Since you will have absolutely nothing worthwhile to say or needs to be said (I mean, for the benefit of the nation, not your awful ego), might I respectfully request you spare the nation and cancel your State of the Union speech?
Really, it’d just be an utter waste of time and money.
Obama never really ever has anything to add after he spews some line of bullshit. The best he can say about Massachusetts is that the people of that state (commonwealth, to be precise) are so stupid that they showed their hatred of the prior administration by sending to Washington a… Republican as lousy as the prior Republican administration.
The fucker acts like there hasn’t been a Democrat president elected with a mandate (and large majorities in both houses of Congress) who’s been in charge for the last year and utterly failed to accomplish anything to reverse the excesses and failures of that prior Republican administration.
Just because I’m a concerned citizen, let me spell it out for you, Mr. President. You’re an utter and complete failure. You’ve this nation no substantive good. In less than one year, you will have Republican majorities in both houses.
You have about nine months to turn things around.
That said, I expect absolutely nothing. I don’t even expect to be surprised.
The next two votes will be protest votes, ridding Congress of the Democrat majorities then ridding the nation of the failure that is your leadership.
If you couldn’t figure out what had to be done when you were elected, I expect the same failure now.
The great Anerican experiment in democracy is over.
All that’s left is a corporatist-consumer state where the only freedoms are the freedoms to be lied to, to become inundated in debt and to be ignored by a one-party government. the Dems, under Barack Obama, has made themselves utterly irrelevant.
Of course, in the old days, a parlimentary government would resign after failures such as Obama’s and his party’s. Sad for us that isn’t so here,,,,
Or maybe Obama’s serious of failures have been deliberate? But if this resounding defeat dooms his healthcare bill, it’s a great thing. I mean, a good bill with real reform would have been a boost for small businesses, the economy and just about everyone else. This bill is just a tax and damn little more.
Elected in a response to the grossest, most inept administration in close to two hundred years. And what does he do? Empowers the party at the expense of his own and the American people. And for those who criticized the Europeans for not knowing what they were doing giving him the Nobel Peace Prize — they were right, the Europeans didn’t know what they were doing unless all they wanted to do was reward a cocksucker.
And what’s with this need for 60 senators? Why can’t shit be done with 58 (59 is Joe Lieberman) (Assuming the will is there)? Lyndon Johnson did far more with far fewer? Explanation? Discuss.
Look! Another big fat fuck you from Obama to the rest of us as he serves his corporate masters! It became apparent early on that the only significant advantage of a President Obama over a President John Sidney McCain III was that Sarah Palin wouldn’t become president. Well, since Obama has now assured her election in 2012, I guess there was no point to electing a man who will end up a close second to George W. Bush for just about the worse president ever. Or maybe worse. There’s three more years til he’s kicked out of office.
Obama takes a first small step to possibly implementing a minor “reform” of the banks that will accomplish nothing significant other than allowing to boast of taking action. (Link.) Maybe he’s, you know, doing everything his masters are allowing him to do…. Query: Could a president of the teabaggers do more for the middle class?
Instant update! Oh, wait, Obama has spoken. As usual, saying nothing, really. And shifting the blame, of course.
Professor Krugman gets hit in the head by the 2×4 that is President Obama’s failure. (Link.)
Sadly, this is neither a joke nor even funny. It is, no pun intended, fucked up. It’s a victimless crime, one to which I suppose more people are turning in this economic golden age….
Yeah, the elite media are pretty goddam fucked up. Really, that’s why they’re losing audience. If the iWhatever is worth shit, it’ll just give the old journo outlets a last gasps and you’ll be able to access new media with it easily….
The stuff here and here will make you smile (if Pauley fails).
The Droid (and by extension Android phones) seem to suck, huh?
The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart. — Buddha
Haiti: The truthand more truth. Another Western-enabled failure for which the West can’t find the resources to correct…. Yeah, yeah, I know the individual responsibility argument but it only goes so far when you’re dealing with obscene corruption and oppression as well as simply grinding poverty. Which is to say it’s, unsurprisingly bullshit argument.
