it. Forgiving $150K on 5000 houses is a lot easier administratively than forgiving $20K each on almost 38,000 houses. And doing it that way actually means that the ones forgiven might go low enough to not end up in a redefault.
I don’t know enough about the details to know if this is what is actually happening, but it is plausible.
Real? These guys have been ignoring “real” from day one.
If they modify (discount) the loan, that means on paper, they lose less on the actual foreclosure.
The total loss would be the same. They will take one portion of it when they do the principal writedown; they will take another portion of it when they do the foreclosure.
But the two portions should add up to the same amount, if the property does end up going to foreclosure—ignoring of course the fact that fewer walk-aways may actually firm up pricing, which would affect the amount of their loss on the eventual foreclosure.
“If they modify (discount) the loan, that means on paper, they lose less on the actual foreclosure.”
The current loan balance is an ASSET on the bank’s books. If the bank reduces the loan, the asset side of their balance sheet has just been reduced by that amount. No extend and pretend.
See my post above.
BoA hasn’t been dealing in “real” from day one.
Let me also tell you about a neat little trick many corps use, especially the FIRE sector mafia: create a new semi-autonomous subsidiary and give them the losses.
Are Liar Loans Going to Get Principal Reductions?
BankThink/American Banker
Thursday, May 10 2012
The announcement by Bank of America (BAC) of their plan to offer up to 200,000 struggling homeowners a new lease on life for their underwater mortgage through principal reduction at first glance seems like a major step forward in addressing a nearly 5-year old problem.
Principal modifications are the mortgage industry’s third rail issue, fraught with passion on both sides of the debate over the merits of such programs. The attention given to FHFA Acting Director DeMarco’s seeming reluctance to allow the GSEs to deploy such measures is a case in point.
Many economists favor principal forgiveness over interest rate reduction or term extension modifications based on the idea that reducing principal will lower the likelihood that the borrower will redefault by lowering the negative equity position.
Moreover, some embattled lenders seem to have capitulated against federal and state mortgage legal actions by touting principal reductions that up to now were used only sparingly.
The real value of principal reduction comes down to determining the borrower’s behavior toward that program. For current but underwater borrowers, a concern that’s been levied and to this day remains unknown is the ruthlessness by which such borrowers, realizing that there may be an opportunity to receive a principal modification upon going 60 days delinquent, exercise their default option to obtain this lucrative debt elimination offer (often referred to as strategic default). Much depends on the friction costs such borrowers face in the form of damaged credit, relocation expense and other assorted costs.
As one can imagine, the value of that option depends on how much principal reduction the borrower might receive. In the Bank of America announcement, this could be as much as $150,000, certainly an amount that would make most people take notice. Bank of America has taken actions to forestall such attempts to allow strategic default by requiring all borrowers for principal reduction to pass a hardship test. That would eliminate those borrowers current on their mortgage but otherwise with motive (i.e., underwater) and intent to default. For eligible borrowers that are both delinquent and underwater, the prospect of principal reduction is conveyed in terms of net present value against alternatives. A primary determinant of whether a principal reduction modification is economically attractive over other modification alternatives is the borrower’s propensity to redefault on the new modified mortgage later.
The poor results of the government’s modification efforts provide some evidence that interest rate and term extension modifications have not worked, leaving the door open for more principal reductions. In option theory terms, a principal reduction modification reduces the option strike price, which lowers the attractiveness of defaulting in the future. But while lowering the borrower’s loan-to-value ratio to 100% from say 140% certainly helps lower that chance of redefault, it does not eliminate it and much depends on what’s going on inside the head of the borrower. And as it turns out, there is a large segment of the borrower population that is eligible for a principal reduction modification that may have already tipped their hand in terms of their intent to take advantage of such programs.
Lurking below the surface is an ugly and messy public policy problem – namely what to do about the group of delinquent and underwater borrowers who were not truthful with lenders regarding their ability to repay their contractual debt obligation. In the vernacular, so-called “liar loans” typified by the alphabet soup of products with such names as SISA (stated-income, stated-asset) and NINA (no income, no asset) blossomed during the housing boom. But what is interesting is the virtual silence on the millions of borrowers who consciously signed loan documents knowing that their income was overinflated well beyond justifiable levels. Quality control departments during the boom tracked these developments against actual IRS 4506 tax documents with common results showing that high percentages of these loans had overstated their incomes by at least 50%.
See rest of article at:
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/are-liar-loans-going-to-get-principal-reductions-1049149-1.html?BCnopagination=1
“In the vernacular, so-called “liar loans” typified by the alphabet soup of products with such names as $I$A (stated-income, stated-asset) and NINA (no income, no asset) blo$$omed during the hou$ing boom.”
How’d that happen Charlie Brown?
Marci: “OK who is the party/partie$ that ENABLED that $ituation?”
Daffy: “That’s dissssssspicccccible!”
Lucy: “Look, it’s Hwy50 holding up that $top sign: “Pattern$ of Behavior$!”
This seems moot considering that it is (was?) prime mortgages that are (were?) leading in foreclosures over the last year and a half.
Depends what you mean by “prime”, lurkey-loo.
Prime does not automatically mean fixed-payment loan. The Credit Suisse graph and that interactive NYT online map (which I can’t seem to find anymore) both indicated that many borrowers with a Prime FICO still took out I/O and neg-am refinances, with a reset which peaked in Sept of 2011. Those Primes got into payment trouble as easily as anyone else, just higher on the price and cash-flow scale.
The Credit Suisse graph and that interactive NYT online map (which I can’t seem to find anymore) both indicated that many borrowers with a Prime FICO still took out I/O and neg-am refinances, with a reset which peaked in Sept of 2011.
Is this the Credit Suisse graph you’re referring to?
Yep!
Now, if only I could locate the NYT interactive graphic. I don’t know if it was primes only, but you clicked on a state and it told you the proportion of the loans/re-fis that were neg-am. Parts of CA were 29%.
Is anyone really gonna get a cramdown?
Is anyone really gonna get a cramdown?
I’ll take a cramdown on my rental. Oh wait, never mind, they aren’t handing those out.
sf what a bout a cramdown on my credit cards…nope not even a 1% drop in interest rates….just sayin….we get the shaft
Which is why this Pollyanna like hope that the masses will be forgiven their debt is nothing more than a pipe dream. The banksters will extract every penny they can. That’s what banksters do.
My cousin got one. It was before this program was announced.
He had an investment house that was being foreclosed, and he told the bank that it could have its *&^%# house back.
Bank didn’t want it.
So, Cuz and the bank worked out a deal and, AFAIK, he still has said house.
Just a thought but how ’bout not writing flawed mortgages certain to default in the first place? oh wait, that would shrink the marketplace..
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should charge more to guarantee mortgages if lenders make loans with underwriting flaws, rather than punish banks after debts default by demanding repurchases, according to Freddie Mac (FMCC)’s former chief credit officer.
The two companies and their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, are aware that repurchases are “potentially cutting off a really sizable portion of the marketplace” by pushing lenders to avoid new loans that might default, Romano said today at a Mortgage Bankers Association conference. That, in turn, can depress home prices and damage the firms.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/mortgage-putbacks-must-change-former-freddie-credit-chief-says.html
With this kind of logic, no wonder there was a bubble. “If you’re going to give us toxic loans, we’re going to have to charge you more to guarantee it.”
They’re not even trying to pretend there’s no corruption. They’re not even trying to pretend that the GSEs are anything more than a scam designed to suck tax money out of the public treasury and send it to the FIRE sector.
If you want to make sure banks do due diligence on the loans they originate, you make sure they lose money if they generate garbage, not merely decrease their profit slightly.
Oh dear God, we’re already losing our best and brightest. We’ve got to reduce their taxes- now! (Or is it that her children do not trust a country where their crazy mother can be a leading politician? They may be on to something, after all.)
Representative Michele Bachmann becomes a Swiss citizen
BBCNews
Minnesota congresswoman and former US presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is now a citizen of Switzerland.
Mrs Bachmann, 55, is eligible for dual citizenship through her husband, who is of Swiss descent, a spokeswoman said.
A three-term Republican, Mrs Bachmann went through the process with her family when some of her children wanted to become dual citizens.
Mrs Bachmann, who herself has Norwegian ancestry, is now eligible to hold office in Switzerland.
Where’s her birth certifcate!
Plan B: “A Nation of genetic Diversity”
She’s not dumb after all.
Smart move.
She’ll find out that the Swiss aren’t the most welcoming people. Especially when it comes to expatriate Americans. Want details? Frank Schaeffer has ‘em in his books.
i think she is an idiot…but i think it’s kinda cool she got involved with her children’s desire to share dual citizenship with the country their father was born.
buddy of mine is married to a german chick…and he is learning german.
i just think its kinda cool is all.
I’m married to a ‘German Chick’ and I’m not automatically eligible for citizenship, although my kids are.
Git er done.
Your kids will thank you one day.
They already have their German passports.
InCO, are the kids fluent?
InCO, are the kids fluent?
Nope. One took some German in high school, but he isn’t fluent. You don’t have to be fluent to get a passport. Since mom is German by birth so are they. As the consul explained to them “You aren’t claiming your right to citizenship. You already are German”
Sooooooo, the truth comes out……
Lived in Mexico…..German wife.
What did you do with the family copy of the “Zimmermann Telegram”?
If we hadn’t got a copy of it, they would be speaking Spanish in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico…….
Uhhhhhhh………never mind.
Minnesota congresswoman and former US presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is now a citizen of Switzerland.
Gotta wonder if their Pied-à-terre in Switzerland will have a SIG SG-550 in the coat closet?
Minnesota congresswoman and former US presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is now a citizen of Switzerland.
What? She became a citizen of a socialist, non interventionist and, by American standards, “godless” country?
What’s next? Will she secretly vote for Obama this fall?
