home

Friday Morning Open Thread

My high dudgeon posting ends early today. I leave you in the capable hands of J, TChris and Ethan.

UPDATE - Krugman on Morning Joe:

This is an Open Thread.

< Leading Beltway "Bipartisan" BSer Ignatius Gives Up On Post Partisan Unity Schtick | The Relationship Between The Post Partisan Unity Schtick And The "Centrist Pose" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Fabian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:31:47 AM EST
    I won't have the weather to gripe about any more!

    Mother Nature will remove the rest of the solid water this weekend, leaving only salt stains.  The brief warm spell will inspire the birds to start their territorial calls and I will tell them to "Shut up!  Spring isn't here yet!".

    Suppose I ought to start carving up the conifer carcasses laying across my yard.  Thanks for nothing Ike.

    Boycott Kellogs and USA Swimming... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:52:48 AM EST
    apparently they think taking bong rips at a party is a "terrible mistake" worthty of disciplinary action, and I say to hell with that tired thinking.

    I already buy no-frills Raisin Bran and Rice Krispies though, so it's up to you guys:)

    isn't manufacturing your no-frills stuff.

    Nothing about the Kelloggs Co. surprises me. I interviewed with them for a "career" position some ten years or so ago and after some research discovered it is an extremely difficult company to work for. As I recall, its interview process consisted of six different stages (WTF). That was too much for me and in the spirit of the Family Guy Episode where they show up at Superman's Fortress of Solitude, I responded "me no thinks so."

    Parent

    Makes sense actually... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:51:23 AM EST
    the Kellogg brothers were notoriously weird dudes, especially John Harvey Kellogg.  A holy-roller vegitarian abstinence freak who believed a plain and healthy diet reduced sexual urges.

    If any of that madness is still haunting the company (dropping Phelps could be an indicator), good call looking elsewhere:)

    Parent

    There is a great movie (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    -- gosh, what is the name?  someone here will know -- about the crazy guy, played by Anthony Hopkins.  And a great PBS documentary done years ago about all of the crazy cereal kings of Michigan. . . .

    My favorite health nut of the era was Dr. Graham, inventor of graham crackers -- which, didja know, he claimed would have aphrodisiac powers?  So then you had to have your flaked corn or puffed rice to counter your graham crackers.  The Victorian era was just weird.

    Parent

    Movie: the road to Wellville (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by DFLer on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:19:37 AM EST
    based on T.C. Boyle's fab novel of the same name.

    Parent
    That's it; thanks! and (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:10:44 PM EST
    I forgot the good book that begat the movie, documentary, etc. -- I skimmed it after seeing those and saw that it was solid historical work.

    But to see it brought to life by Anthony Hopkins with fake buck teeth and speaking in a Midwestern accent while in his skivvies on a 19th-century exercycle, promoting the benefits of flatus!  No historian, and I am one, can compete with that. :-)

    Parent

    I love TC Boyle's novels (none / 0) (#152)
    by DFLer on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:56:33 PM EST
    Place me firmly.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:02:43 AM EST
    in the Dr. Graham camp then, much more my cup of tea.

    I've long been sold on the aphrodisiac-like qualities of the green stuff in the bong...me and the lady-friend will have to add graham crackers to the munchie menu and test this theory:)

    Parent

    Kellogg (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:56:01 AM EST
    is headquartered in Western Michigan, a very conservative area.  I can't say I'm an expert on their corporate culture, but one of their former CEOs ended up in Bush's cabinet, so maybe that gives us an idea of where they're coming from.

    I know this much: It is not in the business interests of anyone who makes a munchable product to go around condemning Michael Phelps.

    Parent

    Battle Creek (none / 0) (#77)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:01:57 AM EST
    Gosh, every kid knew that town's name when I was growing up.

    Send in your box tops!

    Parent

    When I was a kid (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    I got to take a tour of their cereal plant.  I think they gave you some free cereal at the end.  This is what we do for fun in the Midwest.

    Parent
    Here in Upstate New York It Was the Crematorium (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:03:44 PM EST
    No kidding.

    One HOT summer day at my day camp there was a problem with the swimming pool so the high schooler counselors took us on this hike to the old park-like Victorian cemetery nearby. All they could think of, I guess.

    So you have to picture about two dozen panting, sweating parched children tramping into the elegant gothic chapel building for some water and being met by the elderly attendant (who my deceptive memory is seeing as Vincent Price-like) who invited us in for a tour and opened the retorts so we could peer in while he intoned: "These fire up to a temperature of 2000 degrees Farenheit..."

    My girl scout troop leader also took us on our one nature hike to a cemetery. Looking back, I never realized what an Edward Gorey childhood I had! Explains a lot...

    Parent

    Actually sounds like fun.... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:21:30 PM EST
    us NYC public school kids got the Museum of Natural History, the Guggenheim, MOMA, the UN...all awesome but a crematorium or a potato chip factory thrown in there woulda been cool.

    Parent
    NYC Catholic school kid here (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by byteb on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:26:19 PM EST
    we got to go to The Cloisters. Good times.

    Parent
    Switched to Catholic... (none / 0) (#154)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    in high school, we went on some retreat in Oyster Bay one time where my school, or technically the Diocese I guess, owned this huge piece of property and big beautiful old mansion.

    That's when the realization that the Catholic Church had some racket going really hit home.

    Parent

    St Patrick's Cathedral (none / 0) (#161)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:14:04 PM EST
    and the Statue of Liberty were our parochial 8th Grade field trip to the Big Apple in the late 1960's.

    I recall all of us archetypal upstate New York greenhorns gaping out the windows of the bus at the bustle of midtown and the people...though I'd, at least, been there many times by then with my family.

    I would have LOVED the Cloisters then.

    Parent

    Did You Forget (none / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:37:50 PM EST
    Going to the mausoleum at the Met? We also got to go to the Metropolitan Museum. The Egyptian part was kinda like a crematorium.

    Didn't you get to go to the met as well?

    Parent

    Probably.... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:53:33 PM EST
    I thought the big Egyptian exhibit was at Natural History though...my memories are hazy, I guess it is time to go back to all of 'em:)

    Parent
    No It Was The Met (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    I think all NYC public schools had the same outings. We did go to natural history more than the rest though.. So I bet that is why it has stuck in your memory more.

    Still one of my favorite places though, although if I had to choose where to be stuck for a week I would choose the Met.

    Parent

    Oh yea (none / 0) (#160)
    by CST on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    "From the Mixed-up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler"

    I loved that book as a kid.

    Parent

    Was Fun (none / 0) (#157)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:07:57 PM EST
    Good for ghost stories around the camp fire and with the ouija board on the front porch on balmy windy nights the rest of the summer.

    We (cruel) children all fixated on the poor old guy's yellow teeth...and the way he put his arm around some of us as we bent over the retorts...like (we opined) he wanted to push us in.

    More likely another motive...

    Parent

    Ain't that the truth! (none / 0) (#88)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    Our field trips were to the local bakery, the potato chip plant and the dairy.

    Free samples for all my friends! You'd think they were purposely trying to fatten us up.

    Parent

    Hey, we got free cheese curds (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:12:30 PM EST
    on such field trips where I come from; eat your hearts out, as cheese curds sure do.

    And we got the requisite brewery tours but couldn't accept the free beer.  The caves are cool, though -- the tours still offered, and you're all old enough now to accept the free beer.

