What Would We Do Without These Guys?
Readers suggested a topic on the latest political showdown. “How will the sequester affect your local housing market if it happens? In particular, will it have an effect on real estate markets in areas with heavy concentrations of federal workers, like San Diego and Washington, DC?”
One asked, “What government programs would you rather get rid of completely rather than going through the sequester? And I don’t mean a moronic list where you just say get rid of every acronym you can think of. So, I mean specify the programs, or military equipment being bid or the NASA projects or the loan guarantee or the tax subsidy or whatever.”
“What do you want to get rid of. Bonus points if you can find out how much money it would actually save. Triple points if you can find out how much money it would save and how many people would lose their job because of it. Quadruple if you can explain the eventual outcome, like how much house prices would fall (at least in wealthy areas) if the mortgage interest deduction went away, or how much extra time it would take to track down sources of salmonella if the FDA lost certain programs.”
One had this, “Too many departments. There must be hundreds what do they all do? How they would howl if you cut one more than the other?”
“What would we do without these guys?? Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Government National Mortgage Association: without these guys we would all be living in caves. Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, National Commission: the Department nobody pays attention to.”
“Federal Housing Finance Agency: provides supervision, regulation, and housing mission oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. really …”
And another said, “The problem with getting rid of Departments and agencies outright is that many of those employed therein are suddenly dumped into a jobless economy, further straining the whole system as the survivors regroup and recoup. Moreover, the expertise and social infrastructure they’ve amassed and developed is lost along with them. In my experience, federal employees are a lot more qualified and accountable than state (or certainly municipal) employees.”
“A more rational approach would be to implement 1% across-the-board cuts in EVERYTHING paid for by US government check this year. Everything. Tax returns, DoD contracts and foreign aid allotments, Medicare reimbursements and SSI payouts, federal salaries, state subsidies, corporate kickbacks and contracts, agency budgets, military hardware, salaries, and benefits, grants and loans, bond payouts. Everything.”
“Then next year, cut 1% from THAT amount etc., until we’ve reached the desired level of austerity. That way the pain is distributed equitably and gradually, organized blowback in minimized as everyone is involved on some level, and no one is disproportionately ‘punished’. A 1% reduction for everyone is far less disruptive than a 10% (or 20%) cutback in selected established systems, while still allowing for streamlining and managerial evolution as they adapt.”
“Secondly, the Tobin Transaction Tax (.001%/share traded on any market or bourse) should be instituted forthwith. Overnight end to high frequency trade manipulations by ’sanctioned’ players, with the money collected going directly to UN-monitored relief efforts. That should help rein in the FED and keep the IMF accountable to the markets, not the bankers who feed from them.”
A reply, “The problem with 1% cuts for everything, is that some stuff should be cut 100% (corn and soy bean subsidies for a start) and some stuff should be funded more (effectiveness research for medical procedures and drugs). Congress often doesn’t allow the departments to make those decisions. That is their prerogative, but then they also refuse to make the decisions as to what should be 100% cut themselves.”
Entitlement spending is 58% of the Federal Budget
Defense spending is 19% of Federal Budget
NASA spending is 0.5% of the Federal Budget
The Federal Government borrows 46 cents of every dollar it spends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/7/government-borrows-46-cents-every-dollar-it-spends/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget
Social Security is not an entitlement.
Reagan had no problem spending the overages in tax collection during his second term.
‘no problem spending the overages’
Well, talking about politicians and spending problems is like the Tom Waits song; “I’ve only got a drinking problem when I can’t get a drink”. And saying “what economists call the labeling problem” (below) is like saying Charles Ponzi had a cash flow problem. It kinda misses the point.
It’s an entitlement if the recipient is collecting more than they paid in (indexed for inflation) as most recipients are. Think it changes in about ten years when people will not get what they paid in.
What will be the newfangled politically correct description once people start getting out less than they paid in?
I suggest encumberment.
A tax?
Funny how social security was SOLD to the American people as an “insurance” policy where only the rich would pay about 2%.
