Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Yeppers! Is simply amazing ey~~
O Bomb-A-Nation.....
Blessings~~
Bankruptcy Mortgage Cramdowns Would Hurt Housing Market(IMPORTANT..READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
by David C. John
WebMemo #2310
Bad policy is not improved by limiting it to certain situations. The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act (H.R. 1106) would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the principal owed on a mortgage, a practice often referred to as a "cramdown." Judges would also be able to reduce interest rates or lengthen the term of the mortgage. This is a huge policy mistake that will help only a few people while raising the cost of borrowing for thousands of moderate-income and first-time homebuyers.
Although supporters claim that this is a limited provision that applies only to existing mortgages, the cramdown language can easily be amended to make it permanent at a later date—which would then be priced into future mortgages. In addition, the House bill even lacks many of the targeted limitations designed to make sure that bankruptcy is a last resort—limitations that were included in President Obama's poorly considered housing plan.[1] It even weakens language passed earlier by the House Judiciary Committee that was designed to keep those who filed fraudulent mortgage applications from taking advantage of cramdowns.
Problems with Cramdowns
Allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages would:
* Raise mortgage costs. Cramdowns would add additional risk that mortgages will not be repaid as the contract requires. Lenders must charge for that added risk, and experts estimate that the additional costs would raise mortgage rates by as much as two full percentage points or substantially increase required down payments.
These added costs would fall hardest on moderate-income and first-time homebuyers, who have a higher risk of defaulting on a mortgage. This will price many families out of the housing market.
* Further undermine the value of mortgage-backed securities. Banks and other investors are already facing heavy losses because mortgage-backed securities have lost much of their value because of uncertainties about whether the mortgages will be paid. The language in H.R. 1106 increases this uncertainty. Investors will be at risk of both foreclosure and cramdowns that reduce the earnings of these securities. Many cramdown mortgages will later go into foreclosure. Since investors have no idea what this new provision will do to the value of their securities, prices will drop further.
* Fail to help many homeowners. Only one-third of all Chapter 13 filers complete the process successfully and get the fresh start that bankruptcy promises. The other two-thirds "pay court fees, pay attorney's fees, pay fees to the bankruptcy trustee, invest time and money to restructure their financial affairs, and then wind up with nothing more than temporary relief. It is therefore not surprising that a substantial number of Chapter 13 filers—nearly one-third—go on to file for bankruptcy again."[2]
Other Provisions in H.R. 1102
The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act also contains a mixture of other housing and financial provisions, including a vain attempt to "fix" the failed Hope for Homeowners program that Congress passed last summer. These include:
* Liability waivers for mortgage servicers that modify mortgages. Mortgage servicers receive payments from mortgages and forward them (after fees) to the owners of the mortgages. As the main contact with homeowners, mortgage servicers should be able to refinance or alter mortgages in order to ensure that the owners get the best possible return, but many fear that unhappy mortgage owners would sue them. The legislation provides these servicers with a safe harbor so long as they act within certain specified boundaries. This is a needed change.
* Making $250,000 FDIC and NCUA deposit insurance levels permanent. Last fall, Congress increased deposit insurance coverage by FDIC and NCUA to $250,000 until December 2009. This bill makes that change permanent and also increases the agencies' borrowing authority to cover their losses. Borrowing authority is used only if the deposit insurance fund runs out.
* Trying to fix the Hope for Homeowners program. Last summer, Congress created Hope for Homeowners, an FHA-based program that it originally claimed would help up to 2 million homeowners. To date, according to the FHA, it has actually helped about 500. The legislation makes a number of changes that will raise the cost of it by $2.3 billion but is unlikely to otherwise improve it. This would throw good money after bad.
* Keeping predatory lenders from taking advantage of FHA programs. Section 203 of H.R. 1106 makes it easier for HUD and the FHA to prevent predatory lenders from underwriting FHA-guaranteed home loans. This is a needed reform.
Making the Problem Worse
Mortgage cramdowns would further destabilize an already damaged housing market while increasing mortgage costs for future borrowers. This is the essence of bad policy at the wrong time, and it should be avoided at all costs. Adding a couple of good provisions to a huge policy mistake does not make it better. Changing the bankruptcy code in this manner is extremely misguided.
David C. John is Senior Research Fellow in Retirement Security and Financial Institutions in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]The Obama housing plan suffers from many policy errors that will be detailed in a forthcoming WebMemo.
[2]Andrew M. Grossman, "Mortgage Modifications in Bankruptcy Would Undermine Homeownership, Prevent Few Foreclosures," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2242, February 13, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/bg2242.cfm.
DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Take care...............pilgrim
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, a socialist and member of the American Civil Liberties Union
Obama's Straw Men
Why does he routinely ascribe to opponents views they don't espouse?
By KARL ROVE
President Barack Obama reveres Abraham Lincoln. But among the glaring differences between the two men is that Lincoln offered careful, rigorous, sustained arguments to advance his aims and, when disagreeing with political opponents, rarely relied on the lazy rhetorical device of "straw men." Mr. Obama, on the other hand, routinely ascribes to others views they don't espouse and says opposition to his policies is grounded in views no one really advocates.
On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity.
The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
Mr. Obama also said that America's economic difficulties resulted when "regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market." Who gutted which regulations?
Perhaps it was President Bill Clinton who, along with then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, removed restrictions on banks owning insurance companies in 1999. If so, were Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers (now an Obama adviser) motivated by quick profit, or by the belief that the reform was necessary to modernize our financial industry?
Perhaps Mr. Obama was talking about George W. Bush. But Mr. Bush spent five years pushing to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was blocked by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. Arriving in the Senate in 2005, Mr. Obama backed up Mr. Dodd's threat to filibuster Mr. Bush's needed reforms.
Even in an ostensibly nonpartisan speech marking Lincoln's 200th birthday, Mr. Obama used a straw-man argument, decrying "a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government -- this constant rejection of any common endeavor -- cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges."
About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.
Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.
Whose philosophy is this? Many Americans justifiably believe that government is too big and often acts in counterproductive ways. But that's a far cry from believing that in "every" case government is the problem or that government should be "dismantled" root and branch. Who -- other than an anarchist -- "constantly rejects any common endeavor" like building levees, roads or bridges?
During his news conference on Feb. 9, Mr. Obama decried an unnamed faction in the congressional stimulus debate as "a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing."
Who were these sincere do-nothings? Every House Republican voted for an alternative stimulus plan, evidence that they wanted to do something. Every Senate Republican -- with the exception of Judd Gregg, who'd just withdrawn his nomination to be Mr. Obama's Commerce secretary and therefore voted "present" -- voted for alternative stimulus proposals.
Then there's Mr. Obama's description of the Bush-era tax cuts. "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy," he explained in his Tuesday speech, after earlier saying, "tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems -- especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few."
The Bush tax cuts were not targeted to "the wealthiest few." Everyone who paid federal income taxes received a tax cut, with the largest percentage of reductions going to those at the bottom. Last year, a family of four making $40,000 saved an average of $2,053 because of the Bush tax cuts. The tax code became more progressive as the share paid by the top 10% increased to 46.4% from 46% -- and the nation experienced 52 straight months of job growth after the cuts took effect. And since when is giving back some of what people pay in taxes "transferring wealth?"
In his inaugural address -- which was generally graceful toward the opposition -- Mr. Obama proclaimed, "We have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord." Which Republican ran against him on fear, conflict and discord?
Mr. Obama portrays himself as a nonideological, bipartisan voice of reason. Everyone resorts to straw men occasionally, but Mr. Obama's persistent use of the device is troubling. Continually characterizing those who disagree with you in a fundamentally dishonest way can be the sign of a person who lacks confidence in the merits of his ideas.
It was said that Lincoln crafted his arguments in "resonant words that enriched the political dialogue of his age." Mr. Obama's straw men aren't enriching the dialogue of our age. They are cheapening it. Mr. Obama should stop employing them.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Take care...............pilgrim
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, a socialist and member of the American Civil Liberties Union
Hope all is well!!!!
Take care...............pilgrim
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, a socialist and member of the American Civil Liberties Union
Obama vows to halve massive budget deficit
"If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that help cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road"
1. " I just want to make sure that we're having an honest debate in presenting to the American people a fulsome accounting of what is going on in this programme" – Barack Obama SOURCE: Channel News Asia 5 hours ago
2. " Today, I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office" – Barack Obama SOURCE: Channel News Asia 5 hours ago
3. " What I don't want us to do, though, is to just get caught up in the same old stuff that inhibits us from acting effectively and in concert. There's going to be ample time for campaigns down the road." SOURCE: Channel News Asia 5 hours ago
4. " With that comes an unprecedented obligation to do so wisely, free from politics and personal agendas. On this, I will not compromise or tolerate shortcuts." SOURCE: Channel News Asia 5 hours ago
5. " We are addressing the greatest economic crisis we have seen in decades by investing unprecedented amounts of the American people's hard-earned money" SOURCE: Channel News Asia 5 hours ago
From the news article:
"By the president's account, the administration inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year from the Bush administration - that's the figure Obama says he'll cut in half - and the stimulus law, coupled with rescue efforts for ailing automakers, the financial industry and beleaguered homeowners will raise this year's red ink to $1.5 trillion"
Take care...............pilgrim
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, a socialist and member of the American Civil Liberties Union
Confidence GONE: More Concealment by Government
Monday, February 23. 2009
Posted by Karl Denninger at 15:08
What else is there to say?
The last time we were here it was May of 1997.
Ten full years of market gains are gone. Evaporated. Finished.
Confidence is absolutely destroyed. The government, which is an 80% owner of AIG, failed to warn prior to the company claiming that it will report a $60 billion loss next week and if it doesn't get more government money by Monday it will file for bankruptcy.
This aborted a nascent rally off the lows and shoved us to NEW lows - the closing lows.
Folks, this is the government. It is not an "ordinary correction." It is the intentional hiding of losses and the truth from the American people along with investors worldwide.
These acts are pure evil; they are premeditated, intentional, and have destroyed confidence, and unless the government stops this right now we are going to be seeing the DOW at 3,000 before the end of the year, the S&P will lose 50% or more of its remaining value (yes, that means the S&P will trade near 350 - or worse), 20% of the S&P 500 will go bankrupt and 20% of America will be unemployed.
It is that simple.
Your 201k that was a 401k is headed for a 51k.
Thank our President and his administration.
He promised change.
We didn't get it, and the market called his bluff.
http://market-ticker.org/archives/823-Confidence-GONE-More-Concealment-by-Government.html
Take care...............pilgrim
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, a socialist and member of the American Civil Liberties Union
Obama pledges to slash deficit _ after increase
Feb 23, 6:31 PM (ET)
By LIZ SIDOTI
WASHINGTON (AP) - Urging strict future restraint even as current spending soars, President Barack Obama pledged on Monday to dramatically slash the skyrocketing annual budget deficit as he started to dole out the record $787 billion economic stimulus package he signed last week.
"If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road," the president warned, promising to cut the yearly deficit in half by the end of his four-year term. "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences."
He said he would reinstitute a pay-as-you-go rule that calls for spending reductions to match increases and would shun what he said were the past few years'"casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting tricks." He called the long-term solvency of Social Security "the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far" and said reforming health care, including burgeoning entitlement programs, was a huge priority.
Wall Street seemed unimpressed by all the talk. The Dow Jones industrials dropped 251 points for the day.
Obama goes before Congress and the nation Tuesday night to make the case for his agenda and his budget plans, which the White House is to release in more detail on Thursday.
On Monday, he sought to prepare people for tough choices ahead.
He summoned allies, adversaries and outside experts to what the White House characterized as a summit on the nation's future financial health one week after triumphantly putting his signature on the gargantuan spending-and-tax-cut measure designed to stop the country's economic free fall and, ultimately, reverse the recession now months into its second year.