Switzerland has amazingly tough immigration laws and will deport you in a coco-clock second. There is no “diversity is our strength” PC nonsense there.
Great gun laws.
And they reward hard workers and people who produce things.
And when was the last time you heard a public union go on strike in Switzerland or bankrupt one of their cities?
Sounds like America 50 years ago…
——————-
What? She became a citizen of a socialist, non interventionist and, by American standards, “godless” country?
So it’s a good socialism?
It must be, since they have guns
And I am pretty sure there’ soccer stadiums are not built by tax payer’s money either.
A true Socialist government means that unions would be unneccesary. Both the Unions and the Corporations would team up, to screw everyone equally.
Corporations actually like unions, when they can get the union to do their dirty work for them.
Sounds like America 50 years ago…
LOL!
You mean like during the Eisenhower administration when:
The top tax bracket was about 90%
Being a member of a labor union was considered normal
I think that the only major difference is that the Swiss have Universal healthcare and we still don’t.
And I still think it’s funny that born again Bachmann became a citizen of a nation that is basically unchurched, where only a small minority of citizens attend church on a regular basis.
You and I agree on this, but you will never convince Mr. Fruity.
As for the “gun-owning” Swiss, they are given their military rifles after serving their term in the Swiss army, and those rifles then go into storage, never to be fired again. But don’t tell Mr. Bananahead.
90% with so many loop holes that no one paid it.
Government spending at around 25% of GDP. We have doubled that today.
Government debt? No one even heard of it. It was miniscule and very manageable.
When PUBLIC UNIONS were ILLEGAL.
Also google operation “wetback” - they took serious illegal immigration back then.
ANY DAY - I will trade you the 90% (on paper) tax rate if you agree to cutting government spending by HALF, banning PUBLIC unions and paying off the debt.
Waiting on your answer…(I don’t expect to get one)
LOL!
You mean like during the Eisenhower administration when:
The top tax bracket was about 90%
Being a member of a labor union was considered normal
90% with so many loop holes that no one paid it.
Irrelevant talking point. No matter the loopholes, the effective tax rates on the rich were much higher back then.
Government debt? No one even heard of it.
Because we taxed the rich and corporations at much higher levels back then, thus no need to borrow as much. See the connection?
And I still think it’s funny that born again Bachmann became a citizen of a nation that is basically unchurched, where only a small minority of citizens attend church on a regular basis.
That’s true of much of Europe.
And also becoming more true of the United States. Even in the hyper-religious South, the kids are not as churchgoing as their parents.
I’ll take the Eisenhower tax code over today’s in a nanosecond.
But it’s gotta be the WHOLE THING as a top-to-bottom replacement. Not just the top bracket rates.
ANY DAY - I will trade you the 90% (on paper) tax rate if you agree to cutting government spending by HALF, banning PUBLIC unions and paying off the debt.
You gotta deal! However, that is conditional on returning to Eisenhower era employment levels.
Now watch as the suffering so’s threaten to leave the country.
“No matter the loopholes, the effective tax rates on the rich were much higher back then.”
Killer tax shelter business for lawyers back then.
“When PUBLIC UNIONS were ILLEGAL.”
Public unions existed as far back as 1919. They were not illegal during the Eisenhower days. All it took was a little googling to find that.
You need to lay off the truthiness.
And while you’re at it nannerz, Google the “Bracero Program”. It was instituted in the 1950’s to deal with massive illegal immigration from Mexico. Didn’t work then, either– mostly because Big Ag didn’t want it to. Didn’t work in the 60’s with Chavez Farm Workers. Or the 70’s with massive influx from Central America. Or the 80’s….
There’s this thing called “history” that people used to study before they had Fox News. You might want to Google that, too.
Your nitwittery is getting tediouser and tediouser.
Representative Michele Bachmann becomes a Swiss citizen ??
Well, its consistant with her neocon/Evan thinking right ??
Swiss citizens are required to buy universal health insurance from private insurance companies, which in turn are required to accept every applicant.
wait that sounds like Obama and Romney’s plan???
I’m so confused.
What…. she doesn’t like this country? Where is her patriotism? She needs to be investigated for anti-American activities. A penetrating expose needs to be conducted.
What…. she doesn’t like this country? Where is her patriotism?
Gays can’t get married in Switzerland.
More likely the rats are ensuring they have lifeboats for when the ship sinks, i.e. if and when civil disorder, economic collapse, and war come to the US homeland, those with the resources will move elsewhere.
And you’ll stay right here.
For better or worse, yes. My family doesn’t have the benefit of dual citizenship and we’re not rich.
“More likely the rats are ensuring they have lifeboats for when the ship sinks”
Not if they are lynched first
“when civil disorder, economic collapse, and war come to the US homeland”
The LONG HOT SUMMER is here
The LONG HOT SUMMER is here
Here goon, this is for you…
AR Magdump
Take an opportunity to check out my description on the build… I can’t say enough good things about the PWS muzzlebrake and BCM heavy buffer… no noticeable muzzle rise and very little recoil. The Geissele trigger makes for a very light, fast trigger pull.
The squad keeps it simple: S&W .357 snubbie for bears, S&W .38 Special for two legged monsters, and a Yugoslavian SKS for miscellaneous uses.
But the best defense against zombie hordes is keeping a full tank of gas, water filtration, and dehydrated food in the squadmobile enabling us to evacuate into the mountains at a moment’s notice with supplies for weeks. Zombies don’t flourish above 10,000′ elevation, there’s nothing up there for them to rape, smoke, or steal
SKS is a good, reliable, inexpensive rifle. Has some “features” I don’t particularly like: a fixed magazine and top ejection making scope/optics mounts problematic. The AK47/AKM is a better rifle firing the same 7.62×39 for not much more money…
AKM Magdump and some gratuitous M&P40 firing as well
Goonie, if the rich already have the citizenship papers in advance, the rich don’t need to run far to escape the pitchforks — only to the nearest airport. Then they are just a plane ride away from Swiss bliss.
And Switzerland is a reliable lifeboat. Even the Nazis left them alone during WW2.
Even the Nazis left them alone during WW2.
Even the Nazis needed bankers to hold onto their illicit gains…
Even the Nazis needed bankers to hold onto their illicit gains…
+1 And both would split the loot when account holder’s name appeared on the murdered list; it’s about as low as human parasitic depravity can get.
Seems like the election is zeroing in on a showdown over same-sex marriage which, by the way, does not actually seem like an issue for the executive branch to decide. I guess we won’t know where the candidates stand on housing issues until after November 6, 2012.
I don’t think so, P-bear. It’s a news cycle, maybe two. There was never any doubt which side the President would ultimately favor, so I don’t see it changing anyone’s mind.
I suspect that the birth control issue has much more traction; people are just more quiet about it. And the #jobs and gas prices will trump all anyway.
Oh yeah — I forgot that it is the president’s job to make sure we all have a job and enjoy low gas prices.
why not…he thinks it’s apparently his job to provide contraception to georgetown students.
He’s never said that. The issue was whether or not PRIVATE health insurance should cover that. It was never about the government providing it.
why not…he thinks it’s apparently his job to compel private insurers to provide contraception to georgetown students.
Personally I think it is his job to make sure women aren’t discriminated against by hypocritical male moralists.
It wasn’t about contraception. It was about other students (not the one testifying) needing the hormones in birth control pills for other medical reasons and not being able to get them covered. The Catholic institutions had been saying that, of course, their health insurance policy provided the medication when it was needed to treat legitimate medical issues. A student testified that she knew people who had been denied their needed medication because the pills were also effective as contraception. Thus proving the institution to be a liar.
if its a medical issue and the religous institution you are attending will not pay for the medication…get it someplace else.
it’s not discrimination for crapsake.
i apologize for stooping to the PTB level.
i will not let it happen again. i let my political transcendence slip for a moment.
i just told my brother last night how amusing it is that the popluace is so easily divided on trivial issues while the ruling class and its “capitalist” cronies loot the treasury.
Those students had health insurance through their school that they paid for. It included a drug benefit. Unless the drugs you needed could also double as contraception. It is discrimination. And it specifically contradicts what the Catholic institutions said they were doing.
My take is birth control should be Free…but 90% of the breast reductions should be paid for by the patient since 90% are unnecessary.
He’s never said that. The issue was whether or not PRIVATE health insurance should cover that. It was never about the government providing it.
My take is birth control should be Free…
In Iran, it is. And it’s provided by the national government.
“In Iran, it is. And it’s provided by the national government.”
In Mexico too.
In$ignificant News.
Between China & The Federal Re$erve Inc. For 30 years $ince Ronnie RayGun it has been a $imple $olution: Bank$ & Weapon$
heheeheeeheeeheheeehee :-/
Here’s the real $tory:
“According to the Fed, the bank has total assets of roughly $2.5 trillion.”
[please note]: Fed = Federal Re$erve Inc. Corpooration$
Fed clears China’s first U$ bank takeover:
By Veronica Smith | AFP – 11 hrs ago
The transaction will make ICBC the first Chinese state-controlled bank to acquire retail bank branches in the United States.
ICBC has been the most aggressive of China’s “big four” banks in expanding abroad.
Outside China, it operates subsidiary banks in Asian countries and has branches in a number of countries including Germany, Japan and Singapore.
“This unprecedented acquisition of a controlling stake in a US commercial bank by a mainland bank is strategically significant,” Xinhua quoted ICBC chairman Jiang Jianqing as saying.
The Fed said its Board also consulted with the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the country’s main banking regulator, and pointed to steady improvement in regulation since its founding in 2003.
“For a number of years, authorities in China have continued to enhance the standards of consolidated supervision to which banks in China are subject, including through additional or refined statutory authority, regulations, and guidance,” it said.
In other Fed board decisions, Bank of China, the third-largest bank, won approval for a branch in Chicago. Bank of China operates two insured federal branches in New York City and an uninsured branch in Los Angeles.