Now EVERYONE pays 15% and you will NEVER get back what you put into it (adjusted for inflation).
Too bad people could not put their own social security money into their own accounts to invest as they saw fit. Even pass down to their children.
But that would be racist and starve kids. Plus it would reduce government power.
And if you are a democrat - that is the LAST thing you want.
‘Funny how social security was SOLD to the American people as an “insurance” policy where only the rich would pay about 2%.’
Though my Republican grandfather correctly saw in the newly enacted Old Age, Survivor’s and Disability Insurance Act of 1935 the death of incentives for U.S. households to save, it was reasonable at the time of enactment to characterize OASDI as “insurance” against “old age, survivorship, and disability,” as age 65 was the life expectancy and surviving beyond it was an insurable event.
It seems reasonable to assume that nobody could have forseen the advances in medicine which would push the U.S. life expectancy past age 70 and turn Social Security into a windfall for the early entrants and the financial equivalent of a sinkhole for the later ones.
Sorry to bore you with facts and such. Now back to those Republican talking points you endlessly dish up here!
“as age 65 was the life expectancy and surviving beyond it was an insurable event”
What was the life expectancy of people who survived childhood and actually entered the workforce?
Hint: It was later than 65. The 65 number incorporates a LOT of childhood mortality.
People who earn near at or above the high end of the SS earnings limit may not get their insurance premiums back, but those who earned well below that for their working lives will. The formula provides a higher % replacement for income at lower levels, than at higher ones. Because it is meant to prevent the elderly from becoming utterly destitute. And provide a safety net for those who become disabled. And force those who make more but are too stupid to save to have some sort of safe annuity at the other end of their lives. And those of us who don’t become disabled and aren’t lucky duckies all our lives and would be able to save with perfect discipline if we could have the SS in a private account, well, we subsidize the others because a world where most of the old people and disabled people are completely dependent on their kids (if they have any and the kids are employed) or charities (rich people give most of their money to universities and arts organizations that can put their names on buildings) or other government programs (like elderly subsidized housing, SNAP and Medicaid) would be nasty.
a world where most of the old people and disabled people are completely dependent on their kids (if they have any and the kids are employed) or charities (rich people give most of their money to universities and arts organizations that can put their names on buildings) or other government programs (like elderly subsidized housing, SNAP and Medicaid) would be nasty.
Not only nasty but coming to a world near you, soon.
“…would be nasty.”
Thomas Hobbes suggested, life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”
a world where most of the old people and disabled people are completely dependent on their kids (if they have any and the kids are employed)
Odd we would get there just at the point that people have very few kids.
I’ve said this on here many times. The newest generations are not having children. When I point this out (and cite the census figures) people give me anecdotes about how they are their 40-something friends have several teenage kids. They’re missing the boat.
And, even worse, the people who are having children are not the people who can be reasonably expected to raise great kids.
They’re missing the boat.
More likely denying the existence of the boat. Sad.
Is insurance considered an “entitlement” if I have an insurance claim that is greater than the total premiums that I paid?
Would Congress be subject to the sequester, if it passed?
I know the Federal Reserve and the Postal Service are exempt, as are benefits paid by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs and military pay for uniformed personnel.
Not sure about the Social Security Administration, Fannie Mae, Sallie Mae, Freddie Mac, Farmer Mac, or the FHFA?
Like the “fiscal cliff’, this episode seems contrived, because something doesn’t add up. So they got to cut 80 something billion, right? But we are told the central bank buys that much in bonds every month, and can arbitrarily do so as long as it wants. So why doesn’t the Federal Reserve just give the 80 bil to the government. Not loan it, just give it to them.
The answer to that may involve just what this “money” is. Who makes it, under what rules? After all, we see Bernanke sit in front of congress, looking like a school boy in the principal’s office. Surely, he works for the government, right? Heck, why don’t we just tell him “pony up dude” and pay the whole debt off?
