Well, firstly congratulations on the quitting deal and secondly, my response to these sorts of things is "when it's fucked don't help the bastards out by fucking yourself".
Seriously. There are way better things to do, say go on a very cheap road trip than react to this beyond believe middle class screw job than self-destructive actions.
Besides you know you won't have health insurance if you get sick from the consequences. ;)
Ok, I will disagree somewhat on the technical analysis. I'm looking at the same charts and especially unemployment, while they (lumping the don't worry, be happy people together) point to trends, deltas, slopes...I'm looking at the aggregate totals and knowing that even with a dramatic trend line it will take years to reduce those aggregate totals to come up to 4% unemployment.
So, on this point I disagree and I would claim those who are now being lumped together as the "doom and gloom" blogosphere who "don't know jack shit about econ" are also chart and analysis happy and they too disagree with the Bonddad camp (or don't worry, be happy, the world is just a big cycle, it's all karma camp).
Then on trade, from the few things I remember it's a 100% disagreement and I'm coming from the deficit as well as the number of jobs offshore outsourced, the global wage figures and esp. the China PNTR.
Private debt is still high. Unemployment is still high. Consumer confidence isn't good. Labor force participation is trending down. What else? Oh, CRE is still bad. Negative equity is still a huge problem. China is still pegging its currency which is destroying our manufacturing sector. What else? Nothing is changing in terms of policy.
For instance, I believe that not all debt is the same. Government and private debt are very different. What caused this crisis was way too much private sector debt.
Now, this doesn't mean that deficits don't matter. They do and that is why we need government spending that yields better results. In my view, government should spend, if the private sector cannot, enough to create full employment without increasing inflation. I know a tough task but not impossible.
The thing to remember is that yes there are consequences and trade-off with whatever we do. Just like at our current fiscal situation - huge giveaway to big pharma in the form of Medicare Part D, huge tax cuts and 2 wars adds up and increases deficits and more debt but what happens if we choose to focus on addressing the budget deficit and federal debt levels now - private sector is certainly not in a situation to produce much of anything right now.
Business owners I know have said two dilemmas are on their plate:
1) Demand for their product or service is low right now
2) They don't know what their costs will be with regards to legislation that is being proposed (Cap 'n' Trade for example).
Really demand-side economics and supply-side compliment each other, yet folks argue one or the other. For the record, "supply side" is really just a political toy came up with by a conservative by the name of Jude Wanniski. That isn't to say tax cuts/credits wouldn't help. They would...WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. At this point, folks are more worried about making rent/mortgage and/or looking for a job.
But businesses, at this point are playing a guessing game. I got a friend, her name is Debra and she runs a laminating firm in Skokie. She's wondering if he she has to hire an environmental specialist for carbon credits or something. Her business is dying, and she's been offered to get her product made in Asia but refuses to do so (she's an ardent nationalist). She's also struggling to provide health insurance for many of her workers, and wonders now what's the deal with the health bill being talked about. I can tell you right now she isn't holiday shopping nor are many of her workers.
"Change" means not preserving the status quo. I don't understand how tax credits help if there is still NO demand or reason for employers to hire people.
Some are saying he is doing the best he can with this congress. But a little leadership would help.
It really made it difficult to get through the 8 years of the megalomaniacal Bush/Cheny regime. Now we are less than one year into the narcissistic Obama regime, replete with Rubin's Rubes and Rahm's Blue Dogs, and I am really, really looking to get back on the fags soon!
I thought things were bleak and pretty hopeless at the beginning of 2009, but I am actually hoping and even praying (I'm not a religious man) that we experience total friggin' collapse, ... NOW! Before every goddam ounce of wealth is sucked out of us peons in the lower 98% of the population. We are experiencing the willful and intentional raping of the vast majority of the population of this country. Whatever legislation will pass, rest assured, it will only pass if the elite, investor class want it to pass.
It is, and has been, class warfare for a long time. The collective ignorance and gullibility of the majority of the citizens of this country is appalling. Endangered species would present more push back than we are seeing.
Is this image from 1897 or 1880, etc. when we had....gee wiz, why does this sound so familiar, JP Morgan running the nation's finances?
It was only through Presidential action, that being to me, two stand outs, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR to break up the strangle hold of big finance, corporations running America.
