Powered by TypePad

« So Far, Not So Good | Main | More On Obama's Nobel »

October 12, 2009


Somewhere in Connecticutt, a village is missing its Sunday.

It's Monday Monday. Shouldn't be that way.

Yup, serious; that's why I'm laffing so hard.

I like the way the far left fringe is supposed to take off its pajamas and get dressed and understand that running the country is serious business.


Thanks..I was soooo confused.


... take the edge off


Sure the gay community will get pretty much what Reagan gave the "Pro-Life" community ... lots of words with the best of intentions, but the White House seems to have lost their minds.

Now, every gab at the White House is personal.

Go ahead Barack et al ... insult your critics into submission. Even Bush was that stupid. I apparently missed this technique for making friend and influencing people.


Even Bush wasn't that stupid.

My fingers don't type as fast as my mind thinks


All right who turned on the flux capacitor.

hit and run

Day behind?

Or six days ahead?


If you go to the LUN Cap Hate posted (in the not so good thread), and read the remarks from Dr Ostrom, she seems to think that fishing is one of the things where the current rules work.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration prepares to implement new policies that will end Sports fishing (as we know it now)and turn control of American waterways over to the UN.

"The original White House memo and not surprisingly the Task Force report contains multiple references to developing a national policy where Great Lakes and coastal regions are managed, “consistent with international law, including customary international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” - a 300-page treaty the U.S. has never ratified."

"Dave Pfeiffer, President of Shimano American Corporation explained, “In spite of extensive submissions from the recreational fishing community to the Task Force in person and in writing, they failed to include any mention of the over one million jobs or the 6o million anglers which may be affected by the new policies coast to coast. Input from the environmental groups who want to put us off the water was adopted into the report verbatim – the key points we submitted as an industry were ignored.”


Another million jobs wiped out, Control of American waterways turned over to the UN for Nothing. This is insane.

Maybe caught a few rays, too; for the Vitamins.

Hey, it was the Call of the Wild. Medical folk don't count it as a sign of disorientation unless you are off by two day or more.


Any ideas why the health insurers have turned on Obama. I thought he was paying them off.

And now the Catholic church....


Obama promised to fundamentally remake America. What did the idiot "independents" think they were getting when they voted for him?


Why a single, solitary Catholic voted for Obama is beyond my powers of understanding. Maybe CINO.

That explains why they were so easily fooled by this Stalinist.

He made a deal with Big Pharm and has demonized the insurance industry. Never mind its thin profit margin.

There are a lot of socially liberal Catholics, just as with Jews.

Rick Ballard

"I thought he was paying them off."

In Bambiebucks, Jane. Perhaps the health insurance folks are starting to figure out that the value of Bambiebucks is going to be measured per ton as pulp?

Gregory Koster

PaulL, they thought they were getting Not-Bush. They were right.

Catholics voted for The Once as a fast and easy penance. They forgot the four year hangover that is following.


Obama promised to fundamentally remake America. What did the idiot "independents" think they were getting when they voted for him?

ISTM, although my memory could be wrong, that he really hit the "remaking America" and "new foundation" stuff after he'd already run.
During the election, he pretty much promised to do whatever people wanted to see done.

Dave (in MA)

Our 9/12ers would probably be interested in this, an article demonstrating MSM bias in crowd counts.


Yes, pictures in today's post showed yesterday's was a very sparsely attended event. In fact, I noticed that one news service had used pics from an earlier far more well attended event to further skew the story.


I see all this talk of buying off the Taliban.
Doesn't the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act fit in here somewhere.

... and what about "domestic Taliban" ?


Rick Ballard posted a good LUN on the economy last night in the Sunday Open Thread. As I read some of the various articles on it, I came across a comment that pointed out how closely related the Obama Administration's rules on money parallel the rules in Monopoly.

"It had been a long time, so I read the rules again, and also the "Questions people often ask about Monopoly game rules". Here is number 11, an exact quote."

"What if the bank runs out of money?"

"Some players think that the Bank is bankrupt if it runs out of money. The bank never goes bankrupt. To continue playing, use slips of paper to keep track of each player's banking transactions - until the Bank has enough paper money to operate again. The banker may also issue "new" money on slips of ordinary paper."

The comment is by George Parr at 18:01 at the LUN.

"So there it is. The financial practices of the United States are based, not on sound economic policy, but rather on the rules of Monopoly. And fittingly, we will all end up owing monopoly money, formerly known as dollars."

Amazing, one can understand the Obama plan for the Treasury policy by reading the Monopoly rules.


Any ideas why the health insurers have turned on Obama. I thought he was paying them off.

Jane - I think they finally figured out that rather than get thousands of new premium payers and oodles of cash, they were ultimately going to be put out of business.

Charlie (Colorado)

Amazing, one can understand the Obama plan for the Treasury policy by reading the Monopoly rules.

And one can understand why it works by reading an economics 101 text.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

On November 20, the wait will be over; Michelle Obama action figures will hit the market at $12.99 apiece.



On November 20, the wait will be over

Oh goodie! What a birthday present!

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Via Political Wire:

For the first time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview that she would not run for president again.