Shaddap, you might say, we have a system and it works the way we learned in school. OK, so what about this:
‘Based on the CBO’s data, I calculate a fiscal gap of $202 trillion, which is more than 15 times the official debt. This gargantuan discrepancy between our “official” debt and our actual net indebtedness isn’t surprising. It reflects what economists call the labeling problem. Congress has been very careful over the years to label most of its liabilities “unofficial” to keep them off the books and far in the future.’
Or look at this PDF:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf
80 billion isn’t much compared to 200 trillion. So what’s up here? If this system is what we are told, we’ve got bigger problems than what to cut in March 2013.
We hear politicians and pundits say this is the wealthiest country in the world. Is that true? Are there limits to what can be created, borrowed and spent? Here’s one thing I believe; we’ve got a bond bubble, a stock bubble, a housing bubble and more debt than has ever been amassed in history. And the US isn’t alone in that.
“So why doesn’t the Federal Reserve just give the 80 bil to the government. Not loan it, just give it to them.”
That was my thought, exactly. Have the Fed print the money and hand it to the Treasury. Problem solved!
Why pay or collect ANY taxes at all?
Have the Feds just “give it” to the Treasury.
And where do you think this will end? It is not as if it has not been tried before ALL through history…
“Why pay or collect ANY taxes at all?”
Isn’t this exactly the Republican blueprint for financing the government since the days when Ronald Reagan cut taxes and increased deficits?
‘Have the Feds just “give it” to the Treasury.’
I realize subtlety is not your strong suit, especially after a night of drinking, but the word Fed has no ’s’ at the end of it.
No - it is called living within one’s means. Taxes should equal about what is spent.
Limited government is smaller and more affordable. It also demands less power and takes less freedoms from the population but that is a talk for another day.
But if we had smaller government then the democrats could not bribe their core voters with more and more government free cheese.
And really - that is what this is all about.
“And really - that is what this is all about.”
Oh really? I thought it was about weakening the already weak and corrupt federal governmental limits on Wall Street Megabanks’ ability to financially rape and pillage Main Street Americans into the poor house.
Thanks for straightening me out there.
Pondering weakening or strengthening a corrupt system seems to be missing the point.
“So why doesn’t the Federal Reserve just give the fiat currency amount of 80 bil to the government. Not loan it, just give it to them.”
…there, fixed if for ya!
In turn, that fake $80 billion in “wealth” will be used by the government to pay interest on debt, pay salaries, and all, and it’s all great as long as every member of the chain of the exchange of fake money thinks it’s worth more than the equivalent size of a strip of toilet paper. It costs the exact same amount of money to create a $100 bill as it does to create a $1 bill.
Juxtaposed to this is the 5,000 year history of gold. What fiat currency lasted more than 2,000 years? 1,000 years? 800 years? Can anyone name one?
The Federal Reserve, like Social Security, is a game of musical chairs. Except that in musical chairs, usually there is one additional person compared to the amount of chairs at the beginning. In real life, the bottom of the food chain in the distribution of fiat money and social security amount to a lot of people.
I’m in this game of musical chairs myself, with my T-bills and cash. But I have to do it. I don’t consider any fiat money an asset. It’s just a ticket with an unspecified number of chairs left over while the music plays. Meanwhile gold has its price swings while governments manipulate its price.
But since most nations are busily devaluing their currencies, it’s a warm fuzzy feeling to buy $2,000 or so worth of metals every month. Looking forward to the first week of March for my next trip to my coin dealer.
‘Congress has been very careful over the years to label most of its liabilities “unofficial” to keep them off the books and far in the future.’
How did that work out for Enron when they tried it? Was it the offshoring part that doomed the scheme?
“…we’ve got a bond bubble, a stock bubble, a housing bubble and more debt than has ever been amassed in history. And the US isn’t alone in that.”
Doesn’t this point to the need for the G-20 countries to collectively, cooperatively devalue their currencies in an orderly manner, in order to defuse the debt bomb that threatens to blow the developed world economies into smithereens?
Consider yourselves forewarned.
But you cannot have it both ways, a severe drop in precious metals prices and multinational devaluation of fiat money.
