home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

I defy anyone to defend the housing/foreclosure policy of the Obama Administration. It is a travesty. Full Disclosure - I've spent part of the week dealing with these policies for clients.

Open Thread.

< Kinsley v. Maddow | Fighting For Something Is Better Politics Than Caving On Everything >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    BTD draws a line in the sand (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 11:42:53 AM EST
    come and Getsome apologia :)

    RF update (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    its coming out in May now.  not sure of the exact date but they just said it May now.

    as far as the meeting I just attended with GDT, OMFG.  what a meeting.  honestly I am a little speechless.  for one thing I dont remember the last time I listened to someone talk for 90 minutes who did not say one single word I disagreed with.

    we have been threatened with slow death if we reveal much of what was said but just let me say OMFG.  this is going to be fun.

    Parent

    oh (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:57:26 PM EST
    9 years.  three games. at least.

    Parent
    In Obama's "defense" (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 11:56:37 AM EST
    he does not work for homeowners or the public.

    He works for the bankers - the people bought the oval office and installed him there as their employee. (and yes, I'm a little cynical)

    It is Obama's continued deference to the sensibilities of the financiers and his relative indifference to the suffering of ordinary people that threaten his legacy, not to mention the nation's economic well-being. There have been more than 300,000 foreclosure filings every single month that Obama has been president, and as The New York Times editorialized, "Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the Obama administration's efforts to address the foreclosure problem will make an appreciable dent."
    [...]
    The ugly reality that only 398,198 mortgages have been modified to make the payments more reasonable can be traced to the program being based on the hope that the banks would do the right thing. While Obama continued the Bush practice of showering the banks with bailout money, he did not demand a moratorium on foreclosures or call for increasing the power of bankruptcy courts to force the banks, which created the problem, to now help distressed homeowners.

    Fortunately there are some judges who see things a little differently than Obama does.

    Fed Up Judges Invalidating Mortgages Over Fraudulent Paperwork:

    ..a Long Island judge decided that he had enough. He found that the mortgage companies paperwork was so flawed and their behavior so repugnant (the judges word not mine) that he voided the mortgage and gave the house to the family.


    I wish more judges would do this (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:00:33 PM EST
    Unless there are consequences for the banks, they have no incentive to clean up their act for any of us.  We are all possible/probable victims.  I'm willing to have some people get some free houses in order for the banks to have to start running a fraud free business.  They own my house too right now after all.

    Parent
    They own your house? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    Can they produce the paper?

    Parent
    Produce as in a manufacturing process? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Rojas on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:16:08 PM EST
    I think they can and I think they do.

    Parent
    No, I was asking MT (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:33:38 PM EST
    if the bank she says "owns" her house if they could produce the paperwork proving that she owes them money - proving that they hold the mortgage, in other words...

    Parent
    It was snark (none / 0) (#18)
    by Rojas on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:50:14 PM EST
    I do think they will manufacture the paper if they can't find the originals. It's just a paperwork problem by the by.

    Parent
    The servicer produced (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:07:56 PM EST
    the paper work leading to them and it all looks clear and leggit and it matches what I have of it, as to how it was securitized once it got to the servicer and where that is now.....who knows.  Apparently I will have to ask separately about that and I'm not certain they have to respond to my requests.

    Parent
    The unicorn sitting in the wing chair (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:23:39 PM EST
    smoking a cigar in my living swears up and down that the Obama Administration is doing the right thing on the mortgage/foreclosure issue.

    OR

    It's good because the Obama Administration says so.

    OR

    It is good because I trust the President.

    OR

    This is the 11th dimensional chess that we've all been waiting for!

    OR

    It is a very complex issue and people just don't understand how great this will turn out for everyone in the end.  We just need to be patient.

    OR

    I heard that they will probably change it pretty soon and isn't Obama great!?!  He really cares.  {insert pretty Obama family photos posted by the White House here}

    All snark.

    Ouch! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:26:41 PM EST
    But you have it right. I can't take the apologia anymore. It reminds of of the Bushbots talking about how Bush was Jesus and therefore anything he did would be just okay!

    Parent
    Or, (my personal favorite) (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:29:32 PM EST
    He can't just wave a magic wand and make all of our problems disappear!!!

    Parent
    That one is at least accurate and (4.00 / 1) (#11)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    rational - lol.

    Of course, I haven't heard any of the people who take issue with how they are handling the crisis as anyone to waive a magic wand.  Not once have I heard that request being made, actually.

    Parent

    But...but...but (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    we were told that Obama would make magical Unicorns and ponies appear and we would all hold hands and sing "I'd like to teach the world to sing" and everything woudl be wonderful and the heavens would open up and a bright light would shine down upon "the one."

    Parent
    Oh, no wait ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:33:34 PM EST
    It can't happen all at once ... progress is incremental!

    Parent
    On second thought ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    He's really the most progressive POTUS since (alternating) FDR/LBJ!  I don't know why you people can't see that!