Of course more and more it's looking like Obama is a corporate puppet. Sorry, but that's what it is looking like to me.
sue the rating agencies for fraud. I am convinced more than ever that we will not get any serious regulatory reform out this congress. Melissa Bean and the New Democrats are at it again in the House submitting all kinds of amendments that would further weaken already weak legislation.
eventually. While he had some opinions, policies that were just nutso, in terms of being the state attorney general and going after financial corruption, he's one of the best.
So, do you have any more details on this? I know about the bankruptcy law change of 2004, which enabled credit card companies to collect, made it extremely difficult for people to shed their unsecured debt even in Ch. 7, but I don't know about this collusion, shutting down states with threat of a credit ratings downgrade.
Take Wells Fargo (turning into a complete, predatory payday type of lender!) terms.
So, when obtaining secured debt(credit), it's possible that the applicant signs away their rights and assigns the right for Wells Fargo (in this example) to seize collateral. That collateral may be a car, might be a home, might be their bank accounts.
But if someone did not sign away their rights via contract, there should not be anything collectors can do beyond intense harassment and going to court to obtain a judgment, which is where the process service and hearing as well as another motion to seize an account starts.
and the reason is this is major violations of civil rules of procedure.
If this is happening with the specifics, clear violations of the law, then all of these people can sue and they will have a black and white case.
Since people read EP for info, I think we should get to the bottom on specifically what is going on and how this is possible and note where it is a major violation of the rules of civil procedure and/or civil law.
If that was me, you can bet I would not only be filing motions I would be putting together a very large lawsuit.
You cannot just go into someone's bank account without a judgment as well as a court order.
well, that means the defendants should sue because it's under affidavit that a process serve claims they served in person.
They are also licensed so their license should be revoked.
In other words, violating the Rules of Civil Procedure, including process service are a major black and white sue issue as well as a nullification of a judgment.
In other words, the bottom line one cannot just seize bank accounts and if they are violating the law, each of these people has huge legal recourse, even if they act Pro Se to not only get that money back but also sue for a host of damages, much higher than the original amount.
That vile Bankruptcy Bill that was passed, I think it was the second four years, during the Bush Administration?
The one clearly unconstitutional, which penalized those in the lower 90% while exempting the upper 1%?
This (the above excellent blog) is the reason it was passed. When the Bush Administration, working through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and colluding with Standard & Poor (and perhaps the other rating agencies), interfered with those state attorneys general from utilizing their anti-predatory loan laws and consumer-protection laws. (S&P threatened to lower the ratings on their bonds, etc.)
Eliot Spitzer was leading the charge on that one. Then, coincidentally, he was found out for cheating on his wife (I would still recommend him for Secretary of the Treasury, or at least head of the SEC instead of the corrupt and useless Schapiro.)
One of the things I didn't quote from those articles was where they mentioned people's cars being repo'd...for credit card debt. Unrelated assets being grabbed and notifications not being stringent.
You are right Bob that this doesn't seem kosher. Yet that also appears to be the state of America today.
Personally, I don't like rigged games. If I think a game is rigged I don't play. The game of debt looks like a rigged game to me.
It’s remarkable nobody talks about this. The big surprise in the payroll data was the service sector component; it rose 58k. But we know from the ADP report that service sector employment fell 81k, which was fractionally worse than the 79k decline in October. Such a discrepancy has occurred less than 3% of the time in the past, and each time, the following month after the big gap, there was a convergence ... with headline nonfarm payrolls swinging 100k lower on average, which would imply a 111k decline when December’s figure comes out.
Also take note that the +58k print in the service sector payroll was completely at odds with the 41.6 reading in the ISM non-manufacturing employment index in November — a figure that in the past was consistent with a -192k tally in service sector payrolls and never before aligned with a positive number. Go back to the 2001 recession, and the worst ISM non-manufacturing jobs subindex was 43.9 (right after 9/11) and here we published a figure that was more than two points shy of that!
Most of time the only thing required is an affidavit that proper notice was given and court takes that at face value. Proof of notice in many courts has become way too perfunctory.
though require a judgment process, the courts. So do deficiency judgments. So, in other words, you cannot just be foreclosed on and then without any further notice, suddenly have your bank account seized.
