home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 08:19:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

< Applauding That We Once Despised | Turning French >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    AIG (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by SOS on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 09:34:22 AM EST
    Don't forget you and I are now owners of 80% of this POS.

    Watched Last Part of the Senate Hearing... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by santarita on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    on AIG.  The Fed witness (Kohn) in response to a question said that the bailout was not because of concerns for the counterparties but because the failure of AIG would cause a loss of confidence in the entire US financial system.  I wish that the Senators had pursued that a little further.

    One of my theories is that much of the inexplicable behavior of the Fed and Treasury is due to  international geopolitical concerns rather than more narrow US concerns,  But I also think that maybe we are trying to shore up a system that shouldn't be shored up any longer.  

    Parent

    Huge, modern building on (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 01:29:10 PM EST
    the way to the Copenhagen airport:    AIG (!!!!)

    Parent
    Hope It's Profitable... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by santarita on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    after all, we own AIG.

    Parent
    Mmmm mmm good (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    Mmmmm mmm good.....that's what complex newage investment vehicles are........Mmmm mmm good.

    Parent
    The genius of The Kinks.... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 02:31:51 PM EST
    rings louder than ever, imo.

    I was born in a welfare state
    Ruled by bureaucracy
    Controlled by civil servants
    And people dressed in grey
    Got no privacy got no liberty
    Cos the twentieth century people
    Took it all away from me.

    20th Century Man

    Burris (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 08:38:13 AM EST
    Seems to have won this round - with the calls for his resignation disappearing.

    I'm so glad (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 08:47:29 AM EST
    that I don't have a horse in this race, so I can laugh heartily.  

    Parent
    He learned a lesson from (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by eric on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:53:05 AM EST
    the Republicans - Vitter, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens, etc. - if you ride it out long enough, you'll be fine.

    Spitzer would be fine now, too, if he had learned this lesson.

    Parent

    Spitzer could have survived (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    if his approvals weren't already in the trash.

    Parent
    Anyone else hear... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Thanin on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 09:24:20 AM EST
    that suleman 911 call?  Beyond how lame she is in the phone call, arent there some privacy issues with releasing 911 calls to the public?  Seems kind of wrong to me.

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 09:32:30 AM EST
    I agree, it does seem wrong, digging up all the dirt in someone's past that like that, and for what?  

    Though it's her own fault, once you open up the pandora's box and agree to do interviews and such, you're asking to be torn to shreds by the media beast.

    Moral of the story...don't try and be on tv...they'll eat you alive.

    Parent

    I see where youre coming from... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Thanin on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 09:54:16 AM EST
    and that whole situation is frustrating, but she seems mentally ill to me and needs help.  So Im not sure all the vitriol thrown at her is a good thing.

    Parent
    One thing the whole ... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:03:06 AM EST
    Suleman story has shown us is that however far we've come in the last 100 years, the public's appetite for Hearst-style journalism has not abated.

    Parent
    We do love us a trainwreck... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:12:26 AM EST
    conciously or subconciously makes us feel better about ourselves I guess.

    Parent
    Octoporn (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Spamlet on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:22:39 AM EST


    Parent
    I don't get the hate either.... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:10:37 AM EST
    crazy lady has 14 kids she can't afford...whatever, got nothing to do with me.  Pursue your happiness lady.

    And if the taxpayer has to feed her kids, oh well, that's just one of the costs of freedom.

    She probably is mentally ill, or just weird...everybody is weird.  We've all got issues.

    Hopefully her 15 minutes are up soon, and the kids can somehow overcome their situtation.

    Parent

    She seems like my sister (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    not really mentally ill, just have their own reality. My sister has gotten a 'bit' more reality based, but I don't think she'll ever really "get it", lol!~ The main down side for me is she always has this idea that she will come live with me and I'll just take care of her. At one point she figured she could just show up in NYC and I would get her an apt AND fix it up for her for free. YIKES!! That one prompted a phone call to mom to make sure there was no way she was getting on a plane, lol!~

    I couldn't figure out how she planned to finish her degree and feed her kids on the student loans. Then when she graduated would get a job that payed enough for her to pay back the loans and still feed her kids. That's when she started reminding me of my sister.

