I just don't freaking believe this. I'm.....I'm....speechless !!
Every time I read about how saving money is bad for the economy
my jaw drops.

Rick and Noreen Capp recently
reduced their credit-card debt,
opened a savings account and stopped
taking their two children to
restaurants. Jessica and Alan Muir
have started buying children's
clothes at steep markdowns,
splitting bulk-food purchases with
other families and gathering their
firewood instead of buying it for
$200 a cord.

As layoffs and store closures grip
Boise, these two local families hope
their newfound frugality will see
them through the economic downturn.
But this same thriftiness, embraced
by families across the U.S., is also
a major reason the downturn may not
soon end. Americans, fresh off a
decadeslong buying spree, are
finally saving more and spending
less -- just as the economy needs
their dollars the most.

And what pray tell is their flipping point ?? Listen....
when I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s, everybody
except the rich lived that way. Whether you made $5000.00
a year or 50,000 - it did not matter. People simply did not
spend their money on useless, overpriced stuff.

If you needed or wanted something you did not have, you
saved for it.  Except for those on the extreme ends of the
economic spectrum, it was difficult to determine some ones
income by the clothes they wore, house they owned or
car they drove.

People shopped for a month at a time, had freezers to freeze
their food (and/or canned). As a kid, most of what you wore
or played with came from Sears or Montgomery Wards.  And
the family car was a Chevy, Dodge, Plymouth or Ford.

And everybody used store coupons and had a garden of some
sort, even in the city. Eating out was for special occasions. 

I did not know one kid in High School who ever got a new
car from "Daddy" for any reason. If they had a car, it was an
old one that they worked for themselves. Gated communities
were for the very rich, who were usually not home anyway.

So if the current economic situation brings this kind of sensible,
modest life style back - where people saved rather than spend
like a sailor -  I say Bravo !!!

C
 

Well I see that5 Obama's answer to out toilet economy is
a tax cut. Didn't the republicans try this once ??

Economists of all political stripes
widely agree the checks sent out
last spring were ineffective in
stemming the economic slide, partly
because many strapped consumers
paid bills or saved the cash rather
than spend it.

The nerve of them !! Saving and pay bills. How unpatriotic can
you be ??

But Obama aides wanted a provision
that could get money into
consumers' hands fast, and hope
they will be persuaded to spend
money this time if the credit is
made a permanent feature of the tax
code. 

And they need to make sure this time that the populous will
spend it. Frivolously. So as to stimulate the economy.

As for the business tax package, a
key provision would allow companies
to write off huge losses incurred
last year, as well as any losses
from 2009, to retroactively reduce
tax bills dating back five years.

Doe this include the huge bonuses payed to the CEOs of
these companies that are on the verger of tanking ??

A second provision would entice
firms to plow that money back into
new investment. The write-offs
would be retroactive to
expenditures made as of Jan. 1,
2009, to ensure that companies
don't sit on their money until
after Congress passes the measure.

Like replacing the current crop of greedy, inept CEOs with
even more greedy, inept CEOs while busting the unions.
Union busting is expensive.

Face it. This is just more of the same voodoo, doo doo economics.
Just in a plain brown wrapper.

C 

Jeff Madrick of the Nation has some  good ideas as what
needs to happen in the country to get it moving again.
And like nearly all the progressive suggestions and policies
I have read here and elsewhere, we can expect to see them
implemented the same time hell freezes over and pigs fly.

Face it people. Ain't  no one inside the beltway (or outside
to that matter) gonna let any thing like this see the light of
day. All they want is to fix the status quo.

C

I read this entry in Huffington Post and it really kind of
pissed me off. Especially this part.

And as the wave of crappy giving
spreads across the country, it is
creating a reaction of outrage
and anger from those it was
intended to please: the
recipients.

"I opened a present this morning,
thinking maybe it was a laptop or
something, and it turned out to
be a framed Wal-Mart photo of my
nephews," said Harland Dorinson
of Topeka. "Talk about a way to
wreck the holidays."