I don’t see why not, at least conceptually speaking. Say, for instance, that the price of gold was bid up by a factor of more than five times its price as of just over a decade ago, due to widespread fears that a huge increase in fiscal deficits will lead to an inflationary printing binge by central banks, with the fears exacerbated by the recent extraordinary balance sheet expansion by the Fed. Given all that air in the gold price, what would prevent the major central banks from coordinating policy to gradually allow air out of the gold bubble, buying a bit more every time there is a major selloff in order to avoid letting the bubble deflate too quickly, while taking other actions to gradually inflate the value of all the major currencies in synchronized fashion. I see no contradiction in a gradually deflating gold bubble coupled with a controlled, coordinated, collective devaluation of the major fiat currencies. In particular, the gold devaluation could be executed through central bank adjustment of their portfolios of gold and other assets, with policy bias towards bidding up the prices of other commodities relative to gold. I’m not sure about the legality of this scheme, but it certainly seems mathematically feasible.
I realize this is easier said than done, as cartel discipline is notoriously challenging to enforce.
“…we’ve got a bond bubble, a stock bubble, a housing bubble and more debt than has ever been amassed in history. And the US isn’t alone in that.”
Welcome to Ponzi World.
With the first $80 Billion, probably no big deal.
With the frist $500 Billion, probably no big deal.
But, if it continues, eventually inflation expectations arrive…and when inflationary expectations come to pass…bang. Higher interest rates, high inflation, etc.
Our governments - local, state and federal - along with al the quasi-governmental organizations that they have spawned are bleeding us dry. They don’t serve the broader interests of the general public but rather special interests that bought and paid their elections. They are highly corrupt. They are completely inept. I vote to burn the house down. And yes, there are many that share this sentiment.
1. There are not enough of you.
2. The 47% have spoken.
3. Shut up, go to work and pay your fair share.
4. You didn’t build that.
5. Forward.
Save your Republican talking points for the 2016 presidential election.
+1
Quoting obama is a 2016 presidential election talking point?
Can Hillary blame eight years of obama for the economic mess in 2016?
If your plan is to jump start an effort to block Hillary’s election prospects, I retract my suggestion.
Why Do People Hate Hillary Clinton?
Although I rarely discuss politics, now is as good a time as any since the Iowa caucus is on January 3, 2008 (that’s tomorrow!). While many Americans have opinions about the presidential candidates, no one elicits such strong feelings as Democratic candidate and former First Lady Hillary Clinton. There seem to be a lot of folks out there who truly and passionately hate Hillary Clinton. My question is why?
…
This seems like a fair sentiment, but if Bill Clinton is responsible, even partially, for the country’s partisan division, why is he hated far less than this wife? So I ask these questions to anyone out there: Why do people hate Hillary Clinton or why do you hate Hillary Clinton?
…
If your party could change the subject from God, guns and gays, you might actually attract a few swing voters in the 2016 election.
Good luck!
I’m pretty sure that about 50% of the U.S. electorate would vote for Hilary, just to give a female presidential contender for the White House a chance, and another 50% of the electorate would vote for almost anyone else, by virtue of not being female.
P.S. Caution: I forgot to include hyperbole tags!
If Liberals would stop trying to take away our guns, I’d be glad to focus on something swing voters prefer to debate.
I keep trying to explain that to them. There are lots of things we could work on together if we could trust them to leave guns alone. But they can’t seem to.
I’d guess if the Republicans would just drop God and gay issues from their platform, while holding out for keeping their guns, they could get a lot of traction.
Good point. But aren’t the Libertarians pretty good in all those areas (not that they don’t have other issues)? Yet they get almost no traction.
Libertarians are all for their interpretation of the bible controlling the laws of the country? That is what God in the context of the republican platform on God, guns and gays means:
God - evangelical Christian interpretation of the bible being important (if not controlling) in creation of and interpretation of secular laws and policies
guns - no restrictions at all, even closing the background check loophole that 74% of NRA members support
gays - see God, above
How are libertarians “good” on the God and gays part of the current republican platform?