At the same time, federal regulators announced a revamped program to shore up the nation's banks that could give the government increasing ownership. It was the administration's latest attempt to bolster the severely weakened banking system without nationalizing any institutions, which the White House has said it does not intend to do.
Obama said there would be another summit next week on health care reform. "It's not that I've got summititis here," he added wryly.
By the president's account, the administration inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year from the Bush administration - that's the figure Obama says he'll cut in half - and the stimulus law, coupled with rescue efforts for ailing automakers, the financial industry and beleaguered homeowners will raise this year's red ink to $1.5 trillion.
The administration hopes to trim the deficit by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government.
"We are paying the price for these deficits right now," Obama said, estimating the country spends $250 billion - one in every ten dollars of taxpayer money - in interest on the national debt. "I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay."
As an example of a purchasing process "gone amok," the president said he had ordered a thorough review of his new fleet of Marine One helicopters, now far over budget. He was asked about the fleet by former presidential rival John McCain at the end of the White House meeting.
"The helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me," Obama said, to laughter. "Of course, I've never had a helicopter before. So, you know, maybe I've been deprived and I didn't know it."
Earlier, Obama met with Republican and Democratic governors who are poised to benefit from his unprecedented emergency economic package. He told the chief executives, attending a three-day National Governors Association meeting in Washington, that he would begin distributing $15 billion to their states within two days to help them with Medicaid payments to the poor.
The recession has strapped state budgets, in particular in regard to the Medicaid program that is jointly underwritten by states and the federal government. In total, states will eventually receive $90 billion for Medicaid from the new law.
One month into office as the economy continues its downward spiral, Obama is seeking to balance twin priorities: turning around dismal conditions with a huge injection of spending while lowering huge budget deficits. With his re-election race just a few years away, he also has an interest in avoiding being labeled as a big-government, big-spending Democrat.
The White House meetings opened a jam-packed White House week that includes a State-of-the-Union-style address to Congress Tuesday night and the president's first budget proposal on Thursday. A common thread: addressing current economic turmoil while controlling the country's long-term costs.
"This will not be easy," Obama told his White House audience, which included congressional leaders, 2008 GOP presidential nominee McCain, and Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who recently backed out as Obama's commerce secretary.
After Obama spoke, attendees broke into five groups to brainstorm how to address costly areas including military weapons, Social Security, health care and tax reform.
During one, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said, "Our deficit really cannot be controlled until we figure out how to deal with health care costs." At another, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio proposed raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 over a number of years.
Afterward, Obama emphasized areas where he said there was agreement and consensus on moving forward in a bipartisan way, including that the country must ensure people have retirement security, that the tax process must be simplified and that the existing budgeting process isn't working. He also directed his team to pull together a final report from the sessions in 30 days.
---_
Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn, Jennifer Loven, Jeannine Aversa, Darlene Superville, Philip Elliott, Brett Blackledge and Erica Werner contributed to this report.
Take care...............pilgrim
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, a socialist and member of the American Civil Liberties Union
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn.On.the.Lights?
October 09, 2008
An open letter to the local daily paper – almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor – which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house – along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" (http://snipurl.com/457to): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign – because that campaign had sought his advice – you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension – so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie – that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad – even bad weather – on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth – even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time – and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter – while you ignored the story of John Edwards' own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women (NOW) threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe – and vote as if – President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats – including Barack Obama – and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans – then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.
Take care...............pilgrim
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, a socialist and member of the American Civil Liberties Union
Unsustainable Policies & Practices(Long)
The definition of unsustainable is, not able to be maintained or supported in the future. To me, a picture is worth a thousand words.
As Congressional moron after Congressional moron goes on the usual Sunday talk show circuit and says we must stop home prices from falling, I wonder whether these people took basic math in high school. Are they capable of looking at a chart and understanding a long-term average? The median value of a U.S. home in 2000 was $119,600. It peaked at $221,900 in 2006. Historically, home prices have risen annually in line with CPI. If they had followed the long-term trend, they would have increased by 17% to $140,000. Instead, they skyrocketed by 86% due to Alan Greenspan's irrational lowering of interest rates to 1%, the criminal pushing of loans by lowlife mortgage brokers, the greed and hubris of investment bankers and the foolishness and stupidity of home buyers. It is now 2009 and the median value should be $150,000 based on historical precedent. The median value at the end of 2008 was $180,100. Therefore, home prices are still 20% overvalued. Long-term averages are created by periods of overvaluation followed by periods of undervaluation. Prices need to fall 20% and could fall 30%. You will know we are at the bottom when the top shows on cable are Foreclose That House and Homeless Housewives of Orange County .
Instead of allowing the housing market to correct to its fair value, President Obama and Barney Frank will attempt to “mitigate” foreclosures. Mr. Frank has big plans for your tax dollars , "We may need more than $50 billion for foreclosure [mitigation]". What this means is that you will be making your monthly mortgage payment and in addition you will be making a $100 payment per month for a deadbeat who bought more house than they could afford, is still watching a 52 inch HDTV, still eating in their perfect kitchens with granite countertops and stainless steel appliances. Barney thinks he can reverse the law of supply and demand by throwing your money at the problem. He will succeed in wasting billions of tax dollars and home prices will still fall 20% to 30%. Unsustainably high home prices can not be sustained. I would normally say that even a 3rd grader could understand this concept. But, instead I'll say that even a U.S. Congressman should understand this.
Source : Barrons
Ray Dalio, the Chief Investment Officer of Bridgewater Associates, in a recent interview in Barron's made an irrefutable argument that the United States consumers, companies and Government must accept the pain of debt restructuring to get our economy back to normal. His firm had been consistently right, years before the financial crisis hit.
“Basically what happens is that after a period of time, economies go through a long-term debt cycle -- a dynamic that is self-reinforcing, in which people finance their spending by borrowing and debts rise relative to incomes and, more accurately, debt-service payments rise relative to incomes. At cycle peaks, assets are bought on leverage at high-enough prices that the cash flows they produce aren't adequate to service the debt. The incomes aren't adequate to service the debt. Then begins the reversal process, and that becomes self-reinforcing, too. In the simplest sense, the country reaches the point when it needs a debt restructuring. We will go through a giant debt-restructuring, because we either have to bring debt-service payments down so they are low relative to incomes -- the cash flows that are being produced to service them -- or we are going to have to raise incomes by printing a lot of money.
It isn't complicated. It is the same as all bankruptcies, but when it happens pervasively to a country, and the country has a lot of foreign debt denominated in its own currency, it is preferable to print money and devalue. The biggest issue is that if you look at the borrowers, you don't want to lend to them. The basic problem is that the borrowers had too much debt when their incomes were higher and their asset values were higher. Now net worth's have gone down. The Federal Reserve is going to have to print money. The deficits will be greater than the savings. So you will see the Federal Reserve buy long-term Treasury bonds, as it did in the Great Depression. We are in a position where that will eventually create a problem for currencies and drive assets to gold.”
The debt service as a % of disposable income for consumers is above Great Depression levels as we enter the Next Great Depression. These levels are unsustainable. Consumers normally have a limited number of choices. They can pull a Trump and declare bankruptcy to wipe out the debt or reduce spending dramatically while paying down their debt. This is what is required to purge our capitalist system of its excesses. Instead, our Government “leaders” are coming to the rescue with your tax dollars. You have already given $7 billion to Capital One and American Express so they can hand out more credit cards with $20,000 limits to pizza delivery boys. When you see someone carting a 52 inch HDTV out the door of Best Buy, you may be making his credit card payment. Barney Frank, and his band of merry Congressmen, has also provided $9 billion of your hard earned tax dollars to GMAC Financial and Chrysler Financial. GMAC Financial used the name Di-Tech to lure millions of gullible poor people into negative amortization no doc mortgage loans at the peak of the housing bubble. When you see a BMW 525i parked in front of a boarded up house in West Philly, know that you are making the car payment for that deadbeat.
The stimulus plan will be a complete failure. Politicians have not taken into account the damaged psychology of the American public. We have been hit over the head with a baseball bat and will not be stepping up to the feeding trough of debt financed spending for a long time. If we do not let people and companies fail, we will encourage the same behavior that caused the problem. It will make sense for every upstanding American to stop paying their mortgage and to run their credit cards up to the limit. Pastor Adrian Rogers explained how many Americans feel today.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Fiscal Deficits
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.” Thomas Jefferson
The chart below, which shows our National Debt from 1938 onward, is totally outdated. The projections through 2012 were made before the current Congress unleashed its hell fury. The chart is now vertically challenged, topping out at a mere $14 trillion. The little red line that was so sedate until Richard Nixon took the United States off the gold standard in 1971, is about to take off like the Space Shuttle. The current “stimulus” package of $787 billion is more than the entire National Debt in 1978 ($771 billion). By 2012, the National Debt will easily exceed $15 trillion. If economists like Paul Krugman have their way, the debt will surpass $16 trillion. The bill has just been signed and the ultra-liberal Krugman is already saying it isn't nearly enough spending. Keynes is his god. The man is so disconnected from the real world, it is sad. He is only comfortable in his secluded academic world at Princeton with his models and theories. He needs to shuttle kids to hockey games on the weekend so he can stop thinking of ways to spend our money. He has probably never set foot in a Wal-Mart or a Jiffy Lube. I truly believe that his goal in life is that 80 years from now, people will say “We're all Krugmans now”.
Source: Cedarcomm.com
I guess I'm thinking of the examples of people and businesses with solid credit records who can't get banks to lend to them.
Where is the U.S. and the rest of the world going to keep getting money to pay for these stimulus packages?
Are you a fan of gold?
Have you always been?
And China?
You mentioned, too, that inflation is not as big a worry for you as it is for some. Could you elaborate?
Given this outlook, what is your view on stocks?
Thanks, Ray.
The chart looks eerily similar to the previous housing chart. How far up can it go before the fat lady sings? It looks like we are going to find out if Dick Cheney was right. “Deficits don't matter”. We all know Mr. Cheney has never been wrong before. The annual deficit for 2009 is now estimated at between $2 trillion and $3 trillion give or take a few hundred billion. These figures seem incomprehensible to the average person on the street. Some perspective is in order. If we use $2.5 trillion as the estimated deficit that means:
* We're adding $6.85 billion per day to the National Debt
* We're adding $285 million per hour to the National Debt
* We're adding $475,000 per minute to the National Debt
In the time it takes to say Audacity of Hope, we've added $25,000 to the National Debt. There are many pundits who say the National Debt doesn't matter. We are only paying 3.4% on our 30 Year Treasuries and there is always enough demand. The dollar continues to be steady versus the Euro. Government debt as a percentage of GDP was 122% during World War II, versus only 78% today. All of these statements are true, today. On March 1, 2008 I could have said that the American banking system was sound. I would have appeared to be right. Two weeks later Bear Stearns collapsed and the downward spiral of our worldwide financial system accelerated out of control. Are these reasonable questions to ask?
1. How long will foreign countries fund our rapidly accelerating deficits for a 3.4% return which will be wiped out by a slight decline in the USD?
2. Will foreign countries with their own economies contracting and pouring billions into domestic stimulus even have the funds to invest in U.S. Treasuries?
3. Is there a tipping point when Bernanke has printed one too many dollars? If there is, you can be sure he won't see it coming.
4. When government debt reaches 110% of GDP next year, will we be in better or worse position as a nation than we were in 1945 as the only remaining power in the world?
5. How do you solve a $53 trillion unfunded liability problem while tripling your National Debt in the space of 10 years?
The answers to these questions will determine when the Great American Economic Ponzi Scheme Collapses. It is only a question of timing if we continue on the current fiscal path. As we lay in our beds watching American Idol and pondering whether Britney Spears is a good mom, our beds are burning.