It's this kind of self centered superficial BS that a good part of
the problem in this country and why may family no longer engages
in the traditional gift exchange.

Let me explain. When I was young we would do the usual Christmas
thing. I would go with my father to get a tree, usually from a local
tree farm. We would make the usual trip into town to the shopping
center. (This was the 50s and 60s so no Malls yet.) I and my
brothers would point out what toys we wanted and after we got old
enough, my parents would let us know what the would like. We would
of course get the gifts (surreptitiously of course) and wrap them
and sneak them under the tree. Come Christmas morning we would open
the presents and be appropriately surprised and some times really
surprised, since we (us kids mostly) would get stuff we did not
expect.

I was the "geeky" kid and so wanted something to do with radio and
electronics. These things generally kept us amused for the next week
or so and then were promptly forgotten. Well except for the gift I
would get from my grandfather who and engineer. He would get me a
"grab bag" of assorted electronic goodies from a radio store in
Phillie. This would last until June. And I'll bet if cost, at that
time, all of three bucks.

My father passed away when I was 14 and I was the oldest. My mother
then moved us from up north down to south west Florida. Those first
two or three years were pretty lean and Christmas presents were not
in the cards, so to speak. We started a family tradition that lasted
for quite a few years. Sort of a secret Santa where we drew names
out of a hat, had to guess what that person wanted with out them
knowing about it and make the gift ourselves.

This worked out quite well and was a lot of fun. But as things got
better for all of us and we became gainfully employed, it slowly
faded away. Until we found ourselves, consciously or not, engaging
in a gift competition. Where the gift itself was more important than
the recipient or the giver.Not thinking about who we were getting a
gift for but rather more concerned that we did not look like some kind
of cheap skate.  This finally came to a head one year and nearly
ruined Christmas.

So we all got together and decided to forgo the traditional gift
exchange and just get together on Christmas. And if someone wanted
to give  a gift to someone else, that was OK but not required. And
they could do it when ever. Lately my sisters exchange between each
other. My brother with his family and we each try to get something
for my mother, since she is retired and lives on a fixed income. The
recipient of the gift is what's important and most of the time it's
something they want and would not get for them selves.

And when we do get a gift we are grateful since we know it's from the
heart and not the wallet.  I still make the gifts I give sometime and put
a good deal of time and effort into them. And I know it's something that
the person wants and/or needs but for what ever reason has not acquired
for themselves. Oh and In my case I try to make it a surprise as well.

C 

I just got through reading a post by Jello Biafra. An open letter
to our president elect.

He passes on some ideas that I think are worth considering but
personally do not believe will see the light of day.

It's fairly long so I will not cite it all here. But this passage pretty sums
it up.

National security means:

    * Everyone has a home.

    * Everyone has enough decent food to
      eat.

    * Everyone can drink the water
      without having to buy it in a
      bottle from Coke or Pepsi.

    * No one has to worry about getting
      their hand cut off at work or
      having their job outsourced
      overseas.

    * Everyone can be who they are
      without fear of being detained and
      tortured without trial.

    * Everyone can vote without fear,
      knowing their vote will be
      counted-accurately.

    * Every woman has the right to
      choose what to do with her own
      body.

    * Everyone has enough money for
      life, liberty and the pursuit of
      happiness.

    * Everyone, even if they don't have
      money, has the right to see a
      doctor if they're sick or hurt. In
      so many other countries this is a
      guaranteed human right by law.

Sadly I do not think that even one of his suggestions will even
make it to Obama's desk.

C

It would seem that the "Big Three" are trying to put the
pinch on Canada as well.

The Canadian subsidiaries of the
Detroit Big Three automakers have
asked the federal and Ontario
governments for financial aid that
could total as much as $6 billion.

GM Canada, Ford of Canada and Chrysler
Canada made their requests Friday as
they provided Ontario and the federal
government with financial information
and details of their restructuring
plans that the governments asked for
in return for considering a potential
aid package.

Ontario Economic Development Minister
Michael Bryant said GM is seeking an
immediate $800 million bridge loan as
part of a package of repayable loans
that would ultimately total $2.4
billion.

Chrysler is also seeking a loan but
did not publicly divulge the amount.
However, the Canadian Press said it
has learned the amount is $1.6
billion. It said Ford is asking for a
$2-billion line of credit that it
could draw upon if necessary.

Overall, the amount being sought is
less than 20 per cent of what the
automakers are trying to get from the
U.S. Congress, which is being urged to
provide a bailout package of $34
billion US. The Big Three have around
20 per cent of their total assembly
production in Canada.

C

As is reported here:

In the hardest hit states, those
not in a negative equity position
have very little equity remaining
given the current data. This is why
the all-important move-up buyers
are non-existent and over half of
the homes sold are from the
foreclosure stock.

With lending tightened to such a
large degree, sizable down payments
are now required to attain the best
financing. Ideally, a buyer wants
to extract this and all other
purchase expenses through the sale
of the property.  However, with the
median Loan-to-Value's in the
bubble states being so high there
is not enough left over from the
proceeds to pay a real estate
agent, put a down payment on the
new property and cover all of the
other costs associated with
moving.  People are stuck in their
properties unable to move or
refinance.

and here

Nearly one in three Florida
mortgage borrowers owed more on
their loans than their homes were
worth in the third quarter,
according to First American
CoreLogic of Santa Ana, Calif.
About 1.2-million of Florida's
4.2-million mortgages - 29.2
percent - were upside down. If home
prices dip 5 percent, nearly
200,000 more Florida borrowers
would slip under water. Despite
rising foreclosures and job losses,
most homeowners will hunker down
and continue to make mortgage
payments, said Sam Khater, senior
economist at First American
CoreLogic. But negative equity
destabilizes the market. More than
7.5-million properties nationwide
have negative equity. New York had
the lowest rate at 7 percent,
followed by Hawaii at 8 percent and
Pennsylvania at 9 percent.

The mortgage crisis and the economic disaster it helped
to create is far from over. If anything it will only get worse.
So pay not attention to that treasury secretary behind the
curtain. He can throw money at the banks from now until
doomsday and it will have precious little effect.

Until the housing market becomes stable again, the economic
situation will improve little.

C

Well that's what he says he wants to do.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush --
the younger brother of the
president -- is weighing a run
for the Senate seat currently
held by Republican Mel
Martinez.

Martinez announced Tuesday that
he will not seek reelection in
2010. Asked whether he was
interested in running for the
seat then, Bush told Politico
by e-mail Tuesday night: "I am
considering it."

Being from Florida, I can tell you Ol Jeb is a bigger jerk and W,
if that's possible. This has got to be stopped but quick.

C

Well what do you know. Looks like Canada is about to have
regime change. The Liberals, NDP and BQ are set up to
form a coalition government. Not unprecedented since
none of the aforementioned parties have any use for Mr.
Steven Harper. And as I understand Canadian government,
perfectly legal. I believe it is either this or a vote of no
confidence followed by still another election. Since the last
one cost the Canadian government $300million, another
election would not be such a good thing.

Harper took a chance in the last one hoping to form a majority
government and could not pull it off so this is not too surprising
an outcome. And it is not terribly unusual that the BQ would go
along since Quebec would benefit economically from the NDP and
Liberal proposals and have a far greater say in Parliament.

Quid pro quo or in Quebec do ut des.

C

Tumbled ?? I don't think so. It was pushed.

C

With thew last incident of terrorism, this time in India. And the
"excuses" given by the various factions. The real reason for
the violence and it's history has gotten lost.

As illustrated  in this article from the Guardian, it is the absolute
power of life and death that Muslim men have had over their women
that they find threatened.  A power that has been diminished since
the British colonization of the area and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood
in response to this.  This power that the Muslim men had was eroded
when the British started to educate and employ the women there and
has continued ever since. Most have accepted the change in their
culture but more than a few have not.