“How are libertarians “good” on the God and gays part of the current republican platform?”
If I’m clear on your question, my answer is that the traditional libertarian wants Jesus and Allah 100% out of policy making, and sexual orientation is irrelevant. Any law passed such as Prop. 8 in Ca would completely offensive to a true libertarian. If you guys are talking about the tea party “libertarians”, the whole discussion is moot. Whatever the opposite of libertarianism is, that’s them, except for the bit about too many regulations strangling businesses.
right. the govt does not pay workers to build/fix roads, judges and law enforcement imposes laws on those property rights to make sure nobdy garbs your house or car, or pay air traffic controllers so you can safely fly, etc. they just collect our taxes and give them to the special interest.
We should look forward to 10% less street repair, 10% less air traffic control, 10% less federal law enforcement action, 10% less weather forecasts, 10% less agricultural inspection, 10% less open time at national parks, etc etc etc…
With sequestration the midnight shift will be cut at the locaville airport. Not a huge loss as there are no commercial flights after midnight. They start back up around 6 am so I hope that means a 25% cut instead of 33%. Apparently traffic control can be handled remotely by ATL staff. Who knew?
I forgot about the TSA guys. Time to start taking those guidelines to arrive at the airport at least two hours before flight time more seriously.
Or better yet, just don’t fly anywhere.
Or better yet, just don’t fly anywhere.
I suspect a simple 2-day boycott by airline passengers would solve any scheduled TSA cutbacks. If that didn’t work, the airlines would simply go out of business, not that they aren’t close to shutting down as they are now.
“A more rational approach would be to implement 1% across-the-board cuts in EVERYTHING paid for by US government check this year.”
I think we may have a future political leader posting here!
But skip the the Tobin Transaction Tax (.001%/share traded on any market or bourse)
I am sorry.
That would starve children and put grandma in the street.
It would also be racist. And would harm women, children and minorities disproportionally.
And the entire government would shut down and lines at the airport would be six hours long.
So are you agreeing with the plan to evenly allocate across-the-board cuts to all federal agencies, without regard to whether they provide any useful services? If you start with the premise that anything any federal government agency does is inherently useless, that approach might make good sense.
Let me repeat myself.
ANY cut to ANY government program:
Would starve children and put grandma in the street.
Would also be racist. And would harm women, children and minorities disproportionally.
And the entire government would shut down and lines at the airport would be six hours long.
Gosh - being a progressive is pretty easy…
Now pay your fair share.
I guess hoping for a rational answer from a died-in-the-wool Republican party propaganda tool was asking for a bit much.
the worse part is that they will start camping out in front of your house. and no police will come to shoo them away. you are on your own. you can buy a gun and start shooting them, just make sure to shoot those with guns first.
“A more rational approach would be to implement 1% across-the-board cuts in EVERYTHING paid for by US government check this year. Everything. Tax returns.“
Tax returns? So punish those who overpaid their taxes and not those who underpaid? And the ones that overpaid the most get punished the most. This sounds like a tax increase.
Stop trying to dilute Republican talking points with an intrusion of rational discussion.
As I got my haircut this morning, I asked my Filipino hair dresser whether she knew anything about the sequester.
She had no idea. Which made me wonder for what percentage of the population the sequester would hit like a lightening bolt out of the blue if it happened.
POLITICS
February 22, 2013, 8:13 p.m. ET
Lengthy Impasse Looms On Cuts
Budget Standoff Presents Political Risks on Both Sides
By PETER NICHOLAS and DAMIAN PALETTA
Lawmakers in both parties anticipate that a looming set of spending cuts will take effect next week and won’t be quickly reversed, likely leading to protracted political uncertainty that presents risks both to Congress and President Barack Obama.
It had been thought that the cuts, some $85 billion through the rest of the fiscal year, could be averted or quickly replaced with a longer-term deficit-reduction plan. Those expectations have now dissipated. No significant negotiations are known to be under way between the two parties, which are at an impasse over Mr. Obama’s demand that any plan to replace the cuts include more tax revenue.