    Parent

    Yay cheese! (none / 0) (#155)
    by CST on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    To be honest, I don't remember any school field trips except one to Salem MA for the witch museums (that was embarrising, we were seniors reading the crucible with a crazy English teacher and everyone else was in third grade or lower).

    But I used to go on cheese factory and ice-cream factory tours with my family in VT.  I loooved the free samples.  On the 4th of July there was a parade where people on floats would throw candy and stuff.  The cheese people always threw little packets of cheddar. Mmmmmmm....

    Brewery tours are cool too.  Although I made the mistake of telling the people at the Guiness brewery my real age when I visited in order to get the discount.  I didn't realize the drinking age was 18 and I was not quite there yet.  But nobody told me and I'd been going to the bars so I thought it was 16.  Oops!

    Parent

    My Ex Husband Grew Up in PA Dutch Country (none / 0) (#158)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:09:31 PM EST
    so...many, many field trips to Hershey plant!

    Parent
    Okay, chocolate beats cheese (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:20:12 PM EST
    hands-down.  But don't tell anyone else from Wisconsin that I said so.

    Parent
    Excepting That (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:23:24 PM EST
    Hersheys is not chocolate any more than cheez wiz is cheese.

    Parent
    And, don't overlook their entire product line: (none / 0) (#62)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:44:40 AM EST
    Keebler, Eggo, Austin, Sunshine and Morningstar, to name a few.

    Parent
    Nor did Phelps have any qualms (none / 0) (#94)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:32:45 AM EST
    about putting his face on Frosted Flakes.  

    Parent
    Don't mean to be too picky (none / 0) (#116)
    by DFLer on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    isn't he just on K. Corn Flakes? Tony the Tiger still graces the boxes of Frosted Flakes at my stores.

    Parent
    And may he always.... (none / 0) (#162)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:20:48 PM EST
    Kellogs might be on my sh*t list, but Tony the Tiger is an American icon.

    "They're Grrrrreat!"

    Parent

    Phelps sd. three-month suspension (none / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:47:36 PM EST
    from competitive swimming is fair.  Maybe after three months Kellogg will reinstate?  Do I care?  No.

    Parent
    Kellogs Calls The Shots (none / 0) (#189)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:05:33 PM EST
    USA Swimming took its action after Kellogs. Wonder where they get their funding?

    USA Swimming receives no government funding. Traditionally, the organization's primary source of funding has come from member dues, as well as additional support from corporate sponsors and the U.S. Olympic Committee.

    Link

    Wonder if Kellogs is a corporate sponsor?  

    Seems stupid to me and a big waste of time. Most notably a bow to the corporate sponsors of USA Swimming and Phelps endorsements which may be one in the same.

    At least Phelps has more time on his hands to party without worrying about being drug tested.

    Parent

    The Republicans are trying to destroy the county (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:54:36 AM EST
    Jon Kyl is bellyaching about inflation on the floor of the Senate. More bully pulpit please, Mr. President.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:07:00 AM EST
    maybe they'll send someone out to pick up us poor bastards who have been bailing water out of our lifeboats since last August.

    Parent
    he's on date night with Michelle then leaving for (none / 0) (#193)
    by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:53:08 PM EST
    Camp David.... real sense of emergency? I think not!

    Parent
    Glenn Greenwald fans alert: (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by DFLer on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    Tonight on PBS Bill Moyers show:
    In an increasingly political media environment, how has journalism responded to the task of getting to the truth and informing the public? Bill Moyers sits down with NYU journalism professor and PressThink blogger Jay Rosen and political journalist and Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald.

    check your local listings.

    The (none / 0) (#93)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    truth is that the people in the media have internalized the process so thoroughly they do not even know they are mere mindless cogs in a larger and ominous corporate/state machine.


    Parent
    What's going to suck (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:44:49 AM EST
    Is that I have a feeling the media is back- look I don't want to say the media has an overt conservative bias (it just looks that way) but over the last 35 Years they basically been in a vicious cycle of attack-feel bad- back off-feel guilty- attack

    Nixon- Attack
    Ford- Back off
    Carter- attack
    Reagan- Back off
    Bush I- Attack at the very end
    Clinton- Attack
    Bush II- basically allow to make sweet, sweet love to
    Obama- Attack
    They bought into Obama and Bill Clinton as Kennedy figures during their runs for office but now view them as usurpers of the righful republican throne.

    The most egregious example (to me) is still how the media bought into the myth that a highly decorated war vet, turned prosecutor (two things the Media usually holds as paragons of toughness) was less manly and courageous than a cheerleader who shirked his duty and loved to play dressup ("I'm a cowboy" "I'm a fighter pilot" etc) it was just delusional to watch.

    And before that, that media (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    painted Gore, the guy who went to divinity school, as the liar vs. the guy whose come-to-Jesus story never convinced me.

    Parent
    In fairness (none / 0) (#118)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:54:42 AM EST
    They helped Obama v. McCain and Clinton v. Bush by painting the GOP as the party of old, out of touch people and the Democratic Canidates as the face of modern America.

    Parent
    One Democratic candidate (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:06:49 PM EST
    and pretty much trashed many others, especially one.  As we've seen now, don't trust it.

    Parent
    Actually two Democratic Canidates (none / 0) (#140)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and heck if you want to be honest about it- Jimmy Carter- basically everytime the mdeia has a had a chance they've embraced the more charismatic canidate- especially if said canidate can be seen as an outsider, the only real exception to this would be Dukakis and Kerry (when they had no choice).

    Parent
    Embraced charismatic Bill C? (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:33:21 PM EST
    No, and few have had his charisma.  I think you've got the kernel of a theory but that evidence undermines your argument.  More likely may be that media just glom on to the guy (so far, that's all) who guarantees good headlines, in print and on air.  Often, that is the candidate with charisma -- but sometimes, with CDS in play, guaranteed good headlines come from going after the one with charisma.

    Parent
    It was the pivot that clinched it... (none / 0) (#165)
    by huzzlewhat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    I think they embraced him as Candidate "Comeback Kid" Clinton, then swiveled and trashed him as President "Slick WIlly" Clinton. It looks like Obama's in danger of being the target of the same pivot.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#169)
    by Spamlet on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:38:42 PM EST
    Barack "Jimmy Carter" Obama. How long until the lying media falsely pin a "malaise" speech on Obama? (See the text of Carter's address of July 15, 1979, in which the word "malaise" does not appear.)

    Parent
    They turned on Clinton when he exiled them to (none / 0) (#194)
    by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:55:35 PM EST
    another building, which was never done before - that's when the war began.

    Parent
    TARP II Hearing Yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by santarita on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:54:52 AM EST
    Another compelling hearing with the GAO Acting Comptroller, the Special Investigator and Elisabeth Warren. I watched parts of it twice.  The big news out of it was that Elizabeth Warren found that there was a $78 billion discrepancy in how much Treasury received for it what it paid out.  I'd like to hear Paulson's explanation of that little problem.  

    But the hearing also made it clear that the Paulson Treasruy Department stonewalled the Congressional Oversight Committee.  I guess that Paulson was simply following the pattern of other Bush Administtration employees in simply ignoring Congress (and by extension us citizens).  The stonewalling makes the $78 billion discrepancy look bad and gives rise to the suspicion that Paulson had a hidden agenda for the TARP money.  My kindest thought at this point is that Paulson simply wanted to dole out the money in ways that he thought were best for the economy and didn't want anybody looking over his shoulder.      

