patrick.net

sbh says

The limiting factor is the amount of $ the Koch brothers are willing to expend in order to fund the "grassroot" sod of the Tea Party.

The KBs don't want the gov to default on their asses.
But how much control do they have on their beast?

Once they unleash it, it's hard to bring it back.

I drove through Indiana when I was a teenager. It to me was sort of like Ohio: a whole lot of nothing. It had to be about the most boring state I've ever been to.

bgamall4 says

egads101 says

I'd say the people who dropped low are the ones threatening the economy...

The biggest threat to the economy are the banks. They are pumping housing bubbles to give the illusion of wealth to people whose wages are decreasing. It is a massive scam.

Banks can't do that without low interest rates created by QE and fed bond buying.

So what you are really saying is that the federal government is the biggest threat to the economy. Which I agree with.

HydroCabron says

Uh, Boehner is trying to cut spending and taxes, as Reagan would do.

revisionist history once again. Reagan only cut taxes, not spending. Were you not aware of where the first 4 trillion dollars of debt came from?

bob2356 says

HydroCabron says

Uh, Boehner is trying to cut spending and taxes, as Reagan would do.

revisionist history once again. Reagan only cut taxes, not spending. Were you not aware of where the first 4 trillion dollars of debt came from?

We are living in the end times, so I think you may live to regret these thoughts.

There is ample proof that God had more than one son, and that His second one was given unto us to assume the Presidency in 1981. Heed these words, ignorant liberal: what Reagan said and believed probably came from on high!

bob2356 says

HydroCabron says

Uh, Boehner is trying to cut spending and taxes, as Reagan would do.

revisionist history once again. Reagan only cut taxes, not spending. Were you not aware of where the first 4 trillion dollars of debt came from?

Not possible.

Reagan would never have done that. That would have been a doctrinal deviation.

sbh says

We'll see if the Koch brothers let him keep his job.

The Kock brothers also need to grow a pair. Again, no pun intended.

I betbgamall4 says

HydroCabron says

Not possible.

Reagan would never have done that. That would have been a doctrinal deviation.

But that is what happened....so what do you mean?

I bet you believe that Bush's tax cuts didn't generate an economic boom either, and that Saddam didn't have WMD.

You probably don't even remember John Wayne and Reagan, fighting the Japs at Tarawa!

Politicians are puppets. TBTF are the Puppet Masters.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/7TgNCoVmziQ

Boehner is a traitor to the Patriotic,Conservative,Small Govt., Supply Side,Tea Party controlled,Ted Cruz led Republican Party.

Ohio,recall him now before he destroys all Right Wing Nuts.
Recall all those that cast treasonous votes for an increase in the debt ceiling. Hope furloughed Reps are enjoying no income.

Call it Crazy says

Checks will go out because they will have over 40 Million seniors pissed as hell, as well as all those senior's kids.... There won't be enough bullet proof walls for Obama and congress to hide behind if they piss off that group.

I'm pretty sure there are many old baggers farts out there who are all in favor of NOT raising the debt ceiling without even realizing that this could affect their SS checks.

Wouldn't a tax cut for the ranger fix this?

Fuck that tea-tard. He was trying to grandstand and run into a real American, as opposed to his sorry excuse showing for a human being.

It's O.K. - When the Smithsonian reopens, they'll have another extinct animal they can put on display.

What do you have against syphilitic rats to punish them like that?

That face would require at least two weeks of heavy marinade.

I think he was demanding that the ranger marinade his face with muff if she wants her paycheck back.

During the first seven years of his political career, from 2003 to February 2010, he has raised $6.4 million, most of these funds coming from the oil and gas, real estate, commercial banking and crop production/processing industries, and leadership PACs.[28][29] His largest corporate and association donors have been the National Auto Dealers Association, National Association of Home Builders, Quantum Energy Partners, the National Beer Wholesalers Association and the National Association of Realtors.[30]

You can't expect too much from anybody sponsored by banking and real estate ;)

PCGyver says

Al Gore and put SS in a "lock box"

How about mandatory personal 401K retirement accounts instead...
had everyone converted to a personal retirement account, there wouldnt
be any SS Govt debt...or Lock Box... would there ? you would know exactly how much
you had banked away.. and the Govt didnt have any claim to it...

you can therefore put into stock index or buy US treasuries if you like.. or keep
it all in cash.. without any risk.

Call it Crazy says

Yeah, I heard the same scare tactics about the S.S. checks the last debt ceiling debate, and the one before that, and the one before that, yada, yada, yada..

Did the S.S. checks stop those last times??? Didn't think so....

LOL! so right...

You are all wrong damn it, shadow inventories, zombie inventories, vampire inventories just means it's October and Halloween is just around the corner, now if you don't mind, I need a Monster drink

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5018520088413432&w=152&h=186&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

Herpes?