The president and congressional Democrats are looking beyond Friday, when the across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration, are due to take effect. Their strategy is to persuade the public that the cuts would harm defense, education and other programs, make air travel difficult and cost jobs, among other effects. They hope public pressure would force Republicans to reverse course and agree to new tax revenue.
Amplifying the president’s message, a new nonprofit that grew out of his 2012 campaign, Organizing for Action, is staging events next week in various communities that would be hit by the sequester.
Some Democrats are uneasy with the prospect of a drawn-out impasse. “I know that there is some common wisdom out there that people are going to have to see the effects for a while before they can deal” on a replacement for the budget cuts, said Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.), whose state has large numbers of federal workers and defense companies. “I just don’t believe in that kind of governing.”
The Democrats’ strategy carries risks for the party. It’s unclear how the public will react to the budget cuts, and Democrats could find that people aren’t as inconvenienced as they predicted. That could undercut their position in negotiations with the GOP and, potentially, build an appetite for additional cuts to spending that Democrats will oppose.
But a protracted fight over the spending cuts also could take a toll on Republicans. Polling shows Mr. Obama has a far higher approval rating than Congress and that people generally favor his position in the dispute. In the battle for public opinion, the White House will argue that Republicans are the reason people may face longer lines at airport and job furloughs. If that impression takes hold, that could cause trouble for Republicans in the 2014 midterm elections.
Republicans believe they can stay united by accusing Mr. Obama of campaigning rather than negotiating and reminding people that they have backed legislation to replace the cuts to defense programs with nondefense cuts. They say they won’t bend to Mr. Obama’s demand for new tax revenue and that the public supports their goal of reducing the deficit.
“I don’t think anyone on our side is squirming,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio). “We feel like we’re on very strong ground.”
…
Just the opposite. They can’t let the cuts actually go into or stay in effect very long because if they do people might realize you can make such cuts and the world wil not end.
Did you read the passage from the article I posted? Because if you did, then your comment suggests the Democrats are going to cave soon, as the Republican position is that the cuts won’t matter much.
It’s not republican or democrat. It’s both sides. And all this talk of pain from the cuts is nonsense. No one will notice or care other than those whose ox is gored personally thru furloughs or whatever.
The sky is far from falling, no iPhone service will be interrupted.
I appreciate everything you post. You are putting forth a Yeoman’s effort day in and day out. Thanks, seriously.
I’m passionately fascinated by political economics, even though I find most actions politicians take reprehensible and destructive. I suppose the most fascinating aspect is their tendency to favor policies which are clearly going to reap economic disaster, then pretend to be surprised when said disaster occurs: “Nobody could have seen it coming!”
Which reminds me — we had some LDS church missionaries over for dinner tonight, and I forgot to mention a quote I meant to share with them which I came across earlier today:
:-).
The big sequester gamble: How badly will the cuts hurt?
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane, Saturday, February 23, 5:10 PM
With the ax set to fall on federal spending in five days, the question in Washington is not whether the sequester will hit, but how much it will hurt.
Over the past week, President Obama has painted a picture of impending disaster, warning of travel delays, laid-off firefighters and pre-schoolers tossed out of Head Start. Conservatives accuse Obama of exaggerating the impact, and some White House allies worry the slow-moving sequester may fail to live up to the hype.
“The good news is, the world doesn’t end March 2. The bad news is, the world doesn’t end March 2,” said Emily Holubowich, a Washington health-care lobbyist who leads a coalition of 3,000 non-profit groups fighting the cuts. “The worst-case scenario for us is the sequester hits and nothing bad really happens. And Republicans say: See, that wasn’t so bad.”
…
“With the ax set to fall on federal spending in five days, the question in Washington is not whether the sequester will hit, but how much it will hurt.”
Hopefully they sharpen that meat axe. . .so it won’t hurt so much.
Charlie Brown, come kick this football again.