Agricultural Bank of China, the fourth-largest bank, was set to establish a branch in New York City, where it already operates a representative office.
ICBC already has banking and financial services in the United States through its New York branch and its subsidiary broker-dealer.
The competition includes Bank of China branches in the New York metropolitan area, and CIC, which has a noncontrolling stake in Morgan Stanley.
The trouble with Chinese banks is, a half hour later you need more money.
BA-DUMP!
What’s his stance on gay-straight marriages?
“Mrs Bachmann, 55, is eligible for dual citizenship through her husband, who is of Swiss descent, a spokeswoman said.”
Smart move to try to smoke out the GOP on social issues again. Beats talking about the economy.
Not sure the subterfuge is going to work this time, most voters are wise to the scam.
bloomibergi:
U.S. Millionaires Told Go Away as Tax Evasion Rule Looms
“That’s what some of the world’s largest wealth-management firms are saying ahead of Washington’s implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, known as Fatca, which seeks to prevent tax evasion by Americans with offshore accounts…
“I don’t open U.S. accounts, period,” said Su Shan Tan, head of private banking at Singapore-based DBS, Southeast Asia’s largest lender, who described regulatory attitudes toward U.S. clients as “Draconian.”
Fatca, introduced after Zurich-based UBS AG (UBSN) said in 2009 that it aided tax evasion by Americans and agreed to pay $780 million to avoid prosecution.
“Most of the hedge funds I know in Asia won’t take American clients,” said Faber.
Bank of Singapore, the private-banking arm of Oversea- Chinese Banking Corp. (OCBC), ranked strongest in the world for the last two years by Bloomberg Markets magazine, has turned away millions of dollars from Americans because it doesn’t want to deal with the regulatory hassle.”
————–
For those of you who think the Reps and Dems are the same party, I can’t imagine a Republican Congress passing a law like FATCA.
“I can’t imagine a Republican Congress passing a law like FATCA.”
No, they’re too busy passing laws like “FATCAT”.
For those of you who think the Reps and Dems are the same party, I can’t imagine a Republican Congress passing a law like FATCA.
One could argue that ‘the two parties are the same’ meme is 1% propaganda, since clearly one party is the ‘money=speech’ party, the ‘any talk of tax increases on the wealthy is class warfare’ party, the ‘there should be even less regulation of Wall Street’ party, the ‘the poor deserve it’ party.
The Dems have plenty of problems, and are quite capable of being bought off by the 1% themselves, but they aren’t in the same league as the Repubs, as far as representing the interests of the 1% against the interests of the 99%.
I did read that one of the right wing religious leaders sais that this was big gift to Romney. His theory is Mitt has been having trouble generating enthusiam among the fundamentalists and that this will him to do that.
I meant to post this above where gay marriage is discussed.
It will help him, but he’s still a hard sell to fundies who I suspect will still mostly cast their vote for “none of the above” in November.
For me that will be the most interesting thing to watch this year. I could see it going either way. But no matter which way it goes I’ll understand the “fundies” better than I do now.
What did he say about gay marriage/civil unions when he was governor of MA? It was a while ago and really before it was part of the general conversation, so I don’t know if there are any gotcha moments. If he has even said that he is for a fairly robost civil union scheme it could hurt him among the people who feel very strongly about it. And he needs those folks (the republican base) to come out in very large numbers in swing states, or he will be in very big trouble.
Agree Polly.
The old joke is that the Conservatives/Republicans are made up of three factions: those who are angry they lost Vietnam, those who are angry they lost the Civil War, and those who are angry they lost the Crusades. Bush needed all three of those factions to win in 2004. Romney has the Vietnam faction but he’s dicey on the other two.
One could argue that ‘the two parties are the same’ meme is 1% propaganda
It could work that way if it convinces people to stay home on election day. If a lot of working-class and middle-class people decide that it’s not worth voting because there’s no difference between the two parties, that helps the wealthy, who actutally get out and vote.
that helps the wealthy, who actutally get out and vote.
But really, the wealthy have already cast their votes way before that date when they fund candidates and keep their candidacies alive through media purchases. They also vote way after that election date through lobbyists.
So the way they (appear to) appease the masses fall into different catagories. Between the two sides, most interests are covered. Let’s be honest here. People side with the party they feel will throw them more goodies. After being a consituent in MA and then NY, I came to see the goodies as shut up money.
Does the differences in goodies change the widening gap between how the government conducts its business and the consitution at the hand of either party? That widening gap is what’s one in the same.
Maybe we should try to keep the focus on that if we care to save our future at all. Or we could just be strung along by our noses and vote for the goodies. When I see people arguing whether they get the goodies or not, I know it’s too late. When we are only concerned about personal self preservation, the puppets only have to say the right catch phrases and they’ve captured our support. Does anyone here remember that there is not enough money in the whole system to cover the debt? The white noise about who pays is a distraction because in the end every source of capital will be need to be tapped. Don’t ever forget that.
One could argue that ‘the two parties are the same’ meme is 1% propaganda
the notion that the democratic party cares about the rest of the 99% more than the repubs is meme in and of itselft.
repubs - top 1%
dems - bottom 50%
in between - the forgotten man
Do we need to bring up S.3816 again, where Dems in the Senate voted to stop tax breaks for offshoring jobs (jobs for the forgotton man demographic), and the R’s who FILIBUSTERED it?
its the failed economic and monetary policies of this and past administrations that cause the outsourcing not the “tax breaks”.
its the failed economic and monetary policies of this and past administations that are the cause of the income disparity as well…taxing those who beneift the most from those failed policies is not the solution…fixing the policies is the solution.
The tax breaks may be a drop in the bucket. But if you filibuster even the drop, that’s a good sign you’re not going to do a damn thing about the bucket.
its just as bad.
hey…let’s work together to steal trillions of dollars…then you can support taxing us a bit more….i will belly ache and complain…just for show…and then we continute to steal trillions of dollars.
the sheeple will fall for it hook, line and sinker…hell…you’ll even get re-elected. i promise!
high fives and laughter ensue.
“the notion that the democratic party cares about the rest of the 99% more than the repubs is meme in and of itselft.
repubs - top 1%
dems - bottom 50%
in between - the forgotten man”
Let’s expand on that. The teabagger Republicans are mostly from the 40th to 70th percentiles, but they have been conditioned to hate the prospect of the bottom 40% getting any free sh*t from Uncle Sugar (especially the bottom 20% if they have black or brown skin) that they want to take away everything from everybody and give it ALL to the top 1%. The top 2 to 5% are the fluffers/enablers in media and government whose role is to keep the teabaggers hate directed correctly to help enrich the 1%er PIGS.
dismantling the status quo is a very difficult pill for most people to swallow…including some here…that’s why it’s the status quo.
but it’s going to happen…it’s just no longer sustainable barring any sort of super inventon.
the severity of the dismantling is the only unknown at this point…and since the PTB seem to be stuck in some sort of keynsian wet dream…well…it ain’t gonna be pretty.
The D’s will give you a “reach around” while the R’s wont.
Skunks ALL.
Let’s be honest here. People side with the party they feel will throw them more goodies
Isn’t voting in your self-interest part of how democracy works? The key is for it to be in your long-term self-interest, of course, which doesn’t necessarily involve ‘throwing more goodies’- which is itself an artful propaganda phrase, much beloved by the 1%.
Isn’t voting in your self-interest part of how democracy works?
right out of ayn rand…i’m impressed.
but no…that is not how it should work.
for instance…as a tax professional it is well within my self interest to promote a tax system that is as complex as possilble…yet i support the contrary.
wonder why that is?
which doesn’t necessarily involve ‘throwing more goodies’
Name one.
Name one.
Exactly. You’ve been taught that everything from the gov is a ‘goodie’ for the deadbeats.
How about Social Security? It didn’t pay off immediately for most, it required most people to pay taxes their whole life on the possibility of living long enough to be able to retire. Infrastructure projects like the interstate system take years to become useful, but in the long run often are. A large standing military costs a lot of money, but people see it as a benefit that gives them security. Not every government program is a waste-of-money giveaway to the deadbeats. Some of it actually benefits the majority, often so much that people come to take them for granted.
There’s a legitimate arguments to be made that all programs you mentioned were goodies to one group versus another. Kind of interesting that you have to look back 60 yrs to sight an example.
Kind of interesting that you have to look back 60 yrs to sight an example.
The internet?
The internet?
WOW. Let’s triple of the military budget then, we may actually get a small useful thing 20 yrs down the road.
The word “goodies” is obviously, like so much of our word choices, politically charged. But for the purposes of my argument, let’s consider a goodie is something where someone receives a perceived benefit. In other words, the set up suits you as opposed to your neighbor, or your cousin, or another industry.
I think it’s fair to say most voters of today think in terms of short term benefit to themselves vs long term health of the institution as a whole.
I have taken a long term approach to things my entire adult life.
Except when something requires immediate attention. Such as an open beer.
The internet?
WOW. Let’s triple of the military budget then, we may actually get a small useful thing 20 yrs down the road.
The internet- the thing we’re talking on, is a ’small useful thing’? It’s the most important development of the last century, maybe ever. Developed by the socialist policies of the government, for our benefit, allowing you to get on it and proclaim how useless and unproductive the government is.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Except when something requires immediate attention. Such as an open beer.
“People side with the party they feel will throw them more goodies.”
Speak for yourself.
CarrieAnn,
My vote has always been determined by who (says they) won’t make war on other people, prosecute people for “moral” reasons, and/or insist upon a level playing field for all citizens.
None of this has anything to do with “goodies” about which I (and I suspect quite a few other voters) couldn’t care less.
One could argue that ‘the two parties are the same’ meme is 1% propaganda
One could argue that one making such an argument would be acting as an apologist for the status quo.
From where I am sitting, I have not seen a significant difference in the ACTIONS taken by the last couple of presidents, though their party affiliations were different.
How about the Citizens United decision? Any difference there?