    Parent
    How could I forget? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:37:34 PM EST
    Why don't all you bedwetting whiners just STFU!!!  It's not like she would have done any better!!!

    LOL!

    Parent

    You need an 11-dimensional (none / 0) (#20)
    by observed on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    funhouse mirror to see that one.

    Parent
    Incremental progress on job creation (none / 0) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:38:56 PM EST
    Whoopee! I'n so excited.

    To get a sense of how deeply entrenched the problems are, consider what passes for good news these days. The economy added 151,000 jobs last month, which was more than most economists had expected. But even at that rate of job growth, it would take 15 to 20 years to get the employment rate back to where it was when the Great Recession began in December 2007.

    There is no time to waste on plans that can't succeed. Bob Herbert
     

    Now thats progress. All we have to do is be patient for 15 or 20 more years.

    Parent

    "figures lie and liars figure" (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 07:42:46 PM EST
    "The October employment situation was dramatically weaker than the headline 159k increase in the payroll employment measure. The broader household employment fell 330k. The only reason that the unemployment rate held steady is that 254k dropped out of the labor force. The civilian labor force participation rate fell to a new low of 64.5%, indicating that people do not believe that jobs are available, but this serves to hold the unemployment rate down. In addition, the employment-to-population ratio fell to 58.3%, the lowest level in nearly 30 years.

    While not actually knowing what happened to the net job change in the non-surveyed small business sector, the Labor Department assumed that 61k jobs were created in that sector. This assumption is not supported by such important private surveys as those from the National Federation of Independent Business or by ADP. Just a month ago the Labor Department had to revise downward the job totals due to a serious overcount of their statistical artifact known as the Birth/Death Model."

    By Dr. Lacy Hunt, Hoisington Investment Mgt. Co.

    Parent

    Along with the picture of the Obama family (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:23:31 PM EST
    a cute story about one of his girls asking if he has fixed it yet would be a cure all for everything.

    Parent
    You left out the most important (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:24:01 PM EST
    most often used line...

    "WTF is wrong with you, anyway?!?!"

    ;-)

    Parent

    I was just covering the (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    passive aggressive category of responses.

    The angry, in your face, screamers are the best, though.

    Screaming at you and insulting you about raising an issue with an Obama policy when "everybody knows" that Obama ran on being calm, reasonable and bipartisan.  That's always big ironic fun.

    Parent

    Calm, reasonable, (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:49:22 PM EST
    and bipartisan...

    Warning: don't have a mouthful of coffee when you click that link.

    Parent

    That is funny (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:01:16 PM EST
    and unfortunately true.

    Parent
    Pay up Gov. Christie (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    TRENTON, N.J., (AP) -- NJ Transit owes the federal government at least $271 million for the Hudson River rail tunnel that Gov. Chris Christie scrapped last month, a federal official says.
    ...
    The Federal Transit Administration on Monday sent the railroad the bill for the so-called Access to the Region's Core project.

    "NJT must immediately repay all the Federal financial assistance expended for ARC under the (work agreement) which is currently estimated to be $271.091 million, plus reasonable interest and penalty charges that will be determined by FTA," regional administrator Brigid Hynes-Cherin wrote in the letter to James Weinstein, executive director of NJ Transit.

    FTA also said it would launch an audit of the project to determine how much federal funds have not yet been spent. link



    Spend $271 million to save 9 billion (none / 0) (#63)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:18:14 PM EST
    I haven't read much about the project, but if it's a stinker, it might have been the smart thing to do. I see that NY is already trying to get $3 billion that was earmarked to other projects there.

    Parent
    Actually, it's pretty Lose/lose (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 06:13:54 PM EST
    Besides the fact that the project would pay for itself with tolls and the loss of $3 billion in federal aid and 3,000 (immediate) jobs, it's projected to cause a loss of $18 Billion in property values, 44,000 jobs and $4 billion in additional revenue from related economic activity.

    Penny wise, pound foolish.

    Parent

    3000 immediate jobs is nothing to sneeze at (none / 0) (#107)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 09:19:21 PM EST
    $18 Billion and 44,000 jobs sounds a bit rosie to me, but I'm sure at some point it would have made it's money back. I did read that NJ was on the hook for budget over-runs, so I"m not sure if that had anything to do with it.

    Of course it could have just been a way to stick it to DC, NY and maybe even the unions.

    Who knows.

    Parent

    This send Washington... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    money to get sent back is a pretty whacky game, now its NJ to DC to NJ to DC...I guess thats how you maximize the skim.

    Can NJ tell DC to allocate the next 271 mill collected from NJ towards the debt to simplify this?

    I don't know if the project makes sense or not either, but I do know another route to AC is more useful than the war on drugs...if Christie was for real he'd say I got no money to waste on that stinker of a "project".  