    Are these thieves protected (none / 0) (#123)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    from prosecution?

    Parent
    I Don't Think So... (none / 0) (#150)
    by santarita on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:52:54 PM EST
    although at this point, I don't think Paulson is guilty of anything criminal.  Or maybe I should say that if he is guilty, then there are a lot of other people who will be joining him at Leavenworth.  

    Parent
    So Much For Just Making Headlines (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:37:22 PM EST
    It made great headlines for BushCo. Seemed like every week the number two man from Al Qaida was killed or apprehended.
    Over the last six months, 11 of al Qaeda's top leaders living along the Afghan-Pakistani border have been killed by drone airstrikes. During that same time, security in southern and eastern Afghanistan deteriorated.

    Tom Ricks via laura rozen

    MoMods!! housing help coming!!! (none / 0) (#1)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:25:21 AM EST
    :0) monday monday.....i love that day, need some Mamas and Papas to go with this news...

    Form the NY Post of all places, blech!:

        In a nod to Main Street over Wall Street, sources familiar with the plan say Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner plans to allocate almost half of the remaining $350 billion in funds from the Trouble Asset Relief Program to the so-called "Mo Mod," or mortgage modification, platform.

        "Mo Mod" is an algorithmic mortgage processing program that can rewrite up to 500,000 loans a month, and will be a major part of Treasury's plan to help repair tattered bank balance sheets.

        The 21-day "Mo Mod" program works by structuring a new mortgage that more accurately reflects a home's worth so that a troubled borrower no longer owes more on their home than the property is worth.

        The process then enables a lender to pool these new mortgages together into securities that reflect more accurately a home's value, which makes them less risky for investors.



    I hope it works... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:33:28 AM EST
    and if keeps people from being kicked to the curb, great....better than war or drug war spending.

    But is it righteous?  I don't gamble on land/home ownership, I gamble on horses and cards and spinning wheels.  If I lose, will the government negotiate a settlement between me and the house?  And what about the super-responsible people who don't gamble at all, who lived in a sh*tty 2 bedroom with their family instead of taking out an ARM on a 4 bedroom house with no money down...why does that person always get f*cked the most, while irresponsible bankers and irresponsible or unlucky home buyers get all the monetary love (especially the bankers).  It may be necessary, I really don't know, but my gut tells me it sure as hell ain't righteous.

    My turn to rant:)

    Parent

    As one of those... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:44:50 AM EST
    ...super responsible people, I've wondered that myself.  Might be necessary, but it sure as heck ain't right.  

    This country used to reward personal responsibility, not the opposite.   I guess I'll just be happy knowing that my debt is minimal and the roof over my head is paid for.  

    Parent

    I wonder where this road.. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:53:05 AM EST
    ends if we stay on this course...will there be any responsible people left?  It if gets to the point where it is irresponsible to be responsibile, and we turn completely into a nation of gamers trying to game the rigged market system...I think it's all over baby.

    Parent
    libertarianism :0) (none / 0) (#36)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:19:02 AM EST
    I just read those very words!! latimes:

    The issue, then, becomes one of fairness: Why help the imprudent when the prudent are struggling too?

    One solution would be for the government-controlled mortgage lenders and guarantors, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to offer all borrowers -- including those with fixed rates -- the same deal. Permanently lower monthly payments for a majority of U.S. households almost certainly would do more to stimulate consumer confidence than all the provisions of the stimulus package, including tax cuts.

    No doubt those who lost by such measures would not suffer in silence. But the benefits would surely outweigh the costs to bank shareholders, bank bondholders and the owners of mortgage-backed securities.

    Americans, Winston Churchill once remarked, will always do the right thing -- after they have exhausted all other alternatives. If we are still waiting for Keynes to save us when Davos comes around next year, it may well be too late. Only a Great Restructuring can end the Great Repression. It needs to happen soon.

    of course the DEMS led by Schumer and Reid killed the Ensign Amend last night which would have given EVERY AMERICAN the chance to refi..thus being more fair and equitable, which is what I wanted to do :0)


    Parent

    What about the schmucks... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:27:06 AM EST
    renting, living to check to check with no debts, and paying federal income taxes?  No soup for them?

    Parent
    We be hosed (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:02:17 AM EST
    Clearly we should have taken out a bunch of pre-approved credit cards and bought something the government would have had our backs then.

    Parent
    They're good people, but they're not (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:57:08 AM EST
    the ones keeping the construction trades -- crucial to our economy -- in business.  The landlords are.

    Parent
    deja vu (none / 0) (#38)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:20:34 AM EST
    oh boy I am having MASSIVE deja vu now looking at these comments we are making to each other right now....okay weird it is so strong..

    dum dum da DUM!!!!!!

    Parent

    It may not be righteous (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:13:24 AM EST
    because surely amongst the many good, decent hard working homeowners, there were a few cheaters.  Just like amongst the millions of decent people who need food stamps, use them wisely, there are cheaters.

    You want righterous, with a little sanctimony.  Read your post.  The Libertarian "me, me, me, it's all about me, I'm so good, I'm so responsible, how dare you help those losers" is part of the reason we are in this mess.

    Human beings are not robots. There are the strong, the weak, the clever, the not so clever, the selfless, the selfish.  It's called community.  That will never change.

    Yes, when we help the deserving, a few undeserving probably get help too.  Sort of like how our justice system is designed.  Sometimes the rights set up to protect the innocent also protect the guilty.   It happens.  Deal with it.

    Parent

    Spare me... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:37:00 AM EST
    the "me me me", I didn't call anybody a loser.  Some were irresponsible, some were just unlucky...luck is a big part of life and surviving and success, just as big as hard work...I don't deny this, I embrace it.  We have no choice but to embrace it.

    I like what Teddy Roosevelt said back in the day, I paraphrase..."the government's job is to ensure a fair deal, to ensure that everyone has the equal chance to fail or succeed, get lucky or unlucky.  It is not the government's job to declare a misdeal when you get stuck with a bad hand."

    You may think I'm a selfish prick...and I admit I'm selfish with my time and my life...it is mine and no one elses.  But not with money...I've got a friend down on his luck who my roomies and I have been housing and feeding for a couple weeks now.  I'd do the same for anybody, lend a helping hand...I just question whether it is right to keep someone in a house they never could afford, or who by fault or by simple chance can't afford it anymore.  At the expense of others who may not even own a house or a pot to piss in....that's f*ckin' selfish.  

    To make no mention of saving the banks that have done nothing but stick it to the little guy since forever, and saving their system of exploitation.

    Parent

    Look you want to play (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:16:20 AM EST
    "I'm am so responsible.........I never need anyone and too damn bad....boo hoo to those with bad luck", have at it.  But don't expect those of us who believe in the idea of community to keep silent.

    Be as damn selfish as you want, give to whomever you want and pat yourself on the back.  Whatever.  

    The bottom line for me is community.  And community means everyone, even the jerks. Libertarians, to me, are judgmental jerks who think they are above the rest, able to decide who is worthy and who is not.  

    So you spare me your constant lectures and whining about who is getting a "hand-out" and deciding whether or not they deserve it.  Whether or not there is a god, for me, libertarians don't get to play the role of one.

    Parent

    I'll tell ya... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:23:37 AM EST
    what your precious community looks like from this end...one hand out for a 5 grand vig and the other hand ready to cuff/fine/jail you.

    Want more support for your community?  Teach it some respect for the individual.