So, how exactly can these banks/collections agencies just run in and seize people's bank accounts without some serious notification?
This is where if the sale of property isn't enough to cover outstanding mortgage balances then lender has the right to go after borrower for the difference. This may entail typical debt collection methods such as garnishments.
Well, firstly congratulations on the quitting deal and secondly, my response to these sorts of things is "when it's fucked don't help the bastards out by fucking yourself".
Seriously. There are way better things to do, say go on a very cheap road trip than react to this beyond believe middle class screw job than self-destructive actions.
Besides you know you won't have health insurance if you get sick from the consequences. ;)
Ok, I will disagree somewhat on the technical analysis. I'm looking at the same charts and especially unemployment, while they (lumping the don't worry, be happy people together) point to trends, deltas, slopes...I'm looking at the aggregate totals and knowing that even with a dramatic trend line it will take years to reduce those aggregate totals to come up to 4% unemployment.
So, on this point I disagree and I would claim those who are now being lumped together as the "doom and gloom" blogosphere who "don't know jack shit about econ" are also chart and analysis happy and they too disagree with the Bonddad camp (or don't worry, be happy, the world is just a big cycle, it's all karma camp).
Then on trade, from the few things I remember it's a 100% disagreement and I'm coming from the deficit as well as the number of jobs offshore outsourced, the global wage figures and esp. the China PNTR.
Private debt is still high. Unemployment is still high. Consumer confidence isn't good. Labor force participation is trending down. What else? Oh, CRE is still bad. Negative equity is still a huge problem. China is still pegging its currency which is destroying our manufacturing sector. What else? Nothing is changing in terms of policy.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
For instance, I believe that not all debt is the same. Government and private debt are very different. What caused this crisis was way too much private sector debt.
Now, this doesn't mean that deficits don't matter. They do and that is why we need government spending that yields better results. In my view, government should spend, if the private sector cannot, enough to create full employment without increasing inflation. I know a tough task but not impossible.
The thing to remember is that yes there are consequences and trade-off with whatever we do. Just like at our current fiscal situation - huge giveaway to big pharma in the form of Medicare Part D, huge tax cuts and 2 wars adds up and increases deficits and more debt but what happens if we choose to focus on addressing the budget deficit and federal debt levels now - private sector is certainly not in a situation to produce much of anything right now.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Business owners I know have said two dilemmas are on their plate:
1) Demand for their product or service is low right now
2) They don't know what their costs will be with regards to legislation that is being proposed (Cap 'n' Trade for example).
Really demand-side economics and supply-side compliment each other, yet folks argue one or the other. For the record, "supply side" is really just a political toy came up with by a conservative by the name of Jude Wanniski. That isn't to say tax cuts/credits wouldn't help. They would...WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. At this point, folks are more worried about making rent/mortgage and/or looking for a job.
But businesses, at this point are playing a guessing game. I got a friend, her name is Debra and she runs a laminating firm in Skokie. She's wondering if he she has to hire an environmental specialist for carbon credits or something. Her business is dying, and she's been offered to get her product made in Asia but refuses to do so (she's an ardent nationalist). She's also struggling to provide health insurance for many of her workers, and wonders now what's the deal with the health bill being talked about. I can tell you right now she isn't holiday shopping nor are many of her workers.
"Change" means not preserving the status quo. I don't understand how tax credits help if there is still NO demand or reason for employers to hire people.
Some are saying he is doing the best he can with this congress. But a little leadership would help.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
It really made it difficult to get through the 8 years of the megalomaniacal Bush/Cheny regime. Now we are less than one year into the narcissistic Obama regime, replete with Rubin's Rubes and Rahm's Blue Dogs, and I am really, really looking to get back on the fags soon!
I thought things were bleak and pretty hopeless at the beginning of 2009, but I am actually hoping and even praying (I'm not a religious man) that we experience total friggin' collapse, ... NOW! Before every goddam ounce of wealth is sucked out of us peons in the lower 98% of the population. We are experiencing the willful and intentional raping of the vast majority of the population of this country. Whatever legislation will pass, rest assured, it will only pass if the elite, investor class want it to pass.