    Parent

    Banks are stupid (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:32:24 PM EST
    Just a little venting here...
    I understand that anyone could call them and claim to be a recently deceased account holder's daughter, and attempt to put a hold on automatic withdrawals until the paperwork is in place to close the account. But I was trying to save them money. There is no money is my late father's account, no estate, and I am not liable for his debt. If they honor automatic withdrawals, including the ones he set up as automatic payments, they will be the ones who lose money, since he had an overdraft protection line of credit. You would think they could put a temporary hold on them until they verify my story. But noooooo....

    So, what would happen if I just walk away and never notify them he died? In the 3 calls I have made they have yet to even as me for his account number and ssn. I have no skin in this game, they do. I guess they just write off the losses. Minuscule in the big scheme of things.

    Thanks everyone (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 08:16:15 PM EST
    Your kind words really do help.

    I had some luck with the banking...you don't want to know...let's just say it's a good thing I can read my dad's horrible handwriting and know the name of his high school.

    Parent

    Kudos to Social Security administration (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:36:13 PM EST
    on the other hand. They stopped his payments in a heartbeat, so to speak. I think they knew about it before I did.

    Parent
    After my mom (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:45:40 PM EST
    died, I just showed up at her bank with a copy of the death certificate, and they didn't give me a problem about putting a "hold" on automatic withdrawals until I could get the official paperwork from the court appointing me personal representative for her estate (which took a bit longer, of course, than getting the death certificate).  I'm sorry your dad's bank was so unhelpful, and, even more, I'm so sorry about the loss of your father.

    Parent
    It definitely was a lot easier when my (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:31:47 PM EST
    mom died, 20 years ago. I pretty much did just as you say. This is more complicated because none of us "kids" live in Illinois anymore, plus the new banking protections.

    Thank you. It was a complicated relationship. Hard to describe - more like a distant uncle since my parents divorced when I was in high school. But we were at least in regular contact since the internet age and I miss him.

    Parent

    {{Hugs}} (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:52:10 PM EST
    to you.  It may have been a complicated, even a distant relationship, but he was still your father, and it is the closing of a chapter in your life.  

    Parent
    aw, thanks! (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    I have been feeling that way - like the closing of a chapter. It's weird how I thought I had been figuring it out all along, but there was a lot I hadn't thought about until it ended.

    Parent
    Group hug! (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:51:40 PM EST
    My condolences as well old pal.

    Parent
    I'm so sorry (none / 0) (#110)
    by sj on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 10:23:36 PM EST
    I'm so sorry to hear of the loss of your father.  I found than no matter how old you are, when you lose both parents you are an orphan.  And you feel like one.  At least we did.

    Peace to you.  

    Parent

    Really sorry to hear what you're going thru, (none / 0) (#113)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 10:41:02 PM EST
    ruffian. Take time for yourself in between the stressful events with the creditors. Sending peaceful wishes your way.

    Parent
    Sorry to hear of your Dad's death, ruffian. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by caseyOR on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:41:20 PM EST
    The death of a parent is always difficult, no matter what state the relationship is in. Even though there was so much emotional distance with him, you may find unexpected feelings suddenly making an appearance down the road.

    I did not like my father at all. He was a violent drunk. And yet, after he died I found myself in tears whenever I thought about him. That wore off as the years went by, but it was a very unexpected response to his passing.

    Hang in there. I'll be thinking about you.

    Parent

    Social Security is good at that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:48:14 PM EST
    Definitely need to get rid of that program because it works. Can't keep a government program that actually works. It is bad for the meme that government is always evil.

    BTW could we keep Social Security and eliminate Congress. Maybe replace them with a smaller parliamentary system where we can have elections base on "no confidence."

    Parent

    That's because funeral homes usually (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:51:12 PM EST
    notify Social Security, in the event there is a $255 funeral allowance payable to the surviving spouse.

    In my experience closing accounts for decedents where there were automatic bill payments, or even transfers in from investment accounts, I've had more success stopping the payments and transfers themselves - calling the telephone company, utility provider, broker, etc - because some banks won't close the accounts anyway until the auto-payments are stopped.

    Usually, a death certificate should be enough to freeze the activity, until letters of administration are issued to an executor who then has the authority to close the accounts.

    In the last year or so, I have encountered more rules and regulations and hoops that need to be jumped through just to close a bank account - banks requiring that executors appear in person to prove their identity, even if they live out of state.  Now, they will take your money and open an account for you with no speed bumps in the way at all - but try to take the money out?  Easier said than done.  I've had banks not only require personal appearances in the same branch at the same time, but refuse to just close the account without first opening an estate account - and then refusing to close that account simultaneously, but making the executors wait three days to do that.  They are counting on inertia taking over and the executors just deciding it is easier to leave the money where it is.  I nearly had a bank reject an executor's ID because it did not have "III" after his name and the letters of administration did.

    Amazing to me - sort of - how many rules they have for us, and how few they feel they are subject to; the balance of power really is way out of whack.


