<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>Problem Is&apos;s Blog</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990</id>
   <updated>2010-05-02T19:09:22Z</updated>
   
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Pro 4.21-en</generator>


<entry>
   <title>If You Were NOT Paying for Your Neighbor&apos;s Mortgage, How Many Home Sales Would There Be? --US Government Now 96.5% of the Mortgage Market Q1, 2010</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2010/05/if-you-were-not-paying-for-you.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.333408</id>
   
   <published>2010-05-02T17:28:15Z</published>
   <updated>2010-05-02T19:09:22Z</updated>
   
   <summary>The US government IS the US housing market. The US Government underwrote 96.5% of the mortgages in the 1st quarter 2010, up from 90% 2009. How many homes do you think would have sold without the US government intervening in...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
      <category term="Muckraker" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="22559" label="fixed markets" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="11975" label="mortgages" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="58" label="Obama" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="27269" label="Wall Street Reform" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[The US government IS the US housing market. 

<br /><br />The US Government underwrote 96.5% of the mortgages in the 1st quarter 2010, up from 90% 2009. How many homes do you think would have sold without the US government intervening in the mortgage markets through Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie and the FHA? 

<br /><br />Do you think mortgages rates would be 5.12% without the US government writing 96.5% of the mortgages? Would mortgages be this low without the Fed holding interest rates at near 0% at you the savers expense, and the Fed buying $1.2 trillion in securitized mortgages so, among other things, Fannie and Freddie can keep buying up pumped out mortgages?<br /><p>

</p>]]>
      <![CDATA[<b>Making Homes More Affordable: The Myth of Fannie and Freddie</b><p>As Ilargi at the Automatic Earth so succinctly points out in <a href="http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2010/05/may-2-2010-power-transparency-and-debt.html">"Transparency and Debt"</a>: <br /></p><blockquote>"Fannie and Freddie (and the FHA and FHLB systems) were once conceived with the alleged goal of making homes more affordable for the poorer segments of the population. And, strike me dead if they don't, most people still believe that's what they do."<br /><br />"Which is easily squashed and put to rest by the fact that Congress increased the limits on the size of loans that Fannie, Freddie and the FHA can guarantee to $729,750 in high-cost housing markets."<br /><br />"Wherever you live, you're neither poor nor in need of taxpayer help if you buy a home that size and that price."<br /></blockquote><b>So Why Oh Why Are Fannie and Freddie Gobbling Up 96.5% of Mortgages? Wall Street Derivatives Explain It ALL<br /><br /></b>Again, Mr. Ilargi:<br /><blockquote>"Let nobody try and fool nobody else anymore. Fannie and Freddie have nothing to do with the less privileged: they are the ultimate tools for Washington to keep Wall Street alive."<br /><br />"Not only would significantly lower home values put severe strains on the major banks' balance sheets, they would also implode and destruct what Mortgage Backed Securities and various other housing related derivatives can be put on the books for."<br /></blockquote>Ah yes, Mr. Obummer and his SPECIAL FRIEND Jamie Dimon of JPM.<br /><b><br />How Many Mortgages Without the US Government and at What Rate?<br /><br /></b>So mortgage rates would rise without the US Government intervention. Without the US Government, who would lend? Who would write mortgages? Certainly not the TBTF banks tax payers have bailed out to the tune of $9.7 trillion in gifts, loans and subsidies ALL... 100% at tax payer expense. Lending by the TBTF that dominate the US banking markets have decreased. The more TARP and Fed free money you take... the less lending you do.<br /><br />What are they doing with tax payer subsidized free 0% Fed money? Buying US Treasuries and charging US tax payers 3-4% to borrow the free money you gave them. The rest of the free Fed money? Using high frequency trading (HFT) to churn the market higher by buying and selling the same stocks back and forth 70% of the time in a low volume market to front run pensions and 401k investors and collect bogus liquidity fees. <br />

<p>A handful of worthless stocks that would have been bankrupt
with out the unfortunate involvement of the US tax payer, AIG, Citi Fannie,
Freddie and BofA are traded back and forth by the likes of Goldman and JPM 38%
of the time. Goldman alone has been skimming $100 million a day by HFT front
running and churning liquidity scams. <br /></p><p><b>That is $100 Million A Day That Should Be In Your Pension Fund and 401k.</b> <br /></p><p>That is the Fed that charges YOU interest to create
your own currency directly complicit in the frauds against the American tax payer. That is the Fed that keeps interest rates at near 0% for the Wall Street banks robbing your savings account everyday of interest you SHOULD BE EARNING on your hard earned savings.<br /></p><p><b>US Mortgage Market By The Numbers</b><br /></p>So if the US government was not writing 96.5% of the mortgages, and the 6 TBTF banks who control more than 60% of the financial markets are not increasing lending, how many mortgages would be written if it was only up to your community and regional banks? The FDIC has closed 64 banks in 2010 alone after 140 bank failures in 2009. The problem bank list is currently estimated to be 722 long. Are local and regional banks in a position to write $364 billion in mortgages in one quarter?<br /><br />First quarter 2010 mortgage lending was around $378 billion. The US government underwrote almost $364 billion of those mortgages. Private banks, insurance companies and trusts kept just $14 billion of the entire mortgage market on their own books at the close of the 1st quarter.<br />

<p>The top ten lenders produced 78% of that volume, $295 billion and sold them off to Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Mae. 5 of those top ten are TBTF, Wells Fargo, BofA, JPM Chase, GMAC (What???? Not car loans you ask?) and Citi. They are the top 5. The top 10 are 78% of the market.&nbsp;</p><p>Insurance companies, regional banks, trusts and general mortgage dealers are currently writing 22% of the market at about $83 billion a quarter with them selling $80 billion off to government entities and keeping $3 billion on their books.&nbsp;</p><p>

So again the question: If the US government was not guaranteeing 96.5% of the $378 billion in mortgages written in just 1 quarter of 2010... how many mortgages do you think would be written? If the $14 billion in mortgages that were not guaranteed by the government were all that was written... 3.5% of the current volume how much do you think mortgage rates would have to be above the current 5.12% to bring more mortgages onto the market? <br /></p><p>Without your neighbor providing $364 billion in a single quarter, your neighbor subsidizing the Fed to provide the banks with 0% free money and the Fed using your neighbors money to buy $1.2 trillion in securitized mortgages... how much would your home be worth today?&nbsp;</p><p>Mr. Ilargi:</p><blockquote>"The government needs to explain, for instance, why it has decided to prop up home prices at levels that are far higher than what they were prior to the 2002-2007 housing boom. This is vital data, because it will, or at least may, alert enough people to the fact that domestic real estate prices have zero percent chance of staying at those levels unless taxpayer money is used into perpetuity to guarantee any and all mortgages."<br /><br /><p>"In a lovely case of irony, the most lucrative policy Fannie, Freddie, the FHA and the Treasury could develop is to buy credit default swaps betting that the trillions of loans for which they use a taxpayer money guarantee will fail."</p><p><br />"And for all we know, some or all of them may well have done so already. A government betting against its own citizens, that would be rich, and still only just one notch up from Goldman using zero percent discount window taxpayer money to do the exact same thing."</p></blockquote><p>

<b><span>Who
Is Accountable?</span> Like HAMP, HARP and HUMP... Another Obama Backdoor Bailout For Wall Street</b></p><p>But then again, we really don't expect any explanations from Mr. Change. Every one by now has heard enough all talk and no action shill speeches out of Mr. Obummer like the Cooper Union debacle. Even the corporate owned media whores yawn at the thought of another Obummer empty oratory of Wah-WAH-wah-WAH-WAH. President Obummer sounds more and more like Charlie Brown's teacher everyday.</p><p><b>We Are All Paying Too Much For Housing</b><br /></p><p>All of these schemes to benefit Wall Street stop the market from asset price discovery, stop homes from becoming affordable based on incomes and the renal market. It keeps you the public forced into artificially high mortgage debt to the benefit or a rent seeking oligarchy who own Obummer, the corporate Democrats and well as Professor Miller at NYU states, the Republicans... a criminal enterprise under the RICO act masquerading as a political party...<br /></p><p>

By not allowing price discovery and the correction in the housing bubble, we are all paying too much for housing.Jamie Dimon's puppet has already weighed in on no reform "reform" for Wall Street and the US economy. <br /></p><p><b>My Special Voting Foot</b><br /></p><p>You see Mr. Obummer, I have this special voting foot. I am lacing up my voting boot and looking for a few good corporate shill Democrats to place my voting boot in their ass come election day 2010...&nbsp; It is just a warm up for my special voting foot to be deployed for you in 2012.<br /></p><p>

You see Mr.Change, I did not vote for you or any worthless two party corporate owned clowns. But you lied to enough people in record time who did vote for you, that I feel a moral obligation to correct your mistaken using of the US voting public. You are Mr. Obummer, the most duplicitous, disingenuous, deceptive individual since Richard Nixon's 1968 "Peace with honor" and reconciliation tone campaign...&nbsp; <br /></p>]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Wall Street Banks Walking Away From Under Water Mortgages: Tells US Public Not To</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/12/wall-street-banks-defaulting--.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.308738</id>
   
   <published>2009-12-17T20:32:06Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-19T07:43:20Z</updated>
   
   <summary> Photo: Courtesy Bloomberg Morgan Stanley, long time Wall Street investment house with a history of regulatory fines and fraudulent activity, is walking away from mortgages on 5 San Francisco commercial properties. Morgan Stanley owes $8 billion on the five...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="32446" label="commercial real estate" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="5665" label="morgan stanley" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="32448" label="mortgage default" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="11975" label="mortgages" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="9510" label="TARP" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="6097" label="Wall Street" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="27269" label="Wall Street Reform" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=MS-2.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/MS-2.jpg" alt="Photobucket" /></a><br />
Photo: Courtesy Bloomberg<p>
Morgan Stanley, long time Wall Street investment house with
a history of regulatory fines and fraudulent activity, is walking away from
mortgages on 5 San Francisco
commercial properties. Morgan Stanley owes $8 billion on the five office
buildings purchased at the top of the market in 2007 in the highly overpriced
real estate market of bubble central, California. This latest Morgan Stanley act of borrower
irresponsibility is in addition to a walk away default on a $6.5 billion, 17
million square feet of office buildings to Barclays Capital. The reason: The
mortgages are 50% underwater.&nbsp; <br />

</p><p>According to <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aLYZhnfoXOSk&amp;pos=5">Bloomberg:</a><br />


</p><blockquote><p><b>Morgan Stanley to Give Up 5 San Francisco Towers
Bought at Peak</b><br /></p><p>Alyson Barnes a Morgan Stanley
spokeswoman, said yesterday, "This isn't a default or foreclosure situation. We
are going to give them the properties to get out of the loan obligation."<br />

</p></blockquote><p><b>Morgan Stanley: TARP Bailout-ee</b><br />

</p><p>Morgan Stanley bled US tax payers for $10 billion in
TARP money in 2008. Morgan Stanley, like the infamous Goldman Sachs, are hedge
funds that bellied up to the Fed's deposit bank discount window by fraudulently claiming
to be deposit banks. The Fed approved the regulatory change September 21, 2008,
for "Friends of Hank Paulson and Lloyd "Doin' God's Work" Blankfein" while denying the same
status to Goldman competitor Lehman Brothers. <br /></p>

<p>Wall Street has tried to lay the blame for the
financial fiasco of securitization and Wall Street MBS fraud continually on
"irresponsible people who took out mortgages they could not afford."
The hypocrisy of Wall Street banks shirking their loan obligations and walking
away simply "to get out of the loan obligation" is undeniable to anyone,
even the tone deaf Obama administration's "No Wall Street banker Left
Behind" crowd.<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=MS.jpg"><br /></a></p>]]>
      <![CDATA[



<p>According to <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aLYZhnfoXOSk&amp;pos=5">Bloomberg: </a><br /></p>

<blockquote><p>The firm last month agreed to
surrender 17 million square feet of office buildings to Barclays Capital after
acquiring them for $6.5 billion in 2007 from Crescent Real Estate Equities. U.S.
commercial real estate prices have dropped 43 percent from October 2007's peak,
Moody's Investors Service said last month.</p><p>"This isn't a default or
foreclosure situation," Barnes said. "We are going to give them the properties
to get out of the loan obligation."</p></blockquote><p>Bill at Calculated Risk examines research on strategic defaults among US residential mortgages for the same reason as Morgan Stanley. Their property is worth far less than the loan.</p><p>

<a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/does-morgan-stanley-walking-away-from.html"><b><span>Does
Morgan Stanley "Walking Away" From CRE Contribute to Strategic
Defaults?</span><br /></b></a></p><p>



</p><blockquote><p>Note that Morgan Stanley is current on the loan and is not
in foreclosure. They are simply "walking away" because the buildings
are worth less than the amount owed. <br /></p><p>And that remains the greatest fear - and it probably doesn't
help that companies like Morgan Stanley are walking away from commercial
buildings. As the researchers noted, the more people hear about strategic
defaults, the more willing they are to walk away. Zingales was <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/06/26/when-is-it-cheaper-to-ditch-a-home-than-pay/"><span>quoted</span></a>
in the WSJ earlier this year: <br /></p><p><span>&nbsp;</span>I wonder if hearing
about "rich" banks that are paying "large" bonuses walking
away from commercial buildings also weakens the social pressure? </p></blockquote><p>

</p>

<p>The genius investors at Morgan Stanley have lost nearly 50%
on the investments, plan to relinquish five San Francisco office buildings to its lender
two years after purchasing them. According to Bloomberg, Morgan Stanley year-end
bonuses in 2007 were estimated jumped to $9.93 billion from $8.39 billion, about
60 percent of total compensation on the investments down 50% that the Wall
Street bank away from. <br /></p>

<p><b>Morgan Stanley BIG TIME BONUSES for Loser Investors</b> <br /></p>

<p>According to AG Cuomo's investigation of Wall Street banks
released July 2009, "Morgan Stanley earned $1.7 billion and paid $4.5
billion in bonuses" in 2008 on these brilliant investments among other
activities. According to the UK
Telegraph in October 2009: <br /></p>

<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6400447/Morgan-Stanley-bonus-pool-hits-3bn-despite-91pc-drop-in-profits.html"><b>Morgan Stanley bonus pool hits $3 billion
despite 91% drop in profits</b></a></p>

<blockquote><p>Investment bank Morgan Stanley has
more than doubled the share of revenues it will hand out in pay and bonuses to
its 62,000-strong army of bankers and brokers despite a 91pc drop in profits
last quarter. <br /></p><p>Morgan Stanley saw a slide in
profits from $7.7 billion in the three months to September last year to $757 million
in the same period this year.</p></blockquote>

<p>There seems to be plenty of money at Morgan Stanley to pay
everything BUT the mortgage: <br /></p>

<blockquote><p><b>2007 Bonus Compensation =<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>$9.93 billion</b></p><p><b>2008 Bonus Compensation =<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>$4.50 billion </b></p><p><b>2009 Bonus Compensation =<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>$3.00 billion <br /></b><b>&nbsp;                        (Oct estimate)</b></p></blockquote>





<p><i><b>Where do I get a job screwing up royal and not only not get fired... but get a bonus? If I were a teacher and lost half my students, failed or dropped out... would you pay me a bonus or fire me?</b></i><br /></p><p><b>Wall Street Can Walk Away America, Not You <br /></b></p>

<p>While Wall Street shames people to continue "their moral obligation to honor their mortgages and NOT
walk away," the incredible hypocrisy of the Wall Street banks, their
backers at the Fed and the Obama administration are becoming glaringly obvious. <br /></p>

<p>One set of rules for the financial oligarchy and the
politicians and regulators they buy, another set of rules for the American
public they fleece. <br /></p>

<p>Obama's Wall Street no reform "Reform" -- "No Wall Street Banker Left Behind."</p>
<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=Blueprint_Obama-1.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/Blueprint_Obama-1.jpg" alt="50%" /></a><br />What say you Mr. Change? Now that is Hypocrisy you can
believe in.<br />
]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Evo Morales: The REAL 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/12/evo-morales-the-real-2009-nobe.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.307511</id>
   
   <published>2009-12-12T17:16:59Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-19T08:11:18Z</updated>
   
   <summary> Photo: Courtesy Wiki President Evo Morales of Bolivia, we are honored to have you here to accept the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace. As the first person of indigenous decent to occupy the democratically elected position of President of...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="25530" label="Bolivia" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="27265" label="campaign promises" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="7522" label="change" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="32210" label="Evo Morales" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22512" label="Honduras" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="16700" label="Nobel Peace Prize" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22514" label="Zelaya" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM-%20Morales/?action=view&amp;current=Evo_Moraleswiki-1.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM-%20Morales/Evo_Moraleswiki-1.jpg" alt="Photobucket" /></a>
<br />Photo: Courtesy Wiki<br />




<p>President Evo Morales of Bolivia, we are honored to have you
here to accept the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace. As the first person of
indigenous decent to occupy the democratically elected position of President of
Bolivia, your tireless work on behalf the poorest citizens in your country
for equality, fighting poverty, pushing for economic fairness and land reform
initially brought your nomination before this committee. <br /></p>

<p>



</p><p>President Morales it was your opposition to repression, your
outspoken criticism of militarism and violence, your unwavering support of the
democratically elected President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya in the face of the
illegal, heinous coup and your efforts for peace that have inspired the world. These
are the actions, President Morales that have brought you here tonight.</p><p>At great personal risk, you have time and time again battled
military juntas and European descendant oligarchies within your own
country and militarily and covert assaults from the centralized
security apparatus of the
world's corporate hegemonic power. You have been a long time farmer and
union
farm activist highly respected among your peers. <br /></p><p>You have answered the call of
your people time and again to public service. In that public service, you have
remained true to your principles and held a moral compass by implementing the
very policies to your people that you have campaigned upon. "Promises"
of change, duplicity, bait and switch politics and Faustian bargains for power know not Evo Morales. <br /></p>

<p>There was a sign by a member of the public at the recent
summit in Copenhagen,
"Politicians talk, Leaders act." While others are lauded for their
fine speeches, you President Morales are a leader who not only speaks with
wisdom but acts with wisdom.</p>]]>
      <![CDATA[President Morales, your bravery has been steadfast in your
support of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya who was removed in a coup close to
home instigated by dominate multinational companies and the centralized security
apparatus of the world's corporate hegemonic power. Even while under continued
terror from the same apparatus throughout your presidency beginning in January
2006, you have remained an outspoken proponent of democracy in Honduras,
Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay and El Salvador and every country in
Latin America.<br />

<p>As a farm union activist, you have defended the right of
indigenous farmers to grow coca for the traditional use in teas and herbal
remedies that have been part of the culture of the indigenous peoples for
thousands of years. You rightly recognize that it is the western cultures'
chemical perversion of the natural coca plant and their hedonistic consumption
of a perverse narcotic that is the problem. You further recognize that the
"war" on this natural plant is in fact an excuse for a war of
imperialism on the energy resources of countries like Bolivia by the world's corporate
hegemonic power.</p><p>As you stated before the UN General Assembly in September
2006:&nbsp;

</p><blockquote><p>"I should like to take this opportunity to speak of
another historical injustice: the criminalization of the coca leaf. This coca
leaf is green, not white, like cocaine. The coca leaf is symbolic of Andean
culture, of the Andean environment and of the hopes of peoples. It is not
acceptable that the coca leaf be legal for Coca-Cola and illegal for medicinal
consumption not only in our country but throughout the world."</p></blockquote>

<p>President Morals, your 2008 expulsion of agents undermining
your democratically elected government, masquerading as "diplomats"
of the world's corporate hegemonic power has been internationally vindicated by
the Italian courts. Italian courts have convicted 30 agent provocateurs of the
centralized security apparatus of the world's corporate hegemonic power
operating out of their embassy in Italy. The exposing by Italian
justice of the criminal activates of kidnapping and torture by these agent
provocateurs have shown your decision in expelling several
"diplomats" of the embassy in your own country was fully justified. <br /></p>