Zombies and vampires make for a great halloween marketing campaign, but there is absolutely nothing new in this report. Evictions do take at least half the time the property is bank owned. Any REO broker can confirm this.

Mark Hanson and I originally defined shadow inventory in 2008 as an excess of bank owned homes - which was true then, but was no longer true in California by the end of 2009. Soon after others picked up on the term and continually expanded it to include those in foreclosure but not yet foreclosed on, those who were delinquent, those who were underwater, and even those who wanted to sell but not at anything less than 2006 prices. Five years later the only thing that is clear is that there will NOT be a wave of foreclosures, or any real threat of shadow inventory hitting the market. There should have been a wave, but bankers and politicians changed the rules so that there wouldn't possibly be one.

If you recall there were alarming reports earlier this year by both RealtyTrac and CoreLogic that ONLY 10-15% of bank owned homes were listed for sale. Everyone jumped up and down about the pending disaster when the other 90% hit the market. Only problem was that they all knew nothing about the post foreclosure process. It typically takes the bank 9 months to sell the property after foreclosure (we track it on every property in CA), and most are on the market for less than 30 days. 1 divided by 9 is 11%. Thus 10-15% is perfectly normal. The story of a coming flood got a lot of traction and was great marketing, but was also completely wrong. This is exactly the same.

Bellingham Bill says

Wonder what his district looks like.

Ah, rural.

He won with no opposition in 2010, but it'd probably be easy for the Tea Party to primary him out, like they did to Lugar next door.

Boehner's platform is probably

1) Jesus wants us to bomb Iran

2) End Times!

3) Read My Bible: No New Taxes

4) Promise No Black People Will Move Into Your Neighborhood

5) Sports: love em!

mell says

During the first seven years of his political career, from 2003 to February 2010, he has raised $6.4 million, most of these funds coming from the oil and gas, real estate, commercial banking and crop production/processing industries, and leadership PACs.[28][29] His largest corporate and association donors have been the National Auto Dealers Association, National Association of Home
Builders, Quantum Energy Partners, the National Beer Wholesalers Association and the National Association of Realtors.[30]

An example of people with money buying political power, so they can rule over people without money.

Sounds like libertarian paradise to me.

Why do you complain?

HydroCabron says

Wouldn't a tax cut for the ranger fix this?

Only if the ranger is a billionaire.

rootvg says

You need to get out of Lafayette once in awhile. The world's not all about huge houses on hills, cardiologists and Berkeley academics that live in them and cute little college girls who think they can save the world running around at Whole Foods in Danskos without makeup.

You should come over to Danville. You need re-education.

Actually, you need the re-education. I would have expected that the 2012 election would have taught you what the world really is. It's not full of folks like you...

freak80 says

HydroCabron says

Wouldn't a tax cut for the ranger fix this?

Only if the ranger is a billionaire.

But a tax cut for any billionaire would work, wouldn't it?

For that billionaire will use the extra money to create a job for the ranger!

Plus, if government would just get out of the way, private interests would reopen the park. Soon we'll have the Staples Air and Space Museum, and the Petco Lincoln Memorial!

freak80 says

An example of people with money buying political power, so they can rule over people without money.

You can fix that with campaign finance reform if you wanted to, not with taxes, esp. with not with taxes for incomes starting at 200K, try the 0.1% instead. However be prepared for capital flight.freak80 says

Sounds like libertarian paradise to me.

This is the result of current politics since inception, so far almost exclusively democratic and republican politics. I prefer a 'Bourgeois liberalism' with a, ample and wealthy middle class.

freak80 says

Why do you complain?

I'm not complaining about the shutdown, only about this guy's hypocrisy, or maybe rather senile ignorance ;)

HydroCabron says

For that billionaire will use the extra money to create a job for the ranger!

...in Pakistan.

mell says

You can fix that with campaign finance reform

LOL. Good one. ;-)

mell says

esp. with not with taxes for incomes starting at 200K, try the 0.1% instead.

I completely agree. $200k is chump-change and nowhere near enough to buy a politician. My beef isn't with them, it's with the multi-billionaires who DO have enough $ to buy politicians. I don't hate wealth (unless it was ill-gotten), just the mis-use of it.

mell says

I prefer a 'Bourgeois liberalism' with a, ample and wealthy middle class.

How are we going to get an ample and wealthy middle class with libertarian policies? With unregulated capitalism, the wealth "trickles up" to the top 0.1% (it's been happening for the last 30 years). Said wealth is then used to buy politicians to further cement their power at the expense of nearly everyone else below them. Everybody else is stuck with stagnant or declining wages, heavier work-loads, reduced job security, worse safety & environmental
standards, etc.

History proves me correct. I don't want to go back to the Gilded Age. The top 0.1% sure does. Unless you are a member of the top 0.1%, why would you support such a policy of unregulated capitalism?

It's nothing personal. I just don't understand it.

freak80 says

How are we going to get an ample and wealthy middle class with libertarian policies? With unregulated capitalism, the wealth "trickles up" to the top 0.1% (it's been happening for the last 30 years). Said wealth is then used to buy politicians to further cement their power at the expense of nearly everyone else below them. Everybody else is stuck with stagnant or declining wages, heavier work-loads, reduced job security, worse safety & environmental

standards, etc.

I'd argue that you have seen the wealth trickle up because of regulations. The Fed, the MBS buying, interest rate fixing, those are all regulatory actions. I am not advocating getting rid of all regulations, in fact one of the most important principles to adhere to is the rule of law, that means to apply and enforce existing laws and regulations, even if I don't agree with them. None of that happened during the crisis, the rule of law was abolished, no prosecutions for existing regulations took place and new regulations in disguise "for the better of main street" were enacted without much legitimacy, enriching the crony capitalist sectors even further. The wealth disparity was greatly reduced during the crisis, and then resumed its rise again with the bailouts/regulations. I am in favor of simple banking regulations as I have laid out before, not a society completely free of regulations. Btw. nothing taken personally, I like the discourse here on patnet, no matter if anybody agrees with me or not.

mell says

I'd argue that you have seen the wealth trickle up because of regulations.

Ah, the standard libertarian line. It's also the standard Republican line.

It's also bullshit, historically. There were huge disparities in wealth before safety and environmental regulations. Rockefeller and Carnegie didn't amass their vast fortunes from government regulations, they did it by working people to death for in hellish conditions for very low wages.

Your ignorance of history is alarming and dangerous. It may be a cliche, but it's true: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

thomaswong.1986 says

... you mean they are generously allowed to be extorted by organized crime from back home ...

extortion, human trafficking, drug trafficking kidnapping, murder etc etc. It is not possible to have illegal aliens contribute to so called Social Security.

Human trafficking second only to drugs in Mexico

Jesus H Christ, the typical illegal immigrant isn't a drug dealer or sex-slave dealer, s/he's the in the fields picking your food, manicuring a garden, sweating in a kitchen, etc. Of course they are criminals (by definition, since they don't have a legal right to be here), but they are also the hardest working and least rewarded segment of the labor market.

mell says

None of that happened during the crisis, the rule of law was abolished, no prosecutions for existing regulations took place and new regulations in disguise
"for the better of main street" were enacted without much legitimacy, enriching the crony capitalist sectors even further. The wealth disparity was greatly reduced during the crisis, and then resumed its rise again with thebailouts/regulations.

Do you think that *might* have something to do with the existing wealth concentration that allows the crony capitalists to own our government in the first place? How would libertarianism solve that problem? Lower taxes?? Less regulation?? How is less regulation going to help anyone *but* the crony capitalists?? It would only enrich them further, at the expense of everyone else!

I would advocate higher taxes on the crony capitalists. And/or a labor movement to give the 99% more bargaining power. Neither are libertarian solutions.

freak80 says

they did it by working people to death for in hellish conditions for very low wages.

I have not encountered any modern libertarian who is arguing for endangering workers lives in hellish conditions. Minimum wage is an entirely different topic and even "leftist" (for lack of a better term) patnetters have argued for and against it. Outside of union agreements (which are binding by law), Germany does not have a minimum wage regulation, did you know that (you can sue in court and may win though if the judge decides that it is "slave-work")?

freak80 says

There were huge disparities in wealth before safety and environmental regulations.

Again, I am not arguing against the necessity environmental/safety regulations. How do you explain the drastically declining wealth disparity during the 2008 crisis and the resume of its steady climb afterwards?

freak80 says

How is less regulation going to help anyone *but* the crony capitalists??

It depends on the regulations, a lot of regulations limit competition and skew the playing fields against small businesses, that is intentional. If you need an army of lawyers to comply with very complex laws you can be bankrupt before your small business ever had a chance to take off.

Fire those 800,000 govt employees or cut ALL public employee wages and benefits by 5-10% across the board every year for the next five years. Public employee wages and benefits are bankrupting USA.

To be fair, I wouldn't call MoJo an unbiased source either.

But at least it's a good counterweight to the overwhelming influence of AM radio and Fox News.

FortWayne says

I'm perfectly fine when government leaves me alone.

...to be enslaved by the top 0.1%.

How is the gub'mint not leaving you alone? I must say, the government doesn't really bother me. Unless I try to rob a bank or something...

FortWayne says

Jealousy is what liberals have, constantly "tax the haves" and give it to the "have nots".

Fear is what I have, not jealousy. I fear the next generation becoming slaves to a permanent aristocracy. If that makes me a "goddam liberal" then so be it.