    Parent

    That was (none / 0) (#48)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:28:47 PM EST
    my experience with my mom's bank, as I said above.  I had the death certificate, they froze the account, and, of course, I notified the phone company, her cell phone provider, and the cable company (all canceled), and kept the utilities but notified them to send all future bills to me, which I then paid out of the estate account I set up.  I also canceled all her credit cards and magazine subscriptions, etc (all over the phone- I could have been anybody; only one credit card company asked to have a copy of the death certificate mailed to them).  Of course, this was seven years ago, and nobody gave me any hassles- I'm sure it's much worse now.    

    Parent
    Yup - I was able to cancel all the utilities, (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    insurance, credit cards, and stuff like that over the phone, with some of them needing me to send on the death certificate when I get the copies. All of the things where they were withdrawing the money themselves have been stopped, as far as I can tell. But he had one payment that was set up through his checking account as a bill payment initiated from his bank, not withdrawn by the payee, and that is the one the bank won't stop until I am ready to formally close the account. I understand they are afraid if I am a fraud he might come along and be mad that they stopped maying his bill, but some common sense should prevail. They could at least put a temporary hold and try to call him to verify. They won't get far.

    Death certificates should arrive this week and I can talk to the branch manager then and hopefully get it straightened out. As I said, it's their money at this point. Up to them!

    Parent

    Ruffian, do you have (none / 0) (#53)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:47:55 PM EST
    an attorney?  If not, allow me to recommend that you get an experienced estate attorney, and not try to do it all yourself.  I did a lot myself, to save the estate some attorney fees, but our lawyer was invaluable for certain things, and may actually have saved me some money in the end, because I did not have to fly back and forth across the country to do a bunch of things that needed to be done there.

    Parent
    Thank you Zorba (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:09:09 PM EST
    Really, there is not a dime there. He was deep in debt and already had filed for bankruptcy. His bankruptcy attorney has been helping us with notification of the creditors he was dealing with.

    I feel bad about it, but not enough to feel responsible for his bills. The banks gave an ailing man and his wife in their 70's a second mortgage and  lines of credit. He used most of it to take care of his wife in her final bout with cancer 3 years ago, and I can't blame him for that.

    It's the same things we talk about here all the time - what are regular middle class people supposed to do when they get sick? They had insurance, medicare, etc, but it is just not enough. His wife's long illness cost them everything they had, which was not much to begin with.


    Parent

    Sorry about that (none / 0) (#68)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    I'm glad the bankruptcy attorney is there to help.  It looks like, if there's anything at all from the sale of his house, the creditors get what's left.  I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe that his kids are responsible for his debts when he dies if there's not enough from sale of his assets to clear all the debts (which it doesn't seem that there will be).

    Parent
    Children are absolutely not responsible (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    for payment of debts.

    In fact, there is usually an order of priority for payment of creditors when an estate is insolvent, and garden variety unsecured creditors are almost always at the end of the line.

    In MD, the order of payment is:

    1.  Fees due the Register of Wills
    2.  Costs and expenses of administration (this would be things like the notice to creditors and the estate bond)
    3.  Funeral expenses (limited in an insolvent estate to $5,000)
    4.  Commissions to executor and/or legal fees
    5.  Family allowance ($5,000 to spouse, $2,500 for each unmarried child under 18)
    6.  Taxes due by the decedent
    7.  Reasonable expenses of last illness
    8.  Rent payable, not more than three months
    9.  Wages, salaries or commissions payable by the decedent for services performed within 3 months prior to death
    10.  Old age assistance claims
    11.  All other claims

    Don't know what the law is where ruffian's Dad lived, but I wouldn't expect it to be much different.

    All creditors are entitled to notice, but all that does is outline the process for making claims against the estate - notice is no guarantee of payment.

    Parent

    Thanks a lot Anne (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 08:03:35 PM EST
    That is basically how we understood it from the bankruptcy lawyer and other sources.

    We aren't trying to abscond with the assets! If I had found a shoebox full of cash I would have been glad to give it to the creditors. It helps to know we have the standing to tell them to leave us alone if they try to guilt us out of our own assets. Little do they know that would be pretty hard to guilt us in this case.

    Parent

    Yes, that is the situation (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    We are trying to do the right thing in preventing the bank from needlessly incurring further losses.

    I'm sure it will all work out... obsessing over details is my best defense mechanism!

    Parent

    I might get one to get my own affairs in order (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:15:54 PM EST
    though. I have learned that much!

    Parent
    Sorry , my original comment was (none / 0) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:43:28 PM EST
    more than a little insensitive. Droned on about Social Security without once offering condolences for your loss. I am sorry for the loss of your father.

    Parent
    Not at all MO- I am in practical mode today! (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:59:42 PM EST
    Thank you though. It has been an odd 3 weeks, that's for sure. I am still processing the whole thing.

    Parent
    Spoke to soon on that one (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 08:09:55 PM EST
    Not their fault though. Apparently the funeral home did not notify them as they said they would. Sigh. After what it costs for a simple cremation you'd think they could make a phone call.