<p>Your exposing of the diplomatic corps in this embassy as housing
a nest of spies under diplomatic immunity with the intent of carrying out
violence and fomenting insurrection by means of state sponsored terrorism was a bold move risking your personal safety by the tentacles of the centralized
security apparatus of the world's corporate hegemonic power.</p><p></p>







<p>President Morales, your economic reforms on behalf of the indigenous
populations have met with success and the betterment of conditions for
Bolivians as a whole. According to the internationally well respected <a href="http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/bolivias-economic-performance-over-last-four-years/">Center
for Economic Policy and Research</a>:</p><p>



</p><blockquote><p><span></span>"<span>Bolivia</span><span>'s economic growth over the last four years has been higher
than at any time in the last 30 years with projected growth for 2009 the
highest in the Western Hemisphere - due to a series of government initiatives
in recent years that have helped Bolivia to cope with the impact of
the world recession." <br /></span></p><p><span>"The Bolivian economy has done very
well under President Evo Morales, and government policy has been key. None of
this would have been possible without the government's regaining control of the
country's natural resources."</span></p></blockquote><p>



</p><p>None other than <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733757_1735592,00.html">Joseph Stiglitz</a>, the recipient of the Nobel Laureate and Memorial Prize in Economics Science winner in 2001 has stated:</p><blockquote><p>"He (Morales)
moved quickly away from the neoliberal policies of his predecessors to try to
help his community, the vast majority of whom live below the poverty line. <br /></p><p>In a time of skyrocketing commodity prices, Morales earned
the ire of the oil companies and the envy of other Presidents in the region by
renegotiating outdated energy contracts to earn more money for the country's
coffers -- a portion of which he put toward increased health-care and social
spending. He has resisted the temptations of his high position in favor of a
low-key manner."</p></blockquote><p>



</p><p>Resisting the temptations of your high position, President
Morales, is a testament to your guiding ethical principals and your steadfast
moral compass. The fate of those leaders who dare challenge the profits of the
dominant multinational energy companies of the world's corporate hegemonic
power is adverse and well known in world history. <br /></p><p>This committee only need look at the failed military coup against the
democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in 2002
by the European descendant elites fomented and financed by the centralized security
apparatus of the world's corporate hegemonic power and of the fate of
Prime
Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq of Iran. Both state sponsored terrorist actions involved the control of the energy resources by the
dominant multinational energy companies of the world's corporate hegemonic
power. <br /></p>

<p>In 1953 after nationalizing Iran's
oil for the benefit of the Iranian people at the expense of British Petroleum
and the dominant multinational energy companies, the "seven sisters," the democratically elected government of Prime
Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq was overthrown in a violent coup by the
centralized security apparatus of the world's corporate hegemonic power in an act of state sponsored terrorism. <br /></p>

<p>This act of anti democratic fascism by the world's corporate
hegemonic power then installed one of the most vicious and brutal dictators in Iran for the
next 25 years. Prime Minister Mosaddeq was arrested by the agents of the
centralized security apparatus, imprisoned for 3 years and kept under house
arrest for over a decade until his death. The world's corporate hegemonic power
is responsible for installing a dictator who murdered and tortured thousands of
innocent Iranians.</p><p>





</p><p>



</p><p>President Morales, by challenging the dominant multinational energy companies on
behalf of your people, you have demonstrated unwavering bravery and commitment
to the promises you made to your people for change. You have not shirked the
promises of change you made to your people during elections, you have embraced
the challenge and responsibilities that the burden of your promise of change
brings. You have risen to the occasion President Morales. You have not faded in
the face of your promises of change. <br /></p>

<p>At further risk to your own safety, you have defied the
multinational companies of the world's corporate hegemonic power, returning the
fresh drinking water of Bolivia
to your own people from the clutches of the privatizing schemes of the European descendant oligarchy at the behest of dominant multinational companies of the world's corporate
hegemonic power.&nbsp;</p><p>President Morales, you pushed for land reform at the expense of the oligarchy decedents
of Europeans that have exploited and impoverished the indigenous peoples of Bolivia.
You have bravely faced down insurrection and treason by this
oligarchy operating as clients of the world's corporate hegemonic power. You have tirelessly fought against the opposition to your programs of fair land reform and wrestling the rights of
Bolivia's own natural gas resources away from the profiteering of your elite
oligarchy and the multinational energy companies that dominate and direct the
military force and intimidation of the world's corporate hegemonic power. <br /></p>

<p>Evo Morales, you have never wavered from your commitment to
the indigenous people of Bolivia,
your commitment to equality and fairness. You have operated with ethical
concern and moral guidance throughout your public life. Your commitment to
peace, your actions for land reform and equality and your outspoken support of
social justice movements throughout Latin American and the world brought your
nomination before this committee. <br /></p>

<p>President Evo Morales, you have inspired people throughout
the world by your words and especially your deeds.<br /></p><p>We are honored to present you with the 2009 Nobel Prize for
Peace.</p><p>&nbsp;<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM-%20Morales/?action=view&amp;current=evo_moralesafpgetty.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM-%20Morales/evo_moralesafpgetty.jpg" alt="Evo Morales Time getty" /></a><br />Photo: Courtesy AFB, Getty</p><p><br /></p><p>Meanwhile, back at the ranch...<br /></p>

<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM-%20Morales/?action=view&amp;current=goodluck2-500.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM-%20Morales/goodluck2-500.jpg" alt="Photobucket" /></a>
Cartoon: Courtesy Patrick Corrigan, The Toronto Star]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>10% Unemployment! Obama: &quot;We Just Counted Less Unemployed People&quot;</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/12/10-unemployment-obama-we-just.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.305994</id>
   
   <published>2009-12-05T14:18:07Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-06T22:05:29Z</updated>
   
   <summary>The Obama administration desperate for any positive economic news in the face of the increasing failure of Obama&apos;s &quot;No Banker Left Behind&quot; economic program has now resorted to reporting statistical noise on unemployment as a &quot;Green Shoot.&quot; As we have...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="7522" label="change" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="58" label="Obama" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="5787" label="unemployment" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[The Obama administration desperate for any positive economic
news in the face of the increasing failure of Obama's "No Banker Left
Behind" economic program has now resorted to reporting statistical noise on
unemployment as a "Green Shoot."<p>



</p><p>As we have highlighted before if you run out of unemployment
benefits you are no longer counted as unemployed. Guess what? </p>



<p><b>Obama's Bullshit Express</b></p>



<p>As our man on statistical and data analysis Bill the Brain
at Calculated Risk points out:</p><p><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/unemployment-record-number-unemployed.html"><b>Unemployment: Record Number Unemployed Over 26 Weeks</b></a></p><p>



</p><blockquote><p>According to the BLS,<b> there are a record 5.887 million
workers</b> who have been unemployed <span></span>for
more than 26 weeks (and still want a job).<b> This is a record 3.8% of the
civilian workforce.</b> (note: records started in 1948)<br /></p></blockquote><p></p><p>

 <a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=UnemployedOver26WeeksNov-3.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/UnemployedOver26WeeksNov-3.jpg" alt="Photobucket" /></a>



</p>

<p><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/unemployment-record-number-unemployed.html">Graph Courtesy Calculated Risk</a><br /></p><p>







</p><p>

<u><span><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/unemployment-record-number-unemployed.html"><span></span></a></span></u></p>



 ]]>
      <![CDATA[<p>Bill the Brain further points out the mechanics of BLS
"statistical noise" that Obama et al are trumpeting all over the lap
dog media as "improvement." <br /></p>

<a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/if-economy-lost-jobs-why-did.html"><b>If the Economy Lost Jobs, Why Did the Unemployment Rate Decline?</b></a><br /><p>

</p>



<blockquote><p>In August, when it was reported that the July unemployment
rate dipped slightly to 9.4% from 9.5% in June, I pointed out that the dip in
unemployment was just monthly noise: <br /></p><p>FAQ: How can the unemployment rate fall if the economy is
losing net jobs, especially since the population is growing?</p><p>This data comes from two separate surveys. The unemployment Rate comes from the
Current Population Survey (CPS: commonly called the household survey), a
monthly survey of about 60,000 households.<br />
<br />
The jobs number comes from Current Employment Statistics (CES: payroll survey),
a sample of approximately 400,000 business establishments nationwide.<br />
<br />
These are very different surveys: the CPS gives the total number of employed
(and unemployed including the alternative measures), and the CES gives the
total number of positions (excluding some categories like the self-employed,
and a person working two jobs counts as two positions).</p></blockquote><p>Bill goes on to give an excellent little statistical lesson
with graphs (pictures) if you are abstractly impaired like myself and need
pictures...The above post is definitely worth reading.<br /></p><p>



</p>

<p>



</p><p>Rex Nutting at MarketWatch puts the current unemployment
trends in historical perspective... that means measured against the grand daddy
of all recessions, the Great Depression, for those Palinites out there who
think "historical perspective" means the book of revelations:<b><br /></b></p><p>





<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/another-100000-jobs-lost-economists-predict-2009-12-03"><b><span>Another 100,000 Jobs Lost, Economists Predict</span></b></a><br /></p><p>



</p><blockquote><p>Another 100,000 jobs were destroyed during November,
according to the median forecast of economists surveyed by MarketWatch. It
would be the 23rd consecutive month of job losses, the longest losing streak
since the 1930s. <br /></p><p>The official unemployment rate is expected to remain at
10.2%, the highest since 1983. <br /></p><p><i><b>There are technical reasons to think the November job losses
will be less than October's. The November payroll numbers could benefit from
the way the government statisticians adjust the figures for seasonal factors,
economists said.</b></i><b> The seasonal factors place a great weight on the most recent
observations.</b></p></blockquote><p>



</p><p>Ah yes, much like the National Association of Realtors using
the ever predictable seasonal rise in buying to claim a housing bottom and
"now is the time to buy!" deceptions, Mr. Change et al are using a
seasonal adjustments to claim the recovery is here. <br /></p><p>

<b><span>Not
So Fast Mr. Change</span></b><br /></p><p>



</p><p>With nothing but poor and souring economic data here and on
the horizon, Mr. Change is grasping at a disingenuously weak inference to
attempt to claim "Green Shoots" and economic turn around. Never one
to miss an opportunity to distort inherent statistical anomalies... like the way
BSL operates... let us look at why the unemployment rate edged down from 10.2% to
10%.<b><br /></b></p><p>

<b><span>Hirings
and job creation? NO.</span></b><br /></p><p>



</p>

<p>From Mike Shedlock at Mish's Global Analysis <br /></p>

<p>I know, I know, Mike is a Libertarian ideologue with a
philosophy of zero responsibility to society outlook... in other words, I live
here, I make money here, but why pay taxes and it is every man for himself... but
economically this guy is sharp:<a href="http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/12/jobs-contract-23rd-straight-month.html"><b><br /></b></a></p>

<p><a href="http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/12/jobs-contract-23rd-straight-month.html"><b>Jobs Contract 23rd Straight Month: Unemployment Rate Drop to 10.0%</b></a><br /></p><blockquote><p>

<span><b>Explaining
The Drop In Unemployment Rate</b><br /></span></p><p>



</p><p>Unemployment dropped by .2% even though 11,000 jobs were
lost and it should take at least 100,000 jobs just to keep up with
demographics. Instead note the drop in the civilian labor force by 98,000.<br />
<br />
Moreover, those "not in the labor force dropped by 291,000 constituting
nearly all of the decline in unemployment.<br />
<br />
Finally, in a typical recovery, the participation rate should go up not down.
The reason is people hear there is a recovery, hear things are getting better,
hear the talk about "green shoots" and think there might be a job if
they go looking.</p>

<span></span></blockquote><p><span></span>



</p><p><b>Shaving unemployed people off of the unemployment numbers?
YES.</b><br />



</p><p>From the <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm"><b>BLS:</b></a><br />



</p><blockquote><p>About <b>2.3 million persons were marginally attached</b> to the
labor force in November, <b>an increase of 376,000</b> from a year earlier. (The data
are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were <span> </span>not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had
looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as
unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey. (See table A-13.) <br /></p></blockquote><p>

</p>





<p>Those pesky unemployed people who won't look for jobs in the
last 4 weeks... Has it occurred to any over employed and over compensated federal
employees at BLS who are not looking for jobs that there are only so many jobs
out there you can apply for?<br /></p><p>



</p>

<p>The BLS:</p><blockquote><p>Among the marginally attached, there were 861,000
discouraged workers in November, up from 608,000 a year earlier. (The data are
not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking
for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.5
million persons marginally attached to the labor force had not searched for work
in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or
family responsibilities.</p></blockquote>

<p>

</p><p>



</p>



<p>The hallmark of a recession is there is no job growth and
few jobs to apply for. The hallmark of the Bush-Obama Mega Recession is
that
the contraction in jobs and hiring has continued so long that a larger
number of the work force are falling off of the unemployment numbers
yet remain chronically unemployed.<b><br /></b></p>

<p><b>Math Time For Mr. Change</b><br /></p><p>



</p>

<p>Okay sheeple, let us add those unemployed people back on the
unemployment numbers where they belong: <br /></p>



<p>First let us start with Audit the Change. We will return the
newly shaved off of the unemployment rolls. If the BLS says there are
15,400,000 unemployed at a 10% rate, then:<br /></p><p>



</p><blockquote><p>Total People in the Work Force:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<span>&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>154,000,000</p><p>Total Employed:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; </span>130,996,000</p><p>Total Unemployed by U3:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp; </span>15,400,000</p><p>BLS Announced Rate:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span>&nbsp; </span>&nbsp;<span> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span></span>10%</p><p>Newly Shaved Off of Unemployed:<span></span><span></span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 376,000<br /></p><p>Less Tampered With Unemployed:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span> </span>15,776,000</p><p>Less Tampered With U3 Unemployment: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<span> </span><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<b> </b></span><b>10.24%</b></p></blockquote><p>



</p><p>Guess what Mr. Change? You are worse off than last month. Now
let us not forget ground we have already covered. The BLS Birth Death model
that already add 824,000 non existent jobs to the employment numbers, which
obviously subtract from the unemployment numbers mostly in Q1 2009. We will put those back onto
the unemployment numbers NOW, instead of next February when the BLS plans to
correct their largest statistical screw up on record for employment numbers:<br /></p><p>



</p><blockquote><p>Total People in the Work Force:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>154,000,000</p><p>Total Employed:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>130,996,000</p><p>Total Unemployed by U3:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp; </span>15,400,000</p><p>BLS Announced Rate:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span></span>10%</p><p>Newly Shaved Off of Unemployed:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<span> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>376,000</p>

<p>BLS Birth/Death Ratio Error:<span></span><span></span><span></span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 824,000<br /></p><p>Less Tampered With<span>&nbsp;
</span>Unemployed:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; <span></span>16,600,000<span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span></p><p>Less Tampered With U3 Unemployment:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<span> &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>
</b></span><b>10.78%</b><span></span></p><p><span></span>With B/D Error corrected and newly marginally attached returned.</p></blockquote><p>



</p><p>Now let us put back ALL those unemployed people that are no
longer counted as unemployed because they have been unemployed so long that they have
exhausted unemployment insurance benefits and can not find any new job openings
to apply for that they already haven't and are thus labeled not unemployed by statistical
criteria (read: Manipulation of data):</p>

<p>



</p><blockquote><p>Total People in the Work Force:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>154,000,000</p><p>Total Employed:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </span>130,996,000</p><p>Total Unemployed by U3:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp; </span>15,400,000</p><p>BLS Announced Rate:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>&nbsp;<span> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span></span>10%</p><p>All Shaved Off of the Unemployed:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>2,300,000</p><p>BLS Birth/Death Error<span>:</span><span></span><span></span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <span> </span>824,000<span></span></p><p>Less Tampered With<span> </span>Unemployed:<span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 18,524,000</p><p>Less Tampered With U3 Unemployment:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span>
</span><span>&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<b> </b></span><b>12.03%</b></p><p>With B/D Error corrected and all marginally attached returned to unemployed.</p></blockquote><p>From
the father of some unknown consumer activist:"What did you learn in
school today, to think or believe?" Thinking requires examination of
the facts.<br /></p><p>







</p>

<p>So I think I do
detect "Change I can believe in."<b><br /></b></p><p>



</p><p><b>Mr. Change unveiled Mr. Slick</b><br /></p><p>



</p>

<p>What say you on parsed tongued deception and duplicitous
representation of improvement in unemployment numbers and the economy, Mr. Slick? <br /></p>



<p>"It all depends on what the definition of IS is." <br /></p>

<p>There are so many failed economic morons from Clinton time in the White House I expect that one to
surface without the Arkansas
accent at any time.</p><p>



</p>

<p><b><span>Update:</span></b> Mr. Ilargi at The Automatic Earth
confirms my novice suspicions:<b>&nbsp;</b></p>

<p><a href="http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2009/12/december-5-2009-golden-double-edged.html"><b>A Golden Double-Edged
Sword</b></a><br /></p>

<blockquote><p>&nbsp;This week's ISM
Manufacturing Index indicates that the services sector contracted quite
strongly. The BLS report issued on Friday, <i><b>however, claims that 86,000 jobs were
added in the sector (52,000 of which are purely temporary jobs).</b></i></p><p>&nbsp;The number of Americans in the category Persons <i><b>Not in the
Labor Force rose by almost 300,000 just in the last month.</b></i> <b><i>Estimates are that
over 3 million people have </i>"disappeared"</b> in this fashion in 2009. The
BLS throws out everyone who it claims has not searched for work in the past 4
weeks, though they are unemployed.</p><p>Curious, if you ask me, and with at least a whiff of deliberate embellishment.</p></blockquote><p>Mr.
Ilargi is one of those people... how should I say it... sees the big
picture, the forest from the trees as it were. Mr. Ilargi is a person,
upon seeing all the hubbub about housing prices and the government
backing more than 90% of the mortgage market, observes:<br /></p><p><b><a href="http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2009/11/november-19-2009-risk-versus-us-dollar.html"><b>Rish Versus US Dollar</b></a></b></p><blockquote><p>You can't end recessions or depressions by borrowing money from one
neighbor and handing it to the next. That's not even shoddy accounting,
hey it's not even fraud for that matter, it's simply nonsense.</p></blockquote><p>&nbsp;Mr. Ilargi refocuses everyone on the big picture with observations like:<br />
</p>
<blockquote><p>The Wall Street Journal warns of a double dip in housing. Color me
blind, but when did the first dip end? President Obama also warns of a
double dip, this time of the recession in whole US economy. And this
time, color me obstinate, but I don't buy the numbers that supposedly
show an end to the recession, or the first dip of it. I see trillions
of dollars in lipstick applied to dead industries.</p></blockquote><p>His writing partner Stoneleigh, an expert on energy and power grid systems among other attributes, is also facinating to read.<a href="http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/"><b> The Automatic Earth</b></a> is worth your time... </p>]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Lies, Damn Lies and Unemployment Rates... 10.7% U3 Anyone?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/11/lies-damn-lies-and-unemploymen.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.300632</id>
   
   <published>2009-11-06T19:17:57Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-06T22:06:22Z</updated>
   
   <summary> Tasteful Photo: Courtesy Jesse&apos;s Cafe Americain We have discussed the phoniness of the U3 measure of unemployment. We have discussed the &quot;marginally attached&quot; worker not being counted as unemployed by U3 when their unemployment benefits run out... even though...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
   <category term="5787" label="unemployment" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=obamastinkinbadges.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/obamastinkinbadges.jpg" alt="Obama on Jobs" /></a>

