ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) pays people to solicit new voters. They are paid by the hour. According to news reports, some hound people to fill out registration forms, even if they are already registered! Some take names and addresses from the phone book and forge a signature, or just make up names and addresses. How can anyone be surprised? They have flooded the Board of Elections in inner cities with piles of voter registrations. Some percentage of which are invalid.
What does ACORN say? Only a few of their workers turned in phony forms. Yeah?
The first problem is paying people to solicit registrations. What can you expect? These folks are not driven by passion for the political process. Why work hard when it is easier to make up the data.
What's the harm ACORN asks. The phony voter forms will be caught by the BOEs of the city. The harm is the time taken by the BOE workers to process this crap. Time they could better spend processing legitimate registration forms. It is an insult to the system. And, this is not the first time this has happened with ACORN registration cards. Seattle 2007 is a prior instance.
If ACORN were at all concerned with the election process they would have changed their policies and procedures a long time ago. They haven't and they are hurting their image and their mission.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
The Lunar Trainers
With the accumulated gift cards I had, I bought a pair of NIKE LUNAR TRAINER shoes. These are much lighter than the New Balance shoes I have been running in. In my case "running" when talking more than 400m, means jogging interspersed with walking. I have tried them twice and so far, so good. Going to a good running store sure helps in making sure one gets the correct sized shoe. It turns out that I have been running in some that were a bit short in toe, but not enough to cause any problems. Now that I have run about 4 miles in them, I shall go back to my NB shoes for all normal runs and reserve the Lunars for events.
So - will I run the next 5K any faster? Not likely, but I might feel less effort in my snail's pace. And it will sure help in the half marathon coming up in a few weeks. For which I am not prepared. That's not bragging, it is a statement about lacking the stamina to do any serious distance training. I just am not a distance runner. I'm a sprinter. Some year soon, I shall forego these distance events and probably this second half marathon will be my last.
So - will I run the next 5K any faster? Not likely, but I might feel less effort in my snail's pace. And it will sure help in the half marathon coming up in a few weeks. For which I am not prepared. That's not bragging, it is a statement about lacking the stamina to do any serious distance training. I just am not a distance runner. I'm a sprinter. Some year soon, I shall forego these distance events and probably this second half marathon will be my last.
PORTFOLIO.COM
I have found an excellent online financial news and commentary magazine, named PORTFOLIO.COM. Great stuff. Good explanations for simpletons like this NC Crone as well as in depth articles for the more financially sophisticated.
For some entry level explanations of "leverage" and "collateralized debt obligations" here is a link to PORTFOLIO.COM's graphical description of terms, as well as articles on how we got into the mess.
credit crunched
One article on the origin of these derivatives, "The $58 Trillion Elephant in the Room". by Jesse Eisinger, is at:
the elephant
Whether you like finance or not, these are enlightening and entertaining columns and articles. One could spend hours just browsing.
For some entry level explanations of "leverage" and "collateralized debt obligations" here is a link to PORTFOLIO.COM's graphical description of terms, as well as articles on how we got into the mess.
credit crunched
One article on the origin of these derivatives, "The $58 Trillion Elephant in the Room". by Jesse Eisinger, is at:
the elephant
Whether you like finance or not, these are enlightening and entertaining columns and articles. One could spend hours just browsing.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Bah Humbug to both parties.
Think about it. You are eaking out a living, paying rent and just making it. Maybe you a have one or two children. Maybe more. You want a bigger place. You want a home of your own. You want equity. But you have no or very little savings. How on earth are you ever going to reach the goal of your own home, part of the "American Dream"?
The operative word is DREAM. Not "right".
This current financial mess had its origins in the concept that regardless of income, you should not be denied a home loan. Pushed by the Democrats of the more liberal persuasion, the idea was to help lower income folks and minorities obtain their own home. The Democratic administrations encouraged high risk loans and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought these loans and sold as mortgage backed securities. Much of the pressure on banks to make loans with a higher risk of default, came from the threat of discriminatory lending practices lawsuits.
Let's be truthful, here. The threat and cry of racism has been used to circumvent common sense. Realism is that due to various social factors, minorities, mostly represented in the past by African Americans , live in low income areas. Decent paying jobs are hard to come by, again for myriad reasons. Bottom line is they can just afford the rental homes they are in. It's a struggle. In this situation: low income jobs, high rents, they are not good candidates for a home mortgage loan. That's reality.
But the Dems said Not Fair! These folks deserve a home as much as anyone else. Stop your unfair lending practices. Make these risky loans. Sure, a certain percentage will default, but that's okay.
So, the "Trillion Dollar Commitment" to sell to ten million low income families was made by Fannie Mae in 1994. Loans were made, bought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lenders on the make for large commissions wrote mortgages for little or no money down. And, oh, by the way, some of the lenders wrote the mortgage for more than the home was worth and may have whispered, maybe, that your payments might escalate substantially if the rates changed. Everyone left the loan office happy: the lender with a nice commission, the buyer with a feeling of pride and security. Let's not forget that during this time the Fannie Mae execs and their Congressional lobbyists made a fine pile of money. Subprime reigns.
Home Equity loans taken by mddle income homeowners flourished. Homes were used as banks, with the belief that eventually the loan would be paid off, perhaps by selling the asset at a higher value. No fear and too much optimism reigned here. Or, it was a "cover the current crisis and worry about paying later" mentality.
Loans were bundled into securities and sold to investors. The Republicans, not to be outdone, urged less regulation. A free market operates better; good stuff will trickle down to everyone.
Institutions and investors who bought the mortgage backed securities also bought credit default swaps as insurance against possible loan defaults.
Then rates went up, real estate values went down, the defaults escalated, and eventually Fannie and Freddie went belly up. Failures up the gazoo followed and the market is now down, oh about 3000 points and continuing its fall. And Europe is taking the big slide down as well.
Pity some of the suckers now being foreclosed. They are worse off than before they walked into the lender's office.
So, who to vote for? The Democrats with a sometimes too socialistic agenda or the Republicans with the too optimistic "all business is good--trust them" outlook?
Bah Humbug on all!
The operative word is DREAM. Not "right".
This current financial mess had its origins in the concept that regardless of income, you should not be denied a home loan. Pushed by the Democrats of the more liberal persuasion, the idea was to help lower income folks and minorities obtain their own home. The Democratic administrations encouraged high risk loans and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought these loans and sold as mortgage backed securities. Much of the pressure on banks to make loans with a higher risk of default, came from the threat of discriminatory lending practices lawsuits.
Let's be truthful, here. The threat and cry of racism has been used to circumvent common sense. Realism is that due to various social factors, minorities, mostly represented in the past by African Americans , live in low income areas. Decent paying jobs are hard to come by, again for myriad reasons. Bottom line is they can just afford the rental homes they are in. It's a struggle. In this situation: low income jobs, high rents, they are not good candidates for a home mortgage loan. That's reality.
But the Dems said Not Fair! These folks deserve a home as much as anyone else. Stop your unfair lending practices. Make these risky loans. Sure, a certain percentage will default, but that's okay.
So, the "Trillion Dollar Commitment" to sell to ten million low income families was made by Fannie Mae in 1994. Loans were made, bought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lenders on the make for large commissions wrote mortgages for little or no money down. And, oh, by the way, some of the lenders wrote the mortgage for more than the home was worth and may have whispered, maybe, that your payments might escalate substantially if the rates changed. Everyone left the loan office happy: the lender with a nice commission, the buyer with a feeling of pride and security. Let's not forget that during this time the Fannie Mae execs and their Congressional lobbyists made a fine pile of money. Subprime reigns.
Home Equity loans taken by mddle income homeowners flourished. Homes were used as banks, with the belief that eventually the loan would be paid off, perhaps by selling the asset at a higher value. No fear and too much optimism reigned here. Or, it was a "cover the current crisis and worry about paying later" mentality.
Loans were bundled into securities and sold to investors. The Republicans, not to be outdone, urged less regulation. A free market operates better; good stuff will trickle down to everyone.
Institutions and investors who bought the mortgage backed securities also bought credit default swaps as insurance against possible loan defaults.
Then rates went up, real estate values went down, the defaults escalated, and eventually Fannie and Freddie went belly up. Failures up the gazoo followed and the market is now down, oh about 3000 points and continuing its fall. And Europe is taking the big slide down as well.
Pity some of the suckers now being foreclosed. They are worse off than before they walked into the lender's office.
So, who to vote for? The Democrats with a sometimes too socialistic agenda or the Republicans with the too optimistic "all business is good--trust them" outlook?
Bah Humbug on all!
Friday, October 3, 2008
Emergency Stabilization ... and Pork!
Even now, they can't resist. Tacked onto the Senate version of the Emergency Stabilization Act (bailout) are gobs of tax relief, energy incentives, and other miscellaneous acts or modifications and extensions to existing acts.
The added sections include:
DIVISION B--ENERGY IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION ACT OF 2008
DIVISION C--TAX EXTENDERS AND ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF
one example within this section:
SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.
This item, well touted in the media, is the wooden arrow excise tax exemption, inserted by the Oregon Senators, to the tune of $2 million over ten years. This $200,000 oer year exemption is said to benefit Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon.
What does this have to do with stabilizing the financial situation?
I doubt Senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith of Oregon will feel any shame regarding this piece of pork. No, they are bringing home the bacon to at least one grateful Oregon constituent.
What's another $200,000 loss of government revenue a year? Whether you think pork is okay when it comes home to your state, or not, it is outrageous to add it to this bill. A prime example of how the legislature works. And why there is such disgust with the way of government.
This is how the Federal Legislature works. In order to garner votes, such crap is allowed into all sorts of bills. This is why line item veto would be a welcome addition to the Executive. (The argument against line item veto is the power the Executive would then have to keep a legislator in line.)
If the Emergency Financial Stabilization Act is that critical, why could they not restrict this legislation to that crisis alone? Obviously, it was not that important to those legislators who had to be wooed by the addition of extraneous items, including some pork.
The colonials used to use tar and feathers in protest,. Maybe the time has come for slathering lard on the most egregious offenders?
The added sections include:
DIVISION B--ENERGY IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION ACT OF 2008
DIVISION C--TAX EXTENDERS AND ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF
one example within this section:
SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.
This item, well touted in the media, is the wooden arrow excise tax exemption, inserted by the Oregon Senators, to the tune of $2 million over ten years. This $200,000 oer year exemption is said to benefit Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon.
What does this have to do with stabilizing the financial situation?
I doubt Senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith of Oregon will feel any shame regarding this piece of pork. No, they are bringing home the bacon to at least one grateful Oregon constituent.
What's another $200,000 loss of government revenue a year? Whether you think pork is okay when it comes home to your state, or not, it is outrageous to add it to this bill. A prime example of how the legislature works. And why there is such disgust with the way of government.
This is how the Federal Legislature works. In order to garner votes, such crap is allowed into all sorts of bills. This is why line item veto would be a welcome addition to the Executive. (The argument against line item veto is the power the Executive would then have to keep a legislator in line.)
If the Emergency Financial Stabilization Act is that critical, why could they not restrict this legislation to that crisis alone? Obviously, it was not that important to those legislators who had to be wooed by the addition of extraneous items, including some pork.
The colonials used to use tar and feathers in protest,. Maybe the time has come for slathering lard on the most egregious offenders?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)