Clinton said "No" three different times when asked "Will you ever run for president again? Yes or No?"

JM Hanes


"Another million jobs wiped out, Control of American waterways turned over to the UN for Nothing."

Having met more resistance than expected on the legislative front, and perhaps with a sneaking suspicion things are not going to get better as they run out the useful crisis clock, I think we'll see this Administration flexing their regulatory muscle at every turn. It will be interesting to see if there's an uptick in Executive Orders too, something I haven't checked out in awhile. The potential diminution of his all important Democratic majority in 2010 surely adds to the fierce urgency of now, and he's going to need a catalogue of accomplishments in 2012. With the bloom coming off the rose, speed may be of the essence.

Jack is Back!

Pagar and JM Hanes,

If there is one thing I learned during my short tenure as a lobbyist for my old company was to never mess with the NRA or sports fishermen organized under Trouts Unlimited and others like the Izaak Walton League. You get no sleep at night thinking about the votes they control. My money is on the outdoors lobby to beat this back like a filthy rug.


For overreaching there's always applications for temporary restraining orders..He still doesn't quite own the courts.


And of course there's Puk and my "Pikes Are Us" TM


Hi SunnyDay!

I am totally getting the Black Widow Michelle doll. Within minutes my daughters will have pulled the head off and tossed it into some dusty place under the toy bin.

JM Hanes


Obama is the very personification of urbanity, who really thinks that it's all bitter clingers outside the city limits. In addition to organized sportsmen who are used to paying close attention, there are a lot of folks with a lot of money who like fishin' and huntin' too. That's where the big bucks for sensible conservation come from.

JM Hanes


If Michelle hasn't already been Waxed, that's the dress she should be wearing when she's admitted to the Museum.

FLOTUS Barbie will be next, with a collection of medieval belts, velcro bows, argyle sweaters, and gold plated sneakers.

I, personally, am preparing a reliquary for Action Michelle and Bobblehead Barack.


If Obama is using any version of economics 101, I'd be willing to bet it is the one written by Castro.

Rick Ballard


Wrt Monopoly money - this fellow does a good job in sorting through the distinctions w/o difference betwee Quantitive Easing and monetization. He understands Bernanke's plan re QE very well and the only fault I find is his disregard for the actions of the Democrat Job Killers in blowing up the budget. Regardless of whether Uncle Ben stops issuing Bambiebucks or even beings to try and suck Bambiebucks out of the economy, there is still the minor detail of the '09 $1.4T deficit to be followed by the $1.6T '10 budget deficit etc until $9T (per CBO) or $10.5T (per GS) have been printed over the next ten years. Uncle Ben has only printed $2.3T Bambiebucks, so he's a real piker in comparison to the Democrat Job Killing Congress. Uncle Ben is buying a bit more than 40% of the total current bond offerings via funding bond dealers via GSE purchases. I haven't seen much written about the theoretical source of funds for the '10 purchases when (or if) Uncle Ben stops printing Bambiebucks to buy GSEs. There is some possibility that the bond players may require higher interest rates in recompense for particiation (vide California, auction failure).

It's not impossible that Uncle Ben might pull it off, only highly improbable, given the Fed's mandate re unemployment. The Job Killers will be screaming for more money by March.


Sunny Day! I just mentioned I hadn't seen you for a while. Hope all is well.


Hi! Thanks Clarice - all is well. I'm here tagging along. Y'all just slowed down a tad, and I caught up enough to post.

re Michelle dolls - I saw an ad for the porcelain Michelle doll, by the Danbury Mint!

See it LUN


There is a new "Political Granny" on the scene. I think some of her thoughts are quite good. Le.gal In.sur.ect.ion bought her to my attention, and I'm glad he did.



I am NOT buying a Michelle doll and that's that.


Rick Ballard,
I thank you for another great link. It's going to take me awhile to understand all of that one.


I guess Obama won't be going on with Conan O'Brien either


thanks for sharing about it.

Supporters of President Obama accused the health insurance industry of attempted “sabotage” after it issued a report by PwC, which estimated that premiums would rise much faster under the proposed reforms than they would have done otherwise.
I found the use of the word “sabotage” rather odd. It implies a level of complicity.
Thomas Collins

Periodically my alma mater thoroughly embarrasses itself (albeit not in the eyes of the effete PC elite) by making some type of nonsensical gesture. I hadn't realized that in certain parts of the East Side of Providence, RI, what we thought was Columbus Day was really a part of Fall Weekend. See LUN.

At least some folks protested the banning of Columbus Day, although I suspect most of the student body approved of the ban.

Beth Butler, the longtime executive director of Lousiana ACORN, was terminated by the organization's national leadership Monday amid a power struggle at the embattled advocacy group.

Butler's sacking came two days after local ACORN leaders criticized President Barack Obama's planned itinerary for a trip to New Orleans this week -- comments that drew an immediate rebuke from ACORN's national leaders.


I have read your rebuttals on the CRA in the earlier thread. I have to tell you I still remain unconvinced. You can repeat your understanding of the theories you picked up somewhere, probably from right wing blogs, that the market was dramatically increased because of CRA requirements and thus the prices increased. Sounds like a plausible theory - but where are the numbers? Where's the proof?