<br /><i><b>Tasteful Photo: Courtesy Jesse's Cafe Americain </b></i><br /><br />We have discussed the phoniness of the U3 measure of unemployment. We have discussed the "marginally attached" worker not being counted as unemployed by U3 when their unemployment benefits run out... even though they are
obviously still unemployed by U-Reality measure...<br /><p>We have discussed the Birth/Death Ratio model used by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics before. The BLS invented this model to account for
jobs created by the Births and Deaths of small businesses that add or subtract
employment (mostly add) that are supposedly missed by the BLS monthly surveys.<br /></p><p>The BLS claims these jobs are added, yet the only hard data the
BLS uses is payroll and payroll tax data, which they choose to ignore or give
less weight to. After all if the IRS is collecting payroll tax payments monthly
for businesses with payrolls over $50k of payroll and quarterly for businesses
under $50k in payroll... why believe that kind of hard data on payroll expansion?</p>



<p>On October 2, 2009, the BLS admitted it had overstated job
creation by 824,000 jobs mostly in the first quarter 2009. According to Bloomberg:<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&amp;sid=aXoQJ14iSlWg"><b><br /></b></a></p><p><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&amp;sid=aXoQJ14iSlWg"><b></b></a>



</p><p><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&amp;sid=aXoQJ14iSlWg"><b><span>U.S.</span></b></a><span><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&amp;sid=aXoQJ14iSlWg"><b> Job Losses May Be Even Larger, Model Breaks Down
(Update1)</b></a></span> <br /></p><blockquote><p>"About 824,000 more jobs may be subtracted from the
payroll count for the 12 months through last March when the figures are
officially revised early next year, a Labor Department report showed today. The
revision would be the biggest since at least 1991."<span><br /></span></p></blockquote>]]>
      <![CDATA[<span>From
our pal <a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/11/employment-report-190k-jobs-lost-102.html"><b>Bill the Brain at Calculated Risk:</b></a><br /></span>



<blockquote><p>"Note: The total jobs lost does not include the
preliminary benchmark payroll revision of minus 824,000 jobs. (This is the
preliminary estimate of the annual revision that will be announced early in
2010)."</p></blockquote><p>



</p>

<p>From the Brilliant Jesse at Jesse's Cafe Americain:</p>


<h3>
<b><a href="http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/11/reader-asks-how-did-558000-people-lose.html">A Reader Asks "How Did 558,000 People Lose Their Jobs When Only 190,000 Jobs Were Lost?"</a></b>
</h3><blockquote><p>"The most obvious reason for the discrepancy is that job creation in the
US seems to be centered in the smaller business and the self-employed
areas in recent years. These sectors are not polled by the BLS and
their impact would only be obtained by the Household Survey's
interviews.<br /><br />The BLS does have a way to account for this called
the "Birth Death Model" which is supposed to estimate jobs created by
smaller businesses. That model is a bit of a joke actually since it
almost always follows the same pattern of adding jobs, with two big
corrections in January and July of each year when it will do the least
damage to the headline number. Any model that does not reflect the job
declines that started in 2007 can most certainly be called a
statistical joke. Small business is not immune to business cycles"</p></blockquote><p>In other words the 824,000 phantom jobs that don't exist
won't be subtracted from the employment numbers and put back on the
unemployment numbers where they belong until February 2010. <br /></p>



<p>So, let us do it for them: <br /></p>





<p>BLS says there are 15.7 million unemployed by U3 at 10.2%
unemployment rate...&nbsp; <br /></p>



<p>So simple math tells us 15.7 at 10.2% means the work force
being counted is 153.9 million, although that seems high to me... <br /></p>



<p>Oh yeah, the Alzheimer's puppet Reagan added military
personnel to civilian employment in 1982 to dilute unemployment percentage by
increasing the labor force by several million and lie about the unemployment
rate in the Reagan '82 recession... anyway... <br /></p>



<p>So we add back the 824,000 unemployed that the BLS shaved off
with their imaginary B/D Ratio: <br /></p>



<p>We get<span>&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;</span>15.7 + .824 = 16.5 million unemployed. <br /></p>



<p>16.5 / 153.9<span>&nbsp; </span>=<span>&nbsp; </span>10.7% by U3. <br /></p>



<p>Based on 153.9 million in the work force as above, by U3, I
come up with 10.7% unemployment. <br /></p>

<p>Now what say you Mr. Change? Fancy Nancy? Harry "Spineless" Reid? Timmay G? Bennie
Bernank-ster? Fat Larry?</p>]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Mr Slick Goes to Washington -- The Peace Candidate</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/09/mr-slick-goes-to-washington----1.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.291561</id>
   
   <published>2009-09-22T13:19:49Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-06T22:07:33Z</updated>
   
   <summary> Courtesy Houston Chronicle&quot;Perhaps the biggest lie - the equivalent of smoking is good for you - is Obama&apos;s announcement that the US is leaving Iraq, the country it has reduced to a river of blood. According to unabashed US...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
   <category term="27415" label="Camapigned on Bush Wars" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="27419" label="escalating Afghanistan." scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="58" label="Obama" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="27417" label="Obama Wars" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[ <a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=MrSlick.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/MrSlick.jpg" alt="Mr Slick 2" /></a>
Courtesy Houston Chronicle<br /><blockquote>"Perhaps the biggest lie - the equivalent of smoking is good for you - is Obama's announcement that the US is leaving Iraq, the country it has reduced to a river of blood. According to unabashed US army planners, as many as 70,000 troops will remain 'for the next 15 to 20 years'."<br /><br />





<p>"... It is not surprising that the polls are showing that a growing
number of Americans believe they have been suckered - especially as the
nation's economy has been entrusted to the same fraudsters who destroyed it.
Lawrence Summers, Obama's principal economic adviser, is throwing $3 trillion at the
same banks that paid him more than $8 million last year, including $135,000 for one
speech. Change you can believe in."<br /></p></blockquote>



<p>John Pilger, <a href="http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=530"><b>Obama's 100 Days - The Mad Men Did Well</b></a></p><p>



</p>]]>
      <![CDATA[<blockquote><p>"He has tried to have it all on three fronts, and his
administration is in serious danger of going bankrupt. He has blundered into a
deepening quagmire in Afghanistan, has continued the Bush policy of buying off
Wall Street hustlers instead of confronting them and is now on the cusp of
bargaining away the so-called public option, the reform component of his health
care program.'</p><p>&nbsp;"But what is nerve-racking about Obama is that even
though he campaigned against Bush's follies he has now embraced them. He hasn't
yet managed to significantly reduce the U.S.
obligation in Iraq and has
committed to making a potentially costlier error by ratcheting up America's "nation-building" role in Afghanistan."</p></blockquote><p>



</p><p>Robert Scheer, <a href="http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090916_obamas_presidency_isnt_too_big_to_fail/"><b>Obama's Presidency Isn't Too Big to Fail</b></a>,
Truthdig.com<br /></p><p>



</p>

<p>Robert Scheer, John Pilger and I go back a long way. During
the 1960s Scheer and Pilger reported from Vietnam
on a rather unjust, criminal war enterprise, massively escalated on deceit... the
Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened.
That was 1965, the excuse for Congress to give the President the green light to
go to war on Vietnam without going to war in Vietnam... technically. It took 10 years
from the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident to wind that one up.
The war sold DuPont and Dow chemical a lot of napalm and Boeing a lot of
military aircraft in the mean time. What is good for US defense contractors, is good for
the American economy after all. Sells a lot of wars. <br /></p>



<p>In the 1960s, I was a kid. I remember the name Hubert
Humphrey in the summer of 1968. I remember when some train carried a Kennedy
all the way from Los Angeles back to Washington. Seems
somebody shot that Kennedy so now Humphrey was some big deal. I saw Nixon on
TV. He reminded me of the typical school principal back in '68. Narrow pants,
narrow tie, mean streak. Probably had a ruler in his desk drawer called the
"board of education" he liked to beat kids like me with. That was
legal and common in public schools in '68. <br /></p>



<p>The Vietnam War was on TV every night. It had a score, like
a football game. USA
223, NVA and Vietcong 3,450. Every week we would see the score. There were
enough westerns on in the 60s that you knew if you were shooting 3,450 of the
other guys... you were wining. Simple as that. <br /></p>



<p>In the 1970s, Scheer covered politics including Watergate
for Ramparts magazine and by 1976 the LA Times. I remember Watergate. Summer of
'73, some old southern guy named Ervin going on and on about something. Now
these guys like Haldeman and MaGruder, slick suit and tie guys, raised right
hands and swore in. I had seen slick guys like this, usually selling insurance
or stocks or something.&nbsp;</p><p><b>Years Later</b><br /></p>



<p>We had this moron as president for 8 years. He was installed
through election fraud the first time. The supreme court was involved in what
essentially was a coup. This guys old man was president. He got everything in
life because of his family name. College, job opportunities, investments... real
dunce. Of course it did not hurt that the other candidate was a bit
condescending, picked a real douche bag as a running mate and lost his home state. <br /></p>



<p>The dunce was installed a second time. Election fraud again
in another state. Routing all the computerized voting tallies through a server
in another state. Nobody ever looked into it. Not even the side that lost. Kind of
ball-less. Of course it did not help the other candidate was a mumbler. When I
was a kid, teachers told you not to mumble or things like this would happen to
you. It did not help that this guy belonged to a secret club in college same as
the dunce. The club is all knowing and all powerful. The other guy would not say
what the club did. Gave you the felling the mumbler rolled over on command for
the dunce, a club member... <br /></p>



<p>Then this change guy starts running. Never heard of him. All
these speeches. News reporters go on and on about him. But the ex presidents
wife looks to be a shoe in. Every one knows her. But she voted for a war, he
did not. And he made a big deal out of not voting for that war. He went on
about that for a year. She voted for unjust war, he did not. <br /></p>



<p>Reminded me of another "Peace" candidate. Lyndon
Johnson. LBJ made this guy Goldwater out to be a war monger. Goldwater lost. I
thought it had more to do with the black dork glasses and the fact he appeared
mean even on TV. Once LBJ was in, he insisted he was not a peace candidate. The
public dreamed that one up on their own. Uh-huh. No more "Peace"
candidate. LBJ became a "Piece" candidate and escalated the war like
he had campaigned on it. Told the people they were crazy if they thought he
said otherwise... <br /></p>



<p>Which brings us to: <br /></p>

<p><b>Mr. Change -- The "Peace" Candidate</b><br /></p><p>



</p><blockquote><p>"I don't oppose all wars." Obama said, "What
I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war....What I am
opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from
a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median
income." <br /></p></blockquote><p>

</p>



<p>





</p>





<p>Mr. Change -- Federal
Plaza in downtown Chicago, October 2, 2002.</p><p>By the way Mr. Change, uninsured up, poverty up, income down, right here right now on your watch. So, who is distracting whom?<br /></p><p>



</p><blockquote><p><span>"We should be
more modest in our belief that we can impose democracy on a country through
military force. In the past, it has been movements for freedom from within
tyrannical regimes that have led to flourishing democracies; movements that
continue today." </span><br /></p></blockquote><p>



</p><p>Mr. Change, <span>speech, Nov. 20,
2006</span>.<br /></p><p>



</p><blockquote><p>"If people tell you that we cannot afford to invest in
education or health care or fighting poverty, you just remind them that we are
spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.
And if we can spend that much money in Iraq,
we can spend some of that money right here in Cincinnati, Ohio,
and in big cities and small towns in every corner of this country." </p></blockquote><p>





</p><p>&nbsp;Mr. Change at 99th NAACP Convention Jul 12, 200. <br /></p>
Those of us who listened to Mr. Change knew he was careful with words,
a parser if you will. No where was he more careful not to get pinned
down than on the illegal wars for corporate profit. From December 2007
before the Iowa caucus, Mr. Change went on long and loud about how
Clinton had voted for the Iraq war and he had not. In fact, Mr. Change
went on so long and loud about Clinton "Yes" and Mr. Change "No" that
by every standard the implication was clear to the voting public.<br /><p>Mr. Change opposed the foreign wars.<br /></p><p>As
Mr. Change began to put away Clinton-time, his parsing became more
evident as did one of Mr. Change's greatest skills... the back pedal. <br /></p><p>



</p><blockquote><p>"Those who write of Obama that "when it comes to
international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush" demonstrate
the same willful naivety that backed the bait-and-switch of Bill Clinton - and
Tony Blair...as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly,
"bait-and-switch" Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince."</p></blockquote><p>



</p>

<p>&nbsp;John Pilger, "<a href="http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=497"><b>Obama, the Prince of Bait-and-Switch</b></a>"<br /></p><p>



</p><p>The US
military is in Afghanistan
because there are pipelines to be built for Eurasian oil and natural gas for US
corporate profit. The US
military is being used at tax payer expense to enforce corporate profit that
does not benefit those who bear the cost. Mr. Slick is a corporate tool. Corporate
tools make sure the public pays for private profit.</p>

<p> <b>Mr. Slick -- The Piece Candidate</b><br /><span></span></p>

<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=vlcsnap-8455-1.png"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/vlcsnap-8455-1.png" alt="70 piece" /></a>
<br />Artwork Courtesy Sam Green &amp; Bill Seigel<br />



<blockquote><p>"I was reporting from Vietnam when that buildup began,
and then as now there was an optimism not supported by the facts on the ground.
Then as now there were references to elections and supporting local politicians
to win the hearts and minds of people we were bombing. Then as now the local
leaders on our side turned out to be hopelessly corrupt, a condition easily
exploited by those we term the enemy. <br /></p><p>Those who favor an escalation of the Afghanistan war ought to own up to
its likely costs. If 110,000 troops have failed, will we need the half million
committed at one point to Vietnam,
which had a far less intractable terrain? And can you have that increase in
forces without reinstituting the draft?<br /></p><p>It is time for Democrats to remember that it was their party
that brought America
its most disastrous overseas adventure and to act forthrightly to pull their
chosen president back from the abyss before it is too late."</p></blockquote><p>Robert Scheer, 

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/world/142565/obama%27s_quagmire_looks_a_lot_like_vietnam/"><b>"Obama's Quagmire Looks a Lot like Vietnam"</b></a>

&nbsp; <span>September
11, 2009.</span><br />



</p><blockquote><p>"America
now has more military personnel in Afghanistan than the Red Army had
at the peak of the Soviet invasion and occupation of that country. According to
a <a href="http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/09/afghan_contracting.html"><span>Congressional
Research Service report</span></a>, as of March of this year, the U.S. had 52,000 uniformed personnel and another
68,000 contractors in Afghanistan
-- a number that has likely grown given the blank check President Obama has
written for what's now being called "Obama's War."<br />
<br />
That makes 120,000 American military personnel fighting in Afghanistan, a figure
higher than the Soviet peak troop figure of 115,000 during their catastrophic
9-year war. Just this week, General McChrystal, whom Obama appointed to command
American forces in Afghanistan,
is talking of <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6789142.ece"><span>sending tens
of thousands more American troops</span></a>. At the height of the Soviet
occupation ,<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/16/world/last-soviet-soldiers-leave-afghanistan-after-9-years-15000-dead-and-great-cost.html"><span>Western
intelligence experts estimated</span></a> that the Soviets had 115,000 troops
in Afghanistan -- but like America, the more troops and the longer the Soviets
stayed, the more doomed their military mission became."</p></blockquote><p>

<u><span><a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/7291/"><span></span></a></span></u></p>

Mark Ames, AlterNet&nbsp; <a href="http://www.alternet.org/world/142388/obama_is_leading_the_u.s._into_a_hellish_quagmire/"><b>Obama Is Leading the U.S. Into a Hellish Quagmire</b></a>

<p> Posted September 3, 2009.<br />



</p><blockquote><p>"Since 1945, by deed and by example, the US has overthrown 50 governments, including
democracies, crushed some 30 liberation movements and supported tyrannies from Egypt to Guatemala (see William Blum's
histories). Bombing is apple pie. <b>Having stacked his government with
warmongers, Wall Street cronies and polluters from the Bush and Clinton eras,
the 45th president is merely upholding tradition. The hearts and minds farce I
witnessed in Vietnam is
today repeated in villages in Afghanistan
and, by proxy, Pakistan,
which are Obama's wars."</b></p></blockquote>



<p>John Pilger, <a href="http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=530"><b>Obama's 100 Days - The Mad Men Did Well</b></a></p><a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=vlcsnap-20152.png"><br /></a>


<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=vlcsnap-20152-1.png"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/vlcsnap-20152-1.png" alt="70" /></a>
<br /><blockquote>"In Afghanistan, the US "strategy" of killing Pashtun
tribespeople (the "Taliban") has been extended by Obama to give the
Pentagon time to build a series of permanent bases right across the
devastated country where, says Secretary Gates, the US military will
remain indefinitely."<br /></blockquote>



<p>John Pilger, <a href="http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=530"><b>Obama's 100 Days - The Mad Men Did Well</b></a><br /></p>

<b>$1 trillion Iraq war WAS $1 trillion in Wall Street Revenue<br /><br />


<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=vlcsnap-17420-1.png"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/vlcsnap-17420-1.png" alt="70" /></a>


<br /><br />A Newly Escalated $1 trillion Afganhstan War will be a NEW $1 trillion in Wall Street Revenue.<br /></b>

<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=vlcsnap-16673-1.png"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/vlcsnap-16673-1.png" alt="70" /></a>

<br /><blockquote>"Meaningless is the right term for the Afghanistan war,
too, because our bloody attempt to conquer this foreign land has nothing to do
with its stated purpose of enhancing our national security. Just as the
government of Vietnam was
never a puppet of communist China
or the Soviet Union, the Taliban is not a surrogate
for al Qaeda. Involved in both instances was an American intrusion into a civil
war whose passions and parameters we never fully have grasped and will always
fail to control militarily.</blockquote><blockquote><p>&nbsp;The Vietnamese communists were not an extension of an inevitably
hostile, unified international communist enemy, as evidenced by the fact that
communist Vietnam and
communist China
are both our close trading partners today. Nor should the Taliban be considered
simply an extension of a Mideast-based al Qaeda movement, whose operatives the United States recruited in the first place to go
to Afghanistan
to fight the Soviets." <br /></p></blockquote>









<p>Mark Ames, AlterNet&nbsp; <a href="http://www.alternet.org/world/142388/obama_is_leading_the_u.s._into_a_hellish_quagmire/"><b>Obama Is Leading the U.S. Into a Hellish Quagmire</b></a></p>

<p> Posted September 3, 2009.</p>

<b>What the Corporate News Media DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE. GE: Owner of
all the NBC's, the US 10th largest, most civilly fined, criminal
charged military contractor. Watch "Today" with the idiot Matt Lauer...
enjoy mindless fluff... ask no questions... buy idiot consumer
products... be happy...</b><br />&nbsp;<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=vlcsnap-21733-1.png"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/vlcsnap-21733-1.png" alt="70" /></a>
<strong>
<br /><br />Watch CNBC...See gals with big boobs talking stocks... don't look here...<br /></strong>&nbsp;<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=vlcsnap-12884-1.png"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/vlcsnap-12884-1.png" alt="Photobucket" /></a>
<br /><br /><strong>While You Are Shown Retards With "Death Panel" Signs</strong><br /><br /> <a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=vlcsnap-21179-1.png"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/vlcsnap-21179-1.png" alt="70" /></a>
<br /><br /><strong>This is What is Done to Human Beings in YOUR Name for Corporate Profit</strong><br />&nbsp;<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=vlcsnap-21482-1.png"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/vlcsnap-21482-1.png" alt="70" /></a>

<blockquote>"They're probably going to be pretty much like the
preliminaries a couple of months ago. Which showed that both Obama and
McCain were getting the bulk of their financing from the financial
institutions and for Obama, law firms which means essentially
lobbyists.
<br /><br />The distribution of funding has over time been a pretty good
predictor of what policies will be like for those of you who are
interested, there's very good scholarly work on this by Tom Ferguson in
Umass Boston, what he calls the investment theory of politics. <br /><br />Which
argues essentially that elections are moments when groups of investors
coalesce and invest to control the state and has quite the substantial
predictive success. Gives some suggestion as to what's likely to
happen. So that part's familiar."<br /></blockquote>

Noam <span>Chomsky: </span><span></span><b>"What Next? The Elections, the Economy and the World"<br /></b>http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections<span> </span><br />Democracy Now. November, 2008.<br />