This is BS. What’s there to be proud of restricting people’s freedom?
If the people had earn it illegally, prosecute them. If not, set them free.
Updated May 8, 2012, 2:02 a.m. ET
Obama’s ‘to do’ list for Congress: jobs, mortgages
Associated Press
ALBANY, N.Y. — President Barack Obama said Tuesday that only Congress can take the “bold action” needed to spur job creation, as he unfurled an election year “to do” list for lawmakers.
Obama’s action plan for Congress centers on a series of economic initiatives he has already been pushing for months, including eliminating tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and promoting new tax credits for small businesses and for companies to develop clean energy.
None of the items on the president’s wish list has previously gained any traction in Congress, and there was little indication that they would in the six months between now and Election Day.
…to address the housing crisis, Obama pressed anew for a measure designed to help homeowners refinance their homes at lower interest rates. Obama planned to also make the housing pitch during a stop Friday in Reno, Nev., the state that has been the epicenter of the nation’s housing meltdown.
White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted the measures should be able to pass in Congress, despite the fact Obama has not been able to persuade lawmakers to act on them previously.
“These are the kinds of initiatives that traditionally enjoy bipartisan support,” Carney said. “They’re the kinds of initiatives that outside independent economists identified as things that would have an immediate impact on economic growth and job creation.”
…
Obama Initiatives = Fiddles + gasoline + matches
Politicians need to look like they’re doing something to justify the contributions they’re getting. Unfortunately it all too often involves spending other people’s money and creating perverse incentives.
Is the MID for high earners something that True Conservatives consider to be representative of their core values?
April 16, 2012, 4:29 PM
Rep. Camp: Cool to Romney Plan to Pare Home-Interest Deduction
Washington Wire HOME PAGE »
By Siobhan Hughes
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.) did not rush to embrace Mitt Romney’s proposal to pare back a home-mortgage interest deduction, a sign of how politically contentious the issue is for Americans.
Mr. Romney at a fundraiser on Sunday said he would reduce or eliminate the mortgage-interest deduction for second homes owned by wealthy taxpayers to offset an across-the-board income-tax cut.
But Mr. Camp said the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee was not ready to say which tax breaks it might pare or eliminate as part of a broader tax overhaul that aims to simplify the tax code and lower the corporate-tax rate to 25%. It’s widely known in Washington that some tax breaks will have to go in order to make room for lower overall tax rates – and members of both parties frequently say they want to broaden the base but lower rates.
“I’m not prepared to say that that is something we’re going to look at,” Mr. Camp told reporters, when asked about whether he would target the home-mortgage deduction. “Let me just say this: You don’t have to eliminate all deductions to get to 25% — you will be able to keep some of those,” he said, referring to a goal of lowering the corporate tax rate to 25%. “So I’m not willing to say that that is one in total that has to go.”
Wow - and not a peep of support from the liberals here.
I guess having obama discuss how he should provide more free sh*t to the free sh*t army is more important.
Mr. Romney at a fundraiser on Sunday said he would reduce or eliminate the mortgage-interest deduction for second homes owned by wealthy taxpayers to offset an across-the-board income-tax cut.
I think it’s more of a “we’ll believe it when we see it” situation.
Why can’t obama at least say these things too?
Because it would be ‘class warfare’.
Romney didn’t say it in public. He was overheard at a private fundraiser by reporters milling around on the sidewalk. If he had known that anyone other than the people at the fundraiser were listening, he wouldn’t have even provided that much detail. Promise.
Romney didn’t say it in public.
Isn’t saying in private even more meaningful? Public speech making is all slogan designed for mass consumption. It’s very unlike Obama, who bashes the “rich” in public and hangs out with them in private.
Perhaps it was said in private to pander to that specific group. If he does that, then he can make contradicting promises to different groups. That way he can tell the NAR that he supports
the MID on second homes.
I suspect that all politicos do that anyway, he just got overheard.
I would be fun if there was a “Joe Isuzu” switch on our TVs that would add the caption “He’s lying” when a politico talks on TV.
The president probably has outlined what his ideal tax reform would look like in private too. I expect it is mostly to his staff (as they despair of ever actually being able to get it through the House), but he might have talked about it to a small group somewhere.
The fact that he hasn’t been dumb enough to do it in places where the press can overhear or where people leaked it is admirable. You don’t get things done in this town by trying to set up major reform programs with bits of leaked information, at least not in an election year. If he gets reelected, then it will be the time to try major tax reform.
Wow - and not a peep of support from the liberals here.
Nice try, fruitcake.
From April 22, 2012:
http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=7122
“Mitt Romney caused quite a stir this week when he told fundraisers in tony Palm Beach that he might consider limiting the home mortgage interest deduction on second homes.”
Comment by oxide
2012-04-22 14:30:00
Which is really too bad, because knocking out MID for second homes is a great idea. Of course it wouldn’t fly with Romney’s base who probably use the MID on the cabin to keep the wine cellar stocked.
Some analysts see further upside in long-term Treasurys.
May 10, 2012, 12:01 a.m. EDT
Treasury bond ‘bubble’ is nothing to fear
Commentary: Fund investors don’t hold much government debt
By Jonathan Burton, MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Two of the last Treasury bond bulls stood up the other day and made their best case for the worst case.
Market strategist David Rosenberg and economist Lacy Hunt — who both see 30-year Treasury yields diving to 2% as prices surge — addressed hedge-fund investors and money managers in separate sessions last week at the Altegris Strategic Investment Conference in Carlsbad, Calif.
Their message: Don’t hate the long bond because it’s beautiful.
“There are substantial capital gains in the long Treasurys,” Hunt said in an interview, “and even greater on zero-coupon Treasurys.”
“Bonds,” Rosenberg said, “are going to make very good sense. You can make a lot of money with the long bond at 2%.”
“You can make a lot of money with the long bond at 2%.”
Two-percent, huh. Makes me wonder how those who expect eight-percent-plus returns from their floats are going to fare.
The company I work for expects to earn eight-and-a-half percent on it’s stash of cash that backs its pension obligations. Good luck with that.
The pension plan USED TO BE OVERFUNDED but in the past year or two “something happened” and now it is pushing the eighty-percent UNDERFUNDING level. Now the company’s officers are spreading the word that the trend of pension obligations “is unsustainable”, which, IMO, means pensions will probably be cut.
I have discussed this trend with my fellow employees but they all tell me the pension can’t be cut because “it’s the law.”
Bankruptcy is also the law. Just pay the pensions unitil the money runs out and call it a day. The executives raided the pension funds in the ’80s. The credit expansion hid the crime for a while.
The executives raided the pension funds in the ’80s
After being taken over by looting corporate raiders, using the free market’s wisdom to see that that money was just sitting there, begging to be taken.
Dishonesty comes dressed as any horse it pleases. The corruption of the command market leaders in China is getting some press.
Probably the largest scale theft of pension funding through dishonest calculations is in our public sector, so the theft in and of itself is no argument for or against the degree of freedom of markets.
huh?
Two-percent, huh.
Two percent is a good return during periods of deflation.
“You can make a lot of money with the long bond at 2%.”
I wasn’t at the investing seminar, but my guess is that a key point is that even with rates near zero, large capital gains are available in case rates crowd still closer to zero. If I were feeling more motivated, I would post an illustrative example, but alas, I am not feeling motivated.
For instance, I seem to recall that last year was a very good one for anyone who owned Treasurys, despite some of the lowest yields on record.
A bond paying 2% will double in value when newly issued bonds with the same risk level drop down to 1%.
Polly, that’s only true if both bonds mature many, many years in the future. If you have a bond that yields 4% but it matures in a couple of years, whereas new issues are yielding 2%, your 4% bond not worth double its face value if you decided to sell it today.
Yield to maturity. A calculator with financial functions is required.
I used a shorthand (”risk level”) for all the stuff that has to be the same.
“Polly, that’s only true if both bonds mature many, many years in the future.”
Those are the ones the financial gurus were discussing. E.g. consider a zero-coupon bond, where the only “payment” is return of principal many years in the future. If you pay, say, $10,000 for a zero-coupon 30-year Treasury when the rate is 2%, and further decline in rates drive it down to 1%, your capital gain would be on the order of ((1.02/1.01)^30-1)*$10,000 = $3,438.91. Though a 34% capital gain is not quite doubling your investment, it isn’t all that bad, either.
On the other hand, if the interest rate dropped all the way to zero (a seemingly-unlikely prospect), your capital gain would be limited to:
(1.02^30-1)*$10,000 = $8,113.62.
Of course, if this decline in interest rates was accompanied by a sufficient amount of deflation, specifically a real inflation-adjusted increase in the dollar of ($20,000/$18,113.62-1)*100% = 10.4%, the real value of your bond could double if interest rates went all the way down to zero.
I guess I must remember something from my past life as an actuary, as nobody (not even Polly) seemed to disagree with my calculations.
Why U.S. Economy is Heading Back Into Recession
May 9, 2012
Economic Cycle Research Institute’s Lakshman Achuthan on The News Hub discusses why he believes the U.S. economy is heading back into recession in the next several months. (Photo: AFP/Stan Hondastan Honda/AFP/Getty Images)
Inflation or depression, what would helicopter ben choose?
Banksters will always choose inflation over deflation.
The problem is, monetarist inflation doesn’t work long-term. It just blows more bubbles. To make it work long-term, you gotta get the money to Joe6pak. And then get it back to him when it ends up back in the 1%ers’ hands, as it will.
You gotta keep the churn, and it’s got to include Joe6pak. The rich can still be rich, but they can’t keep all of the money, all of the time.
Sorry, but having a strong middle class is now considered commie thinking.
“Sorry, but having a strong middle class is now considered commie thinking.”
I am in favor of a strong middle class and I am definitely not a communist.
If it is, this is why:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/28/us-usa-democrats-offshore-idUSTRE68R40I20100928
Heading back? It never came out of recession, er, depression.