The time has come
To say fairs fair
To pay the rent
To pay our share
The time has come
A facts a fact
It belongs to them
Lets give it back
How can we dance when our earth is turning
How do we sleep when our beds are burning
Beds are Burning – Midnight Oil
Healthcare Underfunding
“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.” Abraham Lincoln
The American people have not been given the truth by our politician leaders since the Eisenhower administration. By hiding the truth and not addressing the unsustainable trend of our social programs, our leaders have insured a painful outcome of this trend. In 1965, 27% of Federal spending was mandatory. on Today, 53% of Federal spending is on auto-pilot. The entire Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid system will need to be overhauled or scrapped. Benefits will have to be reduced and taxes will have to be raised. There are no other choices. Medicare costs will explode over the next 40 years. The increasing debt will result in interest payments on the debt becoming the largest expenditure in the federal budget. The longer we wait to address this unavoidable train wreck, the more likely it will result in generational warfare between baby boomers and younger generations.
Source: Perotcharts.com
As entitlements and net interest grow, discretionary spending gets squeezed. Non-defense programs, which include, activities related to children, transportation infrastructure, education, training and research that should promote future economic growth and prosperity, come under increasing funding pressure. We are forced to ignore investments in the future to pay for commitments made decades ago. The short term focus of our Washington politicians has ruined our fiscal future. Children don't vote, and younger people are less involved in the political process. As a result, the political gain from immediate increases in spending or reductions in taxes outweighs the eventual economic benefits of more politically costly but fiscally responsible choices. This is a criminal and immoral act upon our future generations. It is time to hold these politicians accountable for their actions. Again, Abraham Lincoln's wisdom from 150 years ago applies today.
“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”
Source: Perotcharts.com
The above chart proves we cannot possibly grow our way out of this problem. On average, more than 10,000 baby boomers will become eligible for Social Security benefits each day for the next two decades. As they do, there will be fewer workers supporting a growing number of retirees. This eventually will place an unfair burden on younger workers, who will end up bearing the brunt of future taxes. A politically unpopular decision deferred today is a tax increase on future generations. The United States spends 16.5% of GDP on healthcare every year. This is far more than any country on earth. This amounts to $2.3 trillion per year. Even with this immense spending, there are 47 million Americans without health coverage. Canada, Australia, and Sweden only spend 9% of GDP and cover all of their citizens. The waste, fraud and bureaucracy of our system are out of control. Nationalization would be a disaster. Totally free markets favor only the rich. There is no easy answer. It will take compromise, sacrifice, and intelligence to solve this problem.
Immigration
As our country sinks deeper into this recession and more people lose their jobs, anger at illegal immigrants will continue to grow. This is not an unexpected reaction, as anger has to be directed somewhere. According to a Pew Institute report, there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, with almost 50% of the total in California, Texas and Florida. Approximately 57% of the illegal immigrants are from Mexico and another 24% from other Latin American countries. The cost to the American taxpayer is huge. Estimates of the annual cost are in the range of $300 billion per year. Some disturbing statistics include:
* $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
* $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
* $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
* $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally.
* $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
* $3 Million Dollars a day is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
* 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
* $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for welfare social services by the American taxpayers.
Why are there 11 million illegal immigrants in the country? So the rich can have housekeepers and landscapers. So homebuilders have cheap labor to put roofs on their houses. So farming conglomerates can have someone to pick their crops. All of these people benefit from cheap illegal labor. The American taxpayer foots the bill for the social costs.
Source: Perotcharts.com
Now the really bad news. We need a large increase in immigration in order to have any chance at maintaining a decent standard of living in the future. The number of Americans over 65 years old will increase by 75% between 2010 and 2030. These 70 million people will all be collecting Social Security and sucking our system dry. There aren't enough young people to replace them in the work force. With only 28% of Americans achieving a college degree, we need to undertake a concerted effort to bring in as many smart immigrants as possible and convince them to stay here after graduation. Our educational system is graduating too many Bluto Blutarskys and not enough Einsteins.
Dean Vernon Wormer: Zero point two... Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Bluto: Christ. Seven years of college down the drain.
Our only realistic chance to solve many of our fiscal problems is through discoveries in science and medicine that can only happen with highly educated people whether they are born in the U.S. or elsewhere.
If we could increase the expected 2030 population from 351 million to 380 million, those added taxpayers would greatly help the national fiscal situation. Regarding the 11 million illegal aliens already in the country, it is not feasible to round them up and send them back. Mexico is already on the brink of implosion, with drug lords controlling much of the country. A realistic approach is needed.
Overseas Military Commitments
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children." Dwight D. Eisenhower – Farewell Speech
The man who led the Allies to victory in WW II warned the country that the Military Industrial Complex was too powerful. We did not heed his warning. The United States, the only superpower remaining on earth, currently spends more on military than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined. The U.S. accounts for 48% of the world's total military spending. The Cold War has been over for 20 years, but we are spending like World War III is on the near term horizon. There is no country on earth that can challenge the U.S. militarily. So, why are we spending like we are preparing for a major conflict? The impression on the rest of the world is that we have aggressive intentions. Defense spending had peaked at just under $500 billion in 1988. The fall of communist Russia did result in a decline to the $350 billion range from 1995 through 2000, and an economic boom ensued. Since 9/11 we have doubled our spending on defense.
George Bush's pre-emptive war has cost the American taxpayer $800 billion so far. The human cost of this war is worse than the dollar cost. Almost 5,000 Americans have died for the lies of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Thousands of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, husbands, and children have lost their loved ones for a false cause. Our National Guard troops have been stretched beyond the breaking point. Military families have been devastated by multiple deployments. Soldiers are committing suicide in record numbers. Returning soldiers are not being treated for psychological illnesses. The anger of the Guns N Roses song Civil War captures how I feel.
Look at your young men fighting
Look at your women crying
Look at your young men dying
The way they've always done before
Look at the hate we're breeding
Look at the fear we're feeding
Look at the lives we're leading
The way we've always done before
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
You're power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war
If as a country we continue to allow our politicians and their military industrial complex corporate sponsors to spend $800+ billion per year on weapons, to the detriment of higher education, alternative energy projects, and national infrastructure needs, we will be paying an extremely high price. According to the Defense Department's latest "Personnel Strengths" report, the United States now has troops stationed in 147 countries and 10 territories. Why are we policing the world? What is the point of having 57,000 troops in Germany and 33,000 troops in Japan? Germany and Japan each spend $40 billion per year on their military. Can't they defend themselves at this point?
We have some of the brightest engineers in the country developing weapons to kill human beings more efficiently. There is an enormous opportunity cost that is being paid. These engineers could be concentrating their brilliance on developing alternative energy solutions which could free us from our Middle East oil dependence. Which effort would benefit our country more, weapons development or energy independence? War and non-stop conflict benefit the military industrial complex. It is in their best interest to support candidates that favor an aggressive foreign policy. This has led to Defense companies using their influence to provoke conflict throughout the world. President Eisenhower's final words in his farewell address are the most chilling.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
If the words of a noble 20th century President aren't enough to convince you of a dangerous too powerful military, maybe the words of our Founding Father will.
“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." George Washington
Are You Part of the Cure or Part of the Disease?
Come out upon my seas, curse missed opportunities (am I)
A part of the cure, or am I part of the disease Clocks - Coldplay
I think I've made a valid case that our government is on a burning platform of unsustainable policies. The important point now is how do we put the fire out and save the country from imploding under a mountain of debt? This is where ideology needs to be put aside. The best ideas from anyone should be considered. I believe that Samuel Adams was correct.
"It does not take the majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fire freedom in the minds of men."
Some ideas for consideration follow:
* We know that Congress is corrupt and in the pocket of lobbyists. They show no courage to make necessary unpopular decisions because they won't be re-elected. The founding fathers envisioned representatives who did their civic duty for a short time and then went back to their real profession. Almost 200 out of 535 members of Congress are lawyers and lifetime politicians. This explains much about our predicament. Term limits would inject our leaders with a dose of courage. Maybe they would do what was best for the country if they knew that they would only be in Washington for six years.
* Outlawing lobbyists and PACs would remove the buying and selling of votes in Congress. We must remove the corruption from Washington DC.
* The PAYGO rules that were allowed to expire in 2002 must be reinstituted. These rules would not allow new spending initiatives without an equal cut in other spending. These rules allow Congressmen to pretend to have a backbone and say no to constituent demands.
* The banks that are insolvent will need to be nationalized, investors wiped out, and good assets sold off to good banks. Nouriel Roubini lays out a logical scenario . The sooner we purge the system of its bad debt, the sooner we can get this economy on a positive track.
* Dr. John Hussman has a solution for the foreclosure disaster that would not stick the U.S. taxpayer with the bill. Banks could write down the mortgage balance but receive a PAR (property appreciation right) back from the homeowner. The idea is discussed in more detail here .
* The U.S. carmakers need to be restructured within a pre-packaged bankruptcy. They want another $39 billion of your tax dollars. No more taxpayer funds can be wasted on these bloated pigs.
* A truly non-partisan commission appointed by the President with the power to put forth a comprehensive plan to restructure Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for an up or down vote by Congress is the only way to create a viable future. Congress must be forced to confront this issue.
* John McCain's moderate approach of allowing a path to citizenship seems like the best immigration plan. Most came here to try and live a better life. If they have committed crimes or don't follow the prescribed path to citizenship, then they need to be expelled from our country. We need to encourage foreign professionals to immigrate to America with incentives, if necessary.
* If 50% of the $1.4 trillion annual military related budget was redirected to debt reduction, energy independence, and infrastructure rebuilding, we would actually get a positive return on our tax contribution. Our military is supposed to defend our country, not invade sovereign nations.
* A “Manhattan Project” to develop new energy sources which would eliminate the $400 billion per year that we send overseas for foreign oil. The number of high paying jobs that could be created by building nuclear power plants, wind farms, and converting vehicles to natural gas would be in the hundreds of thousands.
* A tax system that eliminated all the preferences and loopholes for corporations and individuals while lowering rates would be fairer. Maybe even our Treasury Secretary could do his taxes correctly. Congress and lobbyists use the tax system to push their agendas. A flat tax or replacing the income tax with a national sales tax are other possible options.
* The Federal Reserve needs to be abolished. A currency backed by gold or a basket of precious metals would restrict what Congress could spend. This would save us from ourselves. The dollar has lost 93% of its purchasing power since Nixon closed the gold window in 1971 and the National Debt has gone from $389 billion to $10.8 trillion, a 2,800% increase in 38 years. Politicians will spend your money if they are given the chance. Let's not give them the chance.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Thomas Jefferson
When I was a kid and I'd read something fascinating in a book, I'd breathlessly tell my Dad what I'd learned. He'd look up from his newspaper and say, “Don't believe everything you read”. I'd be so mad, but his advice produced a world class skeptic. Don't believe anything or anyone until you've verified their facts and figured out their motives. If you are tired of remaining silent and have ideas you want to discuss, join me at TheBurningPlatform.com to have a forum for ideas that can put our country back on track.
By James Quinn
quinnadvisors@comcast.net
James Quinn is a senior director of strategic planning for a major university. James has held financial positions with a retailer, homebuilder and university in his 22-year career. Those positions included treasurer, controller, and head of strategic planning. He is married with three boys and is writing these articles because he cares about their future. He earned a BS in accounting from Drexel University and an MBA from Villanova University. He is a certified public accountant and a certified cash manager.
These articles reflect the personal views of James Quinn. They do not necessarily represent the views of his employer, and are not sponsored or endorsed by his employer.
© 2009 Copyright James Quinn - All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article8988.html
Take care...............pilgrim
Is It Any Wonder The Market Continues To Sink?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, February 20, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Last Oct. 13, in trying to explain why the market had sold off 30% in six weeks, we acknowledged that the freeze-up of the financial system was a big concern. But we cited three other factors as well:
• The imminent election of "the most anti-capitalist politician ever nominated by a major party."