    Parent
    Pentagon can't explain (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    "Missile" off of California coast.  Wonder whose it was, and, if ours, why it was launched?
    Link

    A "We Dont Know" answer (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:50:16 PM EST
    on a possible launch of a missile does not make me feel real comfortable.

    Parent
    Gee, I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    why on earth you would feel that way, MOBlue! (/snark)
    Yes, it doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy, either.

    Parent
    Here's (none / 0) (#93)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 07:15:13 PM EST
    one explanation:
    But John Pike, a defense expert who is director of GlobalSecurity.org, said he believes he has solved the mystery.
    "It's clearly an airplane contrail," Pike said Tuesday afternoon. "It's an optical illusion that looks like it's going up, whereas in reality it's going towards the camera. The tip of the contrail is moving far too slowly to be a rocket. When it's illuminated by the sunset, you can see hundreds of miles of it ... all the way to the horizon.

    Link
    Hope he's right.

    Parent
    interesting image (none / 0) (#100)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 08:02:26 PM EST
    the video they showed on the news here looked a tad dif, like it was shot from behind

    Parent
    For those who believe that Social Security (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    is safe because the Dems will protect it.

    WASHINGTON -- In what may be the first major move of the forthcoming Social Security debate, the Peterson Foundation launched on Tuesday a $20 million TV ad campaign to promote the need for a major discussion on debt and deficit reduction.
    ...The Peterson Foundation, for one, has never shied away from its push to reform the entitlement program. And in introducing the $20 million effort, the organization's founder, former Nixon commerce secretary and fiscal conservative Pete Peterson made it abundantly clear that Social Security is in his sights.

    Perhaps the most frightening part of the unveiling, however, is that Peterson -- long a scourge of progressives for having earned hundreds of millions in the hedge fund business while preaching financial sacrifice for others -- has prominent Democrats backing his latest campaign. Appearing alongside him at the Newsuem on Tuesday morning was outgoing Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Budget Committee Chair Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).

    "People on the left who don't want to touch entitlements, that is just unrealistic," said Conrad. "I would say to my friends on the left it is unrealistic, Medicare and Social Security are headed for insolvency. The idea that nothing has to be done is divorced from reality. On the right, those who say no new revenue, I believe, are also in denial." link



    this is gonna get ugly. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 05:39:55 PM EST
    I only hope so (none / 0) (#95)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 07:18:50 PM EST
    Cream - I can just see it now:

    "The Crowd and the 2nd American Revolution."

    Parent

    You know what (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 06:31:10 PM EST
    bugs me? Nobody ever mentions the fact that we are wasting literally trillions in places like Iraq but for some reason that money has to keep flowing while elderly people in this country have to take the hit.

    Parent
    OMG, I am so tired of this utter (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 08:24:14 PM EST
    BS about SS insolvency and the efforts to link SS to the deficit; raise the ceiling on wages subject to the tax, and that's the last anyone will ever hear about insolvency - and there's simply no reason why those making over $106,000/year should effectively get a raise just for making more money than most people ever will.  As soon as your income hits that level, you're getting 6.5% more in your net pay than you did before...and maybe that's the answer to why Pete F'ing Peterson isn't spending $20 mil that he shook out of his sofa cushions on advocating for an increase in the wage ceiling.

    I can hardly type this I am so angry at how "Democrats" like Evan Bayh keep perpetuating these lies - and Obama is eating it all up with a spoon.

    Parent

    The reasons why the government will cut Social (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 09:31:36 PM EST
    Security.

    Wall Street pay is on pace to break a record high for a second consecutive year, according to a report in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal.

    Some three dozen top banks and securities firms will pay $144 billion in salary and benefits this year, the paper said. That's a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, according to a survey conducted by the Journal. Compensation is expected to rise at 26 of the 35 firms surveyed, including banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges. link

    The tax cuts for the rich will be extended or made permanent. Between tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and paying for two wars, eliminating the governments obligation for full Social Security benefits is necessary according to both political parties.  It is the reverse Robin Hood effect.

    It seems that the days of the Democratic Party protecting Social Security and other safety net programs is long past.


    Parent

    Exactly right (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 09:01:42 PM EST
    Even if they just raised the ceiling to 500k it might be enough.  I'd much rather see that than raising the retirement age or decreasing benefits.

    Parent
    years ago. My notices are telling me I need to work to 67. Women used to have retirement available to them at 62 IIRC.

    Parent
    Full benefits at 67 (none / 0) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 11:17:02 PM EST
    You can still retire at 62 on reduced benefits.

    Early retirement

    You can get Social Security retirement benefits as early as age 62, but if you retire before your full retirement age, your benefits will be reduced, based on your age. For example, if you retire at age 62, your benefit would be about 25 percent lower than what it would be if you waited until you reach full retirement age.