Did the hairdresser tell you it was a great time to buy, and that she could hook you up with a great realtor who had some hidden pre-market gems?
She did mention that the housing market was going up again. I asked her whether she knew the reason. Her eyes became wide with surprise when I explained that the federal government* was behind it.
* I didn’t get into the discussion with her about whether or not the Fed is part of the federal government, a point on which I remain confused to this day. For instance, I mentioned that the Fed is exempt from the potential impact of the sequester, which suggests they are not a part of the federal government.
i am beginning to think that congress will hold out as long as they can until the seed of a downturn starts. then make it look like they cave in. next election cycle you will be hearing the same old argument of bad economic management. too bad so sad for everyone else.
“…same old argument of bad economic management.”
Are you suggesting the Republicans in Congress believe American voters are stupid enough to fall for a repeat of their previous plan to crash the economy and blame Obama?
I think the conventional wisdom is that if the economy tanks the incumbent president gets most of the blame. Maybe he knows it is already tanking again and allowing the sequester will at least allow for more blame shifting arguments.
The truth is, despite all the articles being written, no one writing those articles really knows what either side is really thinking or going to do in the end. It’s a lot of guesswork from speculating pundits, most with awful predictive track records, and most without even the guts to make definitive predictions.
We are bouncing back and forth between the same positions over and over, until comes the Black Swan, to reshuffle the deck.
I remember the last time that Bush came to Tennessee for a photo op. (also near Townsend)
Bright sunny day, hardly a cloud in the sky. Around noon it clouded up with the most intense thunderstorm - thunder, lightning and horizontal rain. I understand Bush didn’t even get off the plane. An hour later the sun came out for a beautiful afternoon.
I guess mother nature wasn’t going to get fooled by George Bush again.
I just read somewhere that HUD has annual operating costs of $50 bn. Which got me to thinking, could the entirety of required sequester cuts and more be satisfied merely by shutting down HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA?
“I just read somewhere that HUD has annual operating costs of $50 bn. Which got me to thinking, could the entirety of required sequester cuts and more be satisfied merely by shutting down HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA?”
+1 Great idea!
Sequestor.
Lived in a military town in California in the mid-80s to mid-90s. Bought house for $96k and change in 1990. Sold in 1996 for under $80k after I added a $2,000 landscape and got the carpet cleaned (RE agent told me the buyer was happy and said it looked like new).
At the peak it was zillowed at $240,000 in, oh, say 2006.
Sequestor season though. Sold for $140,000 recently.
I think it’s knife catching season in towns where the federal government is the main employer. With potential furloughs that translates to lower incomes and less ability to make house payments.
I think that house price will fall to at least $120,000 by 2015. That would be a 50% gain over 20 years. About a 2% ARR in its price. However salaries in that tiny town are low, even though it’s Taxifornia. When I sold the house my salary was $52k. With compensation, my gross in the last 12 months was $176,000.
Had I stayed, I certainly would be earning well below $100k and on the road to furlough. But…I’d be able to take every Friday off, essentially, and do…nothing!
Crash, crater, whatever…
Snowbird season is out of control here in Florida. I do not recall a busier season.
Swan song for the Boomers and their war chest?
(no generational sniping, I’m just sayin’…)
This past week’s chit award goes to:
“Ex-San Diego Mayor Maureen O’Connor’s gambling addiction”
“Ex San Diego mayor Maureen O’Connor lost $1 billion through gambling, according to a Feb. 14 Inquisitor report. Some of the money the Democratic mayor gambled with belonged to a charity named the R.P. Foundation.”
Why didn’t she start a college scholarship? A health clinic? But no, she has to fritter it away selfishly; that’s [why] she’s poor. Character. “Poor is not about the lack of money.” -rms
It’s sad, really.
Though the Capital Steps managed to find a silver lining of humor in the story during their recent Poway appearance.
Our governments - local, state and federal - along with al the quasi-governmental organizations that they have spawned are bleeding us dry. They don’t serve the broader interests of the general public but rather special interests that bought and paid their elections. They are highly corrupt. They are completely inept. I vote to burn the house down. And yes, there are many that share this sentiment.