    Parent

    So... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:15:20 AM EST
    ...community includes the "jerks" except when they're libertarians?  

    I think your vitrole is very misplaced.  kdog is not your typical Colorado Springs reactionary libertarian looking to destroy the govenment and bring about a Mad Max kind of world.  

    He is very much the kind of person I would want to have in my community.  Selfless, compassionate, involved.  In fact, I wish there were more of his kind.  

    So, please spare me the hate-filled rants.  Community does involve all kinds of people, not just the ones that you personally like.  

    Parent

    Uh that's my point (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    community does include everyone....I am OK with that.

    So spare me the "stop your hate" lectures.  

    Why do you or kdog get to be the judges of who and who is not worthy?   That's my problem......it's sounds very reaganesque.......

    Parent

    I guess about the same time... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:46:17 AM EST
    ...you got to judge who is a "jerk" or "selfish" and who isn't.  

    Parent
    I underatand what you mean BUT (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:20:13 AM EST
    the responsible people's home values are being pulled into the cellar right along with the others. I'm for whatever will stop the slide.

    Parent
    This is not the first time (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    the housing market has created a situation where people were under water on their loan v. value because of a downturn in the economy. People waited it out and the values returned to give them a nice profit.

    The market was so great a few years ago, lenders were offering refinances at 125% of the home's value. Are those going to be saved now?

    Will the profits be adjusted and returned to the gov't when these re-appraised values double a couple years down the road, or will these people who weren't paying any attention at all to the pace of the housing market get to walk away with big chunks of equity when the market comes back?

    I think there are much more reasonable ways to manage this problem. Rewrite the loans with lower interest rates and longer terms, and review them every few years. Once the value of the property evens out to the original loan amount, stop the review process and write the final loan with an interest rate that matches the market at the time. I do NOT want my tax dollars creating a great big windfall profit for the people who got themselves into this mess. The writing was on the wall.


    Parent

    The versions of the morgage rewrites (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:17:23 AM EST
    ideas I have seen do pretty much like you say. If the house increases in value, the bank or the gov (whoever takes the hit now) gets the profit.

    We'll see what the entire plan holds.

    Parent

    70s (none / 0) (#40)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    actually, in the 70s after the tax credit for home purchased failed to stimulate housing they went ahead and offered everyone lower rates...

    our dem critters appear not to have learned this so we are starting with the tax credit and the ensign amend will no doubt be back in some form or other later as the massive unemployment adds to the foreclosures...sadly...

    :0)

    Parent

    Back in '89 (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:33:51 AM EST
    housing in my area went on a rapid incline, hit a peak, then slid half-way back down to where it started.  People were underwater by tens of thousands.  A few years later, their homes were valued at tens of thousands above that moment of horror.  No one offered anyone any assistance. It's the risk we all take when we purchase.

    The people who buy their homes to live in them for a long time weren't really paying much attention (like me).  The important financial moments when it comes to owning the home you live in are the day you buy and the day you sell.

    This entire mess was visible when it was on the "gold mine" rise. I certainly feel sorry for some, but not all.


    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:39:55 AM EST
    I have very little sympathy for the people that borrowed all the equity in their homes in the good times and now can't afford to stay in the home. No long term thinking at all there.

    Parent
    Agreed, Sort Of (none / 0) (#134)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    What I have seen happening in my lifetime (50+ years) is a growing away from the thrift or my forebears.

    I was raised to pay in cash except for your mortgage which you paid off as soon as you could and then never re-financed. That was the dominant culture of my parents and theirs.

    Since then we've witnessed a world that not only discouraged saving and equity but absolutely HOUNDED people to extend beyond their means constantly.

    I'm not denying we all must take personal responsibility for our actions and decisions. But I suspect a lot of people today didn't have the grounding in the benefits of thrift and the shortcomings of 'easy' credit that many of us grew up with. And there was very little, if any, external guidance from the gov't, the banks or any other 'authorities' to reinforce it. Indeed, the opposite has been true.

    Parent

    But they were inflated too high.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:22:12 AM EST
    the hard truth is those homes were never worth what people paid for them, inflating them back up to those obscene levels can't be a good idea.

    Parent
    This is the opposite of inflating them back up (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:27:56 AM EST
    it is adjusting the mortgage value down to what the house is worth today, which will stop the people from just walking away from the house. Yes, today's value is probably higher than what it would be a year from now if we allow the slide to continue. Actually, the values may continue to decline anyway, so for that reason this may only be a temporary fix. It is a very bad situation we are in.

    Parent
    I can dig that... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:45:08 AM EST
    make the bankers take the hit.

    I was kinda lookin' forward to seeing how a squatters revolution would have played out though.

    This lady didn't wait on Washington, I have uber-respect for that.  She's making her own luck...the true American way.  The furthest thing from this "Uncle Sam save me!" crap.

    Parent

    also, the bankers were just as culpable (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:24:44 AM EST
    as borrowers in inflating the bubble. If they had done their due diligence before giving out loans, the bubble would not have gotten inflated so high. They neglected that for the increased profits from high-risk loans. On some level the borrower thinks that if they bank thinks they can handle the loan, they must deserve it.

    Parent
    Some bankers. Allow me to say (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:02:38 AM EST
    that I'm just back from our very responsible bank, which is succeeding -- grown much from when it was just my nearby neighborhood bank -- because of its responsibility.  My banker just spent a lot of time with my daughter, recently laid off, to redo her car loan so as to save her thousands of dollars.  Plus is coming through for her with other ideas, as she did for us.  Find a good bank, folks -- one that actually became more solid through all this, one that doesn't gouge for fees, one that actually gives personal service and good advice.  What a concept.

    Parent
    Yep... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by santarita on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:31:09 AM EST
    there are some good banks and good bankers.  Just not so many of them are at the huge money-center banks.

    Parent
    Well said... (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:35:41 AM EST
    there are good banks out there...the small, local ones.  The credit unions.  The ones smart enough to pass on the get rich quick schemes.  The ones invested in the communities they serve....like the old days before greed and globalization and consolidation and private jets and naming rights on stadiums and 7 figure bonuses became s.o.p.

    Parent
    that's certainly one interesting outcome (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:21:40 AM EST
    If there is some supervision of this, as there seems to be with that agency, it could be a good thing. On the other hand, yesterday here in Orlando we had two men use a vacant house to rape an 11 year old girl.

    Just want to scream some days.

    Parent

    free money (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:24:10 AM EST
    they would never have gotten that high if Alan Greenspan hadnt given away money for free keeping fed rates too low for too long

    AND he actually told Americans during Humprhey Hawkins testimony it was a GREAT idea to get into an ARM and refi out of it later!

    I watched him say it and yelled at my tv !!

    Parent

    I disagree... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by santarita on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:52:18 AM EST
    Assuming that they paid fair market value, when people bought their houses, they were worth what they paid for them.   The market has changed.  The market value of the house I bought in 2006 has declined but it was worth what I paid for it (give or take $10,000) at the time.

    If I had bought the house with no or little down payment, my loan today  would be more than the value of the house.  But that's the market.   I bought a house in 1988.  I hated the house.  But I didn't sell because I would have lost money.  I  
     

    Parent

    Oops! Hit the wrong button... (none / 0) (#76)
    by santarita on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:00:02 AM EST
    I waited to sell the house until market prices came back up.   But again I put down a significant down payment.

    I feel sorry for people who bought their first house during the last 10 years.  The situation was nuts and first time homebuyers were lulled by the siren song of homeownership.  Think about all of the home improvement shows and all the home depot ads.  Home ownership is a good thing in this society and people were told to buy as much house as they could get because prices were going up and salaries would go up.  

    I don't know if the MOMod program will work.  But I don't begrudge people who qualify for the program.

    Parent

    I feel sorry for people who (none / 0) (#153)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    I feel sorry for people who bought their first house during the last 10 years.
    Don't be. Many/most of us are doing just fine, thank you.

    My home is still "worth" more than 2x what I bought it for in '01, and my ARM just adjusted down in Jan to the lowest rate, and lowest payments, it's ever been at.

    Parent

    agree (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:11:39 AM EST
    yes!!

     I sat in my same house here for 15 years, same mortgage everything, but OTHERs flippers, came to my neighborhood bought houses,

     then abandoned them when the market tanked, surrounded by empty homes in AZ now...

    innocent folks like MOI are screwed by the comps, they include the foreclosure sales in comps which brings down the ENTIRE town in value...the cycle thus continues unabated....

    And I TOTALLY agree the IDIOT banks that underwrote these bogus loans need to take WRITEDOWNS and all the delay has been them trying NOT to take the frakin hit and write down the damn principal..

    if they dont cooperate, and it may be too late already, we will wind up with cram downs in bankruptcy court, THAN ALL mortgages will be higher for everyone as banks add a cushion of a few points to the interest rates going forward in case people go bankrupt.....

    Parent

    It's a serious mess in AZ (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:19:59 AM EST
    I was in Surprise.  The minute I realized that all the homes in my neighborhood were either 2 year starters for those who lived in the home they bought, or investor rentals I started planning my departure. I had put in $35,000 in upgrades to have a beautiful home only to discover the neighborhood would never support the value of my home because no one else put any upgrades in. The builder was only interested in getting those houses sold as fast as he could to anyone he could...I looked yesterday and he sold his business, so AZ no longer has any large, privately owned builders.


    Parent
    nailed it (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:28:07 AM EST
    you have totally nailed it, my beautiful upgrades over 15 yrs in this house, pavers, tankless hot water heater, brand new central air system and duct work,
    ohh the bathroom the work I did after saving for YEARS and now the neighborhood is tanking with foreclosures and SUSD is threatening to shut down our elementary school...

    I dont feel right walking away the way others are, ...we are here being responsible, its a lonely place to be ....

    Parent

    I know how you feel (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:35:35 AM EST
    I'm in more or less the same situation. I'm not going to walk away, no way, but it is hard to realize that I don't have the nest egg I was counting on (or living in). Or if I have to move in the next couple of years, as is likely for my work, I will be left owing a lot of money on my home.

    The best I can hope for is that my neighbors get whatever help they need to stay in their homes and stabilize the neighborhood.

    Parent

    50% loss (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:43:09 AM EST
    to the buyer of my home. It currently is valued at less than half of what they paid.  I hold the builders responsible at a very high level.  I was working for one of the privately owned builders for the last 6 months I was there. Every Monday, those executives gathered to raise the prices on every single house they were building...no little increases, either.

    He lost his business last October when the banks decided to call in their loans.

    These builders were making plenty of money and could have showed some restraint and responsibility. I have wondered whether these who have lost their businesses ever look back and see how they could have done things differently. From what I can tell, he lost his personal fortune, as well, and we all know that was never part of the plan!


    Parent

    Not quite the same (none / 0) (#22)
    by gtesta on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:55:30 AM EST
    level of irresponsibility as the investment banks though.  Now if you took your stake, borrowed 30 times that off your commercial banker and then put your wager on your pony and came away a loser then you'd be exhibiting the same level of responsibility as the i-bankers.

    I actually question whether a 5.5% interest rate on a 30 year debt instrument is righteous.  Seems like long-term debt should be more affordable.  I'd like to see primary home mortgages around 3%.  Now that would be righteous.

    Also, seems like the people that could least afford to, paid the most in terms of up front fees, points, PMI, etc.

    If the govt really wants to encourage home ownership, seems like it should want to get fees, and interest rates down, as well as, reevaluate property values.

    It's hard to objectively assess responsibility, especially for lower-income people, when the deck was stacked against them with the higher fees, interest rates and unethical mortgage brokers.


    Parent

    It would be much more palatable... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:04:33 AM EST
    to me if the banks were forced to take most of the hit...I agree the industry exhibited the most irresponsible behavior.

    But is that righteous or just my anti-bank bias talking?  

    I'm starting to think the ideal solution is for people to ignore their eviction notices and squat their homes...f*ck the banks.

    Parent

    I've read about people doing that a lot (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:31:57 AM EST
    It can take a year before the banks get around to actually physically removing people.

    I think it is righteous to make the bank absorb some part of the loss. They made the bad loans, after all. No one forced them to loan to people who, with any research at all they could have figured out were bad risks. They wanted the extra profit from the higher interest rates they could charge them.

    If taking a step back and negotiating terms between the bank and the borrower results in the home being occupied, albeit at less profit for the bank (and the borrower for that matter, since his home is not going to appreciate as he had hoped), I think it is the best outcome we can hoope for in a bad situation.

    Parent

    Not about higher interest (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Spamlet on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:37:59 AM EST
    They wanted the extra profit from the higher interest rates they could charge them.

    Interest rates were actually rather low, even for "liar loans." What the banks really wanted was the money they would get by selling those loans as soon as the borrowers signed.

    Parent

    critters agree (none / 0) (#44)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:25:56 AM EST
    actually Marcy Captur D (OH?) said that the other day on the radio, she advised homeowners to use squatters rights to stay and ignore foreclosure,

    now some MI county sheriff is REUSING to enfoe foreclosure SALES..

    this will end badly, like the SO Bronx in the 70s with people tapping utilities and getting hurt or killed....

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    now some MI county sheriff is REUSING to enfoe foreclosure SALES..

    That's in Wayne County, Michigan - where Detroit is located.  I like Sheriff Evans, and I think this is the right thing to do for now (although I also think that it's because there are just too many homes in foreclosure - it would be an administrative nightmare to keep up).

    Link

    Parent

    Now we're talking... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:35:33 AM EST
    that's a government action I could get behind whole-heartedly...a moratorium on the use of any law enforcement to do evictions.

    Eviction problem solved, the banks eat it.  We've stolen enough from the poor to give to the rich anyway.

    Parent

    I second your opinion being one of these (none / 0) (#195)
    by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:59:14 PM EST
    people, who lived within her means and is suffering with low to non existing interest rates and has to eat away at her capital from investments to live. I'm pis..d off!

    Parent
    oops (none / 0) (#2)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:26:54 AM EST
    sorry linky herewith!!

    for Monday announcement from Geithner and Team Obama!!

    Parent

    Any word on whether the (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:16:35 AM EST
    homeowner has to be in bankruptcy or already in foreclosure to use this?

    Parent
    not yet (none / 0) (#29)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:07:51 AM EST
    nothing yet, but Schumer was all raging agaisnt refis for those of us not in bankruptcy or behind yet on the floor yesterday against the ENisgn Amendment,

    not sure how that will help us get the damn HOLC,

    tsk tsk Chuck...

    but I am underwater so I have HOPE

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#52)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:33:12 AM EST
    I haven't delved into the intricacies of the Ensign Amendment, but I find it hard to believe that any amendment supported only by the 35 dead-ender Republicans (the ones who voted to replace the stimulus package with a package of 100% tax cuts, including permanent repeal of the estate tax) and opposed by every single Democrat all the way down to Bernie Sanders could possibly be good public policy.

    Parent
    As long as the "Investors" being (none / 0) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:54:19 AM EST
    protected are the homeowners.

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#30)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:08:16 AM EST
    must be those living in it as primary residence only totally agree!!!!

    Parent
    Can prohibition be far behind? (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:09:52 AM EST
    Looks like Virginia is set to ban smoking in bars....Virginia!  Tobacco-belt Virginia, home of the 20 dollar carton!

    I think the only thing stopping all-out prohibition is the love affair the states and feds have with tobacco taxes.

    Taxes (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:33:14 AM EST
    I could suggest another smokable product that they could tax.


    Parent
    and a high-profile endorser there for the asking (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:46:00 AM EST
    What a wasted untapped goldmine.

    Parent
    Tobacco Belt (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:02:14 PM EST
    That is a laugh, only because you would think the smokers there would just roll up their own local stuff being in the belt and all.

    No they are all hooked on big tobacco enriched product because the enrichment is stuff to enhance the addictive qualities of the smoke, not the quality or taste.

    I know a guy who helps his local farmers out when it is harvest time. He does not smoke but noticed that all the farmers and their hands smoke Marlboro, while the beautiful natural dried leaves are hanging in their barns waiting to be processed.

    Parent

    They've already barred smoking in bars (none / 0) (#11)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:21:50 AM EST
    in Europe, much to the consternation of the French and Germans.

    It's a big bone of contention, almost to the level of a wedge issue, in some parts.

    Parent

    Paris was a shocker.... (none / 0) (#138)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:24:47 PM EST
    Paris and Virginia seals this deal forever...man I have a way for picking losing sides and lost causes:)

    Parent
    Ireland banned smoking in bars (none / 0) (#185)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:43:43 PM EST
    and restaurants before the rest of Europe did.  Much prediction of doom and gloom, but seems to be a keeper.

    Parent
    A couple of years ago... (none / 0) (#15)
    by EL seattle on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:29:35 AM EST
    ...WA state had a state-wide initiative to ban smoking in places like bars and restaurants.  Everyone expected it to be a red county vs. blue county thing, with the "more liberal" big cities out-voting the smaller towns to get it passed.

    I believe that the smoking ban initiative passed in every single county in the state.  That was very surprising, to say the least.

    Of course, there's a big difference between the legislation of state politicians and a voter initiative.  And VA is not WA state.  But there were apparently a lot of moms in this state that were perfectly happy to see to ban take effect.

    Parent

    I thought I could be (none / 0) (#18)
    by Fabian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:47:09 AM EST
    a great waitperson but I couldn't stand working in the murk and stink of tobacco smoke, so I never tried.

    Cigarette smoking might have more defenders if it weren't literally a "filthy habit".  Stains on the fingers, teeth, clothes, house, car - it is a dirty habit.  

    People have plenty of unhealthy habits, but most of them don't directly affect mere bystanders.  

    Parent

    I'll give you restaurants... (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:55:53 AM EST
    I love me some smoking and even I understand not wanting to eat in a smoky room...but give the bars a "den of sin" exemption...the whole point of going is to risk your health, drink intoxicating poison, and with any luck potentially expose yourself to a std.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    NYC's Mystery Maple Syrup smell Solved! (none / 0) (#13)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:26:15 AM EST
    In the words of one of the tabloids:  "Blame it on Jersey."

    This, of course, allows the tab to run a poll on "Does Jersey Really Stink?"

    Turns out, the source was a food additive processing plant across the Hudson in Jersey which was processing "fenugreek", an herb/plant.

    Fenugreek is used, among other things, to make fake maple syrup taste and smell like real maple syrup.

    No terrists - though people were said to be scared pantsless about it back when it first was noticed, about 2002.  And TPTB were reported to be gearing up for a big anti-terra campaign about it.

    fenugreek = maple syrup? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Fabian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:48:04 AM EST
    I guess better to use a natural flavoring than synthetics.  

    Parent
    I'm not entirely sure what fenugreek (none / 0) (#186)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:46:17 PM EST
    is, but you can buy it in the spice shops in India and it is listed as an ingredient on many dishes on the menus there.

    Parent
    Have you noticed (none / 0) (#25)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:02:34 AM EST
    how Obama has so far been reduced to symbolic gestures to deal with the criminal "bailout" racket?

    Team Obama Economic Recovery Advisory Panel.. (none / 0) (#27)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    oh boy, Jeff Immelt and Penny Pritzker??

    is he kidding?

    What in his background says (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:14:04 AM EST
    he could possibly know who to pick as experts for any of these issues. He hasn't even mingled in politics long enough to know the best players.

    But, hope was so much more important than experience.


    Parent

    It generally is (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:35:50 AM EST
    Bush v. Clinton
    JFK v. Nixon
    Obama v. McCain

    Basically it boils down to what Bill Clinton said, if one side is presenting a positive message of hope then in all likelihood that's the side that will win.

    Parent

    Hope/experience (none / 0) (#58)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:39:18 AM EST
    The whole campaign appears to have been dueling slogans.

    Parent
    Actually, I don't recall a slogan (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    from Clinton or from McCain, for that matter.


    Parent
    "Ready on day one" Clinton and (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:07:02 AM EST
    "Get out of my face you rotten kids" McCain.

    Parent
    Too bad (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    Gran Torino was released in January- that Clint Eastwood "Get Off my Lawn" bit would have made the ideal McCain spot.

    Parent
    While the Republicans are always hugely (none / 0) (#135)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:17:02 PM EST
    nostaligic for Ronald Reagen, I've always thought that Clint was the perfect embodiment of what Republicans believed themselves to be. He's too liberal to be a real Republican, but if he had kept his political career going, I'm sure he could have been our President at some point.

    Parent
    I thought of that at first (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by sj on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:43:45 AM EST
    "Ready on day one"

    But I don't recall a whole marketing effort around it with signs and everything (which is how I see a slogan).  Am I just forgetting?

    Parent

    No, I think you're right. I don't think it was (none / 0) (#130)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    taken to nearly the same level as "Change".

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by NJDem on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:27:04 AM EST
    "Ready on day one" doesn't ring a bell?


    Parent
    Ready on Day One with Experience (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:47:22 AM EST
    was a slogan that persuaded me, knowing that the overwhelming issue/problem would be the economy.

    Parent
    It wasn't the slogan that captured (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:50:51 AM EST
    my support, it was the fact her experience was better than all the other candidates on both sides of the election. But, that's behind us.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:52:35 AM EST
    How was her experience better than say Biden's or Richardson's?

    Parent
    Ya gotta be kidding -- we're talking (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:16:09 PM EST
    about the viable candidates.

    Parent
    Well certainly Richardson (none / 0) (#136)
    by Fabian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:17:41 PM EST
    seems to have more experience in pay-to-play!

    It will be interesting to follow his investigation and Blagojevich's as well.

    Parent

    Let me count the ways n/t (none / 0) (#163)
    by Spamlet on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:26:01 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#85)
    by indy in sc on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:08:13 AM EST
    if we must go down that path again...

    McCain's was "Country First" and the ubiquitous "Maverick".

    Clinton's was "Ready on Day One" and "Ready to Lead" she also used "Experience" a lot.