    Some people stop working before age 62. But if they do, the years with no earnings will probably mean a lower Social Security benefit when they retire.

    Note: Sometimes health problems force people to retire early. If you cannot work because of health problems, you should consider applying for Social Security disability benefits. The amount of the disability benefit is the same as a full, unreduced retirement benefit. If you are receiving Social Security disability benefits when you reach full retirement age, those benefits will be converted to retirement benefits. For more information, ask for Disability Benefits (Publication No. 05-10029).
    ...
    Retirement benefits for widows and widowers

    Widows and widowers can begin receiving Social Security benefits at age 60, or at age 50 if they are disabled. And they can take a reduced benefit on one record and later switch to a full benefit on the other record. For example, a woman could take a reduced widow's benefit at 60 or 62 and then switch to her full (100 percent) retirement benefit when she reaches full retirement age. The rules vary depending on the situation, so you should talk to a Social Security representative about the options available to you. ssa.gov

     

    Parent

    Partially correct (none / 0) (#115)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 11:41:52 PM EST
    When Social Security was created in the 1930s, the age was 65 for all -- although few women actually were covered, as the job criteria were skewed to eliminate most women's job categories.

    In the 1950s, rules were changed (for intriguing reasons) to allow women to collect at age 62 at 75% of the full benefit rate -- but widows of covered workers could collect at the full benefit rate at age 62.  In the early 1960s, the rules were changed to allow men to also collect at age 62 at the 75% rate.

    The rules were changed again in the 1960s for widows, then for divorcees -- but then came the recession of the '70s and some screwups in calculations implemented by Congress, and the era of generosity soon would reverse, and the ages for retirement benefits began to go up.

    Parent

    Uggggghhh (none / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 06:44:47 PM EST
    Here we go ...

    Parent
    They need (none / 0) (#2)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 11:56:11 AM EST
    to force the banks to remodify some of these loans.  I know someone going through this process and it's inexcusable the way the banks are jerking her around.

    Comment from Jim Webb quoted by David Sirota (from the sidebar):

    "People look up say, what's the difference between these two parties? Neither of them is really going to take on Wall Street. If they don't have the guts to take them on, and they've got all these other programs that exclude me, well to hell with them. I'm going to vote for the other people who can at least satisfy me on other issues, like abortion. Screw you guys. I understand that mindset."

    Yup...

    Absent forced loan modification... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:47:16 PM EST
    the people need to get aggressive themselves...ask to see the title, mortgage payment strike till lawful title is produced, check lost in the mailm, and assorted banker-esque tricks.

    I mean two can play the game...to beat the bankers we need to start thinking/acting like bankers.  Unsavory I know, but this is war, and we didn't fire the first shot...it's justifiable self defense, especially with the state so firmly in the bank's pocket.

    Sh*t could you imagine how fast the bankers would come to the table in better faith if every mortgage debtor in the country withheld payment for even 1-2 months?  We've got the power but fail to use it....probably because we can't stand each other enough to come together, kick the dog syndrome is epidemic.

    Parent

    You know it would be interesting (none / 0) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:53:13 PM EST
    if everyone who was told that their paperwork was lost banded together and sent registered mail or Fedex packages with a note explaining that the paperwork would have been included but for the fact that the companies had proved themselves to be too irresponsible to handle the documents - documents that contain highly personal and private information, I might add.  What's with that losing paperwork all over the place?

    Parent
    Stall tactic... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    Companies in my business are known to "lose" paperwork when it suits them too...one of the oldest tricks in the book.

    Parent
    Yes. I know. (none / 0) (#22)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    But the reporting of this tactic being used is becoming overwhelming.  Somehow, there should be a line drawn in the sand about how many bites they can reasonably take from that apple.

    Parent
    We're on our own... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:18:32 PM EST
    Uncle Sam is firmly in the banker's camp...they are free to lose your paperwork when it suits them...funny how they never lose payments, eh?

    We're on our own...how many mortgage debtors currently staying afloat are willing to join a nationwide mortgage payment strike to force the bankers to the table and to force Uncle Sam to be a fair arbiter?  I'm scared we know the answer, and that is zero or close to it...the debtors paying on time are more interested in getting in on the grift themselves in some small way, not interested in helping the guy down the street....not realizing they are a lot closer to being the underwater guy down the street than they are a master grifter like a Paulson or Blankfein.

    Parent

    Actually, I think I've read that (none / 0) (#32)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:27:36 PM EST
    there have been payments lost - when that suits their goal of stealing the property.

    Parent
    Don't doubt it... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    if there is a trick in the book, they'll play it.

    And here we are bound by a sense of honor and fair play and word is your bond...it's like trying to race Usain Bolt dragging a ball and chain, we can't win.

    Parent

    They should have to pay some (none / 0) (#24)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:10:41 PM EST
    sort of fine every time they "lose" the paperwork.  If after some number of attempts to send paperwork they are still losing paperwork, they should have to pay another bigger fine and reimburse the customer.  Doubtful any of those types of things could be done now, but these are the types of simple and straight-forward laws that can keep the financial institutions in line and protect consumers.

    Parent
    Fine? (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:23:55 PM EST
    That ain't gonna work...we won't even force renegotiation, we're gonna fine 'em?  

    Big banks have shown they'll pay fines for shenanigans all day long and twice on Sunday and still have taken us to the cleaners when its all netted out.

    Parent

    Well, if you were facing (none / 0) (#31)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    five million $1,000 fines, it would start to add up, I think.

    Parent
    I agree with you on demanding responsibility (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    I did ask to see the note and the note was produced from the mortgage that signed and then conveyed to servicer.  But after that the mortgage was sold into securitized MBS, and I have nothing on that.

    Parent
    We need civic minded attorneys... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    to get creative with some filings...but again we run into the problem of attorneys wanting in on the grift themselves.

    It's hard to fight grift when the grifted dream of grifting instead of dreaming of justice.

    Parent

    I'm going (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:23:54 PM EST
    through it right now and you are completely jerked around all the time. You're constantly told that your paperwork is "lost" or not received even though you have receipt for having fed exed it. they are awful and yet what does Obama do? Hand the sleazebags more money.

    Parent
    Angling for possible arugments against? (none / 0) (#39)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:45:57 PM EST
    Full Disclosure - I've spent part of the week dealing with these policies for clients.

    /s

    Kos has a pretty good piece up (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    at, oddly, the christian science monitor

    Boehner will fail, and Democrats will pounce in 2012

    Republicans didn't sweep these elections for grand ideological reasons, but because not enough of the Democratic base showed up to vote. Exit polls also show that angry voters who flocked to Republicans will end up disappointed in their actual policies. And in 2012, Democrats will be ready.



    Oh (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:56:57 PM EST
    goody another link by Kos saying we're going to win by default. He's become just another inside the beltway blogger. Does it ever dawn on anybody that maybe we should be giving the voters something to vote for?

    Winning by default is what Obama did. Do we really want to repeat that mistake?

    Parent

    its also (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    what the republicans just did.  I think that is one of his points.

    Parent
    this is the first sentence (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:59:36 PM EST
    The 2010 elections have come and gone, and Democrats found out what happens when they neglect their base and fail to deliver jobs for the American people.


    Parent
    I read the article and agree with many of Kos' (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:26:02 PM EST
    statements about the 2008 election. Although, I would not bet any money that the Dems actually came to the same conclusion as he did.

    Democrats found out what happens when they neglect their base and fail to deliver jobs for the American people.

    Sounds like many of them have decided that they did not compromise enough or that they were to liberal(geeze).

    And in 2012, Democrats will be ready.

    Ready for what? Ready to win? Probably. Ready to govern for the benefit of people of this country? I lack confidence that will be the case.

    Parent

    that's what I'm afraid of too (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:34:59 PM EST
    They will keep reaching for the 15% mushy middle 'independent swing voters' and not try to get that some amount of voters by exciting the base Democrats with policies they support. I keep quoting Alan Grayson because I think he is right on about this "Democrats can't win if Democrats don't vote"

    Parent
    and they are not likely to vote (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:39:53 PM EST
    unless given something to vote for.

    Parent
    That's the key (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:35:42 PM EST
    Looking toward 2012--and assuming substantial progress on the economy--I think that the "something to vote for" is the clincher. For Democrats and more. In the 2012 general, the "squishy swing" vote will count in a divided electorate, because they hold the balance. Charles Cook points out today that the 18% advantage that Democrats enjoyed shifted strongly Repub this time around so that the Rs now had the same 18% advantage. I hate to say "pander" to the squishies, and I don't believe that is what we do. Captain, I completely agree that there has to be a positive reason to move that ambivalent middle (or the major portion of it) to the Democratic column if we are not to see a replay of this year.
    While I also agree that liberals should put forward that positive reason, it does seem that the squishy middle does make the difference in the gritty numbers win column. We know that individual liberal positions-- when presented in a straightforward, clear, succinct way-- tend to trump the less forgiving, somewhat harsh & self-serving positions of Repubs. So...how to thread that needle? How to deliver the same clear, consistent message to Democrats and the Independent swing voters in electorally rich states?

    Parent
    The "squishy middle" would have (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 07:15:02 PM EST
    voted for effective government and meaningful policies if same had been offered by this Dem Administration.  Effective (i) healthcare bill that not only increases the numbers of Americans covered, but ensures coverage at affordable prices, (ii) progress on job creation, (iii) restrictions on the banks in return for bailouts, and (iv) relief to homeowners

    all would have ensured that Dems retained control in the House.

    In the absence of policies with meaningful relief to the average American, not only have Dems lost the squishy middle, but they are losing their base, to wit the woman's vote, etc.

    Anyone know where the real Dem Party went?

    Parent

    The Dem base would have come out (none / 0) (#111)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 10:24:32 PM EST
    and voted for those things too. Throw in at least a public option (if not single payer), repeal of DADT, closing Gitmo,  and a couple of deserved war crimes prosecutions and the votes from the base would have far surpassed what would have come from the middle. I would much rather have the more liberal policies and the votes from the base.

    Parent
    Agree with both of you (none / 0) (#116)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:15:56 AM EST
    One step further, tho: What is the message...that is, what do the policies add up to in a compelling way in two years? It is often said that we Democrats have a knack for listing inventory or giving a list of items when asked what our message/our what-we-stand-for looks like?

    Parent
    Shouldn't Obama (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:41:35 AM EST
    the Dem pres/admin, be setting a tone for that?

    so far, all I hear is "cave to the Republicans", or "let's do what the Republicans couldn't" (see SS, HIR, Wall St., etc).

    Parent

    Yes, nycstray, he should (none / 0) (#118)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 11:52:28 AM EST
    I'd even say it stronger: To change the trajectory of disappointment/cynicism/apathy, a President has to use his position and voice to project a direction. The Here is Where We Are Going and Here is How We Get There <to get to a new day or other metaphor.> My sense for some time is that the President's style is more of a counter-puncher; and, that is a good characteristic in lots of "normal" situations. Given the legacy he inherited, the situation wasn't actually very "normal" with its wars and economic bottom-falling-out reality. I expect that the real challenge for that style (if it is so) is to pivot quickly to the proactive, forceful direction mode. I think that he can do it.

    Parent
    I may have been completely wrong (none / 0) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:49:49 PM EST
    about one thing. I have stated numerous times that I do not think that any Democrat would be willing to primary Obama in 2012. I may yet have to eat those words or at least modify them.

    Democratic nominee Alvin Greene may have lost big to Sen. Jim DeMint (R) last Tuesday in the race for Senate in South Carolina, but he's not getting discouraged. In fact, he reportedly called up the state Democratic Party to find out how much the filing fee is for the 2012 presidential election.
    ...
    Greene himself confirmed to Politico that he made the call, and told Fox News affiliate WACH that he would "maybe" run, then asked how much the filing fee is. link


    Parent
    thats (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:03:06 PM EST
    great

    Parent
    The only (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:18:41 PM EST
    thing that I agree with in that oped piece is that yes, the democratic base didn't show up and the GOP did and that the people do take it out on the party in power. However, he ignores the elephant in the room: Obama. How is are any of these things going to happen with Obama in charge? He never answers that question. He's not dealing with the reality of Obama's problems and his inablity to lead.

    Parent
    it was not really (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:25:49 PM EST
    about him

    Parent
    That's kind (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:50:40 PM EST
    of my point. He completely ignored Obama in the equation. Right now Obama is willing to compromise everything away with the GOP and how are you going to make the case that the GOP should be replaced when the head of the party sees nothing wrong with their ideas?

    Parent
    See LAT for an interesting (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:56:29 PM EST
    article rE women voters in last week's elections.

    good news (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:25:20 PM EST
    No Charges In Destruction Of CIA Interrogation Tapes

    The statute of limitations on criminal law covering the tapes' November 2005 destruction expired this week, making future prosecution impossible.


    sports fans (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:27:10 PM EST
    check this out

    It was simple and brilliant play by the football team of Driscoll Middle School from Corpus Christi, Texas. The quarterback took the ball and casually strolled forward, acting as though the play hadn't started. But it had, and he passed the opposing team's defensive line before they realized it.


    That was awesome! (none / 0) (#81)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:29:51 PM EST
    Great article (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:29:14 PM EST
    by Sean Wilentz

    Clearly, the hopes and dreams that propelled Obama to the White House are in disarray. The social movement politics that some of his most fervent followers ascribed to him--the idea of electing a "post-partisan" president as the leader not of a nation or even of a political party but of a personalized social movement--has failed.


    Where's the article? (none / 0) (#94)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 07:16:45 PM EST
    Thanks.

    Parent
    It's (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 07:29:38 PM EST
    at the New Republic. I tried to do a link but it wouldn't work.

    Parent
    Great article (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 08:01:01 PM EST
    Gotta love the first comment:

    I like the piece, but it assumes throughout that Obama isn't (and hasn't always been) a knife-fighter in a movement politician's clothing...
    For all of his "faults" he is one hell of a productive and transformational president.

    Obama the "knife-fighter" and "transformational President".

    wow.

    Parent

    I didn't (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 08:41:53 PM EST
    look at the comments but maybe I should have for a ROTFLMAO moment.

    Parent
    That commenter has a serious (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 09:39:45 PM EST
    hopium addiction. I hope he/she receives treatment soon.

    Parent
    Thx (none / 0) (#97)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 07:41:58 PM EST
    Is there any policy of this admin (none / 0) (#91)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 06:56:34 PM EST
    that shows more clearly that this is not the Admin of Democrats, as we had come to know them?