<blockquote><p>"It is time the Obama lovers grew up. It is time those paid
to keep the record straight gave us the opportunity to debate informatively. In
the 21st century, people power remains a huge and exciting and largely untapped
force for change, but it is nothing without truth. "In the time of universal
deceit," wrote George Orwell, "telling the truth is a revolutionary act."</p></blockquote>



<p>&nbsp;John Pilger, <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections"><b>"The Politics of Bollocks"</b></a></p>

<p>I am not the only one hearing double talk.&nbsp;</p><p>If you got this far, thanks for reading.<br /></p>

]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Mr. Slick Goes to Washington -- Wall Street Reform</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/09/mr-slick-goes-to-washington---.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.291216</id>
   
   <published>2009-09-20T15:19:02Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-06T22:09:12Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[ Photo: Courtesy Truthdig.com "He has blundered into a deepening quagmire in Afghanistan, has continued the Bush policy of buying off Wall Street hustlers instead of confronting them and is now on the cusp of bargaining&nbsp; away the so-called public...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
   <category term="27265" label="campaign promises" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="786" label="economic policy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="36" label="economy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="58" label="Obama" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="843" label="regulation" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="27269" label="Wall Street Reform" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[
<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=changenowobama_399.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/changenowobama_399.jpg" alt="Mr Change 1" /></a>
<br />Photo: Courtesy Truthdig.com<br />
<blockquote>"He has blundered into a deepening quagmire in Afghanistan,
has continued the Bush policy of <span></span>buying
off Wall Street hustlers instead of confronting them and is now on the cusp of
bargaining&nbsp;<span> </span>away the so-called
public option, the reform component of his health care program."</blockquote><p>
</p><p>Robert Scheer,&nbsp;

<u><a href="http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090916_obamas_presidency_isnt_too_big_to_fail/"><b><span>Obama's
Presidency Isn't Too Big to Fail</span><br /></b></a></u></p><p>

</p><p>The New Democrat is the Old Republican. Just as the Old
Republicans devolve into some sort of deranged regional Confederate Party full of
Michael Douglas' "Falling Down" character, taking the perceived
demise of the white male in society as some sort of personal attack on their
world. <br /></p><p>The religious fanatics populating the Old Republicans are an angry
unintelligible mass of screamers without logic. Raised by not sparing the rod,
these beaten little Christers are now lashing out in the anger as the adults of
abused children. The abused become the abusers in Max Blumenthal's well
researched analysis of the angry white mobs of the Christian right... the New
Confederate Party.</p>

<p>The New Democrat is really the old Rubin-McAuliffe corporate
Democrat. McAuliffe whose guiding political philosophy is "Hey pal, payola
for me not the other guy's party..." witnessed for the first time in 2006
Democrats receiving more campaign bribes from corporations than the Republicans
by 60% to 40% advantage. Pelosi and Reid behaved like it. Not able to find the
votes to stop anything or for any traditional Democrats populace position promised
in the elections. From 2006 to 2008, Reid and Pelosi's marching orders came
from their corporate owners whose bidding was carefully followed with excuses
to the public.</p><p>

</p>]]>
      <![CDATA[<p>So why would Wall Street and corporate power hand $600
million for a presidential campaign to an obscure first term center from Illinois with political speeches like these?</p><p>

</p><blockquote>"This is a verdict on the failed policies of the last eight years that said that we
should strip away <span></span>consumer
protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down."<p><span></span>"You've
got to have somebody in Washington who is thinking about the middle class and
not <span> </span>just those who can afford to hire
lobbyists."</p><p><span> </span>"It's
not enough just to help those at the top. Prosperity is not just going to
trickle down."</p><p><span></span>"The
problem
we have is that Washington
has become a place where good ideas go to die. They&nbsp; go to die because
the lobbyists and special interests have a strangle-hold on the agenda
in Washington."</p></blockquote>
Mr. Change, Presidential Debate, University
of Texas, Austin, February 21, 2008.

<blockquote>"We'll make it clear to the special interests that their
days of setting the agenda in Washington&nbsp;<span></span>are over, because the American
people are not the problem in this 21st century--they are the answer."</blockquote>

Mr. Change, <span>Speech
in Flint, MI, in "Change We Can Believe In," p.258-9 Jun 15, 2008.<br /></span><br />Robert Scheer, the west coast Seymour Hirsch, hits the nail
on the head finding the fatal flaw in the snow blower named Obama. Brand Obama
is fading fast, about to be found out by the gullible American public as
nothing more than the empty calories of a political slurpee in a wasteful
plastic convenience store cup. Scheer is not alone in detailing the constant contradiction
in the campaign rhetoric of Mr. Change versus the actions of the now elected
Mr. Slick. <br />

<br /><b>Regulation?</b><br />

 <blockquote>"Let's, first of all, understand that the biggest problem in this whole process was the <span> </span>deregulation of the financial system. Sen. McCain, as recently as March, bragged about the&nbsp;<span> </span>fact <span></span>that
he is a deregulator. <b>On the other hand, two years ago, I said that we've got a
sub-prime&nbsp;<span></span>lending crisis that has to be
dealt with.</b>"</blockquote> 

Mr. Change, Presidential Debate, Belmont University, Nashville, Tennessee,
October 7, 2008.

According to Business Week's Chad Terhune and Robert Berner, <u><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/bios/Chad_Terhune.htm"><span></span></a></u>the new Mr. Slick "save the economy policy" is reinflating the housing bubble using the FHA to spread new sub prime loans:

<p><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_48/b4110036448352.htm"><b>FHA-Backed Loans: The New Subprime</b><br /></a></p><p>

</p><blockquote><p>"Washington,
meanwhile, has vastly expanded the availability of such taxpayer-backed loans
as <span></span>part of the emergency campaign to
rescue the country's swooning economy."</p><p><span> </span>"Their
new strategy: taking advantage of a long-standing federal program designed to&nbsp;<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>encourage homeownership by insuring
mortgages for buyers of modest means."</p><p><span></span>"You
read that correctly. Some of the same people who propelled us toward the housing market <a href="http://bx.businessweek.com/housing-market/"><span></span></a><span></span>calamity are now seeking to profit by
exploiting billions in federally insured mortgages."</p></blockquote>



<b>Regulation?? <b>The Birth of Mr. Slick&nbsp;</b></b>

<blockquote>"A year ago, I went to Wall Street and said we've got
to reregulate, and nothing happened."</blockquote><p>Mr. Change, Presidential Debate, University of Texas, Austin, February 21, 2008.</p>

<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=obama-wall-street.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/obama-wall-street.jpg" alt="Mr Saint" /></a>
<br />Photo: Courtesy<b> <a href="http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/09/14/monday-markets-mr-obama-goes-to-wall-street/">Phil Stock World</a></b>

<blockquote>"Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and
irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make
hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age."<p>"<span>The
state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift.</span>"</p><p>"But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye,
the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it
favors only the prosperous."</p><p>

"<span>To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of
dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history..."</span><br /></p></blockquote> Transcript: Barack Obama's Inaugural Address, January 20, 2009.<br />

<p>Allow me to retort, Mr. President.<br /></p>8 months ago you were
sworn in with the high rhetoric of change and reigning in Wall Street's
greed that had brought down the economy. Yet your solution was to send
the compromised regulator Tim Geithner to Wall Street to bring back a
plan. Take the Federal Reserve whose shareholders, Chase, Citi, JP
Morgan, Goldman Sachs are the very players who caused the destruction
through fraud and criminality, have the Fed as the new super regulator.
The problem is the Fed had the power to stem the fraud and corruption
and completely failed to do so. After all, look at who owns the Fed...<br /><p>In
response to Obama's speech on Wall Street, September 15, 2009.
Professor of Economics, Columbia University, Joseph Stiglitz in the UK
Guardian:</p>
<b><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/14/lehmans-one-year-after1">For all Obama's talk of overhaul, the US has failed to wind in Wall Street</a></b>

<blockquote><p>"Last night Barack Obama defended his administration's
response to the financial crisis, but the <span></span>reality
is that a year on from Lehmans' collapse, it has failed to take adequate steps
to restrict <span></span>institutions' size, their risk-taking, and their interconnectedness. Indeed, it has allowed the big<span> </span>banks to become even bigger - just as it
has failed to stem the flow of profligate executive <span></span>bonuses. Obama's call on Wall Street yesterday to support "the most ambitious overhaul of the <span></span>financial
system since the Great Depression" is welcome - but the devil, as ever,
will be in the <span></span>detail."</p><p>"But the Obama administration has created a new concept: institutions too big to be resolved,&nbsp;<span></span>too big for capital
markets to provide the necessary discipline. The perverse incentives for <span></span>excessive risk-taking at taxpayers' expense are even worse with the too-big-to-be-resolved <span> </span>banks than they are at the too-big-to-fail institutions. We have
signed a blank cheque on the<span> </span>public purse. We have not circumscribed their gambling - indeed, they have access to funds <span></span>from the Fed at close to zero
interest rates, and it appears that "trading profits" have (besides <span> </span>"accounting" changes) become the major source of returns."</p><b><p><span></span>"I fear
that our collective response has been mistaken and inadequate - that we may
just have <span></span>made <span></span>matters worse. The financial sector would like
us to believe that if only the Federal<span> </span>Reserve and the Treasury had leapt to the rescue of Lehman all would have been fine. Sheer <span>&nbsp; </span>nonsense. Lehmans was not a cause but a consequence: a consequence of flawed lending&nbsp;<span></span>practices, and of inadequate oversight by regulators.</p></b></blockquote>
Professor William Black, Associate Professor, Economics and
Law, University of Missouri, Kansas City was a deputy director at the
former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. during the Reagan
deregulation fueled savings and loan crises of the
1980s.
<br /><br />Professor Black HAS credibility because he is the man with THE
record in the last banking
scandal. In spite of repeated resistance and interference from the
Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, Black help round up Keating,
corrupt Senators and brought
criminal charges and 1,000 felony convictions for S&amp;L insiders with
about
700 doing<span>&nbsp; </span>jail time. <br /><br />
<p>From Bill Moyers April 2009 interview with Professor Black, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/transcript1.html"><b>Bill Moyers Journal, PBS</b></a></p><p>Moyers' Introduction:</p><blockquote><span>"William
K. Black, author of THE BEST WAY TO ROB A BANK IS TO OWN ONE, teaches <span> </span>economics and law at the University of Missouri
-- Kansas City (UMKC). He was the Executive&nbsp;<span></span>Director
of the Institute for Fraud Prevention from 2005-2007. He has taught previously
at the<span> </span>LBJ School of Public Affairs
at the University of Texas at Austin and at
Santa Clara University, <span></span>where he was also the distinguished
scholar in residence for insurance law</span>..."<br /><br />"Black was litigation director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, deputy director of the FSLIC<span></span>...and senior deputy<span> </span>chief counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision.
He was deputy director of the National Commission on&nbsp; <span></span>Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement."<br /><br />"<span></span>Black developed the concept of "control fraud" -- frauds in which the CEO or head of state uses&nbsp;<span></span>the entity as a "weapon." Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of&nbsp;<span></span>property crime combined...<span></span>and served as an expert for OFHEO in its enforcement action against Fannie Mae's former senior <span> </span>management."<br /></blockquote>
<br />The Interview:

<blockquote><p><b>WILLIAM K. BLACK:</b> Geithner is charging, is covering
up. Just like Paulson did before him.&nbsp;<span></span>Geithner
is publicly saying that it's going to take $2 trillion -- a trillion is a
thousand billion -- <span></span>$2 trillion
taxpayer dollars to deal with this problem. But they're allowing all the banks
to <span></span>report that they're not only
solvent, but fully capitalized. Both statements can't be true. It <span></span>can't be that they need $2 trillion, because
they have masses losses, and that they're fine.</p>
<br /><b>WILLIAM K. BLACK:</b> These are all people who have failed. Paulson failed, Geithner failed. They<span> </span>were all promoted because they failed, not because... <br />
<br />
<b>BILL MOYERS:</b> What do you mean? <br /><br />
<b>WILLIAM K. BLACK:</b> Well, Geithner has, was one of our nation's top regulators, during the&nbsp;<span></span>entire subprime scandal, that I just described. He took absolutely no effective action. He gave&nbsp;<span></span>no warning. He did nothing in response to
the FBI warning that there was an epidemic of fraud.<span> </span>All this pig in the poke stuff happened under him. So, in his
phrase about legacy assets. Well<span> </span>he's
a failed legacy regulator. <br /><br />
<p><span></span><b>BILL MOYERS:</b> But he
denies that he was a regulator. Let me show you some of his testimony<span> </span>before Congress. Take a look at this. <br />
</p><p><span></span>TIMOTHY GEITHNER: I've never
been a regulator, for better or worse. And I think you're right to <span></span>say that we have to be very skeptical that
regulation can solve all of these problems. We have <span></span>parts of our system that are overwhelmed by regulation. <br />
<br /><span></span>Overwhelmed by regulation! It
wasn't the absence of regulation that was the problem, it was&nbsp;<span></span>despite the presence of regulation
you've got huge risks that build up. <br />
</p><p><span></span><b>WILLIAM K. BLACK:</b> Well,
he may be right that he never regulated, but his job was to&nbsp;<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>regulate. That was his mission
statement. </p><p><b><span>&nbsp;</span>...WILLIAM
K. BLACK:</b> I think, first,
the policies <span> </span>are substantively bad.
Second, I think they completely lack integrity. Third, they violate the rule <span></span>of law. This is being done just like
Secretary Paulson did it. In violation of the law. We&nbsp;<span></span>adopted a law after the Savings and Loan crisis, called the
Prompt Corrective Action Law. And it&nbsp;<span></span>requires
them to close these institutions. And they're refusing to obey the law.</p><p><b><span></span>BILL
MOYERS:</b> In other words, they could have closed these banks without
nationalizing them? <br />
<br />
<span></span><b>WILLIAM K. BLACK:</b> Well,
you do a receivership. No one -- Ronald Reagan did receiverships.<span></span>Nobody called it nationalization. <br />
<br />
<span></span><b>BILL MOYERS:</b> And that's a
law? <br />
<br />
<span></span><b>WILLIAM K. BLACK:</b> That's
the law. <br />
<br />
<span></span><b>BILL MOYERS:</b> So, Paulson
could have done this? Geithner could do this? <br />
<br />
<span></span><b>WILLIAM K. BLACK:</b> Not
could. Was mandated-- <br />
<br />
<span></span><b>BILL MOYERS:</b> By the law. <br />
<br />
<span></span><b>WILLIAM K. BLACK:</b> By the
law. <br />
<br />
<span></span><b>BILL MOYERS:</b> This law,
you're talking about.<br /><span></span></p><p><span></span><b>WILLIAM K. BLACK:</b> Yes. <br />
<br />
<span></span><b>BILL MOYERS:</b> What the
reason they give for not doing it? <br />
<br />
<span></span><b>WILLIAM K. BLACK:</b> They
ignore it. And nobody calls them on it.&nbsp;</p></blockquote>

As Barron's astutely points out in an April 2009 interview, <b><a href="http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123940701204709985.html">The Lessons of the S&amp;L Crisis</a>:<br /></b>

<blockquote><p>"We have failed bankers giving advice to failed
regulators on how to deal with failed assets. How&nbsp;<span></span>can it result in anything but failure?"</p><p><span></span>"If they
are going to get any truthful investigation, the Democrats picked the wrong
financial&nbsp;<span></span>team. Tim Geithner,
the current Secretary of the <span> </span>Treasury,
and Larry Summers, chairman of the <span></span>National
Economic Council, were important architects of the problems. Geithner
especially <span></span>represents a failed
regulator, having presided over the bailouts of major New York banks." <br /></p><p><span></span>"Geithner
has appropriated the language of his critics and of the forthright to support <span> </span>dishonesty. That is what's so appalling --
numbering himself among those who convey tough&nbsp;<span></span>medicine
when he is really pandering to the interests of a select group of banks who are
on a <span></span>first-name basis with Washington
politicians."<br /></p></blockquote><p>As astute financial blogger Jesse from Jesses Café American
notes: <a href="http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/09/stock-market-rally-shenanigans.html"><br /></a></p><p><a href="http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/09/stock-market-rally-shenanigans.html"><b>Stock Market Rally: Shenanigans Abound</b></a><br /></p>

<p>

</p><blockquote><p>"Obama and his team have NO credibility for reform on
Wall Street after their handling of&nbsp; <span></span>Goldman
Sachs and the AIG payouts."<span> <br /></span></p><p><span></span>"Inflation
is good for financial assets, and we think another bubble is in the cards, at
least for&nbsp;<span></span>now given Obama's
unwillingness to reform, unless some exogenous event or actor intervenes."</p></blockquote><p>

</p><p>Is Jesse alone? Analyst Larry Doyle from "Sense on
Cents" <a href="http://www.senseoncents.com/tag/obama-campaign-stop-to-discuss-regulatory-reform-on-wall-street-september-14th/"><b>Whatever Happened to Financial Reform</b></a><br /></p><p>

</p><blockquote><p>"Today President Obama will make a campaign stop on
Wall Street to promote his calls for<span> </span>financial
regulatory reform. We will receive the standard platitudes. Obama will likely
recruit a&nbsp;<span></span>few high profile Wall Street
executives to support his initiatives or lack thereof. The fact is, Wall&nbsp;<span></span>Street has been working diligently to make
sure that ultimately "business as usual" carries the&nbsp;<span></span>day."&nbsp;

</p></blockquote><p>

</p><p>Kevin Depew at Minnyanville, <a href="http://www.minyanville.com/articles/Lehman-crisis-economy/index/a/24478"><b>Five Things: The Myths of the Crisis </b></a><br /></p><p>

</p><blockquote><p>"Think about it this way. The word credit comes from
the Latin "credere," which means,<span> </span>literally,&nbsp;"to
believe, or to trust." That is really all you need to know about the
modern financial&nbsp;<span></span>system. When the
credere is gone, the whole thing unravels,&nbsp;and it works both ways, from <span></span>lender to borrower, and from borrower
to lender. This is why monetary and fiscal policies aren't <span></span>working." <span></span></p><p><span></span>"Well,
unfortunately, we're rapidly moving right back to the same place we were before
the real&nbsp;<span></span>issues facing us in The
Crisis became apparent. In other words, all that has happened is that the&nbsp;<span></span>doctor (the government) has been
successful in treating the symptoms of the disease (failed&nbsp;<span></span>institutions and widespread
insolvency), but in doing so the disease itself (too much debt) has<span> </span>actually worsened."</p></blockquote><p>

<span><a href="http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/09/whatever-happened-to-financial-regulatory-reform/"><span></span></a></span>

</p><p><b>Wall Street Reform-
Mr. Slick gets an "F"</b></p>

<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=09_16_09ccagle5.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/09_16_09ccagle5.jpg" alt="Straightening Out Wall Street" /></a>
Cartoon: <span>By Mike Keefe, The Denver Post</span><br />

<blockquote>"We are at a defining moment in our history, going
through the worst financial crisis since the&nbsp;<span> </span>great
depression..." <br /></blockquote>

Mr. Change, Presidential Debate, University of Mississippi,
September 26, 2008.<br /><br />

<p>Oh really? You could not tell by the Obama lack of action,
the sin of omission.</p>

<p>So how does an eloquent speech delivering academically
accomplished graduate from Harvard Law mislead those who voted for him on the
true intent of his policies?</p>

<p>Like Reid and Pelois who have been in control of Congress
since 2006 but yet just can't seem to find the votes on any of those supposed
positions of the Democratic Party... </p>

<p>Mr. Change simply fails at all those promises of Wall Street
reform, ending imperial wars for profit at tax payer expense and now the most
stark failure to put forward any measure of health care reform. The New
Democrats know who their corporate masters are and now do the bidding of Wall
Street and corporate power by selling out the American public at every turn. </p>

<p>Mr. Change ran a campaign of implication. He IMPLIED to
progressive voters that he was all about "fairness" and Wall Street
reform. He campaigned repeatedly on the excess of greed and reform to help main
street. He parsed his words, made vague implications.</p>

<p>Once elected he claimed we all just did not hear what he
said...</p>

<p>Mr. Change ran a campaign calling for the end to unjust wars
that the American public was lied into by the installed Junta regime of Bush
the Dunce. Mr. Change campaigned long and loud about how he had voted against
Congressional approval for the Iraq
war, while his opponent from Clinton
time had been a war monger. </p>

<p>Once elected he claimed we all just did not hear what he
said...</p>

<p>Mr. Change campaigned on Health care for all. Mr. Change
campaigned on reform of the current rip off system that enriches health
insurance corporations while denying treatment to those with insurance and
dumping any one with an anything as pre existing condition from the roles after
taking their premiums year after year in a criminal cabal of rip off. Mr.
Change even campaigned for universal single payer.</p>

<p>Once elected he claimed we all just did not hear what he
said...</p>

<p>Now progressives may start to be getting the picture. Mr.
Change is in fact Mr. Corporate, Mr. Tool of Wall Street. <br /></p>

<p>Mr. Change is careful. He is a word parser and clever dealer
in logic and implication when speaking. He continually tells those who voted
for him that it is their fault they implied what was not there. The biggest and
most useful weapon of Mr. Change for his Wall Street and Corporate masters
against the American people is his sin of omission.</p>

<p>It is more important what Mr. Change DOES not do rather than
continuing to buy the kool-aid and listen to those eloquent speeches of high
rhetoric. He talks major reform but some how never acts or accomplishes. This
is the pattern. Talk the big game but never do anything. </p>

<p>This has been the Pelosi/Reid MO since being given a
majority in 2006. Mr. Change has embraced this style of inaction as cover for
the looting of the American public by Wall Street, continuing foreign wars for
corporate profit that bleed the American tax payer and kill the sons and
daughters of the less advantaged. </p>

<p>Now what may be the final straw to the American public...
Health Care Reform that wasn't. It won't kick in until 2013 once Mr. Change is
safely reelected. Then the big screw turns. Simply look at the Willard
"the Rat" Romney Massachusetts
plan of forced public purchase of private policies with no reform of the
corrupt health insurance industry. Premiums are going up at 10% a year
including a 9% increase this year. <br /></p>

<p>Even with the careful timing of the "big health care
screw," progressives and independents must be starting to catch on. Mr.
Change is in fact Mr. Slick, a flim flam man, a con artist a bull shitter. Of
the big three campaign themes of Mr. Slick, the economy, Wall Street reform,
ending unjust wars and health care "reform," the first big failure of Mr. Slick is lack of Wall Street reform.</p><p>Mr.
Slick allowed his minions to use Fed monetary policy to flood the
investment banks with capital. Being the greedy worms they are, Wall
Street banks leveraged the cash like crazy and went on an equity market
pumping binge. Summers et al do know one thing... higher stock prices
mean higher consumer confidence. As Summers and the boys love to trot
out these two pointless statistics along with a host of BLS manipulated
economic statisitics unemployment (way too low), GDP (way too high),
CPI (way too low)...</p><p>Is there a pattern here? Can you believe any
statistic or green shoot report out of this government or corporate
owned news media?<br /></p><p><b>The Great Transformation: Mr. Change to Mr. Slick</b><br /></p><p>

<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=elmer-gantry-le-charlatan.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/elmer-gantry-le-charlatan.jpg" alt="The Flim Flam Man" /></a>

</p><p>Photo: Courtesy <a href="http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/08/us-equity-markets-look-dangerously.html"><b>Jesse's Cafe Americain</b></a><br /></p><blockquote><p>"The Obama Economics and Regulatory Team, in conjunction with the
Federal Reserve, have accomplished no serious reform of the fiancial
system. They have enabled the type of market inefficiency, soft fraud
and price manipulation that is undermining global confidence in the
integrity of US markets and financial products. And they have advanced
a proposal to consolidate a huge amount of regulatory power under the
Federal Reserve, a private banking agency that was at the root of our
unfolding financial crisis.<br /><br />The time has passed when Obama could
have pointed to the past mistakes of his predecessors as the fault for
our problems. Thanks to Tim Geithner, Barney Frank, and Larry Summers
he now owns the financial crisis, and the coverups, policy errors,
scandals, conflicts of interest and bailouts that have occurred since
he has taken office. His reappointment of Ben Bernanke as Federal
Reserve chairman most surely tied a bow on his ownership package for
the crisis, which is in danger of becoming his 'financial New Orleans.'<br /><br />Wall
Street insiders and their enablers pig out on public money while the
nation suffers. This is not change, this is business as usual."</p></blockquote><p>Jesse: August 9, 2009, <a href="http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/08/us-equity-markets-look-dangerously.html"><b>US Equity Markets Look Dangerously Wobbly As Insiders Sell In Record Numbers</b></a><br /></p>Mr. Slick owes somebody something. The somebody is the
masters of Wall Street. The something is the $600 million to run a Madison
Avenue slick campaign to sell the people on the latest brand illusion.<br /><br />

<p>Once
upon a time Reagan and the conservative Republicans looked Madison Avenue slick
thanks to the backing of Wall Street worm and CIA criminal Bill Casey and Alfred
Bloomingdale. Reagan and his cronies looked smart, competent, man with
the plan. In contrast, Mondale, Tip O'Neil and Michael Dukakis could not come
up with a plan to tie their own shoes on time. <br /></p>

<p>So what has changed? Now it is Democrats who appear Madison
Avenue slick, smart, competent, men and women with the plan. By contrast
Boehner (pronounced Bone-er) and Cantor can't even stand in front of the press
with a budget plan that has any numbers inside... just a cartoon cover, a National
Chairman so policy dumb and contradiction challenged that he makes less sense
than the guests on Jerry Springer... <br /></p>

<p>These are the same Republicans that looked so smart just two
decades ago and Democrats that looked so dumb. It is the same people...people.
So what changed? Nothing. Just the big money propaganda switched sides to buy
the other brand and sell it to you as something new Madison Avenue style. It is
working as the new brand of Kool-Aid, the super popular brand even in the face of over
whelming evidence that the new Kool-Aid is just some cheap powder in a bag that
is not to our benefit, just the benefit of elite wealth who own this government
and the country. <br /></p>

<p>It is in fact the same old soak the working class and
screw us until we melt policy. <br /></p>

<p>Mr. Slick says that is change you and I can believe in.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Here is change I can believe in: <br /></p>
<br />
<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/?action=view&amp;current=FriendsofWallStreet-1.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/Mr%20Slick/FriendsofWallStreet-1.jpg" alt="felons and roach 70" /></a>Photo:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.portfolio.com/executives/2009/04/21/Executives-in-Legal-Trouble/"><b>"We the Jury" </b></a>Courtesy of Portfolio.com <br /><br />If you got this far, thanks for reading.<br /><br />Care
to comment? Refute my facts with facts. Save invalid argument, fallacy
of logic and shrill dogma for the Daily Kos where such fundamentalism is celebrated...

]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Me and My Guns</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/08/me-and-my-guns.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.285537</id>
   
   <published>2009-08-18T23:29:18Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-06T22:10:55Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Warning! May contain Conspiracy Theory Related Materials! Courtesy eons.com So you are an NRA member. You proclaim and support your right to bear arms under the constitution. Why not? Like religion and press, you have your own constitutional amendment in...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
   <category term="25382" label="2nd amendment" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="25384" label="armed just in case" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="25386" label="armed right wing" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="25388" label="guns at town halls" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="58" label="Obama" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="24789" label="town hall meetings" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[<big><strong>Warning! May contain Conspiracy Theory Related Materials!</strong><br /><br />
</big> <a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=tinfoilhat300.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/tinfoilhat300.jpg" alt="Tin Foil Hat Guy" /></a><br />
Courtesy eons.com<br />
<br />
<strong>So you are an NRA member</strong>. <br />
<br />
You proclaim and support your right to bear arms under the constitution. Why not? Like religion and press, you have your own constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights.<br />
<br />
Currently, your amendment ranks #2. So why not be proud and celebrate it. <br />
<br />
Bearing arms is useful. With real unemployment, U6...<br />
<br />
Not that phony U3 where you are only unemployed as long as you are collecting unemployment insurance payments... once you run out of unemployment insurance you are no longer counted as unemployed by U3... are you any less unemployed?<br />
<br />
I thought so. <br />
<br />
What if you are an unemployed construction worker and there are no construction jobs in your area for you to apply for? You are then marginally attached according to U3 and therefore not unemployed...are you any less unemployed?<br />
<br />
I thought so. <br />
<br />
So real unemployment, U6 is closer to 16% and will probably rise close to 20% by that fine election year of 2010. <br />
<br />
With millions of people running out of unemployment insurance and no new jobs under the Bush implosion and Obama no plan/ no recovery team of Save Wall Street Bankers Summers and Save Wall Street Bankers Geithner, the food budgets of Americans may get a little meager during record Wall Street bonus season.<br />
<br />
That is when it may pay to have a shotgun and a hunting rifle. Deer and pheasant. Many of us may need to put some food on the table.<br />
<br />
So you 2nd amendment fans have a practical side as well.<br /><br />But I have to ask you something:<br />
<br />
]]>
      <![CDATA[But I have to ask you something:<br />
<b><br />
You, Steve Urkel looking rifle carrier interviewed near Obama town hall meeting:</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=gun-guy-818-cropped-proto-custom_4.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/gun-guy-818-cropped-proto-custom_4.jpg" alt="Photobucket" /></a><br />
Courtesy TPM<br />
<br />
<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=PHP4A897DB84A39C-1.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/PHP4A897DB84A39C-1.jpg" alt="Photobucket" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>Yeah, you.</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=2005_0308_urkel.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/2005_0308_urkel.jpg" alt="Photobucket" /></a><br />
<br />
I have to ask you... Let us think about this logically:<br />
<br />
1. You are walking around armed at a political event where the President is present.<br />
<br />
2. The FBI, Secret Service and NSA are clearly going to be using full
video surveillance and face recognition software, running the scans
through state ID and drivers license data bases to identify you and
locate your residence...even if no one officially walks up to you and
asks for ID.<br />
<br />
3. You will then no doubt be subject to full NSA wiretaps, electronic
location surveillance and records searches, bank, tax, etc.<br />
<br />
4. So you accomplished what walking around with your AR-15?<br />
<br />
<big><strong>Painted a big bulls-eye on your own ass?</strong></big><br />
<br />
You think you are going to become some sort of gun control martyr when the ATF shows up and seizes you and your guns?<br />
<br />
Or is it more likely they will serve the warrant at 4am and no one but you will even notice you are in custody.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=steve_urkel.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/steve_urkel.jpg" alt="Photobucket" /></a><br />
<br />
No right wing hero press appearances... nothing. You will be held as a non person at the leisure of your government.<br />
<br />
Until 45 days from now when your ex wife did not get the child support
and files a complaint with the judge in family court...then some one
will miss you.<br />
<br />
Even if it only is your ex wife wanting the child support your jailed ass failed to pay.<br />
<br />
That is what I think is funny about people who walk around with guns because they can... serious people don't make a show of it.


]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>How Much Debt Can the US Government Issue This Year?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/07/how-much-debt-can-the-us-gover.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.280246</id>
   
   <published>2009-07-20T00:12:45Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-07T07:16:25Z</updated>
   
   <summary> The US government has reached the $1 trillion budget deficit level for fiscal year 2009 which will end September 30, 2009. The forecast budget deficits for 2010 are in excess of $1 trillion. The US Treasury traditionally finances deficits...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
   <category term="13590" label="Bankruptcy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="6263" label="Bernanke" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="23531" label="Budget Deficit" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="6152" label="Financial Crisis" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="9935" label="National Debt" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="58" label="Obama" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="23533" label="US Treasury Bonds" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[

<p>The US
government has reached the $1 trillion budget deficit level for fiscal year
2009 which will end September 30, 2009. The forecast budget deficits for 2010
are in excess of $1 trillion. The US Treasury traditionally finances deficits
by having the Federal Reserve auction US Treasury bonds. So, in the face of
record US
national debt and record yearly budget deficits, how much debt is there a
market for? How many Treasuries will Fed be able to hoist onto an already
saturated market. <br /></p>



<p>While the corporate news media reports the daily
fluctuations in bond prices and interest spreads, there is little analysis of
the overall trend, the big picture. There are a few independent commentators
and bloggers who truly understand the ramifications of debt, service of the
debt and an economies ability to carry that debt. Interest is a tax on an
economy. It is rent for the money borrowed. When debt levels become too high,
an economy cannot generate enough earnings to keep servicing exponentially
growing levels of rent (interest)... Euler's magic number "e" with
those wonderful properties... <br /></p>



<p>The debt saturated US consumer is perfect example. The
US consumer has spent the last 30 odd years since that policy genius Reagan helped
us out by replacing falling real incomes (as opposed to non inflation adjusted
or nominal income) with consumer debt to continue consumption growth. <br /></p>



<p>We all know now the routine. Run up credit cards, take out a
2nd from the home as ATM machine, pay off the credit cards, buy an SUV, rinse
and repeat. Which was all good and well keeping standards of US consumption in the needed (?)
zone of flat screen tv's, club med vacations, and blackberries. <br /></p>



<p>The same scenario faces our wonderful Federal Government. Rent,
interest on the national debt is eating up more and more discretionary income,
our tax revenue. Unlike consumers, the Federal Government is still issuing more
and more debt. <br /></p>

<p><a href="http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2009/07/july-17-2009-stop-bashing-goldman-blame.html">Ilagri at The Automatic Earth</a> posted an excellent analysis
on who owns all the Treasury bonds now by category. Of these 11 categories, who
has the capacity to step up and triple their purchases to finance this new
massive 2009 and fiscal year 2010 Federal deficits. The analysis is done by 

Eric Sprott and David Franklin at Sprott Asset Management.</p><br />]]>
      <![CDATA[<p><b><a href="http://sprott.com/Docs/marketsataglance/June_2009.pdf"><b>The Solution is the Problem</b></a></b>


</p><p><b>Me:</b> The Premise:<br /></p><blockquote><p>The US government raised $705 billion worth of new debt in 2008. The
debt was raised to pay for a $455 billion budget deficit and $250
billion in "supplemental appropriations" for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. In 2009, the US government will (and must) sell $2.041
trillion in new debt. This debt will pay for a projected budget deficit
of $1.845 trillion, supplemental appropriations of $196 billion for
Iraq and Afghanistan, a fund for pandemic flu response and a line of
credit to the IMF.In fiscal 2009, the United States must find buyers for almost three
times the debt that was issued last year. Table A presents the
ownership breakdown of current outstanding US debt as of September
2008. Each of the debt buyers presented will have to buy three times
the debt that they bought last year, by September 2009, in order to
balance the accounts of the United States Government.<br /></p></blockquote><p><b>Me: </b>Who is the biggest holder of US Treasury debt?<br /></p>



<p>Sprott and Franklin&nbsp;<a href="http://sprott.com/Docs/marketsataglance/June_2009.pdf"><span> </span></a>run it down like this:</p>

<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=Sprott1-2.gif"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/Sprott1-2.gif" alt="Photobucket" /></a>


<p><b>Me: </b>Remember America
needs: <br /></p>

<p>1. $500 billion for a couple of escalating<span>&nbsp; </span>wars to make the world safe FROM democracy.<br /></p>



<p>2. $120 billion for 800 over seas military bases, plus an
extra $50 for new massive base and "embassy" construction.<br /></p>



<p>3. $80 billion on new 21st century gold plated Pentagon
armaments projects and MISGUIDED missile systems to keep you safe from people
that can't hit with anything anyway...<br /></p>



<p>4. Another $350 billion in Wall Street welfare, bank
bailouts once the phony mark to what market? Accounting wears off, and the
Alt-A and option ARM foreclosure tsunami hits...<br /></p>



<p>5. $200 billion ($1 trillion over 5 years) bailout for the
Health Insurance industry marketed to you as health care reform...</p><p>Which will
screw the consumer by locking everyone into the shitty rip off HMO they get
from their employer and the uninsured and unemployment will be forced to buy a
mandated overpriced policy. <br /></p><p>Amendments written of course by the Health Insurance industry who owns Congress
two days a week... $180 million in campaign
bribes over 4 years buys you 2 days... Wall Street's $400 million in campaign
bribes buys you 3 days...<br /></p><p> Judging by Ensign, Vitter and Sanford, former
Congressman, Congress are just regular whores on the weekends...<br /></p>





<p>6. Say $300 billion in your average run of the mill
"other" corruption: corporate tax cuts, bailouts for commercial real
estate bond holders, AIG may need another $100 billion for Goldman... Jamie Dimon
may need a new pair of shoes...</p><p>

<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=225104_AGB00_6415_001_zoom-1-3.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/225104_AGB00_6415_001_zoom-1-3.jpg" alt="Photobucket" /></a>

</p><p><i><b>Jamie Dimon's Brand New Gucci Loafers... With 24 carat
gold tassels.... Obama's favorite banker... maybe Barak will buy Jamie
those new shoes...</b></i><br /></p><p>5 states may need $50 billion... <br /></p>

<p>So, who according to Sprott &amp; Franklin is going to step
up??<br /></p><p>



</p>

<p><b>2.<span> </span>Foreign holders?</b>
Nope: <br /></p>





<blockquote><p>"They collectively purchased $564 billion last year,
and the US
will require them to increase their purchases to $1.6 trillion in 2009.
Thus
far, they have only purchased $465 billion to March 2009, which is
halfway
through US
fiscal year - and well behind the pace needed to triple last year's
purchases.Current data does not bode well for further purchases
either. In fact, April Treasury data revealed that 'Foreign and
International
Holders' were net sellers of US
debt from March to April 2009"</p></blockquote><p>



</p>

<p><b>3.<span> </span>Mutual Funds?</b>
Nope. <br /></p>





<blockquote><p>"#3 on our list, drove a surge in debt purchases last
year as the financial collapse took hold. They purchased $311 billion
in 2008,
so the US
needs them to purchase close to a trillion this year.How are they doing
thus far in 2009? A paltry $151 billion
as at the end of December - and current data doesn't look promising for
further
purchases. Assets in money markets funds fell by $72.85 billion over
the past
week alone, including a large portion of which was comprised of US
debt.We can safely assume that 'Mutual Funds' will fall short of
their one trillion dollar quota for fiscal 2009." <br /></p></blockquote><p>





</p>





<p><b><span>&nbsp;</span>4.<span> </span>State &amp; Local Government?</b>&nbsp; HaHaHa... talked
to Arnold
lately?? <br /></p>



<p>"I would like a bail out please, for which I will
gladly pay you... on Tuessssday."<span></span> <br /></p>









<blockquote><p>"Next, we examine 'State and Local Governments' (#4).
As you have probably already heard, the majority of State governments are in
serious financial trouble.The latest estimates show income tax revenues down a
whopping 26% from last year. The State of California, which represents the 10th
largest economy in the world, is currently on the verge of collapse from
economic stress.Seeing as how they were net sellers of US debt last
year, we will assume, given their difficulties, that they will be net sellers
this year as well - so no help here.<span>" &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></p></blockquote><p>



</p>

<p><b>6.<span> </span>Other Investors:</b>
Up for the year... but triple? <br /></p>





<blockquote><p>'Other Investors', #6 on our list, is a catch-all category.
It includes individuals, government- sponsored enterprises, brokers and
dealers, bank personal trusts and estates, corporate and non-corporate
businesses and other investors.<br /></p><p>They collectively purchased $141 billion last year, and have
currently purchased $158 billion to December 2008. As a group they are on track
to purchase over $600 billion in debt this fiscal year.<br /></p><p>They are the only group realistically capable of tripling
the purchases they made last year.<span>" &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></p></blockquote><p>









</p>

<p><b><span>&nbsp;</span><span></span>7.<span> </span>Pensions--Private</b>.. let's se, GMs pension fund just traded revenues for
GM stock. No cash for treasuries there.... Every corporation of the NYSE is
cutting contributions to 401k's... not much help there... how about all those
unemployed and forced part timers? Got to be 16 million people you could hit up
there... <br /></p>

<p><b>9.<span>&nbsp;</span>Pension Funds--
State &amp; Local Gov't</b>... let's see, Arnold needs to make some
big payments in CalSTRS and CalPERS...<br /></p>

<p>HaHa... yeah Arnold has his own brand of IOU for state
pension funds. And after the state gets done stealing $2 billion in property
taxes from county and local gevernments to close the state deficit, the
counties and cities won't be able to meet their pension obligations either... <br /></p>













<blockquote><p>Next we assess the pension funds. We combine 'Pension Funds
- State and Local Governments' (#9) and 'Pension Funds - Private' (#7), as they
both purchase US
debt for similar purposes.</p><p>Last year they collectively purchased a combined total of
$52.6 billion of US debt,
and under our tripling scenario they must purchase over $150 billion worth of US
debt this year.</p><p>As at the end of December 2008, the last date for which we
have data, records show that they have purchased a mere $8.5 billion - so they
have a long way to go. In fact, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
recently stated that 'it would be dangerous to increase the fixed-income
portion of our portfolio at this point.</p><p>'If the Canada Pension Plan is any indication, it is unlikely
this group will carry their weight in fiscal 2009." <br /></p></blockquote><p>

</p>



<p><b>8.<span> </span>US Savings Bonds</b>:
The people have cash to buy Treasuries. Ask the People! Ask the People: <br /></p>





<blockquote><p>'US Savings Bonds' (#8), which represents US domestic
buyers
of government debt, were net sellers in 2008 and net sellers again in
2009.This is no surprise to us given the state of the economy.
There are no buyers in this category. <br /></p></blockquote><p>



</p><p>Oh yeah, I forgot about the economy...<br /></p>



<p><b>10. Depository Institutions &amp; 11. Insurance Companies:</b>
We know the banks have big cash!! <br /></p><p>Look at the huge earnings JP Morgan put out!
Goldman that newly converted deposit bank... because it bought a couple of
backwater NY state banks so it could pony up to the Feds discount window and
bilk the American tax payer so more... hey Goldman the public only has so many
orifices you can rape us in...<br /></p>



<p>But wait! The insurance industry is solid! Look at all the
money AIG has been lavishing on Wall Street banks at 100 cents on the dollar and
foreign banks no less...&nbsp; <br /></p>





<blockquote><p>'Depository Institutions'<span>&nbsp;
</span>and 'Insurance Companies' Together they have been net sellers of US
debt so far this fiscal year, selling a combined total of $20 billion in US
bonds.As a group they made no new net purchases last fiscal year,
and were sellers of debt as of the first quarter of this fiscal year.&nbsp;



</p></blockquote><p>

</p>

<p>1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS (not for the squeamish): <br /></p>



<p><b>Me:</b> Well, they don't actually buy bonds. They get bonds when
their tax revenue is stolen. Congress and various presidents have STOLEN $4.2
trilllion dollars to date from Social Security and left nothing but IOUs that
we all can see now will never be repaid. <br /></p><p>The next time Congress or what ever
front man is President says we NEED to reform Social Security remember that.
These are the same people that stole $4.2 trillion of our taxes that was
supposed to be dedicated to paying our retirements. <br /></p>













<blockquote><p>It may not surprise you to learn that the largest percentage
owner of US
debt is the United States Government itself. Perhaps this doesn't make
immediate sense to some readers, but it is a fact. The debt holdings are held
in accounts for the various trust funds the US manages for its future
obligations - the largest of which are set aside for Social Security and
Medicare. These trust funds are lumped together and referred to as
"Intragovernmental Holdings".<br /></p><p>The only 'assets' held by these 'trust funds', however, are
special-issue Treasury Bonds. Why? Because the US Treasury takes the Social
Security and Medicare payroll taxes and uses these funds to pay for anything
from aircraft carriers to education to welfare. To cover this drawdown,
special-issue Treasury Bonds are deposited into the trust funds for Social
Security and Medicare as IOU's.<br /></p><p>In 2008, the Treasury Department issued the "Intragovernmental
Holdings" account $254 billion in bonds (IOU's), and in the first half of
fiscal 2009 this account actually became a net seller of bonds.<br /></p><p>Because the account is not broken down by individual trust
fund, it is difficult to see which specific trust fund liquidated their bonds,
but we suspect it was Medicare. <br /></p></blockquote><p>

</p>



<p><b>Me: </b>You can call this first item what it is: Corporate
welfare direct to the Pharmaceutical and Health Insurance<span>&nbsp; </span>Industry: <br /></p>

<blockquote><p>"As it stands, Medicare is in an operating deficit in
2009 with premiums coming in at $14 billion and outlays totaling $348
billion." <br /></p></blockquote><p>

</p>



<p><b>Me:</b> $14 billion in corporate welfare... <br /></p>













<blockquote><p>Because the US Treasury takes the Social Security and
Medicare payroll taxes and uses these funds to pay for anything from aircraft
carriers to education to welfare. To cover this drawdown, special-issue
Treasury Bonds are deposited into the trust funds for Social Security and
Medicare as IOU's.<br /></p><p>For all intents and purposes, Social Security and Medicare
receipts are essentially considered to be another source of government tax
revenue that can be spent each year.<br /></p><p>Obviously this is a very troubling development for the US, and
unfortunately it is likely to get worse. This year's Social Security fund is
only expected to balance, which is bad news for the government.<br /></p><p>Along with
Social Security, Medicare is one of the trust funds that should be posting
surpluses right now in anticipation of the massive future commitments the
retiring Baby Boomers will require.The difference will be supplemented by sales of its IOU
bonds, which will ultimately add to the amount of new government debt that must
be sold in fiscal 2009.<br /></p><p>We won't speculate on what would happen to the Social
Security program if new buyers for US debt disappeared, but we should all bear
in mind that in that scenario the special-issue 'IOU's' in the
"Intragovernmental Holdings" account would be rendered worthless, and
the US Government's social 'safety net' would vanish.<br /></p></blockquote><p><b>5. AAHHHHHHHH.....The Federal Reserve: <br /></b></p><blockquote><p>So, after all this, it should be clear by now as to who is
going to cover the difference this fiscal year. As the lender of last resort,
the only purchaser left is the Federal Reserve. In 2008 they were net sellers
of almost $300 billion of bonds, but in the first half of this fiscal year they
have been buyers of almost $280 billion of bonds.<br /></p></blockquote><blockquote><p>The Federal Reserve is the
lender of last resort and must support the market for US debt. The
policy 'solution' that the Federal Reserve implemented in March 2009 is called
'Quantitative Easing'. Given our projections above, this was not an option for
them, but a necessity.It is an extreme form of monetary policy used to stimulate
the economy when interest rates are at or close to zero.<br /></p><p>The Federal Reserve's 'solution' to the debt problem is the
problem. It has resulted in the Federal Reserve doubling the monetary base of
the United States
over the span of a mere nine months. Rather than stimulate the real economy,
the QE program has instead resulted in increasing weakness in the international
market for US bonds - the proof of which can be seen in the chart below.</p></blockquote><p>

<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=Sprott2.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/Sprott2.jpg" alt="US 10 Year Bond Prices" /></a>







</p>

<blockquote><p>Bond
investors are running for the exits, and our discussion above confirms what we
see in this chart. Traditional buyers of US bonds are now sellers, and they are
exercising a non-confidence vote in the US dollar and in US debt.</p><p>As we hope the breakdown above has revealed, the future
solvency of the United
  States as a nation state is currently in
jeopardy. It is in far deeper trouble than the mainstream press cares to admit.<br /></p></blockquote><blockquote><p>
<b>There are simply not enough new buyers of debt on this planet to support the
spending programs of the United
  States government</b> - and it appears that
current holders of debt are beginning to sell.<br /></p><p>Because it is impossible to
balance the budget from outside sources of capital, the only source of funds
left for the US,
in all reality, is continued money printing.The Federal Reserve's policy of Quantitative Easing is
failing.<br /></p><p> The US
budget is ludicrous, spending is out of control, spending promises are out of
control, the world knows it - and we know it. For all the pundits who see the
economy improving over the next year, we invite you to explain to us how this
debt crisis will resolve itself without significant turmoil. We've tabulated
the numbers above - and they do not lie. As we wrote this past January, welcome
to 2009.</p></blockquote>





<p><b>Me: </b>Any one want out there want to buy some Treasuries? <br /></p>



<p>Any questions? <br /></p>

<p>Thank you for the posting Mr. Ilargi, and thank you Eric Sprott and
David Franklin for a fascinating discussion of clusterf@ck debt
financing in the 21st century.<br /></p><p>Back to math...</p>





<br />]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Immigration Reform on the 4th: The People They Will Let into America These Days</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/07/pic.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.278157</id>
   
   <published>2009-07-04T19:45:39Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-20T08:13:13Z</updated>
   
   <summary> Cockburn Becomes US Citizen From the Nation:Alexander Cockburn... columnist and one of America&apos;s best-known radical journalists, was born in Scotland and grew up in Ireland. Wait, they are letting radicals into this country? Radical journalists no less? Dick Cheney...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
   <category term="22843" label="Alexander Cockburn" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22845" label="CounterPunch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="33" label="immigration" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22849" label="radical journalists" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22847" label="US citzenship" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[ <big><big><p><b><span>Cockburn Becomes US Citizen</span></b></p></big></big>

<a href="http://s677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/?action=view&amp;current=alexscotty-2.jpg"><img src="http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv133/problemis/TPM/alexscotty-2.jpg" alt="70% A Cockburn US Citizen" /></a>

<br />From the <b><a href="http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/alexander_cockburn">Nation</a>:</b><br /><blockquote><i>Alexander Cockburn... columnist and one of America's best-known radical journalists, was born in Scotland and grew up in Ireland. 

</i><br /></blockquote>Wait, they are  letting radicals into this country? Radical journalists no less? <br /><br />Dick Cheney is right... This current administration is failing to protect America from these radicals.<big><small><br /></small></big>]]>
      <![CDATA[From <a href="http://www.nndb.com/people/455/000051302/"><b>NNDB:</b></a><br /><blockquote><i>Alexander Cockburn (pronounced Coburn) is an expatriate Irishman living in Northern California as a radical leftist journalist.</i><br /></blockquote>

Who is this guy?

<br /><br />Father: Claud Cockburn, from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claud_Cockburn"><b>wiki</b></a>:
<br />
<blockquote><i>Claud Cockburn (1904-1981) was a radical English
journalist controversial for communist sympathies. Under the name Frank
Pitcairn, Cockburn contributed to the British Communist newspaper, the
Daily Worker.... Cockburn was attacked by George Orwell in Homage to
Catalonia (1938). Orwell accused Cockburn of being under the control of
the Communist Party and was critical of the way Cockburn reported the
Barcelona May Days.</i><br /></blockquote>&nbsp;Well, the ol' man was a full blown commie agitator.What else does the Nation say?<br /><blockquote><i>He graduated from Oxford in 1963 with a degree in English literature and language.

</i><br /></blockquote>I knew it, an intellectual left wing commie radical.

Wait Northern California? <br />This
intellectual left wing commie agitator is now a voting citizen in my
Congressional district? He is going to cancel out my vote?<br />&nbsp;<br />
<b>Note:</b> Thanks to California's legendary gerrymandering of
Congressional districts, even though I live 6 hours and 300 miles from
this pinko, our Congressional district looks like a chicken that has
had its neck wrung about 5 times, with one wing sticking out with three
dog legs when viewed on a map...<br />&nbsp;<br />Who let this guy into the country anyway? The Nation:<br /><blockquote><i>&nbsp;A permanent resident of the United States since 1973, Cockburn wrote for many years...

</i><br /></blockquote>Wait, Nixon let this guy in? Law and Order, the silent majority, Nixon? 

<br /><blockquote><i>A permanent resident of the United States since
1973, Cockburn wrote for many years for The Village Voice about the
press and politics. Since then he has contributed to many publications
including The New York Review of Books, Harper's Magazine, The Atlantic
Monthly and the Wall Street Journal (where he had a regular column from
1980 to 1990)...
</i><br /></blockquote>The Wall Street Journal hired commies and
radicals during the Reagan years? Wouldn't Wall Street worm and CIA
henchman William Casey have this guy removed?<br />&nbsp;<br />
Let's read this thing from the Nation again:

<br /><blockquote><i>Alexander Cockburn, The Nation's "Beat the Devil"
columnist and one of America's best-known radical journalists, was born
in Scotland and grew up in Ireland. He has written "Beat the Devil"
since 1984.
</i><br /></blockquote>Wait, I read Beat the Devil all the time... this guy does not seem radical. He seems pretty normal to me.
<br /><blockquote>
<i>...with Jeffrey St. Clair he has written or
coedited several books including: Whiteout, The CIA, Drugs and the
Press; The Politics of Anti-Semitism; Imperial Crusades; Al Gore, A
User's Manual; Five Days That Shook the World; and A Dime's Worth of
Difference, about the two-party system in America.
</i><br /></blockquote>Wait, I have read Whiteout, The CIA, Drugs and the Press. It is quite well written and documented. 

<br /><blockquote><i>He is co-editor, with Jeffrey St Clair, of the
newsletter and radical website CounterPunch
(http://www.counterpunch.org) which have a substantial world audience.
In 1987 he published a best-selling collection of essays, Corruptions
of Empire...
</i><br /></blockquote>Oh, that is where I heard the name... I read
CounterPunch all the time. This guy is not radical or a commie. He
edits one of the best political and economic websites I have read. He
has some of the best contributors on a variety of important topics on a
daily basis. How do you pull that one off from the lost coast?
<br /><br /><i><b>Okay Cockburn, you are in for now. But keep that little flag handy at all times and watch your step.
&nbsp;</b></i><big>
<small><br /><br /><b>The well written recent essays of Mr. Alexander Cockburn:</b><br /><br /></small>


<small><a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06192009.html"><strong>I Become an American </strong></a>




<blockquote><p><i>Though the U.S. Constitution&nbsp; seemingly blocks my path
at this time, I have taken the first necessary step in my own quest for the
White House by becoming a citizen of the United States at approximately 10 am,
Pacific time,&nbsp; last Wednesday, June 17, in the Paramount Theater in
Oakland, California</i>.</p><p><i>To my immediate left in the vast and splendid deco theater
was a Moroccan, to my right a Salvadoran and around us 956 other candidates for
citizenship from 98 countries, each holding a small specimen of the flag that
was about to become our standard. All of us had sworn early that day that since
our final, successful interview with immigration officials we had not become
prostitutes or members of the Communist Party.</i></p></blockquote>



<p>Well, Mr. Cockburn, you are a member of the press and have
been associated with individuals at the Washington Post. Seeing the latest Post
scandal of fees for service in arranging lobbyists meeting politicians, pure
prostitution, I would worry about that one. And the communist thing, dad and
all. Better bring your lawyer to the swearing in.</p>

<blockquote><p><i>&nbsp;Inductees to U.S.
nation-hood were downstairs; relatives and friends were up in the balcony,
including CounterPuncher and friend Scott Handleman, attorney at law. I was
determined to start out on the right path. What is more American than to have a
lawyer nearby?<br /></i></p><p><i>My own path to citizenship began with a green card in 1973,
allowing me to work for the Village Voice in New York and to be a legal resident... </i><b><br /></b></p></blockquote><p>How do guys like this get here in the first place?<br /></p><blockquote><p><i>The
man
who helped me get that card was Ed Koch, at that time a supposedly
liberal US congressman living, then as now, in Greenwich Village. A few
years later, in 1977, he ran for
mayor of New York City and I wrote about him harshly. Koch was heavily
backed by Rupert Murdoch and
the New York Post, running on a law and order platform. </i><b><br /></b></p></blockquote><p>Murdoch's pal Ed Koch got him in? You want to talk about some one who should be deported as an undesirable alien... Murdoch.<br /></p><blockquote><p><i>Ed was always a petty
man, and this trait was well displayed the night he won. A PBS
interviewer asked him what his "worst moment" on the race had been
and he promptly said in his trade-mark squeaky whine, "the attack by Alexander
Cockburn in the Voice... To think I got him his green card!"&nbsp; <br /></i></p><p><i>In that race
there had been slurs a lot nastier than any I made. If you walked around Queens in that campaign you'd see "Vote for Cuomo, not
the homo", scrawled on plenty of walls.</i></p></blockquote><p>The INS never checked on this guy??<br /></p><blockquote><p><i>In my Voice column I made fun of a New Yorker writer, a
woman dispensing lethal does of tedium on an almost weekly basis. I didn't know
that her lover was a New Jersey
congressman powerful on the Immigration and Naturalization subcommittee. Within
days I was the object of a probe by the INS.</i></p><p><i>A resident alien perches on a frail branch.&nbsp; That New Jersey congressman could have pressured the INS to
put me on the watch list, meaning the next time I returned to the US I could have
found the door slammed in my face. <br /></i></p><p><i>In the mid 1980s a nutball colonel called
Oliver North, working in the White House for Ronald Reagan, began to
re-activate a national system of prison camps for lefties from a blueprint that
had sat in government filing cabinets ever since the Palmer raids in the Red
Scare following World War One. Dick Cheney most certainly dusted it off after
2001. On North's plan it was safe to assume, as with Cheney's, that
potentially troublesome legal residents would have been locked up, then kicked out...</i></p></blockquote>















<p><a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05222009.html"><b>How Long Does It Take?</b></a> </p><blockquote><i>How long does it take a mild-mannered, antiwar, black
professor of constitutional law, trained as a community organizer on the South
Side of Chicago, to become an enthusiastic sponsor of targeted assassinations,
"decapitation" strategies and remote-control bombing of mud houses the far end
of the globe?<br /><br />There's nothing surprising here. As far back as President
Woodrow Wilson in the early twentieth century, American liberalism has been
swift to flex imperial muscle, to whistle up the Marines. High explosive has
always been in the hormone shot... </i></blockquote>

<p>



</p><p>Woodrow Wilson, Virginian, lover of the DW Griffith film
"The Clansman," documented racist (his own writings), US Corporate
stooge and banking shill... banking shill is back in vogue these days. Read
Wilson's 14 point speech for a lesson on US Rockefeller corporate agenda disguised
as high ideals... a hallmark of Wilson
speeches.</p>





<p><a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04172009.html"><b>Thin Ice From Here to the Horizon </b></a></p><blockquote><i>On any rational assessment the popular new president is
skating on thin ice. Pollyanna bulletins about the economy puff up from the
White House and Federal Reserve, like auguries of a new Pope through the&nbsp; Vatican chimney. "Habemus spem." We have hope. <br /><br />We've just
heard it from President Obama: "We are starting to see glimmers of hope
across the economy." From Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who's so far
unleashed $12 trillion in booster money, we get the always sinister
reassurance, like Death giving the Appointee in Samarra a friendly tap on the shoulder,
"the foundations of our economy are strong".</i> <b><br /></b></blockquote>









<p>&nbsp;Ouch.</p><p><a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03062009.html"><b>Harlots High and Low: a Foul Saga in the History of Network
TV</b></a></p>









<blockquote><p><i>And then... a miracle! A very American kind of miracle to be
sure, being the sort of miracle achieved by the usual megatonnage of campaign
contributions from the drug industry dropped into the pockets of the relevant
FDA overseers in Congress in Clinton's
slush-sodden second term, plus direct lobbying of the FDA by media companies
such as Time-Warner. The miracle went by the name of DTC: Direct to the
Consumer Advertising.</i></p><p><i>Broadcast advertising of prescription drugs in the U.S. had
actually been legal for years, but in 1997 the FDA "clarified" the rules about
alerting consumers to any risks in a number of deft ways that suddenly made the
game a whole lot easier for the drug companies. Thirty-five years after
Congress moved to curb pharmaceutical company advertising of amphetamine
antidepressants and barbiturates, the floodgates were opened once again.
Through them poured the drug companies and their advertising dollars...</i></p><p><i>Back at the start of the 1990s the drug companies were
spending $55 million on DTC ads. By 2003 the outlay had soared to $3 billion,
and by 2005 to $7.5 billion. DTC sales-pitching of prescription drugs has been
a huge boon to the networks, whose revenues from this source have surged since
1997. 2005 saw NBC, ABC and CBS pull in $1.4 billion in prescription drug
advertising...</i></p><p><i>For the drug lords in the big pharmaceutical companies - America's most
profitable industry - the FDA's 1997 decision has indeed been a license to
print money, bales of it.</i></p></blockquote>

<p>Back to our "Media as Whores" theme.<br /></p>

<p>On any given day, CounterPunch can have a dozen or more
articles and essays from gifted writers in many fields. Mr. Cockburn leads the
Friday edition with one of his pieces. You will find some extremely interesting
and thought provoking analysis.</p>



<p>This is why we like Mr. Cockburn. I guess Nixon was just too
busy with other problems in 1973 to keep this subversive radical out of the
country.</p>

</small></big>]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Your New and Improved Unemployment Numbers</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/07/your-new-and-improved-unemploy.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.278118</id>
   
   <published>2009-07-04T02:59:20Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-07T06:29:04Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Note: Sorry I had to repost this... my learning curve is often steep... This is why we like Bill the Brain at Calculated Risk. Bill writes excellent analysis on economic issues and trends in general, mortgages, foreclosures in particular with...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
   <category term="22807" label="Calculated Risk" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="4517" label="foreclosures" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22812" label="Jim the Realtor" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22813" label="MBS" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="11975" label="mortgages" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="5787" label="unemployment" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[<b>Note:</b> Sorry I had to repost this... my learning curve is often steep...



<p>This is why we like Bill the Brain at Calculated Risk.</p>



<p>Bill writes excellent analysis on economic issues and trends
in general, mortgages, foreclosures in particular with great clarity. Now that
I praised Bill's clarity, under the odd title "Another Involuntary
Landlord and Summary"...Bill covers unemployment with his usual insight and
links to his previous top notch posts on the subject.</p>

<p><b><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/07/another-involuntary-landlord-and.html">Another
Involuntary Landlord and Summary</a></b></p>Known for is ironic wit, the picture of the "Another
Involuntary Landlord" with for lease sign in front is? Click on his photo
and read the plaque:



<p>The National Association of Homebuilders, National Housing
Center in Washington DC.
</p>





<p>But I thought sentiment among homebuilders was up on
increasing month over month new home sales?? <br /></p>

<p>As Bill has taught me... Real Estate is cyclical on an annual
basis. Sales always go up in April through August. People always try to buy and
get moved in before school starts for their kids and/or the holiday season.
These trends have repeated in the US, year after year, decade after
decade. Believe the trend line.</p>





<p>Never pay attention to month over month, always pay
attention to year over year... this month last year. Month over month is used to
mislead... like the National Association of Realtors and Homebuilders. <br /></p>

<p><b>Bill on unemployment:</b></p>&nbsp;

<table><tbody><tr><td><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn" height="383" width="490" /><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a><a href="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0NhbGN1bGF0ZWRSaXNrSm9ibG9zc1BlcmNlbnRKdW5lLTcuanBn"></a></td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td><a href="http://photobucket.com/tagging/"><img src="http://pic.photobucket.com/tagWidget/tag_images.gif" /></a></td></tr></tbody></table>

<p><b>Courtesy Calculated Risk</b><br /></p>]]>
      <![CDATA[<p>Unknown to the American public, historical perspective is
important because so much of what happens today, is path dependent on past
political and economic decisions. Path Dependency is real. We will look at good
ol' Glass-Steagall here shortly... <br /></p>

<p>I think it was Gore Vidal who coined the phrase
"Citizens of the United States of Amnesia" for their unfailing lack
of forgetting what happened yesterday. Those who defraud the American public
count on that.</p>

<p>In one of the links below the chart, Bill gives a good break
down on how unemployment is spread among different industries in the US economy:</p>





<p><b><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/07/unemployment-stress-test-scenarios.html">Unemployment:
Stress Test Scenarios, Diffusion Index, Weekly Claims</a></b> <br /></p>









<blockquote><p><b>Here is a look at how "widespread" the job losses
are using the employment diffusion index from the BLS...</b></p><p><b>Before September, the all industries employment diffusion
index was close to 40, suggesting that job losses were limited to a few
industries. However starting in September the diffusion index plummeted. In
December, the index hit 20.5, suggesting job losses were very widespread. The
index has recovered since then, but declined slightly in June to 28.6,
suggesting job losses are still widespread.</b></p><p><b>However job losses have really picked up over the last 9
months (4.4 million jobs lost, red line cliff diving on the graph), and the
current recession is now the 2nd worst recession since WWII in percentage terms
- and also in terms of the unemployment rate (only early '80s recession was
worse). <br /></b></p></blockquote>



<p>On unemployment insurance: Notice a nice chart showing both
initial and continuing unemployment insurance claims since 1971.</p>



<p><b><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/07/employment-population-ratio-part-time.html">Employment-Population
Ratio, Part Time Workers, Hours Worked</a></b></p>



<p>In this post, Bill analyzes hours worked and those forced to
work part time, either because they are full time employees who have been cut <span>&nbsp;</span>to part time or were hired part time because
that was all that was available. Why should part time workers be an issue in
the unemployment numbers? Have you ever tried paying your rent or more
importantly in this foreclosure environment, your mortgage with part time
wages? Part time employment might just affect economic conditions after all... </p>



<p>So why exclude part time from the U3 unemployment numbers?
Why exclude people who have run out of unemployment insurance? Why invent job
creation (Birth/Death Ratio) that your payroll data and 60k a month household
survey has allegedly missed? Add 1.3 million jobs in a single year (Bush Jr.
2007) ?</p>



<p><b>Two great charts: </b></p>

<p><b>Part Time Unemployment:&nbsp;</b></p>

<table><tbody><tr><td><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL1BhcnRUaW1lTWF5MjAwOS0xLmpwZw%3D%3D" height="406" width="490" /></td></tr></tbody></table>


<p><br /></p><p><b>Employment-Population Ratio</b></p>

<table><tbody><tr><td><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://w677.photobucket.com/flash/tagWidget.swf?mediaURL=aHR0cDovL2k2NzcucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy92djEzMy9wcm9ibGVtaXMvVFBNL0VtcGxveVBvcEp1bmUyMDA5LTEuanBn" height="366" width="490" /></td></tr></tbody></table>

<p>&nbsp;</p>









<blockquote><p><b>The general upward trend from the early '60s was mostly due
to women entering the workforce. As an example, in 1964 women were about 32% of
the workforce, today the percentage is close to 50%.<br /></b></p><p><b>This measure is at the lowest level since the early '80s and shows the weak
recovery following the 2001 recession - and the current cliff diving!</b></p><p><b>Part Time for Economic Reasons (sometimes referred to as
involuntary part-time workers)</b></p><p><b>Not only has the unemployment rate risen sharply to 9.5%,
but the number of workers only able to find part time jobs (or have had their
hours cut for economic reasons) is at 9.0 million. <br /></b></p></blockquote>



<p>You can find analysis on increasing year over year personal
bankruptcies in June, up 40%...</p>



<p>&nbsp;Then move on to "Naught for the Naughts" Just an observation ..."</p>



<p><b>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/07/naught-for-naughts.html">Naught
for the Naughts?</a></b></p>This is a nice little comparison. This guy has an eye for
data and what to do with it. There is a lot of data out there. The whole thing
about statistics is what method you use to analyze it based on the parameters
and are you correctly taking into account outlier data... What you use and what
you do with it. Mr. Bill has a keen mind for both... and is it relevant. <br /><blockquote><p><b>On the '00s (the "Naughts") ...</b></p><p><b>Employment Dec 1999: 130.53 million</b></p><p><b>Employment Jun 2009: 131.69 million<br /></b></p><p><b>A gain of just 1.16 million. What are the odds that the economy loses another
1.16 million jobs over the next 6 months? Pretty high. That would mean no net
jobs added to the economy for the naughts: <br /></b></p><p><b>Naught for the Naughts!</b> <br /></p></blockquote>



<p>Mr. Bill on education: Really his blog is to inform the
public on economic issues. In that regard if you click:</p>



<p><b><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/07/compleat-ubernerd.html">The
Compleat UberNerd</a></b></p>You will find some very informative subject postings by his
former writing partner.&nbsp;

<blockquote><p><b>From December 2006, until she passed away from ovarian
cancer on Nov 30, 2008, Tanta
was my co-blogger. Tanta
worked as a mortgage banker for 20 years, and we started chatting in early 2005
about the housing bubble and the changes in lending practices.</b></p></blockquote>

<p><b>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/12/in-memoriam-doris-tanta-dungey.html">In
Memoriam: Doris "Tanta" Dungey</a></b></p>



<p><b>The UberNerd Collection:</b><br />
<b><br /><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/02/tanta-mortgage-servicing-for-ubernerds.html">Mortgage
Servicing</a></b>
<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/03/tanta-negative-amortization-for.html">Negative
Amortization</a></b><br />
<b><br /><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/03/private-mortgage-insurance-for.html">Private
Mortgage Insurance I</a></b>
<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/03/private-mortgage-insurance-for_22.html">Private
Mortgage Insurance II</a></b><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/04/foreclosure-sales-and-reo-for-ubernerds.html">Foreclosure
and REO</a></b><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/04/mbs-for-ubernerds-i-gse-pass-throughs.html">MBS
I</a></b><br />
<b><br /><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/04/mbs-for-ubernerds-ii-remics-dogs-tails.html">MBS
II</a></b>
<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/05/mbs-for-ubernerds-iii-credit-risk.html">MBS
III</a></b><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/07/delinquencies-and-defaults-for.html">Delinquency
and Default</a></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/05/reverse-mortgages-ubernerditorial.html"><b>Reverse
Mortgages</b><br />
</a><br />
<b><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/07/leverage-ratings-and-forced-unwind.html">Leverage,
Ratings, and Forced Unwind</a></b><br />
<b><br /><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/09/mortgage-origination-channels-for.html">Mortgage
Origination Channels</a></b>
</p>



<p>These are all worth taking the time to read to better
understand this "once in century" economic calamity that no one could
see coming... fraudsters never want to see a good thing coming, huh Wall
Street? <br /></p>



<p>For a little foreclosure lunacy and sarcastic comments with
facts and figures, click on "Jim The Realtor" on the right margin. <br /></p>



<p>Note: Jim's link seems to move. The Calculated Risk list of
Jim's postings: <br /></p>









<p><a href="http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&amp;safe=active&amp;client=pub-7495486645615446&amp;cof=FORID:13%3BAH:left%3BS:http://www.calculatedriskblog.com%3BCX:Calculated%2520Risk%3BL:http://cr4re.com/images/logobg.gif%3BLH:50%3BLC:%230000ff%3BVLC:%23994499%3BGALT:%230c2765%3BGFNT:%230000ff%3BGIMP:%230000ff%3BDIV:%231949b8%3B&amp;cx=partner-pub-7495486645615446:7uv35fyphe3&amp;adkw=AELymgUsM5qHGPH1thi1tekD_bScxoUyu0G0e9-_orpiiEc93iigMMDqe2HtR2fuFd1oa7KnSLiauIlhNLnIH3M6pkF9OrXKxD0qQqKDnl2xzesQW2x0PyI&amp;boostcse=0&amp;oe=ISO-8859-1&amp;q=jim+the+realtor&amp;start=0&amp;sa=N"><b>Calculated Risk list of Jim the Realtor videos</b></a> <br /></p>



<p>Jim works in San Diego
handling a lot of banked owned foreclosures. While Jim video tapes, he gives a
run down on the property, the facts, figures and assessment of what is going
on. His commentary is both hilarious and truly astounding. He critiques banks
that are too cheap to paint or repair foreclosures so they can sell, to the
original purchase prices, how may refinances and how each particular
foreclosure ended up where it did. <br /></p>

<p>His latest video documents a rash of foreclosures and NOD's
on upper end homes in the over $1 million price range. </p>









<p><b><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIVNF5eN3UY&amp;feature=channel_page">&nbsp;Jim TV SD Pre-Foreclosure Tour</a></b><span> <br /></span></p>



<p>If you watch the series of Jim's videos as a whole they are
quite educational. From the low end and investor rental end of the market, to
the upper end 4k square footers and unscrupulous new home development deals...
with brand new houses foreclosing less than a year after they sold... it gives
you a whole new perspective on the foreclosure problem, the lack of regulation at
all levels and top down securitization greed from Wall Street that got us into
this fine mess. <br /></p>



<p><b>All of Jim's videos:</b> <br /></p>





<p><b><a href="http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=JimtheRealtor&amp;view=videos">Jim the Realtor</a></b> <br /></p>

<p>Got to love Jim the Realtor... and Bill the Brain at
Calculated Risk.</p><p>Back to math...<br /></p><p></p>]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Paul Farrell at MarketWatch: &quot; &apos;Pretty Boy&apos; Paulson and the Goldman Gang&quot; You Have to Love Mr. Farrell</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/06/paul-farrell-at-marketwatch-pr-1.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.277492</id>
   
   <published>2009-06-30T13:27:56Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-06T22:33:25Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Paul Farrell at Market Watch gives us some summer school in macroeconomic policy theory:&quot;BS-1. Don&apos;t give the recovery to the same idiots who created the mess&quot; From Mr. Farrell&apos;s piece: &apos;Pretty Boy&apos; Paulson and the Goldman Gang Commentary: &apos;Public Enemies&apos;...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
   <category term="208" label="corruption" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22559" label="fixed markets" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22561" label="regulation reform" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="6097" label="Wall Street" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[Paul Farrell at Market Watch gives us some summer school in macroeconomic policy theory:<br /><br /><blockquote><h3>"BS-1.  Don't give the recovery to the same idiots who created the mess"

</h3></blockquote>From Mr. Farrell's piece:<br /><br />



<p><a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/public-enemies-run-not-rob-our-banks?ref=patrick.net"><b>'Pretty Boy' Paulson and the Goldman Gang Commentary:
'Public Enemies' run, not rob, our banks today</b></a></p><blockquote><b>ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Yes, two Great Depressions
linked in a mysterious time-warp: Bank robbers and robber banks. Back
in the dark days of the first Great Depression John Dillinger was
admired, a dapper Robin Hood. Banks were the real villains.</b><br /></blockquote> ]]>
      <![CDATA[With any good lecturer, start with the context. Historical and economic path dependency help:<br /><br /><blockquote><h3>

			Modern Dillingers own the banks, and government</h3><h3><b>How bad is it? Real bad: Remember former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt,
who stood up for the little guy in the '90s? The guy who once attacked
banks with this comment: "America's investors have been ripped off as
massively as a bank being held up by a guy with a gun and a mask.</b></h3><h3><b>"Well, he's inside too, just hired as a "policy adviser" by Wall
Street's Goldman Gang, just weeks after Goldman hired away the top
staffer on the U.S. House Financial Services Committee. The pattern's
obvious: Wall Street's arming itself with vast lobbying firepower to
kill off much of the proposed regulations, just as they did during the
Enron and mutual fund scandals reform movement earlier this decade.</b></h3><h3><b>And that, my dear friends, is why today's Wall Street conspiracy of
banks and lobbyists, their well-paid pals in Congress and throughout
the federal bureaucracies and regulators, plus their Trojan Horses in
the White House, will continue driving America straight into the third
meltdown Robert Shiller warns about: Our "vulnerability to bubble
thinking is greater than it's ever been ... We recently lived through
two epidemics of excessive financial optimism ... the dot-com and the
subprime ... we are close to a third episode." </b></h3></blockquote>
								
								
								A little humor to hold our attention:<br /><br /><blockquote><b>Because today's new Dillingers are inside the system, officers and
bureaucrats running the banks, regulators, monetary system, government.
The usual suspects: "Pretty Boy" Paulson and his Goldman Gang,
"Helicopter Machine Gunner" Bernanke, "Bonny" Dodd and "Clyde"
Geithner.</b><br /></blockquote>I always liked my Economic Three Stooges analogy:<br /><br /><b>Moe: Larry Summers</b>,
clearly the leader, mean streak, vindictive, always looking for an
angle to get the other stooges to do the work. Will take a hammer to
Curly's skull (see Bernanke) and pull Larry's protruding hair why
yelling "Come here, porcupine!" (see Geithner).<br /><br /><b>Larry: Turbo Timmy Geithner, </b>clearly
not the leader, clearly not the sharpest of the group, but follows
orders to the best of his stooge like ability. Plus Timmy has the Larry
porcupine. Notice Timmy keeps it trimmed so Moe... I mean Larry can't
get a painful handful.<br /><br /><b>Curly:</b> <b>Helicopter Ben Bernanke</b>, baldy head says it all. Curly the tragic figure and most loved of the stooges.<br /><br /><b>Shemp: Christina Romer,</b> look at the hair cut. That's a Shemp.<br /><br /><b>Obama: Ted Healy, </b>now
a lot of people think Obama IS one of the economic stooges. Obama is
the Ted Healy. He found the stooges, he brought them to the public, he
promoted them and he appears in a couple of their shorts. Short films,
not shorts. Ted Healy towers over the stooges physically, and though
the straight man, can slap the three of them around at will.<br /><b><br />Mr. Farrell then builds us a list of lists:</b><br /><br /><blockquote><b>So Wall Street will surrender nothing, and, therefore, every one of
Taleb's 10 Black Swans remains intact, a time bomb, a disaster waiting
to happen. Here's why:</b><br /></blockquote><blockquote><h3>BS-1.  Don't give the recovery to the same idiots who created the mess</h3><h3><b>Taleb was more colorful: "People who were driving a school bus
blindfolded (and crashed it), should never be given a new bus." There
were so many drivers it is "irresponsible and foolish to put our trust
in the ability of such experts to get us out of this mess." But we
have. And they will fail to create a "Black Swan-proof world."<br /></b></h3></blockquote><blockquote><h3>

			BS-2. Nothing should ever become too big to fail</h3><h3><b>Get rid of losers early, while small, warns Taleb. Unfortunately,
bankers are so greedy they're already spending millions on lobbyists
and political donations to do just the opposite. They love "big." So
count on endless loopholes undermining new regulations.</b><br /></h3>
								</blockquote><blockquote><h3>BS-3. Stop socialization of losses and privatization of gains</h3><h3><b>Taleb warns: We've "managed to combine the worst of capitalism and
socialism. In France in the 1980s, the socialists took over the banks.
In the U.S. in the 2000s, the banks took over the government." Only a
naive idealist would expect them to surrender this Black Swan: After
the next crash Wall Street will dump their losses on taxpayers (again).</b><br /></h3></blockquote><blockquote><h3>

			BS-4. Incentive bonuses are increasing America's financial risks</h3><h3><b>You wouldn't give incentives to the manager of a nuclear plant, says
Taleb. Incentives risk financial safety. "Bonuses do not accommodate
the hidden risks of blow-ups. It is the asymmetry of the bonus system
that got us here. No incentives without disincentives: capitalism is
about rewards and punishments, not just rewards." Sadly, Wall Street
greed demands huge bonuses. So no changes: This Black Swan also remains
as a WMD.</b><br /></h3></blockquote><blockquote><h3>

			BS-5. High-leveraged debt increases the danger of a massive meltdown</h3><h3><b>While past equity bubbles were "mild," future "debt bubbles are
vicious." Add highly leveraged debt, as we're doing now with bailouts
and stimulus spending, and you get "wild and dangerous gyrations and
leaves no room for error." But the Gang can't see it.</b><br /></h3></blockquote><blockquote><h3>

			BS-6. No more derivatives ... nobody understands these WMDs</h3><h3><b>Taleb warns: "Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they
come with a warning. ... Derivatives need to be banned because nobody
understands them and few are rational enough to know it. Citizens must
be protected from themselves, from bankers selling them 'hedging'
products, and from gullible regulators who listen to economic
theorists." </b></h3></blockquote>
								<b>Me</b>: Yeah I like this one:<br /><br /><blockquote><h3>BS-7. 'Restoring confidence' is for Ponzis, politicians and economists</h3><h3><b>Rumors are part of life, "governments cannot stop the rumors." If you
hear rhetoric about "restoring confidence" from politicians or
economists, they're hiding something.</b><br /></h3></blockquote><blockquote><h3>

			BS-8. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains</h3><h3><b>What a great metaphor: "Using leverage to cure the problems of too much
leverage is not homeopathy, it is denial. The debt crisis is not a
temporary problem, it is a structural one. We need rehab." And yet,
Obama's new bank regulatory reform package gives Wall Street access to
an endless supply of their favorite drugs: derivatives, debt and
bonuses.</b><br /></h3></blockquote><b>Me:</b> Painful condemnation here for the Privatize Social Security crowd:<br /><br /><blockquote><h3>

			BS-9. Never count on Wall Street advice or management for retirement</h3><h3><b>Wall Street hates Taleb for saying this: Markets are not "storehouses
of value," they lack "the certainties that normal citizens require."
But this Black Swan is Wall Street's "cash cow." They make hundreds of
billions delivering advice and skimming money under the guise of
managing our assets. They'll never give up this opportunity to steal
our money. </b></h3></blockquote>
								<b>Me:</b> Can a brother get some Glass Steagall up in here:<br /><br /><blockquote><h3>BS-10.  Let entrepreneurs, not bankers, take risks and run America <br /></h3><h3>&nbsp;<b>Taleb the idealist: "Finally, this crisis cannot be fixed with
makeshift repairs, no more than a boat with a rotten hull can be fixed
with ad-hoc patches. We need to rebuild the hull with new (stronger)
materials." Before Obama's reforms Taleb offered his own: We must help
"what needs to be broken break on its own, converting debt into equity,
marginalizing the economics and business school establishments,
shutting down the 'Nobel' in economics, banning leveraged buyouts,
putting bankers where they belong, clawing back the bonuses of those
who got us here, and teaching people to navigate a world with fewer
certainties."</b></h3></blockquote>I think Mr. Farrell's list about sums it up. Take us home Mr. Farrell:<br /><br /><blockquote><b>Remember Taleb's 10 Black Swans, because any one could trigger a
disaster. Yet sadly and unfortunately, we already know Wall Street
refuses to rebuild its rotting hull. Wall Street hates change. And is
now, like the Titanic before it, on a collision course that will sink
the good ship, the USS Utopia and its cargo of 10 beautiful black
swans, steaming into the great fog banks hiding a massive iceberg ...
the Great Depression 2.<span></span></b><br /></blockquote>Double ouch. And this is why Wall Street and the Financial industry
have bought your 

<span>politician </span> with a record $400 million in campaign
bribes... I mean contributions in the last 4 years. As Wall Street
knows money talks... and the American public can walk.<br /><br />
Back to math...<br />]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Ilargi: &quot;Green Shoot&quot; Nay Sayers at the NY Times?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/06/ilargi-green-shoot-nay-sayers.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.277240</id>
   
   <published>2009-06-28T18:32:42Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-06T22:36:21Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[ This is why we like Ilargi and Stoneleigh at the Automatic Earth:&nbsp;Is That the Sound of a Baton Dropping? "Ilargi: When the New York Times starts publishing articles on how bad the financial crisis really is, despite all the...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
   <category term="22476" label="David Goodstein" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22478" label="Green Shoots" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22480" label="Ilargi" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22482" label="Joseph Tainter" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="464" label="recession" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22484" label="Stoneleigh" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22486" label="The Automatic Earth" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="5787" label="unemployment" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[



<p>This is why we like Ilargi and Stoneleigh at the Automatic
Earth:</p><p><b><a href="http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-27-2009-is-that-sound-of-baton.html"><b>&nbsp;Is That the Sound of a Baton Dropping?</b></a></b></p>



<blockquote><p>"<b><i><span>Ilargi: </span></i></b>When
the New York Times starts publishing articles on how bad the financial crisis
really is, despite all the green recovery shooting stories sprouting from
government circles and media such as, among others, the New York Times, I'm
going to have to guess that it's official now."</p></blockquote>Ilargi is commenting on two NY Times financial reporters,
Floyd Norris and Bob Herbert. Herbert's op-ed <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/opinion/27herbert.html?_r=2">"No Recovery in Sight"</a>
and Norris' article "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/business/economy/27charts.html">Off the Charts: A Recession Measured by New-Home
Sales"</a> both appeared in June 26, 2009 in the NY Times online.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/business/economy/27charts.html"></a>



<p><b>Let us have Ilargi, a person with a written history of
clarity summarize this</b>:</p>



<blockquote>"Can the editorial staff wash their hands clean of
revered writers like Floyd Norris and Bob Herbert? Or should we perhaps look at
this from another angle? Is the Times changing its stance on the entire Obama
government politics? Is it going to give up the noble art of cheerleading? Is
that the sound of a baton dropping?<br /></blockquote>]]>
      <![CDATA[<blockquote>
Herbert's piece is entitled: "No Recovery in Sight". Some quotes:</blockquote>

<ul><ul><ul><li>There are now more than five
     unemployed workers for every job opening in the United States.</li><li>Economists are currently
     spreading the word that the recession may end sometime this year, but the
     unemployment rate will continue to climb. That's not a recovery. That's
     mumbo jumbo.</li><li>There were roughly seven
     million people officially counted as unemployed in November 2007, a month
     before the recession began. Now there are about 14 million. </li><li>By May 2009, [..] the
     total number of underutilized workers had increased dramatically from
     15.63 million to 29.37 million -- a rise of 13.7 million, or 88 percent.
     Nearly 30 million working-age individuals were underutilized in May 2009,
     the largest number in our nation's history".</li><li>Three-quarters of the workers
     let go over the past year were permanently displaced, as opposed to
     temporarily laid off. They won't be going back to their jobs when economic
     conditions improve."</li></ul></ul></ul><blockquote>



</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data">

</a></p>

<p><b>Me:
</b>Yeah, the problem with the BLS U3 unemployment measurement which is well
addressed at John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics:</p><p>



</p><p><a href="http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data">http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data</a></p>

<p>...
and we shall take some time in the future to document changes (manipulations)
in the measure of unemployment and statistical tampering in the future...</p>

<p><b>Back
to Ilargi:</b></p><blockquote><p>"Those
are serious points, and there's nothing green about them. They're also
bordering on a direct attack on everything rosy that Obama and his
administration have been claiming lately. They fall about 0.0001% short of
painting the president as a liar."</p></blockquote>



<p><b>Me:</b>
No mincing words or analysis with Mr. Ilargi...</p>

<blockquote><p>"Floyd Norris's "A Recession Measured by New-Home Sales", also
in today's edition of the Times, has this:</p></blockquote>

<blockquote><ul><li>There have been bad housing
     markets before, but never in post-World War II history has the market for
     new homes suffered as badly as it has in this decline...</li></ul></blockquote>

<p>(There is more, here)...</p>

<blockquote><ul><li>Of the 135,000 completed but
     unsold new homes at the end of May, nearly half had been sitting for a
     year or more. The median age of such homes was 11.5 months, an
     unprecedented figure."<br />

</li></ul></blockquote><p><b>Me:
Ilargi's punch line:</b></p>

<blockquote><p>"For
those among you who read websites like The Automatic Earth, there is nothing
here that wasn't already known and obvious. The same is not true for the
average reader of the New York Times. And that, when you come to think of it,
is completely insane. After all, why do people read a paper? To find out what's
going on, or to see confirmed that la-la land still exists?</p></blockquote>

<blockquote><p>These
numbers don't suddenly come falling out of the sky in broad daylight. They
merely depict an ongoing trend that is worsening fast. That last part is
temporarily hidden behind a $13.8 trillion veil, but all that has achieved is
for the worsening trendlines not to hit exponential territory. It hasn't
stopped the numbers themselves from deteriorating."</p></blockquote>

<p><b>Me:</b>
This is true. The numbers are posted and analyzed by numerous individuals, all
smarter in their fields, with more time, financial experience and writing
talent than I will ever posses, Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism, Tyler Durden at
Zero Hedge, Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker, Bill the Brain at Calculated
Risk...</p>

<p><b>Back
to Ilargi:</b></p>

<blockquote>"And
it should be clear that the next $13.8 trillion will be much harder to find.
And that it won't be able to stop the deterioration either. It will at best
halt the plunge in mid-air for another painfully expensive fleeting moment in
time.<br /></blockquote><blockquote>
People have a right to know what's truly going on in their societies, rather
than fall prey to the interests of politicians and financiers that are better
served by hiding what's real. The situation is about to get a whole lot worse,
and people deserve the right to make preparations for that as best they see
fit." <br /></blockquote>

<p><b>Me:</b>
See this story about Congress members on the House Financial Services Committee
make stock trades on banks beneficial to themselves in he midst of negotiating
bailout to those very same banks:</p><p><b>From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:</b></p>

<h3>Members of U.S. House Financial Services Committee snapped up or dumped
bank stocks as bottom fell out of market<br />

</h3><p><a href="http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/06/members_of_us_house_financial.html">http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/06/members_of_us_house_financial.html</a><br /></p>

<p><b>Back
to Ilargi:</b></p>

<blockquote><p>"The
ongoing refusal to inform them of what's real and what is not, perpetrated by
governments, media and industry, is a disgrace. It's not how a civilized
society treats its citizens. Perhaps the New York Times today put a first step
on the path to doing what needs to be done. Not that I'm not skeptical about
it."</p></blockquote>

<p><b>Me:</b>
Ouch...</p>

<p>Can
it be that Obama head economic stooge Larry "the Moe" Summers is
running out of "Green Shoot Lime" Obama Kool-Aid? Was it not just
last week that Moe and Larry (Summers and Geithner) were op-ed opining in the
Washington Post? Spent a lot of Kool-Aid on that one, boys?</p>



<p><b>Ilargi and Stoneleigh</b> <br /></p><p>Ilargi and Stoneleigh are realists. Formerly of<span>&nbsp; </span>"The Oil Drum", Ilargi cuts through
rhetoric daily while his writing partner Stoneleigh posts to the Daily Kos on
occasion: <br /></p>

<p><a href="http://stoneleigh.dailykos.com/">http://stoneleigh.dailykos.com/</a></p>



<p>Both are always worth reading... Ilargi's early 20th century
photos heading the blog appear to be from the Library of Congress. Those
history buffs out there will enjoy the photo slice of Americana. Those resource economics
officinatos will enjoy Ilgari's view that growth is not exponential and
unlimited. It performs more like Logistical Growth... you know, every environment
has a carry capacity that can not be exceeded?</p>



<p>It has often been my humble view that economists fail to
follow their own rules.... like the Law of Diminishing Returns. But then again I
wonder about calling a social study a social "science" when it takes
24 feet of black board to write a mathematical formula to describe an economic
principal. </p>



<p>Diminishing returns apply to more than the typical first
microeconomic course treatment. Imagine Ben Stein of the Ferris Bueller era... a
farmer plants an acre of corn. Plants his best acre, uses his best seed, puts
in his best effort and gets X amount of corn. So he plants a second acre
expecting 2X corn but the second acre produces less than X... </p>



<p>Why? He planted his second best acre, with the next best
available seed and now had to expend the effort on two acres instead of one....
Hence, diminishing marginal return for every additional unit of resource
employed. But debt and interest can grow exponentially for ever with out bound?
Economies can continue to grow at 3-5% on every economic forecast from the late
20th century until... well ... post September 2008, with out bound?</p><p>One of my few dumb jokes I lifted from some source somewhere:</p><blockquote><p>"The purpose of economic forecasting is to make astrology look good." Anonymous. <br /></p></blockquote><p>I will try to find the real author for credit...<br /></p>



<p>It just doesn't apply to acres of corn or industrial
production either. Think about it. </p>



<p>• We pay more and more money into education and get less out
of every additional dollar we pour in. </p>



<p>• We pour more and more money into health care and get less
out of every additional dollar we pour in. </p>



<p>&nbsp;• We pour more and more money into the military and get less
out of every additional dollar we pour in. </p>



<p>• We pour more and more money into law enforcement and get
less out of every additional dollar we pour in. </p>





<p>&nbsp;• We pour more and more money into financial regulation and
get less out of every additional dollar we pour<span></span><span> </span>in. </p>





<p>&nbsp;• We pour more and more money into the government in general
and get less out of every additional dollar<span> </span>we pour in.</p>



<p>This my friends, is the Law of Diminishing returns. Are
diminishing returns related to the complexity level a society is limited to? Is
a society's complexity limited by its technology?</p>



<p><b>As Stoneleigh pointed out in "40 Ways to Lose Your
Future," </b></p>



<p><a href="http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-17-2009-40-ways-to-lose-your.html">http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-17-2009-40-ways-to-lose-your.html</a></p>



<blockquote><p>&nbsp;" Hard limits to capital and energy will greatly reduce
socioeconomic complexity (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter"><b>Tainter</b></a>)"</p></blockquote>



<p><b>Me:</b> Stoneleigh is referring to Dr. Joseph Tainter,
anthropologist by degree, archeologist by specialization. Dr. Tainter's book
"The Collapse of Complex Societies" is a text book, but affordable, a
little dense but very informative. </p>



<p>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X">http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X</a></p>



<p>When Dr. Tainter states collapse, he does not mean collapse
like the Roman Empire specifically. Collapse
means a reduction in complexity with in the society... </p>



<p>Complexity is measured by the number of defined roles with
in the society. Societies run from groups, to clans, to chiefdoms to organized
modern societies. What separates us from a tribe or clan is giving up our
autonomy to a state or government. i.e. giving a government or state life and
death power over us. Like criminal laws, military conscription, execution for
desertion, etc. In these circumstances, we have surrendered the power over our
own life to the state. </p>



<p>Now count the roles, leader, food gatherer, hunter/self
defense member, child. Pretty simple. </p>



<p>Now think of all the occupations and roles in current US society,
from Wall Street scammer... I mean financier, to Congressional Aid, to Principal
Accounting Technician, to Program Administrative Analyst IV... well you get the
drift. Collapse can mean from some current 20k distinct role society... maybe
down to 10k roles. Maybe auto manufacturer and used mortgage salesman and mortgage
backed securities analyst fall by the wayside. </p>







<p>Would America
be worse off with 1 million less salesman all vying for the zero sum gain of
tricking you by hook or by crook to pay more for your mortgage than you
otherwise would if the truth be told?</p><p><b>You think that is a false analogy? Guess what? </b></p>



<p>6 out of 10 Americans did pay too much for mortgages between
2004 and the present than they had to if banks and mortgage brokers had been
forced to follow the laws on the books. And we won't even get into Wall
Street's role in these top down MBS frauds.</p>



<p>So, to Tainter, collapse means simplification usually due to
strategies for energy capture. In agrarian societies, how much energy in acres
of food production is required to support all of those who do not raise food to
feed themselves, but engage in other roles in society. That is how you measure
if a society has a successful strategy for energy capture. Does the society
have the ability to feed all the people necessary to run the society at its
complexity level that do not produce food and energy for say... heat. </p>



<p>It is viewed as progress that a small percentage of US society is
involved in food production and home heating so the rest of us can be involved
in more profitable pursuits for ourselves and then benefit our society with
further productivity and innovation. </p>



<p>But what if it takes 10 calories of fossil fuels to produce,
processes, refrigerate and truck to market one calorie of food?<span>&nbsp; </span>That is a pretty major net energy negative.
As long as there is easy to get cheap oil, then this system is economically
feasible. What happens when the cheap, easy, sweet, light crude diminishes and
we have to hunt from hear to the arctic looking for easy to refine non sour
crude? Can't just pump it out of McCamey Texas
anymore.</p>



<p>That is when the energy capture of food by the massive,
corporate, industrial, petro chemical industry becomes too difficult and non
economically sustaining. Dr. David Goodstein. Professor of Physics at CalTech
wrote a very readable brief book on the subject. Physicists tend to study
energy and work and all those mind numbing equations.</p>



<p><a href="http://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Edg/">http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/</a></p>



<p>The Book: "Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil"</p>



<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393326470">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393326470</a></p>



<p>If you prefer videos:</p>



<p><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5763291727572188135">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5763291727572188135</a></p>



<p>Like I say, the guy studies energy, work and its usage.
Goodstein, Tainter, Ilargi and Stoneleigh... what I learned during summer
vacation...last year.</p>



<p>Back to math...



</p>



]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>&quot;Ruth Madoff forfeits assets, left with $2.5 million&quot; WHAT??</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2009/06/ruth-madoff-forfeits-assets-le.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/problem_is//9990.277176</id>
   
   <published>2009-06-27T03:42:17Z</published>
   <updated>2009-12-06T22:38:11Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[ From Reuters 6/26/09: "Ruth Madoff forfeits assets, left with $2.5 million" &nbsp;WHAT??? "Court documents filed on Friday night showed Ruth Madoff, 68, who has said nothing in public about her husband's crimes in the six months since his arrest,...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>Problem Is</name>
      
   </author>
   
   <category term="10857" label="Madoff" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="6097" label="Wall Street" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/problem_is/">
      <![CDATA[





<p>From
Reuters 6/26/09:</p>



<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE55Q0BF20090627"><b>"Ruth
Madoff forfeits assets, left with $2.5 million"</b></a><br /></p>

<p>&nbsp;WHAT???</p>

<p>"Court
documents filed on Friday night showed Ruth Madoff, 68, who has said nothing in
public about her husband's crimes in the six months since his arrest, would be
left with $2.5 million in cash."</p>

<p>Our
DOJ prosecutors are as corrupt and useless as the SEC, our Congress people,
Dodd, Shumer et al.?</p>

<p>Now
of course Ruth Madoff should receive a fair trial, but she was the bookkeeper
for Bernie from the start. There is strong evidence her father was in on the
Madoff frauds from way back when.</p>

<p>So
what part of her inheritance from her father and "her" money is not
traceable right back to Bernie's crimes?</p>

<p>So
where are the indictments against the brother, sons, nieces and Ruth?</p>

<p>In
a related article it was reported the Madoff's relinquished claims to loans...
does that mean the millions "loaned" to Mark, Andrew and Peter for
property purchases are not viewed as payola in the scheme?</p>

<p>"The
Madoffs will also lose their interest in "tens of millions of
dollars" in loans they had made to family, employees and friends."</p>

<p>Read
this completely misleading CNN title:</p>



<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/26/news/economy/madoff_sentence/?postversion=2009062622"><b>"Madoff
reduced to nothing"</b><br /></a></p>

<p>Ruth's
$2.5 million ain't nothing you morons at CNN...</p>

<p>Add
the useless Corporate News media to the list.</p>

<p>Prosecutors
have a lot of explaining to do. Our federal government teeters on the edge of
both financial and moral/legal bankruptcy. <br /></p>

<p>20
years ago, within a year of Michael Milken's junk bond fraud implosion, he
faced a 98 count felony indictment.</p>

<p>Wall
St. has perpetrated fraud on an exponentially
larger scale and we see NO INDICTMENTS of the MBS junk bond crowd. Not one. In
fact the opposite. Wall Street received the greatest asset shift from the US tax payer in
human history as a reward for their crimes courtesy of our elected
representatives.</p><b>Can
any one say "Regulatory Capture" ?</b><br /><br />



<p>These
issues are not unrelated. It has taken the Fed 20 years to become completely
corrupt and ineffective in law enforcement against the "HAVES" as
opposed to the have nots... yet we the latter pick up the tab. <br /></p>

]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

</feed>

 