• The possibility of "a filibuster-proof Congress led by politicians who are almost as liberal."
• A "media establishment dedicated to the implementation of a liberal agenda, and the smothering of dissent wherever it arises."
No wonder, we said then, that panic had set in.
Today, as the market continues to sell off and we plumb 12-year lows, we wish we had a different explanation. But it still looks, as we said four months ago, "like the U.S., which built the mightiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever known, is about to turn its back on the free-enterprise system that made it all possible."
How else would you explain all that's happened in a few short weeks? How else would you expect the stock market, where millions cast daily votes and which is still the best indicator of what the future holds, to act when:
• Newsweek, a prominent national newsweekly, blares from its cover "We Are All Socialists Now," without a hint of recognition that socialism in its various forms has been repudiated by history — as communism's collapse in the USSR, Eastern Europe and China attest.
Even so, a $787 billion "stimulus," along with a $700 billion bank bailout, $75 billion to refinance bad mortgages, $50 billion for the automakers, and as much as $2 trillion in loans from the Fed and the Treasury are hardly confidence-builders for our free-enterprise system.
• Talk of "nationalizing" U.S.' troubled major banks comes not just from tarnished Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, but also from Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and former Fed chief Alan Greenspan.
To be sure, bank shares have plunged along with home prices, and many have inadequate capital. But is nationalization really the only solution for an industry whose main product — loans to consumers and businesses — has expanded by over 5% annually so far this year?
• A stimulus bill laden with huge amounts of spending on pork and special interests is the best our Congress can come up with to get the economy back on track. Economists broadly agree that the legislation has little stimulative power, and in fact will be a drag on economic growth for years to come.
The failure to include any meaningful tax cuts for either individuals or small businesses, the true stimulators of job growth, while throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at profligate state governments and programs — such as $4.2 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities" and $740 million to help viewers switch from analog to digital TV— has investors shaking their heads.
• A $75 billion bailout for 9 million Americans who face foreclosure, regardless of how they got into financial trouble, is the government's answer to the housing crunch. Many Americans who have scrupulously kept up with payments are steaming at the thought of subsidizing those who've been profligate or irresponsible.
With recent data showing that as much as 55% of those who get foreclosure aid end up defaulting anyway, a signal has been sent that America has gone from being "Land of the Free" to "Bailout Nation."
• Energy solutions ranging from the expansion of offshore drilling and the development of Alaska's bountiful arctic oil reserves to developing shale oil in America's Big Sky country, tar-sands crude in Canada and coal that provides half the nation's electric power, are taken off the table.
The market knows full well what drives the economy and that restraining energy supply will make us all poorer and investing less profitable. Taking domestic energy sources off the table makes us more reliant on sources from hostile and unstable regimes, breeding uncertainty in a capital system in which participants seek stability.
• Lawmakers who seem more interested in pleasing special interests than voters back home now control Congress. Some of the leading voices in crafting the massive bank bailout and stimulus packages — including Sen. Chris Dodd, Rep. Barney Frank and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — were the very ones who helped get us in this mess.
They did so by loosening Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's lending rules and pushing commercial banks to make bad loans. Both Dodd and Frank were recipients of hefty donations from Fannie, Freddie and other financial firms they were charged with regulating.
• Trade protectionism passes as policy, even amid the administration's lip service to free trade. Congress' vast stimulus bill and its "Buy American" provisions limit spending to U.S.-made products and will drive up costs, limit choices and alienate key allies.
Already, it has triggered rumblings of retaliation in a 1930s-style trade war from trading partners, just as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs prolonged the Great Depression. Several European partners have begun raising barriers. Meanwhile, three signed free-trade pacts with Colombia, Panama and Korea languish with no chance of passage. Free trade offers one way out of our problems, yet it's been sidetracked.
• A 1,000-plus page stimulus bill is bulled through Congress with no GOP input and not a single member of Congress reading it before passage. It borders on censorship.
GOP protests of the bill's spending and the speed it was passed at were dismissed by Obama and other Democrats as seeking to "do nothing" or "breaking the spirit of bipartisanship." But voters are angry.
Along with thousands of angry phone calls to Congress, new Facebook groups have emerged, and street protests have sprung up in Denver, Seattle and Mesa, Ariz., against the "porkulus." CNBC Chicago reporter Rick Santelli's on-air denunciation of federal bailouts for mortgage deadbeats attracted a record 1.5 million Internet hits.
• Business leaders are demonized. Yes, there are bad eggs out there like the Madoffs and Stanfords. But most CEOs are hugely talented, driven, highly intelligent people who make our corporations the most productive in the world and add trillions of dollars of value to our economy.
They don't deserve to be dragged before Congress, as they have been dozens of times in the past two years, for a ritual heaping of verbal abuse from the very people most responsible for our ills — our tragically inept, Democrat-led Congress.
• Words like "catastrophe," "crisis" and "depression" are coming from the mouth of the newly elected president, rather than words of hope and optimism. Instead of talking up America's capabilities and prospects, he talks them down — the exact opposite of our most successful recent president, Ronald Reagan, who came in vowing to restore that "shining city on a hill."
Even ex-President Clinton admonished Obama to return to his previous optimism, saying he would "just like him to end by saying that he is hopeful and completely convinced we're gonna come through this."
• The missile defense system that brought the Soviet Union to its knees, and which offers so much hope for future security, is being discussed as a "bargaining chip" with Russia. This, at the same time the regime in Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon and North Korea is readying an intermediate-range missile that can reach the U.S.
This sends a message of weakness abroad and contributes to a feeling of vulnerability at home. A strong economy begins and ends with a strong defense.
All this in barely a month's time. And to think that more of the same is on the way seems to be sinking in. Investors are watching closely and not caring for what they see. Sooner or later, the market will rally — but not without good reason to do so.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320027936229029
Hmmmmmmmmmmm??
Take care...............pilgrim
Phil Gramm's Evisceration
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting opinion piece by none other than Phill Gramm this weekend. It begins thus:
"The debate about the cause of the current crisis in our financial markets is important because the reforms implemented by Congress will be profoundly affected by what people believe caused the crisis."
Oh good. You intend to talk about what people believe caused this crisis, instead of what did cause it?
Fantastic Phil. This is going to be amusing.
I believe that a strong case can be made that the financial crisis stemmed from a confluence of two factors. The first was the unintended consequences of a monetary policy, developed to combat inventory cycle recessions in the last half of the 20th century, that was not well suited to the speculative bubble recession of 2001. The second was the politicization of mortgage lending.
Politicization of mortgage lending?
You mean to tell me that the creation of 2/28, 3/27 and OptionARM loans was the result of politicization of mortgage lending?
Oh boy, this is a good one.
The 2001 recession was brought on when a speculative bubble in the equity market burst, causing investment to collapse.
The speculative bubble in the equity market burst Mr. Gramm because the companies in the Internet space were making knowingly inflated statements about their prospects for growth and in fact factually incorrect statements about demand growth after the first "burst" of adoption of the technology took place.
This is not conjecture, it is a fact - a fact that I outlined several times leading up to the bust. It was the reason that I, as CEO of MCSNet, refused to finance any of my equipment, refused to take any debt whatsoever in the operation and expansion of my enterprise and refused to get involved in what I knew for a fact was a game of Russian Roulette - with five bullets.
Nonetheless I was able to operate that company with greater than a 40% pretax operating margin for more than five years, while at the same time having 100% ownership and payment for every piece of hardware we had - all of it paid for in cash. I'll take it. That's called an honest profit which is something that fewer than 1% of the firms in that space could lay claim to.
Buyers bought houses they couldn't afford, believing they could refinance in the future and benefit from the ongoing appreciation. Lenders assumed that even if everything else went wrong, properties could still be sold for more than they cost and the loan could be repaid. This mentality permeated the market from the originator to the holder of securitized mortgages, from the rating agency to the financial regulator.
There's the money quote right there.
Banks made loans they knew could not be repaid on the original terms, and thus were not mortgages - they were rental contracts. They sold them to consumers under false pretenses; a mortgage is an amortized loan that leads to ownership of the underlying real estate. A loan that is intended to be refinanced, terminated or abrogated at some date in the future is not a mortgage, it is a lease.
Consumers did not buy houses they knew they couldn't afford, they were sold those houses and the mortgage that came with them. That sales job was performed by people who by your own admission knew that the mortgage was never going to be paid under the original terms on its face - that doing so was a mathematical impossibility.
Mr. Gramm, as someone who claims to understand finance, you of all people should know that the law of exponents does not permit the fanciful view you claim bankers had above to be the case.
Advancement in income is a known, published fact - the government puts out this number for personal income (annualized) every month. It is not possible for home prices to continually advance at a rate that exceeds the growth in personal income, and to the extent that it does, compounding (that is, the mathematical law of exponents) guarantees that a collapse will eventually take place.
GLB repealed part of the Great Depression era Glass-Steagall Act, and allowed banks, securities companies and insurance companies to affiliate under a Financial Services Holding Company. It seems clear that if GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass-Steagall requirements to begin with.
Psst: Northern Rock and Iceland. I rest my case.
Moreover, GLB didn't deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies.
That same Federal Reserve then proceeded to remove all reserve requirements through various machinations with sweeps and most recently lobbied for (and got, in the EESA) authority to set reserve levels to zero!
Never mind that this "authority" has been roundly abused by issuing "23A Exemption" letters like Girl Scout Cookies at a kid's convention to anyone who asks, thereby eliminating the supposed "regulation" and "oversight" that they were supposed to maintain over financial institutions.
In point of fact several of the firms that failed, including Wachovia, received 23A Exemption letters supposedly for the benefit of their stability. In fact each of those 23A letters explicitly says that they are in the public interest, as granting them requires such a finding How did that work out, exactly?
Does "boom" count as success or "in the public interest"?
And yet, with the notable exception of Mr. Greenspan's warning about the risk posed by the massive mortgage holdings of Fannie and Freddie, regulators seemed unalarmed as the crisis grew.
That's right! GLB - your law Mr. Gramm, as it bears your name - gave power to an organization that immediately abused it and refused to discharge its duties. Yet there was no check and balance in that legislation, no "stick" to go with the "carrot", and the consequence was disaster.
The ultimate cause of the "blow-off top" in housing prices was excessive leverage. So was the underlying cause of the business failures in the banking and finance system.
Every single one of the firms that has failed - Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Lehman and Bear Stearns - was operating with more than double the previously-lawful limit of 14:1 leverage at the time of their collapse.
All of them.
That limit was removed due to explicit lobbying by Henry Paulson (then in charge of Goldman Sachs) in front of Congress and the SEC in 2004 - after being rejected on the very same request in 2000.
The fact of the matter, Mr. Gramm, is that absent excessive leverage credit bubbles cannot grow to a dangerous size. Leverage limits prohibit that growth by constraining the ability to grow a balance sheet beyond what tangible capital will reasonably support. The housing bubble, LBO bubble, commercial real-estate bubble and consumer credit bubble had all reached their limit under the previous leverage ratio caps around the 2004 time frame, and so the banking industry went to Congress and the SEC and asked for it to be removed, claiming that they were "better able to manage risk."
We now know that this was a fancifully-false assertion; all removing the leverage limits did was give the bankers the ability to skim off a few hundred billion more for their homes in the Hamptons and yachts while ordinary Americans were sold loans that the bankers knew could not possibly be repaid on their original terms.
Mr. Gramm, you are rapidly making a total fool of yourself. Do you remember this quote?
"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."
"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.
"We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," he said. "We have benefited greatly" from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.
Still trying to duck responsibility for what you've done, eh Phil?
You might get a pass from the "mainstream media", but you sure as hell won't get one from me. I suspect those who have seen fully half of their 401k and IRA money disappear in a puff of smoke or have lost their job and/or home won't be as charitable as The Journal was in publishing your crass attempt at historical revisionism either.
Take care...............pilgrim
Predatory Legislators
by Peter Schiff, Euro Pacific Capital | February 20, 2009
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/schiff/2009/0220.html
With millions of homeowners now struggling to repay money they clearly never should have borrowed, our leaders have been righteously wagging fingers at predatory lenders who allegedly enticed innocent borrowers, and the country, into a financial snake pit. While the mortgage industry clearly deserves a good share of the blame, unindicted co-conspirators abound. The ringleaders are still at-large and are, in fact, busy hatching a plan to dwarf the earlier mistakes.
Contrary to the message bouncing off the marble walls of the Capitol, most borrowers in the inflating housing bubble clearly understood the terms of their loans. Most knew that they could not afford their mortgage payments once their teaser rates expired, but enthusiastically jumped into the debt pool anyway believing that guaranteed real estate appreciation, or a quick and profitable sale, would keep them afloat.
Although both lenders and borrowers were acting in their own perceived self-interest, what can we say of our economic policymakers who are expected to protect the good of all? Their actions encouraged the whole sad circus. Were it not for the excessively low interest rates provided by the Fed, the lax lending standards and moral hazards supplied by Congress courtesy of Freddie, Fannie, and the FHA, and the many real estate subsidies built into the tax code, none of these predatory loans would have been possible.
Had lenders exercised better judgment and had borrowers avoided overly burdensome debt loads, both parties would clearly be in better financial positions today. Instead, as borrowers were demanding the credit to fuel their dreams of instant real estate riches, lenders were being ordered to accommodate them.
In past generations, homebuyers were required to save for down payments and postpone their purchases until they could actually afford conventional 30-year fixed mortgages. But in recent years, as home ownership became a matter of public policy, the government accused lenders of discrimination and urged lower standards and easier terms. With government guarantees in place, the mortgage industry was happy to both expand their revenues and promote a better society.
But by denying credit, even if it requires borrowers to forgo something they clearly want, lenders not only provide a valuable service to borrowers, but to society. Given the mess in which we now find ourselves, due to the bad loans made during the real estate bubble, this lesson should have been well learned. Unfortunately it hasn't, as the same dynamic is now playing out on a much larger scale.
Faced with a prospect of downgrading its lifestyle, the U.S. government is instead borrowing trillions of dollars to artificially inflate our deflating bubble economy. The money is being used to both expand the size of government and finance additional consumer spending. Given our financial position, this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
Our global creditors are now making the same mistakes made by subprime mortgage lenders. They are loaning us money that we will never be able to repay. In the process, they are enabling the largest expansion in the size of our government since the New Deal and crippling an economy already suffering from excess consumption.
Although it may sound harsh, it would be far better for all involved if our foreign friends simply cut us off. Since their loans are merely fueling the growth of our government and artificially pumping up consumer spending, their savings will not only be lost but their sacrifice will severely exacerbate our problems as well.
Just as homebuyers did earlier in this decade, the U.S. government will borrow as much money as the world is foolish enough to lend, and it will use those funds to smother the life out of our economy. At this point government is growing like a cancer, feeding mainly off the funds it borrows from abroad. In the process, it is placing a horrific debt burden on its people, committing them to either a lifetime of crippling interest payments or run-away inflation.
There is nothing inherently wrong with foreign lending. If funding were directed toward private business to enable capital investments, the loans would not only benefit lenders, but they would benefit our nation as well. The funds would fortify our industrial base and provide the necessary foundation upon which to rebuild a viable economy.
If foreigners were to cut us off, there would be some immediate pain, but tough love is exactly what we need right now. Forcing Americans to live within their means, particularly the U.S. government, will be just as beneficial to the long-term health of our economy as similar restraint would have been had it been exercised by mortgage lenders. It's too bad so few of us seem capable of making this connection, or learning anything from the mistakes of the past – even when the ink in the history books has barely dried.
Take care...............pilgrim
The Professor's Stimulus Bill Lesson:
Shortly after class, an economics student approaches his economics professor and says, "I don't understand this stimulus bill. Can you explain it to me?" The professor replied, "I don't have any time to explain it at my office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with my weekend project, I'll be glad to explain it to you." The student agreed.
At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor's house. The professor stated that the weekend project involved his backyard pool. They both went out back to the pool, and the professor handed the student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said, "First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as much water as you can." The student did as he was instructed. The professor then continued, "Follow me over to the shallow end, and then dump all the water from your bucket into it." The student was naturally confused, but did as he was told.
The professor then explained they were going to do this many more times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool. The confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?" The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper. The student didn't think the economics professor was serious, but figured that he would find out the real story soon enough.
However, after the 6th trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the student began to become worried that his economics professor had gone mad. The student finally replied, "All we're doing is wasting valuable time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when this process is all over, everything will be at the same level it was before, so all you'll really have accomplished is the destruction of what could have been truly productive action!"
The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile, "Congratulations. You now understand the stimulus bill."
Take care...............pilgrim
Hey stuffit!
Hope all is well!!
Hate to read the news any more. It keeps multiplying!!!
Take care...............pilgrim
Hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We miss YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
Good to see you drop in!! Saw some of your post the other day and meant to respond.......................but things happen!
"Ya no?"
Thanks for the post!!!
Later?
Take care...............pilgrim
The end of the world as we know it!
Chills, most every day
<hugs>
morning my sweet friend! i'll second that hummmmmmmmmm with you! ;) miss ya!
Count On The Constitution
By MICHAEL BARONE | Posted Friday, February 20, 2009 4:30 PM PT
All of America was watching Barack Obama on Jan. 20 as he promised to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." But few thought that, within a month, controversy would arise over the Constitution's census clause.
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers," reads Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.
"The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
This was a revolutionary step. Censuses had been conducted since ancient times, as readers of the Gospels know. But the United States was the first nation to conduct a census at regular intervals. And it was the first nation to base legislative representation on population. Not many federal agencies perform functions specifically set out in the Constitution. The Bureau of the Census does.
Today, the census determines more than representation. It also determines the amount of federal funding for a vast array of programs. As a result, politicians have an incentive to try to maximize the numbers of their constituencies.
On occasion, they have rejected results they have found distasteful. After the 1920 census showed an increasing proportion of urban dwellers, Congress refused to reapportion seats in the House of Representatives among the states.
But under prodding from President Herbert Hoover, a law was passed setting a formula for automatic reapportionment based on the census numbers starting in 1930 and continuing to this day.
You didn't hear much about the census on the campaign trail. But controversy flared when Obama nominated Republican Sen. Judd Gregg to head the Department of Commerce, which has housed the Census Bureau since 1903.
Almost immediately, there were protests from Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Barbara Lee (who cast the lone vote against military action in Afghanistan in 2001) and Hispanic groups. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declared that the Census Bureau would report directly to the West Wing of the White House.
Gregg, perhaps miffed that a major function of the office for which he had been nominated would be taken over by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, withdrew his name from consideration to be secretary. No new nominee has been named, but the issue remains: Will the politicians cook the numbers?
The black and Hispanic groups are concerned that blacks and Hispanics will not be fully counted. This is not a new issue. Census statisticians have known since the 1970s that there have been undercounts of people in neighborhoods with high crime rates or large numbers of illegal immigrants.
Census Bureau professionals have worked to measure these undercounts and to minimize them by using official records and enlisting local volunteers to locate residents. Their efforts have had some success, as the undercount was lower in 2000 than in 1990.
Nonetheless, there have been demands that the Census numbers be adjusted by statistical sampling. The Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that sampling could not be used to apportion House districts among the states, but left open whether it could be used for other purposes.
But after an intensive three-year study, Census professionals in 2003 said they could not guarantee that sampling would produce a more accurate count than the enumeration decreed by the Constitution.
As then-Census Director Louis Kincannon said, "Adjustment based on sampling didn't produce improved figures." Sampling might produce a more accurate number for large units but not for smaller units — just as the sampling error in public opinion polls is small for the total population but much larger for small subgroups. At the block level, sampling would result in imputing people who aren't actually there.
The potential for political mischief, political overrepresentation and greater federal funding for favored groups is obvious, just as Congress' refusal to reapportion after the 1920 Census resulted in political overrepresentation of low-growth rural areas and under-representation of then-booming big cities.
The better procedure is to trust the professionals at the Census Bureau. "I found the Census personnel to be among the most conscientious of any group I'd encountered in government service," Bruce Chapman, census director in the Reagan administration, recently wrote.
"Whatever their personal political views (I suspect that most voted for Obama), their allegiance is to the integrity of the positions of public trust they hold." This comports with my own observations of Census personnel over the years.
Like other federal statistical agencies, the Census Bureau has a proud culture, developed and nurtured over many years and in many administrations, of independence from political manipulation and dedication to statistical rigor.
So it's dismaying that the Obama White House, in response to political pressure, would consider overseeing the 2010 census. A better approach, endorsed by seven former Census directors and embodied in a bill sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, would be to set the Census Bureau apart as an independent agency.
That would preserve, protect and defend the census that the framers of the Constitution took pains to establish.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320014585618541
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
"Cook the numbers?".................
Who will stop this............Congress? Don't think so. (imo)
Take care...............pilgrim
The Coming Mortgage Class War III
This piece, entitled The Coming Mortgage Class War, predicted what is now just starting. It predicted that the process of loan modifications, especially those subsidized by the government, would create a mortgage class war between responsible and irresponsible borrowers.
We will have a class war the likes of which we've never seen. Those that acted responsibly won't merely be jealous and envious, but rather they will be outraged. This will pit neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, and colleague against colleague. Those with good credit will demand action. They will demand justice and they will demand accountability. I have always believed that there is a silent majority in this mortgage mess. That majority are the folks that have paid their bills on time. For the most part, they want no one bailed out. They were responsible. Others weren't and they won't stand for those that were irresponsibly being rewarded.
Now, in the two days since President Obama announced his mortgage bailout plan this mortgage class war has exploded. The first significant salvo was fired by Rick Santelli in this clip.
Rewarding bad behavior??
Resentment Grows Over Paying for Others' Foreclosure Misery
(Dreadful) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,497707,00.html
Michelle Fry is a suburban Atlanta homeowner who has seen the value of her modest one-family home drop by more than half in the past year. She now sees a national mortgage bailout plan that appears to reward people who bought more house than they could afford and can't pay their bills. And she has a simple question for President Obama:
"Why am I paying for them?"
"We are very frustrated and scared," said Fry, 32, a newly expectant mother who works as a creative director for a public relations firm. Her husband Sam, 38, is a truck driver for a local printing company. Their combined household income is less than $100,000.
"My husband and I always discuss, 'Why do we try to better ourselves, when it seems if you do nothing, you get all the help in the world?'” she said.
That kind of frustration is being expressed at dinner tables throughout the country. Middle class homeowners who worked hard, played by the rules and paid their mortgage bills and taxes on time are wondering out loud whether the government is interested in helping them, too.
Their frustration is justified, said Richard Green, director of the Lusk Center for Real Estate at the University of Southern California. But the economic risk of letting millions of homeowners default on their mortgages leaves the government with little choice.
"A year ago I would have been appalled at this plan," Green said. "Now I think we have to do something like this. The moral hazard argument is valid, but is trumped by the macroeconomic situation."
Obama's plan, which he announced on Wednesday, would provide $75 billion in incentives to mortgage lenders to refinance homes in danger of foreclosure. Another $200 million would be spent to shore up Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two large government-controlled entities that back residential mortgages.
The plan would help 8 to 9 million mortgage holders -- a fraction of the approximately 50 million mortgages outstanding, according to Patrick Newport, a housing analyst at IHS Global Insight.
"The 40 million who aren't going to benefit from this will feel some resentment, because they are current on their mortgages and made good decisions," he said.
The president took pains to defend his plan against critics who say it bails out irresponsible buyers who spent more than they could afford.