    Parent

    And there was (none / 0) (#103)
    by Spamlet on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    "Ready for Change" after the Obama "change" theme took off. That was lame, and I say this as a strong Hillary supporter all through the primaries.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#143)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    Apparently, there was also Countdown to Change.

    And, apparently McCain was Ready to Lead On Day One too...

    Parent

    And, these "slogans" were plastered (none / 0) (#110)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:47:25 AM EST
    all over with signage and used to end ad spots? I sure don't remember that.

    "Change you Can Believe In" was all over, including handed out to the crowds on signs.

    I only remember "Clinton" and "McCain" on the signs held by the crowds and around the stage.

    Parent

    Ooops (none / 0) (#111)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:48:07 AM EST
    didn't see "Clinton" signs....her "slogan" was "Hillary"

    Parent
    That's because (none / 0) (#112)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:50:28 AM EST
    Obama was a better campaigner than either of them- the single name signs thing is the way of the past, it brings up both the positive and negatives of a canidate.

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#124)
    by indy in sc on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:00:52 PM EST
    That's the only reason I remember those slogans.  They were used on signs and in ads and on podiums when they spoke.  They were ultimately less memorable and therefore less effective as campaign tools.

    I get that you say "plastered" pejoratively, but what's a campaign without a campaign slogan?

    Parent

    Krugman (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:37:42 AM EST
    seems to know what he is talking about.

    Obama is aware of him.
    Even said he would listen to him.

    But I have seen no signs whatever that he is in fact doing so.

    Washington seems to engender a weird bubble mentality.

    Parent

    Krugman rendered Mika, Joe (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by byteb on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:31:16 PM EST
    and Pat Buchanan speechless on Morning Woe this a.m.
    No small thing.

    Parent
    Krugman truly has (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Spamlet on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    the patience of a saint.

    Parent
    Not Pat (none / 0) (#171)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:59:15 PM EST
    I'm no fan but Pat Buchanan brought up a very good point that this is in fact more of what got us into the mess.  

    Where he was wrong is talking about a Reagan tax cut boom - that is just not the case.  Reagan increased spending dramatically.  Tax cuts are meaningless if you grow spending and of course you'll have a short-term boom if you force demand via government.  Pat was right about Coolidge and the roaring twenties however.

    Re Krugman: It is not sound reasoning to conclude that the growth of the 90s happening during Clinton tax-cuts is proof that tax-cuts are no good - especially when the growth turned out to be much more nominal than real.  

    Meanwhile - the Keynesian school has been contradicted repeatedly in the latter half of the 20th century and he finds no cause for concern?  Stagflation is impossible in the Keynesian model yet it happened.

    The point is I would be hesitant to trust a man willing to categorize a single incomplete counter-example as illustrating fact while ignoring repeated thorough refutations of his own views (he did address it briefly in a 1998 Slate article to be fair - look for yourself and judge).

    Parent

    I just realized (none / 0) (#172)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:00:36 PM EST
    the hypocrisy in me listing a single example just now.  I'll stand behind it though.  Refutation encouraged!

    Parent
    I believe Obama stated he (none / 0) (#188)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:50:31 PM EST
    would that, if Krugman had a good idea, Obama would listen to him.  

    Parent
    Uhh (none / 0) (#32)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:11:49 AM EST
    I think it's more like he's desperate.

    Parent
    I was wondering (none / 0) (#45)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:26:48 AM EST
    why I woke up with a headache and and extreme sense of dread this morning.

    Parent
    Paul Volcker is at the head... (none / 0) (#95)
    by santarita on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:33:19 AM EST
    and he is almost universally admired.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#100)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:37:23 AM EST
    with the fall of the House of Greenspan- Volker stands as the most accomplished living economic figure in America today.  

    Parent
    If you except Paul Krugman (none / 0) (#166)
    by Spamlet on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:31:22 PM EST
    and leave the meaning of "accomplished" wide open in terms of goals and their impact on the public good.

    Parent
    Lindorff has a great article on this announcement (none / 0) (#196)
    by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:05:07 PM EST
    on www.counterpunch.com/lindorff/02062009.html

    snip

    Nor does Obama's latest announcement of his new Council of Economic Advisers look much better. Headed up by Paul Volcker, the Carter and Reagan choice for Federal Reserve Chairman, and a close associate of the Rockefeller family and the Chase banking empire who helped bring us the heretofore worst recession since the `30s during the early 1980s, that panel includes Jeffrey Imelt, chairmen of mega-defense contractor General Electric, Jim Owens, chair of Caterpillar (a firm that just sacked 20,000 employees and during it's recent contract disputes with the UAW hired scabs and locked out employees, racking up a huge number of labor law violations),  William Donaldson, President George W. Bush's SEC chair, who had to resign that position in disgrace in 2005 after his agency missed the Enron and Worldcom meltdowns and collapses as well as some early hedge fund disasters, Martin Feldstein, the head of Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and an adviser to Obama's opponent, John McCain, and Austan Goolsbee, a senior economist with the Democratic Leadership Council, a strong proponent bank deregulation and of the job-killing NAFTA and the World Trade Organization treaties.  True, the panel does include some token labor representatives like former Mineworkers Union president Richard Trumpka of the AFL-CIO and Anna Burger of the SEIU, but wholly absent are more progressive economists in line with the likes of Nobel laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Steiglitz, or former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich, much less left-leaning economists like James Galbraith or Dean Baker.  

    Before Obama was inaugurated, there was much blather in the mainstream press about his selection of conservative Democrats and Republicans for his cabinet, as a strategy of having a "team of rivals."  But clearly, where economic policy is concerned, those "rivals" are pretty much all on the same side of the fence. (The same can be said, by the way, of his defense department and state department teams.)

    snip

    An economic "team of rivals" is a great idea, but to get that, Obama would have to be willing to reach over to the left side of the spectrum, not just the right.


    Parent

    What casued the collapse of the economy (none / 0) (#49)
    by Saul on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:30:45 AM EST
    Is there any good authoritative book on the market that without trying to protect the democrats or the republicans explains in detail how we got into this mess.

    I know that this happened on Bush's watch but to be fair can any of the collapse also be attributed to the democrats.

    I would like to read an unbiased book on this subject.

    Look for the NPR (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    This American Life show on the housing bubble. It is the best explanation of that aspect of it I have heard.

    Parent
    Actually it is about the (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:49:52 AM EST
    mortgage securities investment aspect, not so much the bubble per se.

    Parent
    The bubble was one problem. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Fabian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:15:37 PM EST
    But the securities exploiting the bubble and a few other things created an entirely new problem, exponentially worse.

    I joked once that if they could find a way to repackage a consumer loan - for something like a big screen television - into a security, they would.

    Then I found out they were repackaging and selling credit card debt....!

    Parent

    Some say the root was the subprime mortgage (none / 0) (#114)
    by Saul on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:50:35 AM EST
    fiasco.  If there is any truth to that then wasn't the sub prime fiasco a creation of the democrats.

    I understand it started with Carter, with the Community Reinvestment Act, which went through several changes under Clinton.  

    I heard that the Banks and Fannie Mae were threatened with lawsuits to implant this program so it was allowed.  That Fannie Mae was to guaranteed the loans and that these loans went on the stock market as securities investment.  Then the value of homes started to decline and the investments became almost worthless.

    Any truth to any of this.