Romney to Ron Paul: Quit the Race, Or Else!
May 7, 2012
Mitt Romney appears to have the momentum that would put him on a path toward the Republican nomination, but Ron Paul is still in the race and is still collecting delegates. It has Romney’s camp fighting mad. WSJ’s Danny Yadron visits Mean Street to explain. Photo: AP.
mr paul and ben are good friends.
That’s why I figured the post might be of interest here. It seems like Romney is trying to make a legal claim on the nomination, which I find quite odd; is there any legal precedent for suing your political opponents in order to clear the path to the presidency?
does mr paul have anything to lose by hanging around? I dont think he is spending a lot of money on the campaign at this point.
I guess there still is a chance for mr paul?
pretty soon the FED will be paying the treasury to take its money.
does mr paul have anything to lose by hanging around?
Nothing to lose besides his sanity. Ron Paul should just quit the R’s and run as independent. That’s the only way!
It’s the way to not get taken seriously. I personally am glad that he’s getting the attention that only comes from being a candidate for one of the big two. I do hope that someday people can get taken seriously without having to affiliate with them, though.
Ron Paul should just quit the R’s and run as independent. That’s the only way!
I don’t see why he doesn’t. Seems like he’s feeding into the ‘only the two big parties matter’ idea, otherwise. He has very little in common with most Republicans, nowadays.
If RP runs as an independent he’ll steal enough votes from Romney to guarantee an Obama victory, no matter what else happens.
I still remember the interview where RP stated he couldn’t see himself as President. That was pretty early on. That convinced me he was in it more to influence the party’s direction and the conversation than to win. I think he intends to take that influence right into the convention.
Sometimes after watching the PTBs impotent attempts to marginalize him, I’m worried RP would get Kennedied if he started spiking in the polls. I really don’t believe they would allow him any real mainstream coverage of any of his ideas. So I’m actually kind of glad he’s not doing well, for his sake.
Yeah it’s kind of like when Obama said he was unqualified to be President and would probably not act in the best interests of the country CarrieAnn.
“If RP runs as an independent he’ll steal enough votes from Romney to guarantee an Obama victory”
He eould hurt Obama more, according to Rasmussen.
OK, some one explain this to me, because it boggles the mind.
I’ve been following the NODS, auctions, and REOs in a few San Francisco neighborhoods (and there are plenty to follow), and this is a house I saw a few months back.
Deutsch Bank took the house back in 2009. It has renters. From what I can gather, that means the bank has been landlording for 2.5 years. It has been listed as for sale for 2 days.
Link: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/154-Harvard-St-San-Francisco-CA-94134/15166665_zpid/
Here in the city you can only kick out renters in a SFH if you owner-occupy move-in: new owner must pay tenants to leave (about $4K per tenant, max 15K per house, and there is no owner-occupied evictions allowed for disabled people) and you have to personally live in the house for 3 years.
I know a lot about this because many people I know, including myself, have experienced this since the bubble began in the late 90’s. I have friends who just moved after being in the same rental for 10 years. They are now paying 2X their previous rent, took them 6 months to find a new rental, don’t like their new nabe.
But I digress.
This is from the listing:
REO Occupied - the seller does not represent or guarantee occupancy status. NO VIEWINGS of this property. Please DO NOT DISTURB the occupant. “As is” cash only sale with no contingencies or inspections. Buyer will be responsible for obtaining possession of the property upon closing.The property at 154 Harvard St, San Francisco, CA is a Residential Single Family property with 2 bedroom(s) and 1.0 bathroom(s), built in 1928 and is 1510 square feet.Submit your offer today
WHO IS GOING TO BUY THIS HOUSE?
Flippers? No - they can’t kick out the tenants. Regular person like me? No - $349K cash only, can’t even go inside the house, never mind the inspection. Place must be rent controlled (SFH were rent controlled until 1999) or the bank would have just raised the rent high enough to get the tenants to move.
Hmmmm….fascinating.
Sounds like the bank is hoping some clueless Chinese suckers…I mean investors, take the problem off their hands. Does the property remain rent controlled once the ownership changes?
Does the property remain rent controlled once the ownership changes?
Yes, all the same tenant rights stay with the property even after ownership changes. The only way to kick out tenants who are rent controlled is through owner-occupied eviction (with pay out/relocation fees).
We are not even bothering to look at buying a SFH with tenants, because you can get badly burned and end up not being able to move in for many many months and having to bring a pile of cash to the table to get tenants out.
REO Occupied - the seller does not represent or guarantee occupancy status. NO VIEWINGS of this property. Please DO NOT DISTURB the occupant. “As is” cash only sale with no contingencies or inspections.
My former landlady bought a two-house property like this back in 1998. She couldn’t get inside the houses to inspect them, and oh, did that come back and bite her. Those houses needed all kinds of work. Took her the better part of a decade to bring them back up to snuff.
CH, home of totalitarian group-think and street corner enforcement. Bachmann will fit right in. Good move, hope she does.
Better still, after Obama’s announcement yesterday, she and her husband can finally get married.
Not sure why this nested here. Was responding to comments about Michelle Bachmann’s duel citizenship.
Nothing says GOP Family Values like “down low”, closeted homosexuality
Quite a few odd nestings today, may be a glitch in the matrix.
Lucky. Ducky.
49% of Americans saving zilch for retirement
“NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — America has a serious problem saving for retirement.
About 49% of Americans say they aren’t contributing to any retirement plan, according to a new survey conducted by LIMRA, a trade association for the financial services industry.
“The findings from this survey were disturbing, given that people will increasingly need to rely on their personal savings to make ends meet in retirement,” said Matthew Drinkwater, associate managing director at LIMRA’s retirement research division.
People ages 18 to 34 are the least likely to be saving, with 56% reporting that they are not currently contributing to a retirement plan like an IRA or a 401(k).”
Anyone who doesn’t trust the markets or is expecting part deux of the double dip will not be stuffing savings into retirement plans. The MF Global conspiracy doesn’t exactly calm nerves either. If they wanted people to save for the future they’d pop the credit bubble entirely and give people a good base to build on. Too many people today view the whole thing as smoke and mirrors.
So the $64,000 question is where is the safe place to plop down your savings?
First National Bank of Sealy and Serta
That’ll work if the end problem becomes deflation and if you don’t fear fire nor theft.
Kinda hard to do when real inflation is 50%+ and your raise is zilch.
That’s OK, Marie Antoinette did get it either.
Yeah…..whodathunk that saving money would be a problem for people, when costs are going up 6-8%/year, and raises are going up 1%, or less. Times 20-30 years.
Ran across something interesting. Got a “Inflation Calculator” based on BLS data. Seems that starting pay for my first airplane job is almost exactly the same (within a dollar, inflation corrected) as it was in 1979, when using BLS numbers.
Maybe someone needs to tell these HR departments that BLS inflation numbers have been proven to be BS.
Or OTOH, this may not be an accident at all. As I recall, back in the day when labor contracts had “inflation adjustments”, they were all indexed to BLS numbers, and anything under 3% was considered “zero”, for payroll inflation adjustments.
Unfortunately, you need a subscription to get the “Shadowstats” inflation number, 1980-2012
I use this:
http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html
Includes Shadow Stats calculation. Select “Option” and choose from several different inflation basis.
Let’s see…….Newbie mechanic wage of 6.63, start date 1980.
Wow.
I guess we know which “Inflation Calculator” the suits/banksters are using to calculate their inflation adjustments.
Explains why I could afford to save and buy stuff in 1980, and I can’t now.
Maybe they don’t have enough money left over to save. Ever think of that, financial industry and your shills in the media?
They’re too busy lowering real incomes while simultaneously creating inflation to notice, Slim!
Yeah, probably after they pay their cell phone bill, their new car payment, their cc bill from shopping for $100 Nikes , spend $80 at the bar, buy a couple steaks for dinner, and fill up their SUV, they don’t have anything left over. All those things are EXPENSIVE these days.
I can just about guarantee you this…You show me a person working 40 hrs a week on minimum wage and I will show you a plan where they save $25/mo in a savings account, and are able to eat a nutritional meal 3x a day, and put a roof over their head. This is only $800 a month, Federal or $1440/mo in Ca (pre tax).
That’s not very much money at all, and $25/mo isn’t very much savings. But we are talking about people with ZERO savings right now. The median salary is something like $44k in the US. That’s almost $4000 per month.
Life IS hard, but when you make $44k/year you are in the top 1% of world population, so you should NOT be complaining about how you CAN’T save any money. The only excuse is that you feel entitled to the cellphone, the steak, the “fresh kicks”. There is a big difference between CAN’T and AREN’T .
Yeah, but what this little stat ignores is that we are at the Top 1% in the Cost of Living.
Yeah, I could live like a King in Somalia or Sudan. For about 5 minutes.
I can just about guarantee you this…You show me a person working 40 hrs a week on minimum wage and I will show you a plan where they save $25/mo in a savings account,
This does not mean much realistically. All 5 years of that “savings plan” would be wiped out if the dude needed a root canal or a fixed transmission. Or the bank might charge him $10 a month of that $25 saved just to have an account.
but when you make $44k/year you are in the top 1% of world population, so you should NOT be complaining about how you CAN’T save any money
This point of “world 1%” income is irrelevant. An American’s costs are not the same as 3rd world guy.
their cell phone bill, their new car payment, their cc bill from shopping for $100 Nikes , spend $80 at the bar, buy a couple steaks for dinner, and fill up their SUV,
You might do all that but I assure you most poor and working poor don’t. You supposedly have a good job and you date an MD. I don’t think you really know what you are talking about on this issue.