"The plan I’m announcing focuses on rescuing families who have played by the rules and acted responsibly," Obama said. "It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans. And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford."
But those assurances are little consolation to Danny and Sara Jovic, who own a condo in Delray Beach, Fla.
They bought their home for $275,000 in April 2006, putting 20 percent down and getting a fixed-rate, 6.25 percent mortgage to cover the rest.
Now their condo is worth only about $175,000, putting the two-income couple among the millions of homeowners whose mortgages are now "underwater" -- meaning they owe the bank more than they can sell their house for.
Their condo association has already whacked them with a one-time fee of $500 to make up for other homeowners who were foreclosed. And their monthly fees have gone up permanently by $100. That's a tough nut to swallow for Jovic, 30, and Sara, 28, whose combined income is between $80,000 and $90,000. They are thinking of starting a family, but they are unsure given the volatile economic times.
"I think the government should help people like me, or the bank should be willing to adjust the loan fairly -- at least make it based on market value now," Jovic said.
Green says the majority of Americans can be forgiven for holding their noses when they look over Obama's plan, but they should accept it nonetheless because it will help those who are in trouble through no fault of their own.
The plan will help millions of people who bought homes they could afford but now are unable to refinance or make payments because they lost their jobs.
"A decent number of these people have been completely responsible and have had the world come crashing down on them,” Green said.
And if the plan succeeds in bolstering sagging home values, that will help everyone, he said.
While the plan may help many who most need assistance, there may be some
.......................................unforeseen consequences,
warned David R. Henderson, a research fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
Bailing out homeowners who would otherwise be forced to find more affordable housing could hurt people who are ready to buy homes at rock-bottom prices, he said.
"All those people who have been saving their money, waiting on the sidelines, are being penalized," Henderson said. "The government is taking away this opportunity."
Philosophical arguments about Obama’s plan do little to comfort Jovic, who wonders if he should continue pouring money into a property that may never fully recover its value.
“Do I continue to invest, or do I cut and run?” he asked.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(emphasis mine)
Several mortgages here in Albuquerque were ON NON-EXISTENT homes. Wonder if they will be bailed out??
Take care...............pilgrim
Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis
CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY
* Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis
First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.
The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."
Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all -- working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act. This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements -- mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown -- providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.
Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.
Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests - and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones."These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. "From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy."As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.
The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in "the end of welfare as we know it" -- the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.
Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. "This wasn't an accident," Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. "It wasn't an atmospheric thing, it wasn't supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."
Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.
In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.
All three of these organizations -- ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE -- set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with "dead wood" -- invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people -- thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections.
The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives -- typically featuring high levels of fraud -- with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement," and "direct action" (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries.
Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party," through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left's most ambitious campaigns.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sound familiar??
Take care...............pilgrim
Stimulus Bill Spending Shuts Out Small Business
http://www.thjournal.com/article_read.asp?title=Stimulus+Bill+Spending+Shuts+Out+Small+Business&item=336
Petaluma, Calif. - President Barack Obama's stimulus bill offers $499
billion in new government spending. The bill contains no specific
provisions to direct even one dollar of those funds to America's 26
million small businesses.
According to the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau, firms
with less than 20 employees account for over 90 percent of all
American businesses and are responsible for more than 97 percent of
all new jobs. These small businesses also employ over 50 percent of
all private sector workers.
(http://cts.vresp.com/c/?AmericanSmallBusines/7255b332a6/42386b49a1/eb85557e3b
Inc.com and CNNMoney.com released stories on the findings.
(http://cts.vresp.com/c/?AmericanSmallBusines/7255b332a6/42386b49a1/3a1c232603 ,
http://cts.vresp.com/c/?AmericanSmallBusines/7255b332a6/42386b49a1/7061048db9
Since the purpose of the stimulus bill is job creation, small business
owners and advocates are puzzled as to why the bill virtually ignores
the very firms that create 97 percent of all new jobs.
In addition to being shut out of the new economic stimulus bill,
federal investigations have uncovered that small businesses are not
receiving the minimum 23 percent of federal contracts as required by
existing federal law.
According to a series of more than 15 federal investigations that have
been released over the last seven years, the vast majority of
contracts the Small Business Administration (SBA) reported as going to
small businesses actually went to Fortune 500 firms and hundreds of
other clearly large businesses around the world.
(http://cts.vresp.com/c/?AmericanSmallBusines/7255b332a6/42386b49a1/d69d339dea
As much as $100 billion a year in federal small business contracts
have been diverted by the SBA and federal contracting officials to
firms such as Xerox, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Home Depot, Halliburton,
Raytheon and General Dynamics.
Federal contracting officials have even diverted U.S. government small business contracts to some of Europe's largest corporate giants. Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace (BAE) have received hundreds of millions of dollars in government small business contracts along with French defense contractor Thales Communications and Dutch conglomerate Buhrmann NV, which is headquartered in Amsterdam with thousands of employees worldwide.
As early as February of 2008, President Obama recognized the damage
diverting government small business contracts was having on the
national economy when he released the statement, "It is time to end
the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate
giants."
(http://cts.vresp.com/c/?AmericanSmallBusines/7255b332a6/42386b49a1/a94f3cfa58
Since making that statement almost a year ago, President Obama has not
proposed any policies to make good on his campaign promise. Without
legislation to stop it, the middle class economy will continue to
suffer, as over $400 million a day in government small business
contracts continue to be diverted from American small businesses.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Take care...............pilgrim
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
THOUGHTLET "A little thought (that) goes a long way."
Alan Keyes
http://loyaltoliberty.com/
February 18, 2009
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's not a thought likely to occur to anyone thinking about the banking system these days. It's broke alright. Insolvency is the word of the day, along with that other word, nationalization. Funny how so many people who think the nation state has effectively ceased to exist when it comes to borders and immigration suddenly rediscover its powers when its time to take over the banks.
"But Alan," you protest "we badly need a solution." Which, I reply, is not a good reason to accept a bad one. In fact , if things have gotten as bad as they say, maybe we should step back so as to let our thinking leap forward.
True, If it ain't broke, you don't fix it. But if it's really broke, you don't fix it either, you throw it away and replace it with something that works better.
Instead of taking the bad logic of a failed centralized banking system to its logical conclusion (total centralization), replace the logic with something more suited to the twenty-first century. The twentieth century was all about bigger, more regulated and extensive organization. The hallmark of the twenty-first is the network, the model work-in-progress of which is the internet. It depends on decentralized, individual units, that reach out and form communities based on direct interaction and mutual assessment, rather than a centrally determined distribution of information (like a central bank's fixing the interest rate.)
If the present banking system is failing- let it fail. That's the first step in preparing the way for the emergence of twenty-first century financial networks. Instead of pretending that bankrupt governments can magically save a bankrupt system, accept the fact that the financial Titanic is sinking. Get people out of it, and use what resources we have to construct and launch the fleet of lifeboats in which they can distance themselves from the vortex it causes as it goes down.
What I think we'll discover is that the new system we need will emerge from the resulting fleet, as we use twenty-first century tools to turn it into a floating net that won't be susceptible to the cascading disasters of the obsolete vessel. This deserves longer thought, which I'll share soon.
For more current thoughts from Alan Keyes, please visit www.LoyaltoLiberty.com
Posted 2009-02-18 7:19 AM (#7579) By: EternalVigilance
Amen!!
Take care...............pilgrim
GM stuffit!!!!!!! Thanks
That alert took my mind off my "bidness"!! LOL!
Need to be prepared? Fed Chairman Bernanke Speaks @ 1:00pm.
Take care...............pilgrim
Yes....Very Interesting!
Been following his site and posts!
That FX alert he had last night, was something~~
Nice to c ya again!
PS~~Merci was out and about today!
Illiquid Assets - The Truth
Posted by Karl Denninger at 00:53
http://market-ticker.org/authors/2-Karl-Denninger
10 minutes of your day and you will understand.
"Illiquid Assets" didn't happen as a consequence of the market. Nope - it was market interference that caused that to happen, and guess who was responsible?
To put it bluntly: You've been gamed America, by your government, so that a handful of rich campaign donors wouldn't have to confess to creating and holding the worthless trash on and off their balance sheets. Our economic deterioration will end only when interference in the market's clearing mechanisms ceases.
DOCTRINE AIR DEMOCRACY
Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.
Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."
Copps will remain acting chairman of the FCC until President Obama's nominee, Julius Genachowski, is confirmed, and Copps has been told by the White House not create "problems" for the incoming chairman by committing to issues or policy development before the Obama pick arrives.
But Copps has been a supporter of putting in place policies that would allow the federal government to have greater oversight over the content that TV and radio stations broadcast to the public, and both the FCC and Waxman are looking to licensing and renewal of licensing as a means of enforcing "Fairness Doctrine" type policies without actually using the hot-button term "Fairness Doctrine."
One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.
Waxman and the FCC staff are also said to be looking at ways to ease the "consumer complaint" process, which could also be used along with the advisory boards.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. "Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information," says on committee staffer. "We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."
"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about," says Democrat committee member. "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."
Also involved in "brainstorming" on "Fairness Doctrine and online monitoring has been the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which has published studies pressing for the Fairness Doctrine, as well as the radical MoveOn.org, which has been speaking to committee staff about policies that would allow them to use their five to six million person database to mobilize complaints against radio, TV or online entities they perceive to be limiting free speech or limiting opinion.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/16/in-all-fairness
ADVISORY BOARDS
THEY need to tell us how to think!!!!
New motto!!!!!! LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!
Take care...............pilgrim
We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny
February 14th, 2009 12:21 pm
Most Americans no longer read Alexis de Tocqueville’s masterpiece, Democracy in America, about which I wrote a book (Tocqueville on American Character; from which most of the following is taken) a few years ago. What a pity! No one understood us so well, no one described our current crisis with such brutal accuracy, as Tocqueville.
The economics of the current expansion of state power in America are, as I said, “fascist,” but the politics are not. We are not witnessing “American Fascism on the march.” Fascism was a war ideology and grew out of the terrible slaughter of the First World War. Fascism hailed the men who fought and prevailed on the battlefield, and wrapped itself in the well-established rhetoric of European nationalism, which does not exist in America and never has. Our liberties are indeed threatened, but by a tyranny of a very different sort.
Most of us imagine the transformation of a free society to a tyrannical state in Hollywood terms, as a melodramatic act of violence like a military coup or an armed insurrection. Tocqueville knows better. He foresees a slow death of freedom. The power of the centralized government will gradually expand, meddling in every area of our lives until, like a lobster in a slowly heated pot, we are cooked without ever realizing what has happened. The ultimate horror of Tocqueville’s vision is that we will welcome it, and even convince ourselves that we control it.
There is no single dramatic event in Tocqueville’s scenario, no storming of the Bastille, no assault on the Winter Palace, no March on Rome, no Kristallnacht. We are to be immobilized, Gulliver-like, by myriad rules and regulations, annoying little restrictions that become more and more binding until they eventually paralyze us.
Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated…
The tyranny he foresees for us does not have much in common with the vicious dictatorships of the last century, or with contemporary North Korea, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. He apologizes for lacking the proper words with which to define it. He hesitates to call it either tyranny or despotism, because it does not rule by terror or oppression. There are no secret police, no concentration camps, and no torture. “The nature of despotic power in democratic ages is not to be fierce or cruel, but minute and meddling.” The vision and even the language anticipate Orwell’s 1984, or Huxley’s Brave New World. Tocqueville describes the new tyranny as “an immense and tutelary power,” and its task is to watch over us all, and regulate every aspect of our lives.
It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.