    Parent

    "Some say" lots of things (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by sj on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    I've learned to stop listening at that point and wait until "some" has a name.  And then I read their links.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:11:15 PM EST
    CRA loans were not part of the financial crisis.  And the vast majority of banks engaged in CRA lending reported that those loans had been very profitable for them.  So the idea that they only made those loans because they were "threatened with lawsuits" is preposterous.

    Parent
    The once-obscure Community Reinvestment Act, passed during the Carter administration, has recently--in part because of my reporting--become a bogeyman for Republicans, some of whom have proposed its repeal.

    Liberal Democrats have defended it as unrelated to the meltdown.

    The truth lies somewhere in between.

    While it's a long way from the late-seventies world of the original Act to the twenty-first century's housing crisis, the CRA's role was important.



    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#175)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:45:02 PM EST
    I'll see your Manhattan Institute essay and raise you Republican FDIC Chair Sheila Bair.

    Parent
    Blair? (none / 0) (#177)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:58:39 PM EST
    Some would suggest your ante is still a little low.

    Regardless, you want her to be right, I tend to trust more moderate analysis.

    To each our own.

    Parent

    Try this for an appetizer (none / 0) (#60)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    Too Soon for that Book... (none / 0) (#102)
    by santarita on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:40:54 AM EST
    but any one who points to a single cause is bound to be wrong.  (Unless that cause is lumped under the rubric of "human nature".)

    What has brought us to this point is a perfect storm of economic and financial systemic meltdowns.  Some contributing factors of the financial system meltdown:  failure of self-policing mechanisms (like Basel II and internal risk management) and credit rating agencies, failure of government regulators, failure of legislators to modernize laws to deal with the shadow banking system, failure of the Fed., etc.

    Parent

    Well, they failed... (none / 0) (#106)
    by lambert on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:44:16 AM EST
    ... because they were subverted or bought by the same people we're throwing trillions at now.

    Parent
    Fed created boom cycle... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    Government regulations funneled boom resources into housing.  If US banks weren't legally cartelized by the government, individual banks would have had runs by their depositors and been shown to be insolvent long ago.  It was regulation that caused the mess.

    This is simple but I'm focusing on root causes.

    Parent

    A tool set (none / 0) (#173)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    This short essay may give some insight.  It deals with business cycle theory in general.  As for the psychology of the lenders to participate - you must consider their own competitive environment and the implicit promise of socialized losses seen in the existence of Fannie/Freddie.

    http://mises.org/tradcycl/monbuscy.asp

    Parent

    Panetta... (none / 0) (#81)
    by desertswine on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:05:46 AM EST
    Okay just sign here . . (none / 0) (#86)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    see how simple that was your now the proud owner of an extremely big beautiful house. Any time you want some home equity cash give me a call!

    Thanks Mister! And be sure to stop by sometime! Tell them you want me for your waiter!

    Bring it On (none / 0) (#120)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    oooo (none / 0) (#125)
    by CST on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:02:08 PM EST
    I really want to see these guys go to jail for fraud.

    I agree with the madam here:
    "I, as the proprietor of a business get arrested and lose everything, when no one that was frequenting my business, spending $200,000, $300,000 a year, has been punished in any way or even looked into."

    There is such a double standard...

    Parent

    Figures... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    the one honest businessperson in the bunch is the one on the wrong side of the law.  Makes perfect sense when you think about it.

    Parent
    They've just changed their processes (none / 0) (#121)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:56:00 AM EST
    The credit reporting agencies have changed the way they come up with ratings. It was on the news last night.

    I've written to my Senators on numerous occasions that I believe if the credit reporting agencies are going to have so much control over how much we pay for insurance, our interest rates, etc., they should at least have an obligation to be accurate. I've fought for over a decade to get an inaccurate blight removed, paid more interest during that time, and nothing seems to work. I provided them with absolute proof they had a mistake on my report. They didn't care.

    My brilliant Senator responded with the rights of the credit reporting agencies. Sadly, she still has 4 more years.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#176)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:56:50 PM EST
    I love how the crooked credit reporting agencies handle the reports of celebrities and politicians with kid gloves to avoid the mistakes that are all too common on Joe and Jane Blow's reports.

    They definitely don't care...way too powerful the credit reporting agencies are.

    Parent

    I'm still trying to correct a mistake done by (none / 0) (#197)
    by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:08:26 PM EST
    Dillard's when I moved - they got me mixed up with someone living in San Angelo, who was not paying her bills and I still cannot get that address off my credit report after 12 years!

    Parent
    Pimping my diary (none / 0) (#122)
    by MikeDitto on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    There's some stuff in the stimulus that we should really be worried about. A massive surge in the drug war, prison spending, and civil liberties concerns abound.

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/2/6/123640/0907

    I was just looking at the 8-page list of Collins-Nelson proposed cuts. Who is going through the larger bills as a whole to make sure progressive ideals aren't being railroaded in the name of stimulus?

    Well pimped and well said.... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:32:11 PM EST
    If the economy needs more drug war, more prisons, more spying, and a militarized border to be saved...I say let the sh*t crumble, I'll scavenge.

    Parent
    Great list (none / 0) (#147)
    by CST on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    My one question about funding for prisons - is it to fund more prisons, or fund adequate services for prisoners?  B/c I am cool with the latter.  I just wish I knew which one it was, although I doubt it's what I want it to be...

    Parent
    Well said... (none / 0) (#148)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    that is an important distinction regarding prisons...we'll see who has the stronger lobby, prison buiders/private jailers/prison guards or prisoner advocates.

    Parent
    I believe it is capital construction (none / 0) (#170)
    by MikeDitto on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:39:37 PM EST
    but I don't know for sure.

    Parent
    KY man "robs" bank (none / 0) (#174)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:42:57 PM EST
    so he can go to back to jail. He likes it better there.

    Just like Red was tellin' us... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    "these walls are funny....first you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em, then it gets to where you need 'em.  That's institutionalized."

    Man I love that movie...

    Parent

    Hah!! (none / 0) (#179)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:03:28 PM EST
    I loved the book, hated the movie.

    Parent
    I loved both (none / 0) (#181)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:21:24 PM EST
    Books are always better if you're a book worm but in their medium both where awesome.

    By the way what's with my boy Stephen King going after other authors?

    Parent

    Tax cuts on the block in Stimulus Bill (none / 0) (#180)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:17:27 PM EST
    Harry Reid asked them to come up with some trims to the tax cuts if they are going to trim the spending. Good for him.

    Spitzer's John Jailed (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:06:20 PM EST
    NYT reports:

    The former tax specialist who ran the high-priced prostitution service [Emperor's Club V.I,P.] that the authorities say was patronized by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, was sentenced Friday to two and a half years in prison on prostitution and money-laundering conspiracy charges.

    The man, Mark Brener, 63, apologized and both he and his lawyer asked for leniency, but the judge, Denny Chin of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said he was not moved by their pleas, particularly by the lawyer's suggestion that the crime had had no victims.

    Spitzer is a victim, not of prostitution, but the law and probably some payback from his political foes.

    Foreign Policy Magazine (blog) (none / 0) (#184)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    Columbia Journalism Review  reviews the newish blog Foreign Policy magazine. A must read for anyone interested in world affairs and the workings of US gov as it relates to foreign policy.

    It is more than a little disappointing (none / 0) (#192)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:33:49 PM EST
    to realize today's Palin news is not being reported on Talk Left.  What is this world coming to?