The American media elite loves the theme of poor black people at every opportunity (i.e. disaster) “looting”. Too bad it’s generally a lie when it comes to Haiti but the lying, dishonest fuckers just can’t help themselves and are compelled to make things offensive…. The link raises a good question: Is it looting when the only way to get food and necessities when one’s job has been “lost” is by taking them from destroyed stores? Any media source that answers yes can be safely ignored as corrupt and worthless, hopelessly detached from reality….
I used to think between Medicare, bankruptcy (Chapter 7, of course) and emergency rooms, the uninsured were in fact covered and Obama’s tax was all the more worse. Now I’m not so sure about them emergency rooms. They may be more of a problem than of a solution.
Another failure of the borrowing-for-no-good-reason model…. You’d think with all the media outlets in trouble for a comparable reason, they all’d do a better job covering stuff like this since it’s so damn close, literally….
From behind Rupert’s pay-wall, thanks to Google (it’s true what the publishers say):
Government support for the economy has helped banks make all manner of windfall profits. But have outsize returns in banks’ mortgage operations deprived borrowers of lower mortgage rates?
In 2009, there was a big jump in an industry margin used to gauge the profitability of banks’ main mortgage business, selling home loans to government-supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In theory, if that margin had remained at narrower, historical levels, mortgage rates for borrowers could have been lower. That might have created sizable savings for homeowners over the life of their loans and breathed more life into the housing market.
Banks’ mortgage profits have come amid extraordinary government support for the housing market. Since 2008, the Treasury has spent $112 billion to shore up Fannie and Freddie. Further government support has come from the Federal Reserve’s $1 trillion-plus of purchases of mortgage-backed securities since the start of 2009.
All this has helped mortgage rates fall. But could they have been lower still?
Consider what happens when banks sell their loans to Fannie or Freddie. A bank might write a mortgage at 5.1% and sell it to Fannie, which guarantees the loan and sells it with other loans packaged as mortgage-backed securities, perhaps with a coupon of 4.35%. The difference of 0.75 of a percentage point is booked by the bank, which uses some of that revenue to cover costs in its mortgage business.
From 2000 through 2008, that margin averaged 0.73 of a percentage point, according to data from Barclays Capital. But in 2009, the average was a much wider 0.98 of a percentage point.
Any additional margin likely boosted banks’ bottom lines. And by a lot, potentially, given that $1.4 trillion of mortgages were written in the first three quarters of 2009, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. Indeed, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, which together account for 45% of the market, reported blowout mortgage earnings last year.
The cause of the wider margin: The Fed’s buying helped pull down coupons on Fannie and Freddie securities by more than mortgage rates. If banks had cut mortgage rates in line with those coupons, homeowners would have benefited. Instead, the benefit appeared to have accrued to the banks.
Banks say the higher margin only offset higher expenses. But basic costs, like the guarantee fee banks pay to Fannie or Freddie as well as loan-servicing costs—roughly 0.25 of a percentage point each—likely haven’t gone up excessively.
Jay Brinkmann, of the Mortgage Bankers Association, says banks needed to recoup a drop in the value of servicing-related assets last year. Lenders also face hedging costs when selling mortgages into a forward market, he says.
Of course, since mortgage rates have come down so much, some might say it is nitpicking to focus on potential extra gains for banks.
But mortgage rates are still relatively high on an inflation-adjusted basis. And though mortgage origination picked up in 2009 on the lower rates, it fell well short of previous low-rate years.
So should the Treasury have leaned on banks to charge lower mortgage rates, given the government’s desire to help homeowners?
Sure, intervention would have risked making banks skittish, perhaps leading to less lending. But the main lenders have all strengthened their mortgage operations through big mergers, and the price at which they sold mortgages benefited a lot from the Fed’s buying.
As the government spends huge sums shoring up the housing market, it may want to look more closely at who is benefiting.
When stupid people become teachers and then get promoted to principal, you get this. It takes generations to recover from the ignorance that’s now endemic…. Texas policy is stupidity in schools, even if means turning down federal funds.
I vaguely remember that the role of the editor used to be to figure out whether there was any truth to a story. (I of course exclude the tabloid press.) Clearly not their role in the elite press anymore, from the Times straight down to gutter…. This, though, is how the Times does it now. Of course, the Times has no monopoly on the dementia sweeping the elite media…. (I know, Brian Williams was always a stupid piece of shit, just like NBC News likes….)