We will not be bludgeoned into submission; we will be seduced. He foresees the collapse of American democracy as the end result of two parallel developments that ultimately render us meekly subservient to an enlarged bureaucratic power: the corruption of our character, and the emergence of a vast welfare state that manages all the details of our lives. His words are precisely the ones that best describe out current crisis:
That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
The metaphor of a parent maintaining perpetual control over his child is the language of contemporary American politics. All manner of new governmental powers are justified in the name of “the children,” from enhanced regulation of communications to special punishments for “hate speech;” from the empowerment of social service institutions to crack down on parents who try to discipline their children, to the mammoth expansion of sexual quotas from university athletic programs to private businesses. Tocqueville particularly abhors such new governmental powers because they are Federal, emanating from Washington, not from local governments. He reminds us that when the central government asserts its authority over states and communities, a tyrannical shadow lurks just behind. So long as local governments are strong, he says, even tyrannical laws can be mitigated by moderate enforcement at the local level, but once the central government takes control of the entire structure, our liberties are at grave risk.
It is evident that our associations, along with religion one of the two keys to the great success of the American experiment, are prime targets for the appetite of the state. In the seamless web created by the new tyranny, everything from the Boy Scouts to smoking clubs will be strictly regulated. It is no accident that the campaign to drive religion out of American public life began in the 1940s, when the government was consolidating its unprecedented expansion during the Depression and the Second World War, having asserted its control over a wide range of activities that had previously been entrusted to the judgment of private groups and individuals.
When we console ourselves with the thought that the government is, after all, doing it for a good reason and to accomplish a worthy objective, we unwittingly turn up the temperature under our lobster-pot. The road to the Faustian Deal is paved with the finest intentions, but the last stop is the ruin of our soul.
Permitting the central government to assume our proper responsibilities is not merely a transfer of power from us to them; it does grave damage to our spirit. It subverts our national character. In Tocqueville’s elegant construction, it “renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself.” Once we go over the edge toward the pursuit of material wealth, our energies uncoil, and we become meek, quiescent and flaccid in the defense of freedom.
The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
The devilish genius of this form of tyranny is that it looks and even acts democratic. We still elect our representatives, and they still ask us for our support. “…servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind…might be combined with some of the outward forms of freedom, and…might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.” Freedom is smothered without touching the institutions of political democracy. We act out democratic skits while submitting to an oppressive central power that we ourselves have chosen.
They devise a sole, tutelary and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people…this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians.
There is a very old joke about the husband who announces that he has a perfect marriage: he makes all the big decisions, and lets his wife deal with the minor matters. He decides when the country should go to war, while she manages the family budget. He decides who should govern America, and she makes all the decisions about the upbringing of the children: where they go to school, what they wear, how much allowance they receive, and so on. That is precisely the sort of division of powers Tocqueville fears for us. We will be permitted to make the big decisions: who will be president, and who will sit in the legislature. But it will not matter, because the state will decide how our money will be spent, how our children will be raised, and how we will behave, down to the details of the language we are permitted to use.
We laugh at the joke because we realize that the husband’s “big decisions” are meaningless; the same eventually applies to a “democratic” state that makes all our little decisions for us. Tocqueville unerringly puts his finger on the absurdity: we give power to the state in matters that require only simple good sense, as if we were incapable of exercising it. But we elect the government itself, as if we were the very incarnation of wisdom. We are “alternately made the playthings of [our] ruler, and his masters, more than kings and less than men.”
We may chuckle, but it is the rueful laugh of the powerless, because such a government is far harder to resist than a traditional tyranny. “Nothing is so irresistible as a tyrannical power commanding in the name of the people,” Tocqueville intones, because it wields the awesome moral power of the majority and “acts…with the quickness and the persistence of a single man.”
As Tocqueville grimly predicted, modern totalitarians have thoroughly mastered this lesson. Nazis, Fascists and Communists have passionately preached sermons of equality, and constantly paid formal homage to the sovereignty of the people. Hitler proclaimed himself primus inter pares, the first among equals, while Mao and Stalin claimed their authority in the name of a classless society where everyone would be equal. And, while Communism was brought to power by violent coups or by military conquest, Fascism was not installed by violence. Hitler and Mussolini were popular leaders, their authority was sanctioned by great electoral victories and repeated demonstrations of mass public enthusiasm, and neither of them was ever challenged by a significant percentage of the population. The great Israeli historian Jacob Talmon coined the perfect name for this perversion of the Enlightenment dream, which enslaves all in the name of all: totalitarian democracy.
These extreme cases help us understand Tocqueville’s brilliant warning that equality is not a defense against tyranny, but an open invitation to ambitious and cunning leaders who enlist our support in depriving ourselves of freedom. He summarizes it in two sentences that should be memorized by every American who cherishes freedom:
The…sole condition required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced, as it were, to a single principle.
As I said last time, we’re in for a hell of a fight. Or so I hope.
Take care ..........pilgrim.
Groundwork for a Soviet-style Federal Health Board
Dr. Coburn Statement Opposing Passage of Stimulus Bill
Urges President and Congress to cut earmarks from bill
February 10, 2009
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement today after voting against the so-called stimulus bill.
“Instead of writing a bill that will work, Congress passed a bill that puts the ideological interests of one party ahead of the economic interests of the nation. The foundational principles behind this bill were tried and failed in the 1930’s. This bill represents the worst act of generational theft in our history. This bill will add $10,800 of debt to every American family with little hope of a return on our investment. If the economy improves it will be in spite of, not because of, this bill,” Dr. Coburn said, citing a CBO report that predicts the stimulus bill will cause our GDP to shrink over the long term.
“One reason the public is skeptical of this bill is because bill authors made zero effort to eliminate any wasteful spending to help pay for this package even though Congress wastes at least $300 billion every year. Few families in America have the luxury of avoiding tough economic choices. Yet, career politicians in Congress refused to make any tough choices because they didn’t want to offend the special interest groups that finance their campaigns. The bill also includes a grossly irresponsible bailout to states that will reward states that refused to live within their means while punishing states like Oklahoma that planned ahead and set up rainy day funds to make it through economic downturns. When this bill becomes law, states will no longer have the incentive to live within their means because they'll assume the federal government will be there to bail them out,” Dr. Coburn said.
“This package continues to divide Congress and the country because it is 90 percent social policy and 10 percent economic policy. Congress could have passed a bipartisan bill that was truly focused on stimulating our economy and job creation in the short-term. Instead, this bill is packed with policy changes that should have been debated in another context,” Dr. Coburn said.
“For instance, this bill lays the groundwork for a Soviet-style Federal Health Board that will put bureaucrats and politicians in charge of our nation’s health care system. In other countries like the United Kingdom, such boards have led to health care rationing and greatly reduced cure rates for diseases like breast cancer. As a practicing physician, I believe we should trust doctors and patients, not politicians and lobbyists, to make decisions about the cost and effectiveness of health care products and treatments. Greatly expanding government’s control over health care under the guise of information technology development will create a severe backlash among the American people,” Dr. Coburn said.
“Finally, as the House and Senate resolve the differences between the competing bills, I would urge President Obama to force Congress to remove the earmarks from this bill and ensure that Congress retains my amendment that requires contracts to go through a competitive bidding process. What matters more than the back and forth in Washington about the definition of earmarks is how the American people will react when they discover the egregious pork projects and special interest provisions in this bill. Republicans underestimated the public’s disgust with politics as usual earmarking. I hope the President and congressional Democrats will learn from our mistakes. If history is any guide, a bill of this magnitude will lead to considerable waste and embarrassment to its authors if we fail to build in accountability, competition and transparency into the process now,” Dr Coburn said.
Watch Dr. Coburn's speeches on the Senate Stimulus bill here
http://src.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Senators.Television&Senator_id=9d15187d-b0a9-4a86-87c7-0a1ac69fc09b
Wish this Dr was our (NM) Senator!!!!!!!!!!!
Didn't some one say "No earmarks or PORK in this bill??"
Take care ..........pilgrim.
Growing the Economy:
Three Models of Failure, Three Models of Success
There’s a debate raging in Washington over how to improve economic growth. On the one side, the liberal establishment wants to “stimulate” the economy by stealing money from taxpayers and giving it to unionized government make-work projects. On the other side, free market conservatives favor lower marginal tax rates, full business expensing, tax-free savings, free trade, sound money, and lower government spending. In the recent past, there have been three models of “stimulus” failure, and three models of free-market success.
Failed “Stimulus” Plans
* In 1997, Argentina’s economy began to worsen. In response, Argentine non-interest government spending grew from 23% of GDP in 1997 to 25% of GDP by 2001. The equivalent in the U.S. would be an immediate increase in government spending of nearly $300 billion. Despite this, average real GDP growth in the period was just 0.7%
* In the 1990s, Japan tried to grow government to “prime the pump” of the economy. Government spending grew from 32% of GDP in 1991 to 38% of GDP in 2000. The equivalent in the U.S. would be an immediate increase in government spending of nearly $900 billion. After this experiment, Japan’s per-capita national income fell from 86 percent of the U.S. level in 1991 to only 74 percent in 2000. The people of Japan became poorer after this massive government “stimulus”
* In 1929, the U.S. entered the Great Depression. In the decade following, a Republican failed president (Herbert Hoover) and a Democrat failed president (FDR) increased federal spending from 3.4% of GDP in 1930 to 10.3% of GDP in 1939. The equivalent today would be an immediate increase in government spending of $1 trillion. Despite all the spending of the New Deal, the U.S. economy actually shrank from $97.4 billion to $89.1 billion, or nearly 10 percent in 10 years
Successful Growth Models
* In late 1963, Congress implemented the Kennedy tax cut, which lowered the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91% to 70%. Until LBJ raised taxes to pay for the Vietnam War and Great Society, average annual real GDP growth from 1964-1966 was 6.2%.
* In 1983, the Reagan tax cuts were fully implemented. They reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to 50%, and also cut the corporate income tax rate. The top personal rate was reduced to 28% in 1986. Average annual
real GDP growth from 1983 to 1989 (the last year before the George H.W. Bush tax hike) was 4.3%
* In 2003, President George W. Bush cut the top personal rate from 38.1% to 35%, the dividend rate from 38.1% to 15%, and the capital gains rate from 20% to 15%. Until Democrats took over Congress in 2006 and announced the imminent end of these lower tax rates, real GDP growth averaged 3.0% per year
There are two models at work here:
* Keynesian Stimulus. The government spends taxpayer money on projects to “create jobs.”
.....The only jobs that are created are in the sprawling government bureaucracies. Because the government cannot spend any money on the economy it did not first take from the economy, this model cannot create economic growth. (emphasis mine)
It failed in Japan and Argentina in the 1990s, and right here in America in the 1930s. Economic growth was stagnant or negative in all three cases. The government purely and simply wasted taxpayers’ money
* Growth Economics. When marginal tax rates on work, saving, and investment are cut, incentives to produce more work, savings, and investment go up. The Kennedy tax cuts worked. The Reagan tax cuts worked. The Bush tax cuts worked. In all three cases, lowering marginal tax rates caused economic growth to rise and for all Americans to be better off.
How to Grow the Economy Now and Permanently
* Cut the top personal income tax rate from 35% to 25%
* Cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%
* Cut the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 0%
* Move to full business expensing of all business investments
* Stop double-taxing U.S. employers on their income earned overseas
* Kill the Death Tax
* Kill the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
* Cut the payroll and self-employment tax rate in half, from 15.3% to 7.5%
* Cap government spending to the pre-Bush level of 18% of GDP
* Require full government transparency to ensure that taxpayer money is not wasted
http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2002/071702.htm
http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2222.cfm
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/sheets/hist01z2.xls
All real GDP growth figures in the successful models taken from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Account
###
Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose any and all federal and state tax increases. For more information, or to arrange an interview with Mr. Norquist please contact John Kartch at (202)785-0266 or by email at jkartch@atr.org.
http://www.atr.org/content/html/2009/feb/020909pr-growing_the_economy_three_models.html
Repeat?