    Parent

    Oh and how bout them (none / 0) (#6)
    by SOS on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 09:36:32 AM EST
    47,000 folks who have Swiss bank accounts and are having their bank info hidden from US authorities by the obliging Swiss.  I'm just saying that since the rest of us do fill out our IRS forms honestly, what do these folks have to hide?  

    Not for nothing.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 09:42:55 AM EST
    isn't that the whole point of having a Swiss bank account?  To keep your cash away from Uncle Sam's prying eyes or sticky fingers?

    We know what they've got to hide...I might be a little jealous that I can't hide my weekly paycheck, but other than that better in a Swiss bank than DEA coffers.

    Parent

    Sometimes,in the past (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:15:19 PM EST
    at least, it's been to keep it away from the World Court and Holocaust reperation people's prying eyes.

    Parent
    The US (none / 0) (#53)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    would rather have drug dealers deposit their holdings in US banks so they are attacking the Swiss.  We're talking big money - that won't cause inflation.

    Parent
    Those 47,000 folks are no longer protected (none / 0) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:04:30 PM EST
    the bailout of UBS (or is it UBI?) includes the agreement that the Swiss banks will give all the information on the American depositors to the US gov't.

    At least that's what I've read twice now.


    Parent

    Not sure if that is correct... (none / 0) (#33)
    by santarita on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 01:09:05 PM EST
    according to what I heard yesterday at the Senate hearing, the deal is that UBS will not open any more accounts from US citizens without them assuring that they are in compliance with IRS rules.  UBS has not agreed to make public the current accounts.  But I could be wrong on this.

    Parent
    You ever watch... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 02:05:26 PM EST
    Max Keiser's Oracle on BBC or listen to his radio show?  He's been doing a lot on UBS.  If you're interested - judging from your posts I think you'd like the panels and discussions - http://karmabanqueradio.com/  It's the only televised news discussion I can bear - he made a movie predicting the Iceland crash a year before it happened.

    Parent
    I'll Check Him Out... (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by santarita on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 02:30:44 PM EST
    Did you see Jon Stewart ripping Santelli and the rest of the gang at CNBC?

    Nailed them to the wall and rightly so.

    Parent

    That was hilarious. (none / 0) (#55)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:02:27 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Should Be Required Watching... (none / 0) (#58)
    by santarita on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:16:26 PM EST
    for anyone who wants to cite Kudlow, Cramer and the rest as authorities.  I occasionally like Gasparini and Steve Liesman.  But most of the rest are bozos.

    Parent
    Links to referenced Daily Shows (none / 0) (#62)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 08:45:48 PM EST
    and more:

    CNBC Gives Financial Advice
    (08:29)
    CNBC's Rick Santelli is angry that those loser homeowners are going to get bailed out.

    The Dow Knows All
    (03:15)
    The American public approves of Barack Obama's performance, but they're wrong.

    Moment of Zen - Mad Money
    (0:21)
    Until the Obama administration acknowledges that their agenda is destroying Americans' life savings, Jim Cramer can only advise caution

    Parent

    First they (none / 0) (#47)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 02:36:53 PM EST
    DO,

    then, they

    DON'T

    A google search turns up many, many reports they would be releasing the names, but the refusal was posted just hours ago.

    Guess it remains to be seen.


    Parent

    Public Defenders (none / 0) (#8)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 09:44:51 AM EST
    Nice feature on Ramsey County (MN) public defender Michael Holland in the Strib
    Besides, the bio, the article illuminates the immense problems re public defenders, budgets, the jammed courts systems, etc.:

    (ellipsis) [hey, it's my new word, learned from Somerby]

    Advocating for the poor in a swamped court system, Holland is not only juggling more cases than ever, but he's also trying to balance his sense of justice with the realities of budget cuts and a sour economy. He is one of a dwindling number of not quite 400 public defenders in Minnesota who speak for more than 85 percent of those charged with crimes.

    With about 750 cases a year, they're handling nearly twice the number the American Bar Association suggests for each lawyer. Cuts last year eliminated about 50 public defenders, and proposed cuts this year threaten 50 more.

    "Quite frankly, I don't know how they do it with these caseloads," said Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Alan Page. He has known Holland for 20 years, since Page was a University of Minnesota regent and Holland was the student representative on the university's board.

    I found this interesting too:

    Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson has formed a coalition of prosecutors, sheriffs and police chiefs who have been touring the state to talk about the critical need of public defender funding. After all, victims, police, judges, probation officers and prosecutors all want timely justice and they depend on public defenders to help get it.
    I, For One, NEVER Wanted Bush To Succeed (none / 0) (#15)
    by tokin librul on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 10:38:48 AM EST
    At ANYTHING.

    So fuukin sue me...

    I'm not sure I'm understanding you (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:27:11 PM EST
    Just kidding

    Parent
    Lobbyists (none / 0) (#18)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 11:39:18 AM EST
    I just read where the financial lobbyists are vigorously fighting the proposed mortgage plan. I wonder if these lobbyists being paid by the banks with federal rescue money!

    Speaking of the Mortgage plan, I read (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 11:42:28 AM EST
    yesterday that is doesn't help people who owe more on their house then it is worth. The example given was that if you have a 210,000 dollar mortgage and your house is worth 200,000, you don't get help. That really seems to defeat the purpose of plan.

    Parent
    I read the plan (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    It isn't going to help many.  Most will find themselves disqualified from being able to use it.

    Parent
    9,000,000 will be very disappointed (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    since that's how many the administration and Obama keep saying are going to be helped. What happens to the change from the $78Billion?

     

    Parent

    Your example does just qualify (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 02:53:23 PM EST
    from the AP report that I read.  It covers remaining mortgage payments for as much as 105% of a home's value (so double your figures -- 105% of $200,000 is $210,000, right?).  But no more than that . . . so maybe some people who are close will be scraping up family contributions to meet that, or they can get close enough soon, because the plan continues for a couple of years.

    And again, it seems to be the remaining mortgage payments that are the crucial calculation -- not the original mortgage.  I've heard some confusion, unaccountably (seems obvious to me:-) on that.

    I am trying not to be ticked off about being a careful saver and spender, getting ahead on my mortgages whenever I could, never buying more than I could afford -- if sacrificing to do so even for the sake of a one-bathroom home of their own for my kids.  I know some of the people this will help, laid off from work in my state where the unemployment rate has soared faster than ever seen before, and their kids need a home, too.

    Plus, and I watch this, I haven't seen a home sell in my (desirable) neighborhood for months, not for months.  We're losing value, too.  So if this plan works, it really will help a lot of us.  Let's do it, and get through it. . . .

    Parent

    Aaargghh, I think (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 02:55:11 PM EST
    I misstated that first sentence, too, without the story right in front of me.  Make that 105% of the remaining mortgage, not the value of the house. . . .  I think that's it.  Whatever, I stopped thinking about it too much when I could see that it won't get us that wonderful 2%! loan rate.  Wow.  (But as I recall, that goes back up in a couple of years, once the homeowners get on more solid footing.)

    Parent
    I'm with you as far as NOT buying more (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:55:27 PM EST
    house than we needed or could afford.  I was careful, and so many people that we know thought I was a wet blanket and taking all the fun out of our lives at the time.  Everybody was financing for 125% and putting swimming pools in here.  It sort of does suck a bit being a careful and balanced consumer in the midst of all this stuff that was going on, and now still being the same in the midst of all this stuff going on.

    Parent
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#43)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 02:25:04 PM EST
    Unless they changed it, you can be underwater by up to 5% and still refinance.

    Parent
    What was the source? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 11:54:52 AM EST
    It seems counterintuitive.  Financial institutions stand to gain from the government giving lenders money to subsidize homeowner payments.  

    Parent
    If they stand to gain, then why in the world (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    is the gov't having to pay them incentives to get them to help the people they hurt?

    Parent
    To clarify... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:33:41 PM EST
    The government paying them incentives is how they stand to gain.  

    Parent
    looks to me like the incentive payments (none / 0) (#63)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 08:51:17 PM EST
    go to the banks/lenders as a carrot for them to refinance the terms of the mortgages.

    Parent
    That it does... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    Would they rather get nothing but a house they can only sell for a loss?

    For the life of me I can't understand why the banks can't just split the difference between what the house was bought for and what it is worth now with the mortgage holders voluntarily.  Both sides gambled and lost...just split the difference already for god's sake.  

    Or if the banks don't go for that, why don't all mortgage holders just stop making payments and squat...and let the Civil Class War begin.  Though we might not like to find out whose side the US Protection Racket is really on, if we don't already know.

    Parent

    Lenders won't (none / 0) (#28)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:38:59 PM EST
    negotiate down now because they know that the government is planning to subsidize homeowner payments.  Your scenario would occur if the government made it clear that they would not be touching these mortgages for the reason you indicated: they stand to lose less money negotiating with the homeowner.  Unfortunately the government won't stop intruding on the free market and the implication that they will help has changed the most profitable action from private renegotiation to sustaining the current agreements in order to garner public support for public subsidization.

    This plan is another bailout for lenders.

    Parent

    Please provide a link (none / 0) (#29)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    because they know that the government is planning to subsidize homeowner payments.

    to show where in the housing recovery plan the intent is to subsidize homeowner payments. That has never been mentioned in any summary highlight I've heard or read.

    Parent

    Here's a link. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/business/19housing.html

    If you come across the actual plan let me know.  It was supposed to be released March 4 but I didn't see it on recovery dot gov.

    Parent

    Housing (none / 0) (#31)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    It's time they addressed the housing market. That's where the problem originated and until they stabilize it, nothing else is going to matter. It should have been first on the list

    As a home owner, I'm not anxious to see more boarded up abandoned homes in my neighborhood. That's just going to depress the market further.

    HOLC is the way to go.

    Wouldn't the fastest (none / 0) (#42)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 02:11:18 PM EST
    way to stabilize be for the government to state they will not intrude into the housing sector?  This would  get lenders off their hands and have them begin either renegotiating or foreclosing allowing home prices to slide towards and equilibrium.  Until all the suspect mortgages are renegotiated or foreclosed,  buyers will suspect prices still have further to drop and will not purchase any of the existing homes.  

    Parent
    I guess it really is "pork" (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 01:25:44 PM EST
    When even Claire McCaskill gets it, you really wonder how out of touch those people are who insist that there were no earmarks or pork in the budget.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CST on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 01:47:57 PM EST
    I love the part where "60% of earmarks come from Dems, 40% come from Reps"

    That's just about the split in the senate, making it a pretty useless statistic.

    Parent

    Baseball alert: WBC, China v. Japan, (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    on ESPN2.  No socre, bottom of the first.  

    The game is over.... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 02:05:07 PM EST
    but I won't spoil for ya...hopefully ESPN2 is smart enough to keep the final score off the ticker:)

    Parent
    March 4th show. (none / 0) (#54)
    by santarita on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:48:57 PM EST


    Obama open to compromise (none / 0) (#56)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:29:21 PM EST
    on health care overhaul.....according to an AP article.
    I don't know enough about health care reform to decide if that is good or bad.

    If it means giving in to Repugs . . . (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:37:09 PM EST
    in the name of bi/post/whatever partisanship, we get screwed. I just don't see a strong enough voice of the people in him yet.

    Parent
    I thought Rham promised no more (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:33:48 PM EST
    lie down and play dead ahead of time????

    Parent
    I had no idea the USPS paid (none / 0) (#61)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 08:16:20 PM EST
    so well!

    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment