This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Local Governments To Cut 500,000 People In 2010 And 2011, As $400 Billion Budget Shortfall Brings State Economies To A Halt

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Ever wonder why according to the latest economic poll published by Reuters earlier the general public's satisfaction with Obama's handling of the economy is deteriorating faster than any other issue? (not to mention that 46% of Americans believe Obama is not focused enough on job creation, and that 72% of republicans say they are certain to vote at the November congressional elections versus 49% of democrats). A part of the answer comes courtesy of a new study produced by National League of
Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National
Association of Counties titled simply enough: "Local Governments Cutting Jobs and Services: Job losses projected to approach 500,000", showed local governments moved to cut
the equivalent of 8.6 percent of their workforces from 2009 to
2011. As a result of local government cutbacks, almost 500,000 people will lose their jobs, and the total will likely rise. The summary of the report attached below, is particularly grim: "Over the next two years, local tax bases will likely suffer from depressed property values, hard-hit household incomes and declining consumer spending.
Further, reported state budget shortfalls for 2010 to 2012 exceeding $400 billion will pose a significant threat to funding for local government programs. In this current climate of fiscal distress, local governments are forced to eliminate both jobs and services." If Americans are dissatisfied with Obama's handling of the economy now, just until 2012.

More from Bloomberg:

While a separate report by the National Conference of State Legislatures today said U.S. state revenue is recovering from the drop in tax collections caused by the 2007 recession and the slow pace of job growth since, the greatest blow to local governments will be felt from now through 2012, the local groups said.

They called on Congress to pass a bill that would provide $75 billion in the next two years to local governments and community-based groups to stoke job growth and forestall deeper cuts.

Such a move may face political obstacles. Governors have appealed to Congress to extend additional aid to cover the cost of providing health care under Medicaid, the state-run program for the poor. The proposal stalled in the Senate, where the Republican minority has raised concern about the size of the federal deficit.

Full report that somehow made it through the tractor beam clutches of the propaganda death star.

 

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 12:44 | Link to Comment WineSorbet
WineSorbet's picture

Separation of corporation and state is the only thing that will save us.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 12:48 | Link to Comment DrLamer
DrLamer's picture

Nop. No "thing" will save you. The "things" went too far.

Pray.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:39 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

+1. According to your junkers, apparently there is still hope. Do they still think the Gummit can stimulate jobs, and create wealth by stealing from the productive, and by stifling innovation in favor of entrenched coporate behemoths?

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 00:14 | Link to Comment DrLamer
DrLamer's picture

Regardless of what is discussed here and there, Mr. Big O is not an expert on economics.  Big O will do whatever he will be told by *David Axelrod* and his budies from

AKP&D Message and Media

:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Axelrod

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKP%26D_Message_and_Media

Born February 22, 1955 (1955-02-22) (age 55)
Lower East Side, Manhattan, New York
Political party Democratic Spouse(s) Susan Landau Children Lauren Axelrod, Michael Axelrod, Ethan Axelrod Alma mater University of Chicago Occupation Senior Advisor to President Obama Religion

Judaism

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:22 | Link to Comment DrLamer
DrLamer's picture

After flood (limited, like in paganistic voodooistic New Orleans, about 100m high) the rest of the un-uNited States will be transformed into a new society, based on a new law. It will be done in a very, very unusual way. Unfortunatelly, (1) even if to start tomorrow, it will take 30 years or longer; (2) the group of The-Resposible-Persons-not-from-this-world see no reason to start this transformation at all. US citizens are pagans.

That is why:

Pray.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:50 | Link to Comment dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

your religion stole many of the pagan rituals..  i guess it didn't have any legs of its own

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 17:53 | Link to Comment still kicking
still kicking's picture

does that change the message?  it's about faith not symbols, relics or rituals.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 19:02 | Link to Comment Shortbus Bully
Shortbus Bully's picture

If a religion has to assimilate local religions in order to assimilate local populations then I'd bet it's own message really ain't all that great.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:20 | Link to Comment Nacho.Libre
Nacho.Libre's picture

Ok ZH community, what's your solution?  Let's get some things going...

http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/state-budget-fix-what-would-you-do

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:59 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Solutions. Soooo 2007.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:18 | Link to Comment Cursive
Cursive's picture

@WaterWings

Well played.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:49 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

If there IS any solution it's "Get thee to the farm."

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:40 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

++ a garden

the only "solution" is taking responsibility - for yourself, your loved ones, and anyone else you trust.

everything else is hot air.

(and best start today, you're behind schedule)

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 11:24 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

No kidding around about that. The only savior is storable food for the transition - you can barter the excess for what you forgot back in the city; if someone else stocked up whatever that might be, like tampons - don't forget those. If you are learning when it counts you can reduce your chances of survival by at least one order of magnitude.

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 16:54 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

+ *vigorous nods* 

mentioning "tampons" is a popular theme here. . . I know it's often "jokey" and I usually just pass on responding, but what the hell, here goes. . .

commercially produced tampons use dioxins and artificial fibers that can leave residue threads behind causing many internal problems, including toxic shock syndrome. . . the idea of using "bleach" internally is not one I entertain nor recommend. . .

research has shown "menstrual huts" were historically common, and sometimes gapped floors allowed for bleeding onto straw, fibers, soil, etc. which was eventually used to fertilise the fields (of course, people were less toxic then, minus pharmaceuticals, etc.). . . if you are at all curious, this is an interesting thread with good links:

http://greenthumbs.tribe.net/thread/58a9da21-8393-4f89-9278-61cbafb5eaa2

(you need to know I'm hesitating over the "save" button. . . lol)

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:14 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I admire your moxie, but nothing short of torches and pitchforks will do the job.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 12:46 | Link to Comment docj
docj's picture

No, no, no Tyler.  This is all the Republicans fault.

After all, they (allegedly) won't let Barry prod Uncle Sugar to borrow another $1T Bennie Bucks to bail out the states and cities (and their public employee unions).  So you see, if those mean old racists would just let Turbo Timmy borrow more Sugar from the ChiComs then this would be all good.

Think I'm kidding?  This is essentially Team HopeyChangey's playbook for 2012.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:19 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I'm confused, doesn't the 500,000 jobs represent largess that would be removed anyway if the conservatives prune the extra expenses?  Are you suggesting that the republicans will restore those jobs and the democrats are bad for letting them wither?

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:27 | Link to Comment chistletoe
chistletoe's picture

the republicans are just chomping at the bit

to create a bunch of new new jobs in some exciting localities...

 

....in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Venzuela, Cuba, Mexico ....

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:25 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

Morticians and Gravediggers.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:44 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

magicians and mortitians

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:41 | Link to Comment docj
docj's picture

What's to be confused about?  Not to be snarky, but I'm confused as to how you're confused.

Looks like I hacked-off some Axelturfers, though (4, to be precise, at the time of this last edit).  Which is always good.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:06 | Link to Comment perchprism
perchprism's picture

 

You're almost right.  What's going to happen is that we taxpayers get to bailout the states like California and Illinois so they can keep their civil service work force intact.

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:10 | Link to Comment RKDS
RKDS's picture

Here's the thing alot of people who've never worked in gofernment always seem to miss:

There's an awful lot of waste in government but cutting all the regular employees like some of you austerity nuts want won't even put a dent in it.  Like in any large organization, the waste is at the top.  It's in legislative budgets, ruling class perks, no-bid contracts, no-work crony appointments, federal mandates, social engineering programs, pork projects, tax breaks/subsidies, etc.

Just using Pennsylvania as an example, employees and pensions made up less than $2 billion of a $30 billion budget.  I can't even begin to detail the fraud and abuse and stupidity that sucks up the other $28 billion.  Millions in legislative slush funds, grade schools with 10 principals, paying 5 times the market price for computer equipment, brushing welfare fraud under the rug, handouts to major league sports teams, the list is a mile long.

And absolutely NONE of it will be solved by firing normal state workers en masse.  You'll pay through the nose for no services whatsoever.  And your invincible and pure "private" business, the one that sells to government or its employees and retirees?  Right down the tubes even faster.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:30 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

But you're far and away too rational.

The tips of the spears must be trimmed; police, firefighters, EMS, etc., so that services are curtailed clearly displaying to John Q. Taxpayer that the Powers That Be are in dire straits, there Can be No Further Cuts. 

Indeed, the Only Catharsis is Higher Taxes, Mr. Middle Class. 

For the waste and abuse, the doling out of public monies by the politicians to friends, relatives and campaign donors Must Be Preserved at All Cost.  It Shall Not Be Stopped.  It shall be Campaigned About, Spoken of, Debated, but Cannot Be Stopped.   

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:13 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

You can't even object to an order from a uniformed thug, unlawful or not, without fear of being beaten to a pulp or charged with felonies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHoLmQpWwxc

This one is long but worth it if you want to see the current mentality. Obey your masters!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wKRKGqYZjI

Tazed! This kind of stuff is all over YouTube - what fraction of reality is it? No wonder it's a felony in three states to film uniformed thugs using excessive, unlawful force:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ7IilhFG2o

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 09:31 | Link to Comment Chunkton
Chunkton's picture

I think being tazed is a small price to pay to be able live in the greatest country in the history of the universe, you should be grateful. Being taxed into poverty is a blessing, all those public workers being paid like millionaires adds to consumer consumption which is what made this great country great.

Sending your children to be slaughtered in foreigb wars or then having the opportunity for them to slaughter others not only builds backbone but is blessed by God, who wants all non-believers dead. Don't pay attention to the other religions that also want all non-believers dead as they are the spawn of Satan and not to be trusted.

What ever happened to just looking sfter your own country and helping its true friends, as opposed to be  a world power for the benefit of...

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:27 | Link to Comment Cursive
Cursive's picture

@RKDS

Very true.  I particularly like the no-bid contracts as an area of low-hanging fruit ripe for the picking.  Most pro-market people I run into don't seem to understand that the government is so pervasive that a large portion of a company's revenue is dependent on government.  The government is into everything and completely distorts the free market.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:44 | Link to Comment docj
docj's picture

I completely agree on the state level.  On the local level though it's entirely headcount based (something like 75% of local budgets are salaries and benefits).

Thing is you could reduce much of that without laying-off a single person.  Look at the number of "cirriculum coordinators" there are in the school system, for example.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:00 | Link to Comment technovelist
technovelist's picture

Hmm, it seems to me that if all of the state workers were laid off, there would be no one left to spend the money.

Hey, it's worth a try!

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:18 | Link to Comment Econolingus
Econolingus's picture

Riiiiiight...

None of the current problems existed before Obama took office.  Then suddenly on 1/20/09, everything went to hell.

Obama has certainly exacerbated a bad situation.  But let's be real about where the troubles started and bring Greenspan (bubble-mania) and Bush/Cheney (reduced revenue/increased spending) into your mental model, shall we?

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:48 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

it took both criminal parties to get here. That's why electing either is a pointless act.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:26 | Link to Comment Translational Lift
Translational Lift's picture

Do you prefer Regular Republican crooks or Fascist Democratic crooks??

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 19:18 | Link to Comment Shortbus Bully
Shortbus Bully's picture

Each party represents a side of the despotic state coin.  Republicans represent social control (PATRIOT act, Defense of Marriage act etc) and Democrats represent economic control.  Each party is instrumental in the metamorphosis to total despotism.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:43 | Link to Comment docj
docj's picture

None of the current problems existed before Obama took office.

Uh, I never said that.

Obama has certainly exacerbated a bad situation.  But let's be real about where the troubles started and bring Greenspan (bubble-mania) and Bush/Cheney (reduced revenue/increased spending) into your mental model, shall we?

Add Billy J Clinton and Phil Gramm to this and I agree completely.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:55 | Link to Comment dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

bring Jimmy Carter back... just to piss off all the fat cats

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 04:58 | Link to Comment Moneygrove
Moneygrove's picture

+ the 5.5 trillion bush spent on what ????

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 06:14 | Link to Comment docj
docj's picture

You know, I'm old enough to remember just how much the late-70's sucked.

Pass.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:11 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

I believe that most here would agree the slippery slope saw footprints in 1913 with the creation of the FED.

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 06:12 | Link to Comment docj
docj's picture

That would include me.

I believe a truly unvarnished history is going to be particularly unkind to Sir Alan, however.

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 06:14 | Link to Comment docj
docj's picture

dup

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 12:47 | Link to Comment economicmorphine
economicmorphine's picture

8.6% sounds like a good start.  Why stop there?  Cities and states could be flush if they made 25% cuts the target!

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:30 | Link to Comment mnevins2
mnevins2's picture

And how many of these job cuts could be avoided if the present employees made less and  had less generous retirement benefits?  Will this be done? NOT if the union leadership, which is generally the sr employees (and thus could give a rat's ass about the jr employees - they just want their pension $$$$) have anything to do with this, and so this common-sense solution doesn't have much of a chance at all.

Oh yes, find a way to reduce the present pensions above a certain limit and the upcoming one for the village mgr and his cronies in Bell, CA!

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:39 | Link to Comment Bohica
Bohica's picture

Hey, no sweat on those pensions.  They all gonna earn 8.0% - 8.5%/year as far as the eye can see.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:43 | Link to Comment TrulyStupid
TrulyStupid's picture

Yes, let's cancel social security payouts, fire government employees, cut the minimum wage, raise the salaries and benefits to members of congress, cut taxes and print money to make up the budgetary deficit.  More trickle down economics in action!

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:24 | Link to Comment midtowng
midtowng's picture

+1

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:43 | Link to Comment mnevins2
mnevins2's picture

"Yes, let's cancel social security payouts, fire government employees, cut the minimum wage, raise the salaries and benefits to members of congress, cut taxes and print money to make up the budgetary deficit.  More trickle down economics in action!"

No, why don't we reform social security, review govt employmnent - including salary and benefits, allow the states to determine their minimum wage, legislate that congressional districts be determined such as Iowa does their's, reform and review both federal taxes AND spending in order to stop stealing from future generations (to pay for today's baby boomers - which I am one) and focus more on private sector growth rather than public sector growth?

Bush and the Republican majority failed to do this last decade, but Obama and the Dem majority promised to do this with their fillibuster-proof majority - and never really meant it. We need divided govt and I hope that we'll obtain it in the next election.

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 19:29 | Link to Comment midtowng
midtowng's picture

"We need divided govt and I hope that we'll obtain it in the next election."

 We already have a divided government. What we are going to get with the next election is a majority of Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats. Thus we will return to the policies of Dubya.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:13 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Also, add the following amendment to the US Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of Production and Trade."

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:25 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Oh, great.  One more amendment to be ignored.

Wonder what "make no law" means in Washington, DC?  Nothing.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:17 | Link to Comment RKDS
RKDS's picture

Hey, will you take a 20% pay cut or are you another one of those "productive" day traders we just can't do without?  Union members aren't the only ones with inflated senses of self-worth and entitlement you know.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:22 | Link to Comment Econolingus
Econolingus's picture

Foolish.  Day traders live and die by their decisions, risking their own capital.  Union members live by threat and extortion, greed-grabbing taxpayer monies and complaining when elected officials actually have the "gall" to stand-up and represent the voters.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:30 | Link to Comment Translational Lift
Translational Lift's picture

And hire the "less fortunate" at minimum wage to walk the picket lines for them.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:35 | Link to Comment Mr Creosote
Mr Creosote's picture

You forgot to add "non-union member" after "less fortunate".

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 07:46 | Link to Comment -Michelle-
-Michelle-'s picture

I should start my own union, The National Association of Picket-Liners.  The unions will have to hire my people and pay union wages and benefits.  I think it could be a growth industry.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 12:49 | Link to Comment chinaguy
chinaguy's picture

Based on only 270 responses & most of those from the more distressed states. Sounds as if they were talking their books to get more aid money. I'd take this with a few grains of salt.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:15 | Link to Comment faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

So...the 500,000 job loss is untrue? I mean obviously it's an estimate, but how far off could it be? Do you doubt that unemployment is hitting the local public sector as well as private?

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:37 | Link to Comment ZakuKommander
ZakuKommander's picture

Indeed.  And what's the big deal about 500,000?  We see that number every Thursday morning.  

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:42 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

OH Chinaguy I see, there really are no job losses from massively bloated and bankrupt state worker roles? Yea sure man, all is well, buy stocks.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:37 | Link to Comment chinaguy
chinaguy's picture

Keep repeating: "I will not respond to trolls", "I will not respond to trolls","I will not respond to trolls","I will not respond to trolls","I will not respond to trolls","I will not respond to trolls"......

 

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:47 | Link to Comment chinaguy
chinaguy's picture

Folks, don't get your panties all in a wad. I'm not saying there are not considerable layoffs & consolidation in local & state governments....and more to come.

I would however suggest, that if you don't want to get flattened (again) by the next big wave, that you take it on yourselves to analyze all data for yourselves.

What are there something like 3,000 counties & 2,000 cities in this total pool...so...they get responses from something like 5% of them...the pool is skewed to the more distressed states (look at the data) and then they come up with a number. GIGO

Do a bit of math and analysis (if you are able) before making foolish statements.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 20:43 | Link to Comment piceridu
piceridu's picture

Dude where do you live? The majority of states and munis are living off fumes.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 23:26 | Link to Comment dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

exactly..  here in PA, our capitol ironically purchased a waste incinerator which became the waste that incinerated the budget

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/Harrisburgs_choice_Sell_parks_or_go_bankrupt.html

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 07:40 | Link to Comment chinaguy
chinaguy's picture

Keep repeating: "I will not respond to trolls", "I will not respond to trolls","I will not respond to trolls","I will not respond to trolls","I will not respond to trolls","I will not respond to trolls"......

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 12:50 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

Illinois has $5 billion in unpaid bills. Some dating to December 2009. http://illinoisisbroke.com/newsitem.aspx?id=236

Class sizes up, parks/pools being closed. Tense school board meetings. This, unfortunately, is where the recession/depression/un-sustainability of it all starts to show it's true colors. 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:37 | Link to Comment DoctoRx
DoctoRx's picture

You left out Illinois' special commitment to public-private partnerships aka corruption.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 12:50 | Link to Comment B9K9
B9K9's picture

You know what, I'm gonna post something completely OT from another thread, because it bugs the shit out of me that many reasonably intelligent people, @ ZH of all places, still do not understand the basic fundamentals of our credit-money system. If a lot of people here don't understand, is it any wonder that the power-elite have the entire world by the balls?

The crazy thing is, it's such a fucking simple thing to understand. Anyone with a medical, legal, accounting and/or scientific degree should readily grasp these essentials:

***

Why is such a simple principle so hard to understand by so many?

Our monetary system is a composite aggregation of credit (virtual) & money (real). Due to the recent period dating from, as Mako states, 1945 until 2007, the credit component  increased to something like 99% of the total.

The credit component is used to finance major asset purchases like housing & education, whereas the monetary component is used to purchase consumables such as food & gas.

With the exception of education, overall credit deflation is occurring due to the lack of bidding activity for housing, resulting in stagnant & declining prices.

On the other hand, consumables are increasing in price as a direct result of the increase in money supply, which can be easily verified by any measure of M1, 2 & 3 (discontinued).

For some reason, which I admit I don't understand, people seem to fail to recognize this very simple construct. Just bifurcate the money system - view it as two completely different animals.

Credit is a function of human sentiment - the herd's WILLING desire to contract for credit (ie go into debt) in the (mistaken) belief they will benefit either from rising asset prices (housing) or income levels (education).

Monetary tools are merely a function of government control & coercion - the power-elite's OVERRIDING desire for the sheep to once again contract for credit (ie go into debt) in the (mistaken) belief they will benefit either from rising asset prices (housing) or income levels (education).

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 12:52 | Link to Comment economicmorphine
economicmorphine's picture

We understand, Boss.  The difference is while you're bending over and taking what you have coming, some of the rest of us are already fighting a revolution.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:30 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Uh, no revolution. Mass starvation and balkanization. Were do 40,000,000 food stampers get 2,000 calories a day? They don't.

---

Agreed, B9.

The Banksters are much more interested in the sheeples' perpetual indebtedness (slavery) because they never had the money in the first place. They can't skim the cream off the top if no one signs a contract to agree to make payments for X years for an asset that the Banksters also were not selling in the first place. Now apply that to War...that's some serious profit!!

I just read that the Fed's 99-year charter is up Dec 2012. Anyone for added input?

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:54 | Link to Comment ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

Hah, you must be kidding me. Have you looked at your typical SNAP recipient? You can see them the 1st of the month in any supermarket. 90% of them look like they're packing in way more than 2000 calories a day.  Can you say "Super-size me"?

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:58 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

That's because all the mega-corporations/farm conglomerates produce these days is refined carbohydrates. It's not really food. And the government allows it because it dumbs people down and makes them reliant on subsidized health care. Diabities is an epidemic in minority children.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:08 | Link to Comment American Dreams
American Dreams's picture

+1000

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 20:50 | Link to Comment piceridu
piceridu's picture

+ CalPERS Pension Shortfall!

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:47 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Yes, yes but what happens when the SNAP cards don't workie-workie and the supermarket shelves are failed by the JIT infrastructure.

"How do I feed mah babies?!"

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:44 | Link to Comment Mr Creosote
Mr Creosote's picture

Call Dog "Baby Daddy" Hunter.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:01 | Link to Comment BurritoGas
BurritoGas's picture

Federal Reserve CHARTER  Expiration?

 

HAHAHAA. What utter bullshit. Pray tell, where you got this information from?

 

Let me guess, the world is ending on December 21, 2012 too right?

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:43 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

I know, I know. I was looking for input because there is no mention of a charter from the Death Star Propaganda Machine. INPUT.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 18:57 | Link to Comment BurritoGas
BurritoGas's picture

Brosky,

The source you most like are referring to is complete fabrication. If history is any indication, they tried 2 times to go about it the "charter" way, but presidents like Andrew Jackson finally put them into hibernation, only to have them return with vengeance.

Except, this time, it wasn't about charter. It was about a constitutional amendment. This way, once their machine is in order (jefferson, corporations and banks that will grow up around them...make em homeless on the continent their fathers conquered,etc, etc) no way to bring it down.

This same "source" used this same fabrication about russians saying entire gulf coast will have fire rain down upon it (all biblical like).

BS of the first order.

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 11:53 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Okay, that's input. Pretty good for a 22-year-old. But it was an Act, not an Amendment.

If oil rains down, and lighting is introduced, would it not catch fire?

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 12:55 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

I get the distinction, but did the Fed print money or simply create credit when it expanded its balance sheet? By purchasing all of those mortgages, it would suggest that they created credit. 

Shadowstats.com suggests M3 is declining. 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:05 | Link to Comment ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

They printed money.  the mortgage market didn't grow, no new mortgage credit was created, it just changed hands, mostly from the Chinese to the Fed.

The Chinese took that newly printed money and stockpiled commodities.

The question now is, where will the money come from to buy those mortgages from the Fed?  Will the Chinese stop buying commodities and start buying agency MBS again?

Hu knows.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:11 | Link to Comment chinaguy
chinaguy's picture

"where will the money come from to buy those mortgages from the Fed."

From you & I starting in 2012

 


Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:16 | Link to Comment whatsinaname
whatsinaname's picture

why wait for a good thing ? 2011 sounds better than 2012. After all govt needs to be fiscally healthy.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:53 | Link to Comment chinaguy
chinaguy's picture

*sigh*  The govt has guaranteed the backstop of these GSEs until 2012. After that, the Fed either has to restructure them (at taxpayer) or sell them to some John Doe.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:25 | Link to Comment Commander Cody
Commander Cody's picture

And for how many cents on the $ would you be willing to take some toxic crap off the Fed's balance sheet?  I'm thinking the Fed got the worst of the worst.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:49 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The FED dumped the worst of the worse on the GSEs...  but, in the end, toxic nonperforming shit is toxic nonperforming shit.  The best of the FED's book will be purchased by our new robber barons for pennies on the dollar.  We'll be lucky to get some scraps. 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:29 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Is there anyone here who does not think that this has been the plan all along?

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 23:51 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Yes.  Apparently some think the FED will continue in perpetuity.  It will be replaced in due time, but not for a while, our last rape being fresh on our minds and all...

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:07 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

First, M3 is declining.  Second, unfortunately, some of the money uncle sugar is pumping actually ends up in the real money supply...  although benny tries primarily to reignite the massive credit machine, some of it seeps out into the real money supply.  See the difference between M1 and M3.  Last, keep your eye on the prize, it's the 99% you need to be worried about, not the 1%.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:03 | Link to Comment LeBalance
LeBalance's picture

An FRN is NOT money.  There is no money in the system, only credit (debt).

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:26 | Link to Comment Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

Money is the most marketable commodity right?  Well greenbacks are accepted more places than anything else, so FRNs are money (for the time being of course).

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:14 | Link to Comment B9K9
B9K9's picture

Yes, I understand the distinction. however I'm taking license in assuming FRNs are ultimately backed by the US military's ability to occupy, um, certain strategic regions.

Cough ** Afghanistan ** Cough ** Iraq ** Cough ** Middle East oil. Oh, excuse me, I had a moment of clarity there.

@MachoMan - yes, the 99% (credit component) is the killer. Pumping freshly printed FRNs into states in order to keep paying SEIU wages does nothing about incentivizing people to engage in another debt orgy.

It all comes down to how to get the herd to once again dream of becoming rich and clamoring, no praying, for access to credit. What's it gonna be? Sheeit, somebody mentioned legalizing MJ.

What happens when the power-elite stumble across the old issue of the Freak Brothers (Grass Roots #5) where the brothers find a "year's supply" of cocaine and move to the country with the proceeds. It's all wonderful until one day the coke runs out and their dream world was actually a filthy pig sty.

Man, the dreams which could be fueled by cheap, available narcotics & hallucinogens could be the answer to our problem(s). Just imagine everyone walking around in a collective haze buzzing about their new found riches. Signing hither & yon any piece of paper (contract) shoved under their noses with promises that they were going to be rich, rich, rich!

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:24 | Link to Comment faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Opium is the...opiate of the masses.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:42 | Link to Comment MonkeyMan
MonkeyMan's picture

Looking forward to the film....

http://www.grassrootsthemovie.com/gr/Home.html

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:15 | Link to Comment buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

 that many reasonably intelligent people, @ ZH of all places...

 

Who are you calling "reasonably intelligent"? I consider that an insult. I am well to the left of the bell curve I'll have you know, and proud of it.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:33 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Me 2. Standard deviations, that is.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:32 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

You're actually just a tumor growing out of some other guy's stomach.

I saw that movie.  You can't fool me, but if you do you can't do it again.

Or something like that.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 12:51 | Link to Comment brockbrock
brockbrock's picture

So now Obama should bail the states out? How is he supposed to handle that?

I hear a lot of hate for the guy, but nobody seems to have a decent idea for job creation. Companies are doing pretty well, look at earnings, giving them a tax break isn't going to spur anything. Manufaturing has been on the decline for the last 30 years, not like that's going to turn around tomorrow.

Tariff on china? lower minimum wage?

Not saying he's doing his job well, but give him a break, he's in a pretty tough spot.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 12:58 | Link to Comment economicmorphine
economicmorphine's picture

Give him a break?  No thanks.  It goes with the territory.  There isn't going to be job creation because industry UNDERSTANDS that consumers aren't buying and aren't likely to begin buying any time soon.  Profits are a result of shrinking the expense side of the balance sheet.  The story is on the top line.  Top lines aren't growing, and that's from 20%-30% shrinkage across the board in 2009.  

I can't stand Obama not because he's in a hard place, but because his policies are destroying the incentive of otherwise productive people to work.  There's plenty of work that needs to be done and there are plenty of people willing to pay for it.  I know this for a fact because my job is to find it every day.  It didn't look like it did in daddy's day, but it's there if you can swallow your ego, suck it up and get off your @$$.  Obama panders to those who want somebody else to solve their problems, and that, combined with the cheater mentality that is prevalent from coast to coast, will destroy what is left of America.

 

Give him a break?  Pound salt.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:14 | Link to Comment brockbrock
brockbrock's picture

What policies are destroying the incentive to work?

Extending jobless benefits? Maybe, but those benefits are usually barely enough to get people by, and probably do a decent job keeping the economy afloat. I don't think we'll see a bounce in employment after they expire next month, maybe a bounce in crime.

Healthcare? I don't think anyone is not working so they can look forward to an insurance rebate from the government.

The biggest impact he has had on business has been the Auto reorganization - his team got GM and Chrystler in and out of bankruptcy and renegotiated all of those union deals.  Overall him saving the auto industry is a plus for america, in my opinion.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:14 | Link to Comment IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

The biggest impact he has had on business has been the Auto reorganization - his team got GM and Chrystler in and out of bankruptcy and renegotiated all of those union deals.  Overall him saving the auto industry is a plus for america, in my opinion.

You. Can't. Be. Serious. 

This decision to thwart contract law will be remembered as one of the turning points that led to the second American Revolutionary/Civil War ... depending on who the victors are.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:27 | Link to Comment Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

Have to disagree "about how the Chrysler sale is a "rub rosa" plan that violates the absolute priority rule. It is not -- and neither is GM's.

In both cases the "good" assets will be sold to new entities.  The consideration for that sale goes to the "old" debtor, and will be distributed according to the absolute priority rule.  Not a sub rosa plan.

 

The press has speculated -- generally accurately -- that all the consideration will go to the secured lenders in Chrysler.  They have a $6.9 billion claim and the sale proceeds are $2 billion.  The press has also speculated that the consideration in GM will go to the bondholders.  That's only partially right; the GM papers make clear that the consideration will go to GM to distribute to creditors.  Since the secured lenders will have been paid off by this point, the sale proceeds will go to unsecured creditors (of which the bondholders are one part).

 

This still does not make it a sub rosa plan.

 

In both GM and Chrysler the Union is getting better treatment than other unsecured creditors.  BUT that better treatment is not coming from the debtor.   It is coming from the U.S. government, passing through the purchaser of the "good" assets in each case.  We can debate whether it is wise for the government to bail out the Unions, but it still does not make it a sub rosa plan." http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2009/06/lets-try-this-again.html
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:44 | Link to Comment IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

A "rub rosa" plan?  Does that involve a Mexican maid and her left hand?

You quote a left-wing blog ... and here it is from the right:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/142155-chrysler-a-sub-rosa-by-any-other-...

Again, natural contract law does not mean crap if you can change the terms on a whim simply because you're parsing words differently or you "do not think or feel or whatever" something is what it is ...

This is the slippery slope of contract law that the previous and current administrations are abdicating in many decisions and destroying the moral fabric of our society ... but carry on with your partisan nonsense.

 

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:18 | Link to Comment Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

I must assume your real name is Michael Terry, the author of the article you direct me to since it does not refute a single thing in the article I directed you to.

 

And yes, bankruptcy is a LIBERL LEFT WING CONSPIRACY TO STEAL CAR COMPANIES FROM THE BONDHOLDERS.

/sarcasm

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:44 | Link to Comment ZakuKommander
ZakuKommander's picture

"Thwarting contract law" is inherent in the Bankruptcy Code, which changes every few years.  No big deal.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:50 | Link to Comment IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

No thwarting contract law is not inherent in bankruptcy code ... it is called enforcing the contract in bankruptcy which means the labor unions would have been screwed to the moon, along with the bondholders ...

Instead we got favoritism based on political preference, so the bondholders took the brunt of the haircut, whereas the unions would have been forced to lose some in an ACTUAL bankruptcy proceeding ...

But again, keep lying to yourself that this isn't part of the reason why our economy is fucked right now ... this was one of the original dominoes that set forth private capital not getting back in the game, ensuring unemployment will be perpetually high for a long, long time ...

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:58 | Link to Comment ZakuKommander
ZakuKommander's picture

Think, IS, think.  The Bankruptcy Code was designed to cancel -- or permit modification of -- contractual obligations. People enter into contracts, promising to pay money, but the Bankruptcy Code allows them to wipe the slate clean, or modify their obligations.  

if you think that people going into Chapter 7 have to honor their contractual obligations when they come out of the Bankruptcy Court, you simply do not understand what's going on.

Calm down.

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:02 | Link to Comment Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

If old GM gave $$ to new GM, then I would agree with you.

The government may be corrupt, but it is not stupid.

Why would they give money to the old GM and have the unsecured creditors getting it like pigs when they could give the money to the new GM and have the unions get it?

The bondholders should have outbid the unions/government and then they could have owned GM and liquidated it themselves or operated GM (basically taken it private as is the case now)

But the bondholders knew that they would get wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy less in a liquidation and GM does not CASH FLOW in a positive manner, so why waste the time or effort?

NEWSFLASH: As of 1/1/09, GM/Chrysler (Ford too) bondholders were not going to recoup their investments no matter what happened. 

If a private corporation had pulled the same manuveour the government did (which companies do everyday - PLAY HARDBALL) would you still disagree with it? Or only because the government picked a side (they do all the time) and then pulled up with some cash and favorable tax treatments?

GM & Chrysler should BE OUT OF BUSINESS but for the government. That is NOT GOOD and Ford should be the only "US" automaker left right now.

Ford should be the one pissing and moaning the loudest over this whole situation. 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:37 | Link to Comment IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

GM & Chrysler should BE OUT OF BUSINESS but for the government ... Ford should be the only "US" automaker left right now.

You wrote a very long post to get one thing right ... whether or not it is GOOD or NOT GOOD is still to be determined as the U.S. taxpayer will be on the hook for Government Motors for a long, long time ...

And for what it is worth ... I don't give a crap what the bondholders got.  Again, you guys have my premise wrong ...

I care about the rule of law, not the "rules of favored men" ... once you and the other junker get that through your skulls, you'll understand why this abdication of a traditional chapter 7, 11, 13 (take your pick) bankruptcy has set our country back like it has ...

 

 

 

Fri, 07/30/2010 - 14:07 | Link to Comment Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

(1) I don't Junk anyone

(2) "abdication of a traditional chapter 7, 11, 13 (take your pick) bankruptcy has set our country back like it has" WTF does that mean?

 

Those "chapters" came into existance in 1978

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:57 | Link to Comment davidjridds
davidjridds's picture

don't you mean him stealing the auto industry from it's owners (the creditors) and giving it to the people that ruined it in the first place (the unions).  the American auto industry has not been saved.  It has been given a new owner and a temporary stay of execution.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:04 | Link to Comment ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

Endlessly extending unemployment benefits absolutely reduces the incentive to work. I personally know two people who have explicitly told me they won't start looking for work until they get within a month of losing their benefits. That's 95 weeks of sleeping in and playing XBox.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:53 | Link to Comment brockbrock
brockbrock's picture

We'll see what happens next month when the lot of them get the boot.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:09 | Link to Comment DonnieD
DonnieD's picture

The extension of jobless benefits has crossed over to welfare. And it is a HUGE disincentive to work, especially for a 2 income household. I'm not saying people shouldn't get support but it should be lowered the longer they receive the benefit. There are jobs out there but most of them require an honest day's work. It is simply easier to stay home and collect unemployment than to work on commission or lower yourself to doing a job you never thought you'd have to do.

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:56 | Link to Comment mnevins2
mnevins2's picture

My wife and I were just discussing the 99-wk question last night. She's involved with hiring with a major luxury retailer and we both agreed that the long-term unemployed are viewed as "tainted" by potential employers.

Why? Rightly or wrongly, the applicant who has been unemployed for a year or more is either viewed as "damaged goods" (couldn't get a job some where else? Why?) or lazy (happy to not seriously look for new employment and collect the unemployment check? I don't want THAT type of "lazy-ass" employee working for me!).

Employers today - and presumably tomorrow - are able to be selective in their hiring. Being long-term unemployed is mentally considered one very good reason to reject an application.

And so I agree with this statement, sort of, "It is simply easier to stay home and collect unemployment than to work on commission or lower yourself to doing a job you never thought you'd have to do."

It is "short-term" alright for the individual, but "long-term" it is an example of digging themselves in to a very deep grave.

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:25 | Link to Comment ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Max unemployment benefit in MN: $2460/month.

Sign me up for all 99 weeks.  I'm going out to get a new X-Box.  Gonna get by just fine. 

/sarcasm

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:39 | Link to Comment ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

I track my expenses very carefully, I have a wife and two kids, and I can get by on $2000  a month. There won't be any fancy vacations or restaurant-eating, but I could do it. If you can't do it, then you've made lifestyle choices (large mortgage, one or more car payments,) that preclude you from doing it.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:04 | Link to Comment DonnieD
DonnieD's picture

The long term unemployed are almost unhirable for any good job. And that's part of the problem, it makes these folks even less likely to get a job in the future unless it's stocking shelves at the local grocery store. I don't think many of these people realize this or care.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:10 | Link to Comment laughing_swordfish
laughing_swordfish's picture

+ 1

Want to add a comment here.

My wife is a hiring manager at ***, a well-known apparel retailer  with three well-known national brands.

Her mandate from "CORPORATE" is not to consider the unemployed under any circumstances for open positions unless they previously have experience at *** with a verifiable reference.

Reasons: They are considered by corporate HR to be "unacceptable risks" from a "loss prevention" standpoint, and the company is famous for putting emphasis on "poaching" key employees from other retailers, which is how my better half got her job in the first place.

This is typical of the attitude of Corporate America towards ordinary people...

 

 

 

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:47 | Link to Comment mnevins2
mnevins2's picture

Agree, but hasn't it always been an employment strategy to "poach" a "known talent" from a competitor - even in "normal" times? 

It is sort of like the phrase that banks will only lend to people who don't need the money!

FWIW, while my wife and I were having that conversation regarding the 99-wks of unemployment, we were also discussing how I AM 'DAMAGED GOODS' for future employment in my main field of expertise - banking.

Why? I am now 50 and there is no way that an established bank is going to look at someone like me favorably. This has been true for years and so what did I do? Used my banking experience and have been a 100% commission mortgage originator for quite a while.

A  wife, two kids and a mortgage made this occupational path a no-brainer. Wasn't fun at first, but "a man has to do what a man has to do" and it all worked out nicely - of course I work long and hard hours, but am NOT complaining.

Perhaps this is why I have little patience with municipal employees unwilling to acknowledge the new reality and work for solutions that don't include raising my taxes. They've got a pretty good gig - but too many refuse to acknowledge it. I hope that this changes soon - for them.

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:17 | Link to Comment cognitis
cognitis's picture

Having projected your rage and demonstrated your ignorance both of government and of economics, attend immediately another Teabagger enraging convention sponsored by David Koch and his collection of shills and thugs--America's own Brown Shirts and Hitler Youth. Once reinvigorated with more bile and hate, come back and spew more.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:27 | Link to Comment -Michelle-
-Michelle-'s picture

Yawn.  Did you copy and paste that ready-made response?  Perhaps you might try actually addressing the argument instead of attacking the poster...

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:35 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

You have some saliva on your chin.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:29 | Link to Comment Citizen of an I...
Citizen of an IKEA World's picture

What you guess is saliva is more likely Rahm-Emmanuel-spunk.

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 05:06 | Link to Comment Moneygrove
Moneygrove's picture

or jeff Gannon on dubya ?????????

Wed, 07/28/2010 - 06:19 | Link to Comment docj
docj's picture

Pavlov would be proud of you folks.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:00 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

I think that's actually the problem - there's been no discussion on how to right the ship. Just a massive attempt to prop up prices and solve debt with more debt. And arguably all of the new regulations will only stifle business. A 1099 for every transaction above $600? 

How about enterprise zones? Payroll tax holidays? Tax reform and simplification? Encourage the repatriation of corporate offshore profits?

I'd go on, but I don't think anything is going to get fixed, just run further into the ditch. 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:37 | Link to Comment Commander Cody
Commander Cody's picture

Most suggestions I hear concern shuffling fiat from one place to another.  Yeah, that's gonna help.  The goobermint put people to work back in the 30s by actually making jobs for them - building roads, bridges, dams, national parks, you know producing actual stuff.  Until that once again happens, dream on.  We can repair the roads and bridges because they are falling apart, we can build a better electrical transmission system, new coal and nuclear plants and alternative energy facilities, dredge shoaled-up waterways, etc.  Give the corporations more tax breaks and they'll simply stow away more cash.  As someone said before, until corporation and state are separated, we will continue on the fascist road to nowhere.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:27 | Link to Comment B9K9
B9K9's picture

Charlie Brown, meet Lucy - she is going to hold the football while you kick it through the uprights. No really, she promises this time it's for real.

Suggesting logical solutions to our collective problems is like trying to convince an SS officer of his morally indefensible position. He merely shrugs, takes out his pistol, and shoots you in the head. Some passing orderly may, or may not, bother to pick up your body and throw it in the trash.

Even at a place like ZH, there still seems to be a large contingent of people who actually believe there is some sincere, rationale basis for our current reality. Please, for everyone's sake, dispel of these thoughts.

The reality is you live in a harsh banking/military dictatorship. The election charade is put on periodically to keep the sheep distracted & entertained. Bubbleconomics is a necessary additive to keep everyone compliant & complacent. But it's only a convenience - if need be, they won't have any problems laying out the truth of the situation.

Let's say they can't engage another bubble, then what? Well, they drop the facade and dare you to do something about it. For the 50% leech fucks who currently profit from this relationship, they will fight to the death to preserve the state's ability to force you to support them. After all, it really is a matter of life & death.

As this situation progressively worsens, many will look back fondly on this era of lies as a golden time in the nation's history.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:37 | Link to Comment faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Damn, dude. +1

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:27 | Link to Comment ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Seconded.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:29 | Link to Comment OpenEyes
OpenEyes's picture

Well said my friend  +1Trillion

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:46 | Link to Comment American Dreams
American Dreams's picture

To few are willing to accept reality, fewer yet are actually willing to fight it. +1000

 

There is no shelter here.

 

 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 17:42 | Link to Comment Clycntct
Clycntct's picture

Damn man I even saw the bullet as you described the hit to the head.

+666

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:42 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

You've pulled back the curtain on some very basic truths that some do not want to see.

The same folks who stood on the porch watching the people herded onto the rail cars.

And they'd turn your ass in for a crumb from the ruling class or the local militia leader.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 22:27 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

The reality is you live in a harsh banking/military dictatorship. The election charade is put on periodically to keep the sheep distracted & entertained. Bubbleconomics is a necessary additive to keep everyone compliant & complacent. But it's only a convenience - if need be, they won't have any problems laying out the truth of the situation.

once this is understood, not in the mind, but felt in the viscera - you will experience a shift in perspective that informs every thought, every action.

straight, to the point and priceless, B9K9.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:14 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

You don't get a break when you nominate yourself upon a platform of hope and sweeping change and then literally either keep everything the same (expanding the size of the federal government and the wealth gap) or make it worse (2500 page documents he does not read and, even if read, probably could not comprehend).

Fuck your apologist ass.

Companies are doing well because they had so much fat to shave.  They'll be gaunt in no time.

If we are in an impossible decline (which we are), fine, so be it.  At least ensure that no one loots the treasury...  that's all you have to do...  if we're fucked, then don't pick and/or perpetuate winners from ill gotten gains.  A horse pill is hard enough to swallow without smearing it in shit first.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:24 | Link to Comment brockbrock
brockbrock's picture

I agree he hasn't done any of what he promised.

But again, I don't see you or anybody suggesting something he should do to solve the problem. It's structural, and has been building for decades, and he got stuck with it. I think the whole point of this site is that the problems are intractable and no amount of hope-leadership could solve the problems we face. It really doesn't matter who's in charge, so that's why I get confused when everyone rips into obama.

As if this state budget crisis wouldn't exist with McCain...

(Also, Bush initially got stuck with it, but he just threw a trillion or so in front of it so the whole thing didn't collapse on his watch.)

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:46 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

If you want to continue to make excuses for and apologize for someone who has routinely lied to us and not remotely delivered as promised, fine.  The issue of whether or not he can effectuate change is different from the issue of whether or not he is worthy of any respect or credibility whatsoever.  We rip into him like we would anyone who shits in our faces and tells us its chocolate pudding.

To say that no suggestions have been made to help with the problems is...  not remotely accurate.  There have been an incredible amount of suggestions made by articles and posts on this site.  There have been many attempts at passing legislation that would have incredibly helped pave a solid foundation for our future.  There have been court battles that would have set a positive precedent for the road to come.  Virtually all these things have been either outright dismissed or diluted until unrecognizable. 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:51 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

You're right, there have been tons of suggestions and ideas to help ameliorate the problems.  I just can't see how one guy (President or not) could do diddly to implement them.  The Congress and Courts have to go along and it ain't gonna happen.  I'd give Obama bad marks on his grasp of reality if nothing else!  It takes a peculiar person to want to run for President.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:10 | Link to Comment ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

One thing that would be very positive and would be very easy to do - simply reinstate Glass-Steagal. It's already written. It's only something like 34 pages long. Congress and Obama could literally do this over a weekend.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:21 | Link to Comment DonnieD
DonnieD's picture

The President doesn't work on the weekends.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 21:53 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I don't think it works that way.  The law could not be reinstated by decree.

Working weekends or not.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:53 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

leave it to the Canine King. Well said

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 16:54 | Link to Comment desgust
desgust's picture

You are so stupid! Incredible! Bush - Obama, Bush - Obama, Bush -Obama ping - pong ping....That's all you can! From Dems to Reps and time again! They are screwing you hard and you don't even feel it! Suckers! Bend over!

Bend

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 13:54 | Link to Comment davidjridds
davidjridds's picture

Tax breaks do work by reducing costs and making companies more competitive.  US manufacturing has been shrinking since the 70s years because they can't compete, not because they're not being taxed enough.  Unions achieved the peak of their power in the 70s - do you think the fact that this time period marks the beginning of the decline of American industry is a coincidence?

It's funny that it's never a spending/cost problem w/ the left - only a revenue problem.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:23 | Link to Comment ARW
ARW's picture

No, it's not funny. 

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:54 | Link to Comment ejmoosa
ejmoosa's picture

He volunteered.  And it's not our fault he surrounded himself with academic assholes that could not manage themselves through the Self Check-out at WallyWorld.

Tue, 07/27/2010 - 15:26 | Link to Comment RKDS
RKDS's picture

brockbrock, I hate Obama but I have to agree here that businesses are out of ideas.

If only companies could dump plutonium in the country's fresh water supplies, then they'd create eleventy kazillion jobs, give everyone a pony, and resurrect both Abe Lincoln and Jesus!  Come on guys, this time they really mean it and won't just keep lying to extort even more from this country or the prostitutes in its pockets!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!