You can repeat your theories to me in a patronizing way all day long, but without showing the numbers to support them, they are just theories as good as any other theory. And I personally think my theory has more logic to it.

So I tried to look up some stats. I still did not see the best stats to solve this argument, and that would be a chart of subprime loans broken out by income in a year by year chart, so we could track what bad loans went to whom and which came first. But so far I have found some interesting info, and so far, they support my theory, not yours.


In addition, the study examined data made available by RealtyTrac on foreclosure filings from January 2006 through August 2008. These data indicate that most foreclosure filings — about 70 percent in 2006 — have occurred in middle- or upper-income neighborhoods and that foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or upper-income areas than in lower-income areas, where CRA-related lending would occur.


California leads the nation in foreclosures. The state’s foreclosure activity was up 51% from a year ago. These are not CRA communities, they are what were hoped to be surburban bedroom communities east of the major cities (San Diego and L.A.)

Next up is Florida; The state’s foreclosure activity was still up 68 percent from November 2007. The enormous overbuilding of Condos, and not CRA, is to blame. These weren’t inner city loans to minorities, as Dan Gross pointed out, they were “WCI Communities — builder of highly amenitized condos in Florida (no subprime purchasers welcome there)” WCI filed for bankruptcy in August. “Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime borrowers, or minorities—unless you count rich Venezuelans and Colombians as minorities.”…

The rest of Husock’s article is filled with the usual dissembling and half-truths. He mentions “in 1995 the Clinton administration added tough new regulations,” but omits any mentions that the Bush administration substantially watering down the act in 2004…

And of course, vast numbers of sub-prime mortgages were written by non-CRA banks. Indeed, none of the 300+ mortgage originators that imploded were depository banks covered by the CRA.


on page 14 it says “Most foreclosure filings from January 2006 –August 2008 were in middle-or higher-income areas”- 30% lower income, 70% middle and upper income




"especially when you're the one who led off with Michael Moore, and who clearly makes up her own answers before she starts asking questions of anyone but her alter ego.

I, personally, was addressing your claim that the meltdown was caused by conspiratorial bankers -- who apparently didn't know what the other banks were doing! -- or some nebulous Wall St. "hanky panky" (or urbanization or the sexual revolution), and that everybody is just trying to blame the whole mess on poor people."

JMH, I don't even know what the heck you are saying in this post. I am wondering if a troll took over your ID.

Let me repeat to you again what I was trying to say since you didn't seem to get it the first time.

My point was that the subprime crisis is often blamed on lending to lower income people. My point was that there was no proof for this presented. And that even if the lower income people defaulted at a somewhat greater rate, they are, hello!, lower income, and thus logically they are a smaller segment of the population buying cheaper properties, so even if their default rate is a little greater, their total dollars lost on cheaper properties could still be, and probably is, less than that lost by more expensive properties from the middle and lower class. And the stats I found support this.

And the fact that some lending to lower incomes people somehow dramatically "snowballed" this hot real estate market is a very unsupported assumption. Especially when the areas with the hottest markets and the most defaults are in FL and CA, with the middle class condo market tanking.

As to the sexual revolution, I was trying to explain that growth in the real estate market had perhaps less to do with a few more loans to poor people than to demographic trends in the country. Demographic trends are probably responsible for most bubbles and busts, but they are often hard to pin down. It's often anybody's guess.

And I used a theory to explain the increase in single people and unmarried households to explain the increasing demand for real estate. That seemed to be a trend that occurred after the 1960's, such as people never marrying or getting divorced, possibly related to the sexual revolution, that might have taken a generation or two to fully manifest. Also people living longer. I think that is a pretty good theory to explain the increase in single households. If you have a better one, other than just blaming it on poor people, please let me know.

So I hope I helped solve your apparent confusion for you. Let me know if you still can't get it. I'll try to help you further.


Oh and as to some "Wall Street conspiracy", I like conspiracy theories as much or more than the next person. But I don't think you need to come up with a conspiracy theory here. Because it's simply called "trying to make money". Kind of the basis for capitalism. Banks saw an opportunity to make money, and they took it. But like a pyramid scheme, where everybody thinks they are going to get rich quick, too many people buy in, and the music stops and someone is left holding the bag. That's also typical of booms and busts. You don't have to come up with a conspiracy theory to believe that one.


JMH, you seem confused by this statistic as well. It seems that only half of all CRA COVERED LOANS went to lower income. But lot of loans are made outside CRA covered institutions, such as independent mortgage companies. These institutions are not made to follow CRA rules. That means the lenders did it all on their own. Lower income CRA covered loans were only 6% of higher priced loans, which I assume mean subprime loans. But, never mind.


Wait this was supposed to go at the top of my post.

"So, I'll just note that contra your theory that there just weren't enough low income loans to make a difference, it looks to me like even the graphic in your own reference blog indicates that nearly half of all the charted loans went to low-income borrowers. But never mind. "

The comments to this entry are closed.