Oh they may use euphemisms such as "western influences"  and the
"return to true Islam" but the real reason is the continued deterioration
of this "life and death" power they had and their desperate desire to
maintain it. None will admit this especially the clerics, but this is the
core reason for the extremist elements and their determination.

C
 

I can't believe that congress is actually considering this.
to bail out the very builders who were complicit in this
whole economic debacle. 

Extending the "net operating loss carry
back" provision "would benefit home
builders, financial firms, and other
companies which have suffered losses
that exceed their prior two years of
earnings," Seiberg said.

CORPORATE HANDOUT?

But the Laborers' International Union of
North America criticized the measure,
labeling it a $33 billion "handout for
corporate home builders who helped cause
the housing crash and the mortgage
crisis."

They've got to be kidding. Listen I've seen some of these
(and I use the term loosely) houses going up here in Fl.
and believe me, they aren't worth the wind that it would take
to blow them over. Many built on swamp land that returns to
same the minute it rains.

And these same congress critters have the unmitigated gall
to consider this while telling Detroit to take a hike ??

I'm mortified.

C
 

The government's current attempts at rescuing our economy  will
at best delay the inevitable and most likely make matters worse
in the long run. The last thing we need right now is for the populace
the fall further into debt.

But what is their solution ?? You guessed it. Make it easy to get
loans and credit cards.

The two new efforts -- one mainly to
finance loans for consumers, and an
even bigger one to push down home
mortgage rates -- marked the latest but
hardly the last of the federal
government's efforts to shoulder the
losses that began with subprime
mortgages and have spread throughout
the economy.

All told, the government has assumed at
least $7 trillion in direct and
indirect financial obligations in the
form of Wall Street bailouts, emergency
lending and government guarantees on
bank deposits, inter-bank loans and
home mortgages.

For crying out loud, people are already in hock up to their
proverbial eyeballs.

I received a catalog today from Casual
Living and in big bold print on the
front page, it said "BUY NOW, PAY
NOTHING". Then in significantly smaller
print underneath, it said, (until
April). That mantra has been sung
throughout the credit markets over the
last 10 years. The banks waive a carrot
in front of the consumer and reel them
in and encourage them to go deeper and
deeper into debt. They do this by
prescreening customers through credit
reporting agencies, mailing offers to
apply, and to transfer balances at
teaser rates or zero percent financing.
They base it on credit score and not on
capacity to repay. A good credit score
does not equate to the ability to repay
debt.

What needs to be done is for people to be able to make a GOOD
wage and have access to AFFORDABLE housing. And  AFFORDABLE
transportation. Regulation on all the credit and finance as well as
real estate and health care and insurance. Instead of increasing
American consumers'  2 trillion dollar debt or bailing out the very
banks that encouraged it.

As the man stated, this whole credit thing is just one big con game
perpetrated on the American public.  If not stopped we will have
a depression the like of which this country has not known.

I do hope that Obama makes the regulating "credit con" a part of his
program. But I ain't holding my breath.

C

 

And they should be.   As stated here by Mike Menzies.

With all the big banks grabbing so
much money, Menzies said, "I have to
question if there will be funds left
for the community banking industry
when we get through all this."

Big banks should not benefit from
the mess they created, he believes.

"We absolutely did not participate
in this train wreck. We did not get
into credit-default swaps and
option-ARM loans and no-doc loans
and all the other products that
created the toxic waste on Wall
Street," he added. "The reason
community banks did not get into it
is because we have our own personal
skin in the game. If our banks get
into trouble, we get into trouble
personally. It hurts our standing in
the community. Clearly, that has not
been the case on Wall Street."

Camden Fine, president and CEO,
Independent Community Bankers of
America, said he was "outraged" by
the aid to Citi.

"Right now, all we see is taxpayer
money ... being used to bail out
incompetent management and prop up
common shareholders," he said.

Welcome to capitalism republican style. Where money talks
and the rich don't walk. But everybody else gets walked on.

C