My friends bring in about $30K a year. Sometimes less. Sometimes a bit more. Yes, they have cell phones. When your car is that old, it is needed for safety. No new car (theirs, like mine, doesn’t have AC anymore, though theirs died long before mine did). No fancy sneakers. No credit card. No steaks for dinner. I haven’t seen her in a new piece of clothing ever (that I can remember). They don’t even pay rent as they live with her father, though they often end up paying the property taxes. There was a bit of money from an insurance policy when her mother died. It is going to fix the roof.
Their money goes to food, gas and utilities and some extra curricular classes for their son (yoga, matial arts) to try to help him not need to go on drugs for ADD. She hasn’t been to the dentist in a decade as near as I can tell. It isn’t easy out there even when you fall on the fortunate side of the lucky ducky scale.
“Yes, they have cell phones. When your car is that old, it is needed for safety.”
Try and find a pay phone today.
The only excuse is that you feel entitled to the cellphone, the steak, the “fresh kicks”.
‘The poor deserve it.’ Such a silly, sad, and tired idea, voiced by short-sighted nitwits throughout history.
A blast from the past from just three years ago.
I guess obama’s views “evolved”
Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half
Politico | 2/22/2009 | By MIKE ALLEN
President Obama will announce Monday that he plans to cut the nation’s projected annual deficit in half by the end of his first term, a senior administration official said Saturday.
Obama, who will speak Monday to a Fiscal Responsibility Summit at the White House, also will outline steps he is taking to eliminate what his staff calls “accounting gimmicks” used by previous administrations.
Better vote for the teabaggers cuz there gonna stop all the bailouts. Oh wait…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-30/tea-party-congressmen-accept-cash-from-bailed-out-bankers.html
Is that the best rebuttal you got?
A freshman congressman from Tennessee?
Especially when obama’s #2 campaign donor is Goldman Sachs?
November is going to be landslide…
“November is going to be landslide…”
You’re right. But not in the way you’re thinking.
That’s right. The One will be re-elected and he’ll be a sore LOOSER until 2017
Those who spell “losers” as “loosers” are LOSERS.
Here I have thought all these years that “looser” was the correct spelling of “loser” on the internet.
Now that’s just maroonic.
For the 2008 cycle, GS was his number contributor:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
However, for the current cycle, it’s not listed among the top donors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638
If you poke around opensecrets enough, it seems that donors such as GS donate to the level they think a particular candidate will win, not because they actually support that candidate’s politics.
ISTR looking at the 2004 election and coming to the conclusion that both candidates received equal treatment, as the race was pretty tight. In 2008, I think it became obvious early who was going to win.
May 10, 2012, 2:20 p.m. EDT
U.S. posts first budget surplus since 2008
Last surplus was September 2008, the month Lehman collapsed
By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The U.S. government in April posted its first monthly budget surplus since September 2008, the Treasury Department said Thursday, as tax receipts climbed and spending on education, Medicare and certain defense programs fell.
The surplus of $59 billion is the first of Barack Obama’s presidency, and lands at the outset of a presidential-election campaign expected to be fought largely over the issues of government spending, taxes and jobs.
The surplus in September 2008 — the month Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy — was $46 billion.
…
Your forgot this part.
And as an FYI - the worst of the insane Bush deficits were $450 billion/year…
Who would have thought those were the “good old days”
——————-
Yet the long-term fiscal picture remains cloudy. For the full fiscal year, Treasury is projecting another deficit of more than $1 trillion. For the fiscal year to date, the deficit is $720 billion.
the worst of the insane Bush deficits were $450 billion/year… Who would have thought those were the “good old days”
One would have to be totally ignorant or a partisan hack to blame most of the current deficit and times on Obama. These things don’t change on a dime each election cycle. This has been building for 30 years.
On current spending.
1. Obama faced a Depression which was the 32 year culmination of right-wing, supply side, trickle-down, crony capitalistic, TBTF economic theory put in practice.
2. A jobs base destroyed by point 1. above.
3. A revenue depleting tax base gutted by point 1. above.
4. 2 wars that he inherited.
Ignorance must be bliss 2banana. But if you are ignorant to the facts and not just a party hack, why do you seem so angry?
banana suffers from truthiness
Rio, you forgot the aging Baby Boomers. 11 years ago under Bush, they were 54 and at peak earning and tazxpaying positions. Now many of them are retired are are on Medicare. Or many were laid off because they were a drag on the company health care and they had to go on SSI, or SS early, and pray they didn’t get sick before they turn 65.
That alone is a huge chunk of the budget.
Also, I recall that Iraq/Afghanistan were kept off the books under Bush.
Does anyone notice a pattern here? 2Banana is either willfully ignorant of the facts, or simply trolling for our reactions.
In any case, while I appreciate ANY well-stated, fact-based observation or argument, 2Banana really isn’t well-informed enough to be participating in the conversations here on this board.
Consequently, I will join In Colorado in calling this poster out as an ignoramus and a waste of Ben’s bandwidth until they come up with some original (and thoughtful) material.
IWBB.
‘Who would have thought those were the “good old days”’
Who’d've thunk it would take Obama only four years to turn the economic disaster Bush left on his plate into a budget surplus?
Actually, if the Bush tax cuts had expired, if we didn’t have millions of layoffs, and if he had gotten a health care plan with a public option, Obama very well could have cut the deficit in half.
Don’t forget the automatic filibuster.
Some interesting demographics:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/memo-members-1-move-northeast-102003138.html
From the article: “Generally speaking, states in New England and the mid-Atlantic had the most upwardly mobile residents, whereas states in the South had the least mobile populations.”
They have bigger priorities down south than economic mobility, like teaching creationism in public schools and giving “personhood” to fetuses. LOOSERS!
Oh, “economic mobility” is a big priority down in the “right to work” southern states. Problem is, the priority is downward mobility.
So why are not people MOVING there?
In fact - they are leaving in droves…
I guess all these people are losers too. The only people who make out on in your “non looser” states are the 1%ers and public union goons.
American mobility:
Largest net gains
1. Texas, 74,917
2. North Carolina, 56,291
3. Florida, 55,036
4. Arizona, 45,957
5. Colorado, 45,746
Largest net losses
1. California, 129,239
2. New York, 93,712
3. Illinois, 73,620
4. New Jersey, 66,603
5. Michigan, 62,058
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/11/15/3528978/fewer-people-move-to-new-states.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/11/15/3528978/fewer-people-move-to-new-states.html
FWIW, Colorado is NOT a right to work state.
It also has a higher median household income than the other 4 net gainers.
Also something to consider about the net gainers that straddle the southern border: how much of that net gain was from illegal immigration?
how much of that net gain was from illegal immigration?
And people retiring.
It might just be me but I think that word loses all impact when you spell it wrong.
The correct internet spelling of “losers” is double-o LOOSERS.
It might just be me but I think that word loses all impact when you spell it wrong.
Maybe you’re just using a looser definition of “impact”.
“…loses all impact…”
Isn’t that the point goon is making? People make these grand pronouncements trying to display their knowledge, only to follow it up by calling their intended targets…loosers.
Just having to explain it kills the impact, like explaining a joke.
Some “chicken/egg” issues though.
Is the “willingness to move to another state” move driven by actual “willingness”, or by getting the offer itself?
I would (and can) relocate pretty much anywhere in half a nano-second for a decent job offer, but 95% of the jobs worth having in my business are filled by the “knowing someone who knows someone” method.
Major corporation based locally is/was? looking for a new Maintenance Director. Advertised the position nationally, did the HR screening process, identified a candidate, and flew him in for an interview. (Note: None of the other mechs on staff wanted the promotion)
He took a look at the pay, a look at the “situation”, talked to a few people, and said “NAAAAAAAHHHHHHH……..”
Perhaps he realized that he might be coming into a situation like this one from Tucson:
Mistake likely caused 2010 Tucson chopper crash
Excerpt: A medical-helicopter crash in Tucson that killed three people likely was caused by a mechanic’s mistake and the lack of an inspection and testing of his work, according to a recently released federal report.
The report by the National Transportation Safety Board, released last week, said the AS350 B3 Eurocopter had undergone maintenance over several days before the July 28, 2010, crash.
The report, the results of which were first reported by The Arizona Daily Star on Tuesday, says a contract mechanic likely only finger-tightened bolts, instead of using a torque wrench, when he was putting the engine back together. Maintenance personnel did not adequately inspect his work and the pilot who performed a post-maintenance check didn’t follow the manufacturer’s procedures, the report said.
The LifeNet helicopter left Marana and was en route to its home base in Douglas when it fell 600 feet in eight seconds, crashed into a backyard fence and burst into flames about six minutes after leaving the ground.
The crash was in a densely populated area of Tucson but no one on the ground was injured.
BTW, the “densely populated area” is a little over a mile away from my house.
Among the 1%, no matter the skill and knowledge involved, if you are not a 1%er, you’re just the hired help and no different than the gardener, maid or chauffeur.
I’ve met FAR too many people who even think I should work for free because it would “give me exposure” and “experience”.
To which I always say, kiss this “exposure” of my backside.
I’ve met FAR too many people who even think I should work for free because it would “give me exposure”
Just calmly explain to them that they should pay a lot of money because it would give them more “exposure” and generate “word of mouth”.
I’m loving what you’re saying, turkey lurkey and RioAmericanInBrasil! You just supplied me with more nasty talking points to those who truly deserve them.
“I’ve met FAR too many people who even think I should work for free because it would “give me exposure” and “experience”.”
When these concepts have been presented to me in various forms over my lifetime I reply in this manner.
I sell my labor as my business. To give it away is bad business
And “Poof!” go a couple of A & P certificates.
Time to update the resume at Jiffy Lube. They might find that the hours, benefits and pay are an improvement
In our business, it’s a guilty until proven innocent suspension, and if they find that you screwed up, the suspension becomes permanant. You might be able to apply to the FAA in a couple of years for a reconsideration.
Of course, we are the little people. If they ran things in the airplane business the way they are run in the bankster business, these guys would be getting a $10 million “golden parachute”, instead of a “golden shower” by the Feds.
WRITING ON THE WALL
May 10, 2012, 9:12 a.m. ET
What Would Giannini Think of Bank of America Today?
By DAVID WEIDNER
Amadeo “A.P.”‘ Giannini, the story goes, learned early about how money can make or break people’s lives.
When he was a child, a man shot his Italian immigrant father to death because the elder Giannini owed the assailant a dollar.
The younger Giannini, of course, went on to have a much different relationship with money. In 1904, he started the Bank of Italy in San Francisco. At the end of the 1920s, he changed the name to Bank of America.
Mr. Giannini’s bank was a place where working immigrants could save and get a loan. Bigger, more established banks shunned the community Mr. Giannini served. He made loans on the streets after the 1906 earthquake. San Francisco was still smoldering, and the banking industry learned a lesson about how opportunity and responsibility could go hand in hand.
When California was desperate for funds to finish the Golden Gate Bridge in the Great Depression, Mr. Giannini’s Bank of America bought the bonds that funded the bridge’s completion. The Bay Area is celebrating the bridge’s 75th birthday this year.
There’s more to the legacy, but when Mr. Giannini died in 1949, he had built the West Coast’s biggest bank and a different breed of bank, at least in reputation. Bank of America was admired and seemed to know instinctively how to make popular and profitable investments.
These days, you have to wonder if Mr. Giannini would recognize the bank he nurtured to life.
On Wednesday, four protestors at the bank’s shareholder meeting in Charlotte, N.C., were arrested. Between 500 and 1,000 people rallied as shareholders, directors and management considered a tumultuous year of lawsuits, settlements, under-performance and public backlash.
Bank of America’s recent history is a mess. From its need for $45 billion in bailout funds to sluggish loan modifications to allegations of “robo-signing”‘ and foreclosure fraud, Bank of America has been a target of those who say it shows the worst side of U.S. banking. A protest website called yourbofa.com invites people to describe a Bank of America of the future. The bank also is under fire from environmentalists. And political leaders, including President Barack Obama, have been critical of the bank’s policies, especially plans for a $5-a-month debit-card surcharge that were dropped last year.
Bank of America didn’t arrive in this spot alone. Deregulation and a series of short-sighted chief executives have changed the banking system. Sometimes the changes have been for the better, and sometimes for the worse.
…
“When he was a child, a man shot his Italian immigrant father to death because the elder Giannini owed the assailant a dollar.”
A dollar was actually worth a man’s life before the Fed was incorporated.
Recall that in 1970, a Bank of America branch was torched in Isla Vista, CA. That’s where UCSB is, and it wasn’t the hotbed of radicalism that Berkeley was.
There is a middle school here in the city named “A.P. Giannini”
http://apg-sfusd-ca.schoolloop.com/
50% Chinese students
Isla Vista was also a great place to get trashed and walk the streets.
The “problem” is the same with everything at that corporate level: the small cadre of inbred aristocracy, have no clue.
Defense spending to soar under Romney
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/news/economy/romney-defense-spending/index.htm?iid=HP_LN
I guess its easy to have a kick ass military when you’re spending other people’s money.
AMERICA! F— YEAH!
Oh, and I take back what I said yesterday about Romney being “moderate.” If these numbers are correct, this seems pretty “liberal” to me.
Sweet! Got a job interview next week with the Military Industrial Complex, as a private sector, for profit, bootstrapping, rugged individualist, contractor. Paid for by your tax dollars of course. Can’t hire more actual Fed employees so gotta go all John Galt with the producers and free markets and sh*t, right teabaggers? Put a “Don’t Tread On Me” sticker on that and give this rugged individualist a big fat raise with a new job, LOOSERS!
Glad to see he is a Keynesian after all. Oh, wait.
USA! USA! USA! W’e're #1!!!
If only we had powerful public unions that wielded massive influence in local and state elections and made it almost impossible to fire anyone or to implement any kind of reform.
And we dumped in billions and billions of more tax dollars with some of the highest educational spending in the world.
We should have excellent and efficient schools.
———————————
Almost 80% of California eighth grade students failed the National Science Test.
OCR | 5-10-2010 | edcoil
About 22 percent of California’s eighth-graders tested on a national science test passed, ranking the Golden State among the worst in the nation, according to figures released Thursday.
Scores from the 2012 National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known as the Nation’s Report Card, show that too few students have the skills that could lead to careers in the field, educators said.
The U.S. is unique in that it attempts to educate everyone. We could sort kids… which is cool until your kid is the one sorted out.
A good point. In places like China the “loosers” are sorted into vocational ed to train for rewarding careers at places like Foxconn. The high performers get to go to prep school, followed by college.
I also googled the article. I found this table in the article:
Top 10 Rank
State % Proficient/ Advanced
1 Massachusetts 44
1 Montana 44
1 North Dakota 44
4 Utah 43
4 Vermont 43
6 Colorado 42
6 Minnesota 42
6 New Hampshire 42
6 South Dakota 42
10 Virginia 40
47 California 22
Nation 31
The top ten are an interesting mix of states with high and low per pupil spending. Having all kids in the same bucket, including the 50% that have below average intelligence, make the results of the top 10 quite remarkable, even if they are only in the 40%.
I dunno, I think some parents would be relieved to have the schools explain the facts of life to their kids.
There ya go, getting all Socialist on us again.
If the Repub/Tea Baggers win the presidency, and both houses of congress, (Note: no caps), we’ll need to change the name of the country to Galtistan.
2Ban, what was your combined SAT score?
LOL
Out of the entire citizen participation in government process, schools are by far the easiest and most accessible to the average person to influence and that influence is school board elections.
Education sucks? It is DIRECTLY your fault.
Just another reason why you can’t fix our kind of stupid.
Yep. It’s called self government. Means that We The People have to do that self governing, not just complain about it. If that means running for school board, well knock yourself out and run.
Or you could join a group united for the betterment of your community. Which also beats the bejeebers out of sitting at a computer, bemoaning the state of the world.
Alpha, Rio, help… I want to be a flaming Democrat. Just tell me Obama is a bad Democrat and I’ll feel better.
Alpha, Rio, help… I want to be a flaming Democrat. Just tell me Obama is a bad Democrat and I’ll feel better.
LOL. I wouldn’t know how. I’m not a Democrat and I have voted Republican for major offices before. I just seem like a leftie nowadays in the context of the Republican party that has gone bat-s%!t crazy and veered extreme hard right the past 30 years.
Heck, Nixon’s health-care plan was far more “socialistic” than Obama’s. Obama’s “socialistic” health-care plan was the Republican plan of 20 years ago but now it is called “socialistic” by the Repubs.
In my life time I have never witnessed either of our major parties become so hateful, crony-capitalistic, uncooperative and dogmatic as the Rebubs have become. Is Obama a “bad Democrat”? IDK, maybe. But he beats the he!! out of the current nutjob alternative party.
Ask yourself this……..other than token little milk bones he’s thrown to the liberal wing, how have his policies differed from McCain?
-War in Iraq/Afghanistan….no perceptible differences
-Bankster/1%er bailouts and “Get out of Jail Free” cards……no differences whatsoever.
-Continued buildup of the Homeland Security police state……still in progress.
-Cuts in Defense to fund giveaways to the FS Army (the perpetual Republican accusation)……. None.
For starters.
“Continued buildup of the Homeland Security police state……still in progress.”
Tell me about it. I was up all night last weekend, drinking with my neighbor, and he tells me why he moved here: he’s a helicopter mechanic being trained to work on unmanned choppers for domestic use.
Great.
Alpha, Rio, help… I want to be a flaming Democrat.
Vote in your own self-interest, and you’ll be fine. Vote yourself out of a job, and you’ll learn the hard way.
What’s a $2 bn trading loss to a too-big-to-fail (aka “systemically risky”) bank? If they rack up enough of these, they will qualify for another taxpayer-funded bailout. And the top managers are guaranteed to earn mega-millions, come rain or shine.
JPMorgan’s Drew Embraced Risk Before ‘Egregious’ Loss
By Max Abelson - May 10, 2012 8:12 PM PT
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s Chief Investment Officer Ina R. Drew, head of the unit responsible for a $2 billion trading loss, built a 30-year career at the largest U.S. bank by embracing risk and avoiding the spotlight.
“With everything she does, she thinks in terms of trading,” said Stephen Murray, head of CCMP Capital Advisors LLC, created from a JPMorgan private-equity unit in 2006. “There are risk-lovers, there are risk-haters, and the best traders will take the risk as long as they get paid for it.”
Drew’s operation, which helps manage the bank’s risk, has been transformed under Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon to make bigger speculative bets with the firm’s own money, according to five former employees, Bloomberg News reported last month. Some bets were so big JPMorgan probably couldn’t unwind them without roiling markets, the former executives said.
The loss disclosed yesterday came after an “egregious” investment-office failure tied to credit derivatives, Dimon said in a conference call. “In hindsight, the new strategy was flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed and poorly monitored.”
Drew, 55, is one of two women who sit on the New York-based firm’s operating committee. Her office oversees about $360 billion, the difference between money from deposits and what the bank extends in loans. Dimon, 56, had pushed the unit to boost profit by buying higher-yielding assets, including structured credit, equities and derivatives, two former employees have said. The shift to riskier bets underscores how blurry the line can be between so-called proprietary trading and what banks say is hedging.
…
Between the Greek, Spanish and other Eurozone debt debacles and JP Morgan’s big loss announcement, which probably portends similar losses among other Megabank, Inc cartel members who routinely play systemically-risky Russian roulette with OPM, I smell some great dips-buying opportunities ahead in the stock market for any Lilliputians who did not spend all their free cash to fund a down payment on an overpriced house.
U.S. Stock Futures Drop as JPMorgan Reveals $2 Billion in Losses
Rita Nazareth
Thursday, May 10, 2012
May 11 (Bloomberg) — U.S. stock futures fell as investors assessed a disclosure by JPMorgan Chase & Co., the biggest U.S. bank by assets, that it had a $2 billion trading loss after positions in credit securities proved riskier than expected.
JPMorgan tumbled 6.7 percent after the close of regular trading as Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said the bank made egregious mistakes and that trading losses were “self inflicted.” Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley lost at least 2.3 percent.
Standard & Poor’s 500 Index futures expiring in June slumped 0.8 percent to 1,347.40 at 12:55 p.m. Tokyo time. Financial companies in the S&P 500 had the biggest gain among 10 groups in 2012, surging 15 percent, or almost double the benchmark measure’s advance. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures dropped 78 points, or 0.6 percent, to 12,756.
“JPMorgan has held to a higher standard among the banks,” Walter Todd, who oversees about $950 million as chief investment officer at Greenwood Capital in Greenwood, South Carolina, said in a telephone interview. “If this happens to them, it raises the question: if they have these issues, who else does?”
…
Buy toxic-asset-laden Wall Street Megabank shares at your own risk, GREATER FOOLS!
FINANCIALS
J.P. Morgan takes $2 billion surprise prop-trading loss
Credit-default-swap strategy by so-called London Whale sours, costing some $2 billion in a loss to be felt in the second quarter and beyond.
• J.P. Morgan drops 7% after hours
• JPM shares hit two-month low (The Tell)
• Dimon on big trading loss | Call transcript
J.P. Morgan’s losses reveal market chaos
Markets are so run amok, they’re humiliating the smartest guys in banking, writes David Weidner.
• JPM is poster child for Volcker Rule (First Take)
• J.P. Morgan didn’t read its own book (The Tell)
• Morgan Stanley bailed on hedge fund: WSJ
• FDIC readies for next big bank failure
• U.S. banks are healing, Bernanke says
• Goldman had one bad day in first quarter
• What would B. of A.’s founder think?
GRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 11, 2012, 12:02 a.m. EDT
How to play nice with the bears of summer
Take advantage of the market’s weakest season
By Wallace Witkowski, MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — With major U.S. stock markets off their highs for the year and renewed worries building about Europe, investors are wondering whether they should put their money into hibernation if the bears maul the market once again this summer.
Many observers have pointed out that this year’s rally has striking parallels to the market’s 2011 advance, which was cruelly struck down over the summer months.
…
My wife’s question upon telling her about JP Morgan’s $2 bn trading loss:
“Are they going to charge their checking account customers more to cover the loss?”
My guess is that they aren’t allowed to pass a $2 bn gambling loss on to retail customers under the Volcker Rule; thoughts?
Is it still legal under the Volcker Rule for systemically important banks to make massive high risk gambles?
BUSINESS
Updated May 10, 2012, 11:00 p.m. ET
J.P. Morgan’s $2 Billion Blunder
Bank Admits Losses on Massive Trading Bet Gone Wrong; Dimon’s Mea Culpa
By DAN FITZPATRICK, GREGORY ZUCKERMAN and LIZ RAPPAPORT
J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon said a so-called synthetic hedge was “poorly executed” and “poorly monitored.”
A massive trading bet boomeranged on J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., leaving the bank with at least $2 billion in trading losses and its chief executive, James Dimon, with a rare black eye following a long run as what some called the “King of Wall Street.”
The losses stemmed from wagers gone wrong in the bank’s Chief Investment Office, which manages risk for the New York company. The Wall Street Journal reported early last month that large positions taken in that office by a trader nicknamed “the London whale” had roiled a sector of the debt markets.
The bank, betting on a continued economic recovery with a complex web of trades tied to the values of corporate bonds, was hit hard when prices moved against it starting last month, causing losses in many of its derivatives positions. The losses occurred while J.P. Morgan tried to scale back that trade.
The bank’s strategy was “flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed and poorly monitored,” Mr. Dimon said Thursday in a hastily arranged conference call with analysts and investors after the stock-market close. He called the mistake “egregious, self-inflicted,” and said: “We will admit it, we will fix it and move on,” he said.
The CEO emphasized that the bank remains profitable despite the trading loss. “While we don’t give overall earnings guidance and we are not confirming current analyst estimates, if you did adjust current analyst estimates for the loss, we still earned approximately $4 billion after-tax this quarter give or take,” he said on the call. The bank earned $5.38 billion in the first quarter.
The trading loss tarnishes the reputation of the bank, which came through the financial crisis better than most peers. It comes at a time when large banks are fighting efforts by regulators to rein in risky trading.
…
Dip buying opportunities lie in wait for the patient ursine.
Poll shows Americans’ pessimism on economy growing
By JENNIFER AGIESTA, Associated Press – 5 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans are growing more pessimistic about the economy and handling it remains President Barack Obama’s weak spot and biggest challenge in his bid for a second term, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
And the gloomier outlook extends across party lines, including a steep decline in the share of Democrats who call the economy “good,” down from 48 percent in February to just 31 percent now.
Almost two-thirds of Americans — 65 percent — disapprove of Obama’s handling of gas prices, up from 58 percent in February. Nearly half, 44 percent, “strongly disapprove.” And just 30 percent said they approve, down from 39 percent in February.
These findings come despite a steady decline in gas prices in recent weeks after a surge earlier in the year. The national average for a gallon of gasoline stood at $3.75, down from a 2012 peak of $3.94 on April 1.
U.S. presidents have limited ability to affect gas prices, which are determined in international markets. However, the party out of power always blames whoever is president at the time for high gas prices, as Republican Mitt Romney is doing now and as Democrat Obama did in 2008 when George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office.
Of all the issues covered by the poll, Obama’s ratings on gas prices were his worst.
The public’s views tilt negative on his handling of the overall economy, 52 percent disapprove while 46 percent approve. In February, Americans were about evenly divided on his handling of the issue.
The economy is the No. 1 issue in the presidential race, thanks to the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression and one of the shallowest-ever recoveries.
While the recession officially ended in summer 2009, unemployment remains stubbornly high, at 8.1 percent in April. Some 12.5 million Americans are out of work.
The increasing skepticism toward the recovery tracks a weakening overall economy as measured by the gross domestic product, and matches economic growth downgrades by many economic forecasters.
Against this background, the weak economy looms as a huge liability for Obama, and any drop in public confidence in his ability to deal with it can threaten his re-election prospects. Although Obama held broad advantages over Romney on handling social issues and protecting the country, when it came to the economy about the same percentage said they trust Romney to handle it as trust Obama.
Mindful of Obama’s vulnerability, Romney focuses frequently on the economy, suggesting that his business background makes him the candidate who can create jobs. Like most Republicans, he blames Obama’s policies for making the economy worse.
Obama acknowledges that times remain hard for many, but says conditions are slowly improving. He suggests the best chance for full recovery is if voters stick with him.
…
65 percent — disapprove of Obama’s handling of gas prices, up from 58 percent in February.
Obama’s “handling of gas prices”?? Are we Americans that ignorant??
Asian Stocks Lower as Traders Eye Greece, China
By ALEX KENNEDY Associated Press
SINGAPORE May 11, 2012 (AP)
Asian stock markets were lower Friday as traders eyed political upheaval in Greece and signs of slowing economic growth in China.
Japan’s Nikkei 225 index fell 0.4 percent to 8,972.24 and South Korea’s Kospi lost 1.3 percent at 1,919.20. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng fell 1.2 percent to 19,989.54.
Asian stocks jumped in the first two months of the year but have since traded slightly lower amid investor concern that economies in the U.S. and China may grow less than previously expected.
Greek politicians have so far failed to form a government after Sunday’s elections undermined support for the ruling coalition. Greece is buckling under the weight of a deep recession and government austerity measures designed to control surging debt levels.
Meanwhile, China said Friday that its inflation rate fell to 3.4 percent in April from 3.6 percent the previous month, giving the government more room for possible stimulus measures. On Thursday, China said its trade surplus widened in April as imports barely budged, raising concern that the world’s second-biggest economy continues to slow.
China grew by 8.1 percent in the first quarter, down from the previous quarter’s 8.9 percent.
“Now that you have the European uncertainty coming back in a bigger way, I think people are going to hold back a bit longer,” said Lorraine Tan, director of equities research at credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s. “The key will be for China to grow at least 8 percent this year to help fuel global growth and demand.”
…
Proposed weekend topics:
1) Does the JP Morgan loss portend widespread Wall Street loss announcements ahead?
2) Does a great opportunity to buy the dip lie right around the corner?
True, if slightly embarrassing, confession:
I love to watch pigmen squirm when they bleed red ink, especially when the political support for further too-big-to-fail bailouts is severely in question.
I’m holding out hope that Ben Bernanke will soon be replaced with an anti-bailout Federal Reserve Chair, and Timothy Geithner will be similarly replaced with an anti-bailout Treasury Secretary. Even better would be a move to restore the power of the Sherman Antitrust Act to break up systemically risky institutions that to this day menace the American taxpayer with the prospect of future bailouts.
Our banking system would be far stronger if the banksters had to stand on their own two feet, rather than rely on handouts.
I’m holding out hope that Ben Bernanke will soon be replaced with an anti-bailout Federal Reserve Chair, and Timothy Geithner will be similarly replaced with an anti-bailout Treasury Secretary.
Optimist.
I can’t even conceive of that happening, much less hold out hope for it.
It’s been a rough period to own gold, whether of the black or the yellow variety.
May 11, 2012, 12:02 a.m. EDT
Oil, gold take hits for their own good
Bull markets in oil, gold remain largely intact, for now
By Myra P. Saefong, MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Most commodities have suffered hefty declines so far this month, but the move may offer consumers a stronger reprieve from high gasoline prices and a cheaper entry point for investors as the bull markets in gold and oil remain largely intact.
As of Thursday month to date, futures prices for gold (GCM2 -0.78%) have fallen over 4% and oil (CLM2 -1.11%) lost more than 7%,…