It is, and has been, class warfare for a long time. The collective ignorance and gullibility of the majority of the citizens of this country is appalling. Endangered species would present more push back than we are seeing.
Smoke 'em if you've got 'em.
Is this image from 1897 or 1880, etc. when we had....gee wiz, why does this sound so familiar, JP Morgan running the nation's finances?
It was only through Presidential action, that being to me, two stand outs, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR to break up the strangle hold of big finance, corporations running America.
Of course more and more it's looking like Obama is a corporate puppet. Sorry, but that's what it is looking like to me.
It's going to take a complete economic meltdown to change things in Washington. Right now things look awfully familiar.
sue the rating agencies for fraud. I am convinced more than ever that we will not get any serious regulatory reform out this congress. Melissa Bean and the New Democrats are at it again in the House submitting all kinds of amendments that would further weaken already weak legislation.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
eventually. While he had some opinions, policies that were just nutso, in terms of being the state attorney general and going after financial corruption, he's one of the best.
So, do you have any more details on this? I know about the bankruptcy law change of 2004, which enabled credit card companies to collect, made it extremely difficult for people to shed their unsecured debt even in Ch. 7, but I don't know about this collusion, shutting down states with threat of a credit ratings downgrade.
Take Wells Fargo (turning into a complete, predatory payday type of lender!) terms.
So, when obtaining secured debt(credit), it's possible that the applicant signs away their rights and assigns the right for Wells Fargo (in this example) to seize collateral. That collateral may be a car, might be a home, might be their bank accounts.
But if someone did not sign away their rights via contract, there should not be anything collectors can do beyond intense harassment and going to court to obtain a judgment, which is where the process service and hearing as well as another motion to seize an account starts.
and the reason is this is major violations of civil rules of procedure.
If this is happening with the specifics, clear violations of the law, then all of these people can sue and they will have a black and white case.
Since people read EP for info, I think we should get to the bottom on specifically what is going on and how this is possible and note where it is a major violation of the rules of civil procedure and/or civil law.
If that was me, you can bet I would not only be filing motions I would be putting together a very large lawsuit.
You cannot just go into someone's bank account without a judgment as well as a court order.
well, that means the defendants should sue because it's under affidavit that a process serve claims they served in person.
They are also licensed so their license should be revoked.
In other words, violating the Rules of Civil Procedure, including process service are a major black and white sue issue as well as a nullification of a judgment.
In other words, the bottom line one cannot just seize bank accounts and if they are violating the law, each of these people has huge legal recourse, even if they act Pro Se to not only get that money back but also sue for a host of damages, much higher than the original amount.
That vile Bankruptcy Bill that was passed, I think it was the second four years, during the Bush Administration?
The one clearly unconstitutional, which penalized those in the lower 90% while exempting the upper 1%?
This (the above excellent blog) is the reason it was passed. When the Bush Administration, working through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and colluding with Standard & Poor (and perhaps the other rating agencies), interfered with those state attorneys general from utilizing their anti-predatory loan laws and consumer-protection laws. (S&P threatened to lower the ratings on their bonds, etc.)
Eliot Spitzer was leading the charge on that one. Then, coincidentally, he was found out for cheating on his wife (I would still recommend him for Secretary of the Treasury, or at least head of the SEC instead of the corrupt and useless Schapiro.)
One of the things I didn't quote from those articles was where they mentioned people's cars being repo'd...for credit card debt. Unrelated assets being grabbed and notifications not being stringent.
You are right Bob that this doesn't seem kosher. Yet that also appears to be the state of America today.
Personally, I don't like rigged games. If I think a game is rigged I don't play. The game of debt looks like a rigged game to me.
This article pretty well sums it up.
Most of time the only thing required is an affidavit that proper notice was given and court takes that at face value. Proof of notice in many courts has become way too perfunctory.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
though require a judgment process, the courts. So do deficiency judgments. So, in other words, you cannot just be foreclosed on and then without any further notice, suddenly have your bank account seized.
So, how exactly can these banks/collections agencies just run in and seize people's bank accounts without some serious notification?
This is where if the sale of property isn't enough to cover outstanding mortgage balances then lender has the right to go after borrower for the difference. This may entail typical debt collection methods such as garnishments.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Pages