I reposted these words of truth written by Jim O as the partisan troll completely fawked up the thread.
~~~~~~~~
So yes Jim….. there are a whole lot of people that want to see these wallet lifting power structures crushed. The sentiment is broad and wide.
“…the partisan troll…”
Give our nanners a break. OCD is a serious condition, and I’m sure he does his best to cope with it.
I agree that we could do with less spawning and bleeding, less corruption and less ineptitude. That stuff is all very expensive.
By Jake Miller / CBS News/ February 24, 2013, 10:42 AM
Who’s responsible for the sequester?
Everybody bought in, but nobody wants to claim ownership.
That’s the short story on who’s to blame for the so-called “sequester,” which will cut $120 billion dollars from the federal budget on March 1 unless Congress passes a replacement that the president is willing to sign.
The White House has blamed Congress for the whole gambit, calling the sequester “bad policy” - a trigger designed to force a dysfunctional legislature to act on a more reasonable replacement. They also point out that a majority of members of both parties voted for the spending cuts.
Congressional Republicans, for their part, have said that the White House originally proposed the sequester - House Speaker John Boehner has dubbed it the “Obamaquester.” They point to reporting from the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, who has described how then-White House budget director Jack Lew and legislative liaison Rob Nabors hatched the idea of a trigger - a delayed-onset package that would ostensibly force Congress to reach an agreement on the budget - during the height of dramatic negotiations on raising the federal debt ceiling during the summer of 2011.
President Obama, Woodward reported, signed off on the proposal, and the result of the debt ceiling negotiations - the 2011 Budget Control Act - created a congressional “Super Committee” to reach an agreement on deficit reduction and included the spending cuts in the sequester as a fallback if the committee failed.
The committee failed; the sequester looms.
…
White House estimate spells out tough road for Washington region economy
WHAT THE SEQUESTER WOULD MEAN: The White House has released state-by-state reports on some of the programs and services that would be impacted under the March 1 sequestration cuts.
By Donna St. George, Sunday, February 24, 5:55 PM
In the Washington region, hub of the federal government, the upcoming automatic spending cuts the Obama administration detailed Sunday would strike a tough blow, with nearly 150,000 civilian Defense Department employees facing furloughs and an estimated average loss of $7,500 in take-home pay.
Under sequestration, which is days away if a deal cannot be reached, funding for elementary and secondary education across the region would be slashed by $29 million, jeopardizing nearly 400 teachers’ and aides’ positions. Nearly 6,000 fewer children would be vaccinated for such diseases as measles, mumps and whooping cough. More than 31,000 fewer tests for HIV would be provided, and funds for local meals for seniors would be cut by nearly $2.3 million.
Scientific projects would be delayed at the National Institutes of Health, where research awards would be scaled back and several thousand people could lose their jobs. Across Maryland, Virginia and the District, job- search assistance would be cut, potentially leaving more than 33,000 people without such help.
The White House analysis came as part of a final campaign by the Obama administration to spotlight the fallout of the across-the-board spending cuts, set to start Friday. The administration hopes that a clear picture of the impact on popular programs — and on jobs in every state — will pressure congressional Republicans to forge a deal to stop the sequestration.
The cuts in federal spending would affect the Washington economy in multiple ways, including potential job growth, said economist Anirban Basu of Sage Policy Group in Baltimore.
“If this is a big deal nationally, it’s a bigger deal in the Washington metropolitan area,” Basu said, noting that Virginia, Maryland and the District are “among the most reliant communities in the nation on federal spending.”
There was little sign Sunday that the standoff would end, and many Democrats and Republicans were looking toward late March, when another deadline comes.
…
I am not sure it will affect my market here in Utah that much at all. People here are different, almost in their own little bubble. Even when the market was horrible folks were still buying. Mainly because a home and family is the staple of most Utahn’s.
Mainly because a home and family is the staple of most Utahn’s.
Realtor be gone.