Because the government cannot spend any money on the economy it did not first take from the economy, this model cannot create economic growth.
Take care ..........pilgrim.
HOW TO CONTROL PEOPLE Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???
by Charley Reese
http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html
The difference between true education and vocational training has been
cleverly blurred. Here are a few tips on how smart people can control
other people. If any of this rings a bell - Well, then wake up!
The first principle of people control is not to let them know you are
controlling them. If people knew, this knowledge will breed resentment
and possibly rebellion, which would then require brute force and terror,
and old fashioned, expensive and not 100 % certain method of control.
It is easier than you think to control people indirectly, to manipulate
them into thinking what you want them to think and doing what you want
them to do.
One basic technique is to keep them ignorant. Educated people are not as
easy to manipulate. Abolishing public education or restricting access to
education would be the direct approach. That would spill the beans. The
indirect approach is to control the education they receive.
It's possible to be a Ph.D., doctor, lawyer, businessman, journalist, or
an accountant, just to name a few examples, and at the same time be an
uneducated person. The difference between true education and vocational
training has been cleverly blurred in our time so that we have people
successfully practicing their vocations while at the same time being
totally ignorant of the larger issues of the world in which they live.
The most obvious symptom is their absence of original thought. Ask them
a question and they will end up reciting what someone else thinks or
thought the answer was. What do they think Well, they never thought about
it. Their education consisted of learning how to use the library and cite
sources.
That greatly simplifies things for the controller because with lots of
money, university endowments, foundations, grants, and ownership of
media, it is relatively easy to control who they will think of as
authorities to cite in lieu of doing their own thinking.
Another technique is to keep them entertained. Roman emperors did not
stage circuses and gladiator contests because they didn't have
television. We have television because we don't have circuses and
gladiator events. Either way, the purpose is to keep the people's minds
focused on entertainment, sports, and peripheral political issues. This
way you won't have to worry that they will ever figure out the real
issues that allow you to control them.
Just as a truly educated person is difficult to control, so too is an
economically independent person. Therefore, you want to create conditions
that will produce people who work for wages, since wage earners have
little control over their economic destiny. You'll also want to control
the monetary, credit, and banking systems. This will allow you to inflate
the currency and make it next to impossible for wage earners to
accumulate capital. You can also cause periodic deflation to collapse the
family businesses, family farms, and entrepreneurs, including independent
community banks.
To keep trade unions under control, you just promote a scheme that
allows you to shift production jobs out of the country and bring back the
products as imports (it is called free trade). This way you will end up
with no unions or docile unions.
Another technique is to buy both political parties so that after a while
people will feel that no matter whether they vote for Candidate A or
Candidate B, they will get the same policies. This will create great
apathy and a belief that the political process is useless for effecting
real change.
Pretty soon you will have a population that feels completely helpless,
and thinks the bad things happening to them are nobody in particular's
fault, just a result of global forces or evolution or some other
disembodied abstract concept. If necessary, you can offer scapegoats.
Then you can bleed them dry without having to worry overly much that one
of them will sneak into your house one night and cut your throat. If you
do it right, they won't even know whose throat they are cutting.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm???
Take care ..........pilgrim.
THE 545 PEOPLE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL
OF AMERICA'S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY
Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.
O'neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.
This article was taken from the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/woes.htm More good articles here!!
Take care ..........pilgrim.
rt20 THAT IS HERESY!!!!!HERESY!!!!HERESY!!!!I.SAY!!! J/K
All jokes aside that would have made it impossible to pass this
. . . . . . . "PORKULUS"
They passed it with out most of the congress critters reading it.
Not for sure I, being an old man, want to know all that is there.
From what little I have read the Doctors will be dictated to by some politician whether or not I can be treated with certain treatment or drugs. The more I know, the more distrustful of my government.
Take care ..........pilgrim.
Shouldn't this have been done before the "stimulus" package passed or was even written??
Obama to Shift Focus to Budget Deficit
By JONATHAN WEISMAN
With a $787 billion stimulus package in hand, President Barack Obama will pivot quickly to address a budget deficit that could now approach $2 trillion this year.
He has scheduled a "fiscal-responsibility summit" on Feb. 23 and will unveil a budget blueprint three days later, crafted to put pressure on politicians to address the country's surging long-term debt crisis.
Speaking Friday to business leaders at the White House, the president defended the surge of spending in the stimulus plan, but he made sure to add: "It's important for us to think in the midterm and long term. And over that midterm and long term, we're going to have to have fiscal discipline. We are not going to be able to perpetually finance the levels of debt that the federal government is currently carrying."
Along those lines, White House budget director Peter R. Orszag has committed to instituting tougher budget-discipline rules -- once the economy turns around. Those include a mandate that any "nonemergency" spending increases be offset by equal spending cuts or tax increases.
Officials say the budget blueprint to be released this month will also attempt to make public the full extent of the dire fiscal situation, by not repeating some of the accounting used in crafting President George W. Bush's budgets. Recent budget blueprints excluded from deficit projections the long-term costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those budgets also didn't include the cost of preventing the alternative minimum tax -- instituted in 1969 to ensure the rich didn't escape taxation -- from hitting the middle class.
Officials are examining whether to include those costs. The budget will project out 10 years, not the five-year forecast instituted by Mr. Bush. And with the stimulus cost, the fiscal 2009 deficit in the document is likely to exceed the $1.2 trillion forecast by the Congressional Budget Office last month.
Obama aides say they aren't looking for quick action, but a start to the conversation. "We're going to bring some things to the table, but we're going to listen to everybody else," said Christina Romer, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, in an interview Friday. "It's a giant issue, and it's not one we can solve unilaterally."
The president met with 44 fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats this week and gave a nod to legislation that would set up commissions to deal with long-term deficit strains. The commissions would then present plans to Congress for an up-or-down vote.
"We feel like we've found a partner in the White House," said Rep. Charlie Melancon (D., La.), a Blue Dog co-chairman. (emphasis mine)
For Mr. Obama, the national debt has become a pressing dilemma. If he transitions too quickly from priming the economy with money to pulling back for the sake of fiscal rectitude, the president risks choking off whatever economic recovery he might spark in the next year. Ms. Romer points to the seesaw nature of the New Deal, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt would spend big one year and then back away the next, never allowing the economy really to get traction.
But if the administration waits too long to address the deficit, long-term interest rates may have to rise to attract buyers for all those Treasury bonds. That too could send the economy back into recession.
White House economic aides believe they have room to maneuver. Demand for Treasury bonds will remain strong for the next two to three years, a senior administration official said. But the White House also considers it imperative to signal how serious Mr. Obama is about a debt that could soar toward levels experienced by Japan, whose national debt equals the size of the country's economy. At just over 40% of gross domestic product, the U.S. debt is the country's highest in a decade.
That is manageable, administration economists say, but needs to be stabilized.
Projections for 2009 deficit range from Goldman Sachs's $1.43 trillion to $1.9 trillion from economic firm Strategas Research Partners. At 13.5% of GDP, a $1.9 trillion shortfall would more than double the peacetime record during Ronald Reagan's presidency, and approach the mark set in 1942 as the U.S. joined World War II.
Can anyone say "INFLATION"??? Let's see it took eight years with the "problem deficit" by RINO's and DEMO's and now within 25 days it has increased
Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 trillion.
as stated by the hateful Heritage Foundation (/sarc)
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/true-cost-of-stimulus-327-trillion/
Wonder which number will be closest and how long my GREATGRANDCHILDREN will be paying on thes theft??????!!!!!!!!!!?????
May the Good LORD help us all!!!
Take care ..........pilgrim.
Total annual deficit as share of GDP???
Take care...............pilgrim
Afternoon stuffit,
Should have "stood up all night"! One of them 'kinda' night.
Watching, watching, watching! <bg>!!
Can't trust politicians, CEO's, MM's.............makes a fella wonder who to trust any more. LOL!! Trying to learn to trust my lying eyes!
Later? Back to watching!!
Take care...............pilgrim
GM~~
Looks like you were wandering around in the middle
of the night doing that Forex watching~
Hope and pray ALL is well...
Is It a Stimulus or a Broken Window?
by John Jagerson
I am naturally skeptical of anyone that is too confident about their investing strategy. There are no guarantees in the market or the economy so the very fast push for the stimulus (government investment) currently moving through congress is naturally something that is raising warning flags. Whether you agree with the need for a stimulus plan or not don't ignore the uncertainty and risk.
Regardless of political feelings, investors can and should be dealing with the risk of the stimulus very proactively. By accepting and dealing with uncertainty you can avoid the investor trap of "talking your position." Too often traders and politicians in defending their chosen plan of action refuse to acknowledge the potential risks and refuse to consider alternatives. Talking your position like this can lead to mistakes and a very exposed portfolio.
The risk of the stimulus is that it could be nothing more than a broken window. The broken window fallacy can best be described with a short story about a small village with its own economy. In this village a small boy throws a rock through the baker's window and breaks it. Is the boy a hero or a villain?
The argument for heroism is that the boys actions have caused the baker to spend money to buy a new window. That money is now available to be spent by the glazier in supplies and equipment. The supplies and equipment manufacturers can use the money to pay their employees who in turn may buy bread from the baker. In effect the boy has unlocked the value that was frozen in the window and the village's economy is now benefiting.
A stimulus that spends money on bailing out broken companies, public works projects and pork is like the boy. The boy is taking money from the U.S. consumer and then injecting it into the economy to stimulate growth. It is widely believed that this is justifiable because it is hypothesized that each dollar injected in the economy will "multiply" and ultimately provide a bigger benefit that the raw value of the injection itself.
The premise for the boy as a hero (or the need for a stimulus) depends on the assumption that the "baker" or U.S. consumer would not have used that money to spend and invest anyway. It assumes that the baker or consumer would have only hoarded that money and kept it idle.
An equally valid argument can be made that in fact the "boy" or government has merely reduced the value of the economy by one window because the baker or consumer would have spent or invested the money rather than hoarding it. By taking action like this, the boy has actually made the economy worse.
The point of this article was not to prove that one argument is valid while the other is worthless. In fact, no one knows which one is correct or why it will or won't work. That is the real take-away from this discussion; that uncertainty can work against you. If the stimulus doesn't work in the near term and growth does not come back to equities long stock traders will be worse than they are today.
By sowing the seeds of doubt, I hope to motivate investors and traders to start thinking about diversification across asset classes. Educate yourself about how assets like currencies, fixed income or commodities behave during recessions. Anyone can learn to implement strategies that decreases account volatility and protect against risk and there are plenty of free resources to do so at www.learningmarkets.com.
There is also a video at the link that (imo) is worth watching!
http://www.learningmarkets.com/index.php/200902031404/Stocks/Intermarket-Analysis/is-it-a-stimulus-or-a-broken-window.html
Take care.........pilgrim
THANKS it is ALWAYS GOOD to see you!!
Gone to watching Forex. Watching being the Big Word!!! LOL!!
"Lernin at my age 'heps the noggin' stay straight"! <gg>
Later?
Take care...............pilgrim
Howdy Partner! G O O D to S E E ya out and about~
There sure be plenty to watch, the list grows longer and longer~~
Happy Trails<hugs>
Nice to see u back,long time lurker here! G Luck
sure. happy trails
Thanks Generic,
Putting up a couple to watch.
Thanks for coming by! Later?
Take care...............pilgrim
NED $2.48
On Watch? Drop back to $2.25 area or lower??
.
Take care.......... pilgrim. abcx c0 xx
good 2 see u
TRID $1.89
.
Take care.......... pilgrim. xbxx c0 xx
ACTS $1.40
Volume increase??????
.
Take care.......... pilgrim. abxx c0 xx
SCMR $2.59
.
Take care.......... pilgrim. c(p)0
Note: Please, if you post a chart please post it in a white or light color. Love to see your charts but cannot see the black charts and please link to last mention. Thanks.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |