STOCK MARKET WATCH, Monday January 25

[ozymandius]

Source: du

STOCK MARKET WATCH, Monday January 25, 2010

Bush Administration Officials Convicted = 2
Name(s): David Safavian, James Fondren

Bush Administration Officials Charged = 1
Name(s): Richard Lopez Razo

Financial Sector Officials Convicted since 1/20/09 = 11

AT THE CLOSING BELL ON January 22, 2010

Dow... 10,172.98 -216.90 (-2.13%)
Nasdaq... 2,205.29 -60.41 (-2.67%)
S&P 500... 502.35 -11.78 (-2.29%)
Gold future... 1,092 -11.20 (-1.02%)
10-Yr Bond... 3.60 +0.01 (+0.39%)
30-Year Bond 4.53 +0.04 (+0.87%)

---

U.S. FUTURES & MARKETS INDICATORS
NASDAQ FUTURES..............................................S&P FUTURES

Market Conditions During Trading Hours

GOLD, EURO, YEN, Loonie, Silver and US$

---

Handy Links - Market Data and News:
Economic Calendar    Marketwatch Data    Bloomberg Economic News    Yahoo! Finance
    Google Finance    Bank Tracker    Credit Union Tracker    Daily Job Cuts

Handy Links - Economic Blogs:
The Big Picture    Financial Sense    Calculated Risk    Naked Capitalism    Credit Writedowns
    Brad DeLong    Bonddad    Atrios    goldmansachs666

Handy Links - Government Issues:
LegitGov    Open Government    Earmark Database    USA spending.gov

Handy Links - Videos:
The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class    Charlie Rose talks with Roubini    Charlie Rose talks with Krugman    William Black: This Economic Disaster    Bill Moyers with Kevin Drum and David Corn

---

This thread contains opinions and observations. Individuals may post their experiences, inferences and opinions on this thread. However, it should not be construed as advice. It is unethical (and probably illegal) for financial recommendations to be given here.

Read more: du

[ozymandius]

1. Market Observation

Yesterday Once More
BY BRIAN PRETTI

As you know, the mainstream financial media has been literally falling all over themselves quoting equity market performance since the March lows of last year. And of course the numbers are virtually magical. Once in a lifetime. Every investors dream, right? Of course this occurred after an every investors nightmare prior few years. The point is that although 2009 was indeed a year of extremes in terms of the early year plunge and then record setting rally, performance of the S&P and the Dow did not even measure up to the initial rally year of 2003 in the prior economic/equity cycle. But one thing is true though, 2003 and 2009 looked very similar in terms of the rhythm of human decision-making. Although no one knows what lies ahead, I always like to look back at historical patterns of human decision making for potential clues as to what might lie ahead. Especially when so few expect such an outcome. Let’s have a little visual look that you may already know all too well. It’s a look at the 2003 equity market experience as compared with 2009 using the SPX as a proxy for equities in aggregate. We’ve tacked on 2004 experience for compare/contrast purposes. The numbers are current through Wednesday of this week. ....

Additionally, if there is one other truism in investing, it’s that human behavior and decision making repeat. They rhyme in rhythmic patterns throughout market history. As Jesse Livermore suggested to us long before we were born, “human decision making never changes, only the wallets do". So it just might have been that a different set of wallets were doing the driving in 2009, but the decision making behavior looks like a dead ringer for what played out in 2003. And although this may seem a bit Twilight Zone-ish, the S&P last year closed 3 points higher than it’s 2003 close. The Dow was 24 points higher. In other words equities closed 2009 almost exactly where they stood at YE 2003. The rhythmic decision-making was so similar, it virtually cries out for analytical comparison.

http://www.financialsense.com/Market/wrapup.htm

[Hugin]

6. Yeah, the cycles repeat, but, this time...

There's no housing market to jack and the pension funds and 401(k)s are gone. So, I guess they'll go after the so-called (by Petersen henchmen) "Entitlements"... Y'know, Social Security, Medicare, et al. Anything that benefits the rabble.

:hide:

[ozymandius]

2. Today's Report

10:00 Existing Home Sales Dec
Briefing.com 6.00M
Consensus 5.90M
Prior 6.54M

http://www.briefing.com/Investor/Public/Calendars/EconomicCalendar.htm

[ozymandius]

35. Checking in with disappointing data - Existing home sales fell 16.7%

December Existing Home Sales
Updated 25-Jan-10 10:22 ET

Highlights
Existing home sales fell 16.7% to 5.450 mln in December. While a drop in sales was expected, the consensus predicted a much more modest decline of 9.8%.

The supply of existing homes increased from 6.5 months in November to 7.2 months in December.

Key Factors

The drop in sales was the after effect of the government tax credit for first time homebuyers. The credit was originally set to expire in November and potential buyers rushed into the market before the expiration date.

As a result, purchases that would have been made in December and January were instead completed in October and November.
Since first time homebuyers tend to buy lower priced homes, the drop off of these buyers from the market allowed the median and average home prices to increase 4.8% and 6.4% respectively.

Big Picture

• The government stimulus program that aided first-time home buyers was originally set to expire in November.
• As a result, many potential buyers rushed into the market in October and November to obtain the rebate.
• The existing home sales data will see a pullback in sale starting in December as the potential buyer pool has shrunk.
• The government stimulus program that aided first-time home buyers was originally set to expire in November.
• As a result, many potential buyers rushed into the market in October and November to obtain the rebate.
• The existing home sales data will see a pullback in sale starting in December as the potential buyer pool has shrunk.

[ozymandius]

3. Oil stays below $75 in Asia as stock markets fall

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia – Oil prices stayed below $75 a barrel in Asia on Monday, dampened by falls in regional stock markets and on Wall Street over President Barack Obama's plans to restrict big banks.

Benchmark crude for March delivery dipped 2 cents to $74.52 a barrel at midday Kuala Lumpur time in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract lost $1.54 to settle at $74.54 on Friday. ....

In other Nymex trading in March contracts, heating oil rose 0.48 cents to $1.9464 a gallon. For February contracts, gasoline added 0.5 cents to $1.9707 a gallon while natural gas futures gained 1 cent to $5.829 per 1,000 cubic feet.

In London, Brent crude for March delivery rose 9 cents to $72.92 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/oil_prices

[Joanne98]

4. It's Davos time again.

[ozymandius]

7. Feh.

It sounds like the Swiss version of Bohemian Grove.

[rfranklin]

14. Will Henry Kissinger be streaking at this one?

I've heard naked male bonding happens at Bohemian Grove.

[ozymandius]

16. Jeebus! I hope so.

That will virtually guarantee that the event will never happen again as long as Kissinger is around.

[ozymandius]

11. Davos bankers to lobby against Obama reforms

Banking chiefs will head to Davos this week where they are expected to use the Swiss ski resort's annual economics jamboree to quietly lobby against Barack Obama's proposed clampdown on risk-taking and mergers.

The top management of several of the world's biggest investment banks will attend the World Economic Forum's meeting, which kicks off on Wednesday and coincides with the banking sector's bonus season. It comes just days after Obama unveiled plans for the most stringent rules on financial institutions for decades as he seeks to prevent a repeat of the financial crisis that prompted costly government bailouts of banks. ...

Bank chiefs braving the public spotlight at the glitzy Davos resort – who will include Citigroup's Vikram Pandit and Bank of America's Brian Moynihan – will put their own case to regulators while also networking with clients and colleagues.

Their focus will largely be on Obama's proposals for stopping banks from taking risky bets with their own capital to make money on the financial markets – a practice known as "proprietary trading".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/25/davos-bankers-lobby-obama

[Demeter]

18. That Will Be a Tough Sell

Audacity I can believe in.

[burf]

28. This is getting more like a soap

opera every day! I guess we'll have to call it Kabuki on the Potomac.

You remember in our last episode of Kabuki on the Potomac, our leader, the honorable Obamasan said he proposed the "fat cat" bankers cease with their risky investments that were costing America so much money. He brought in the notorious Paul Volker, who would implement a plan (cleverly called the Volker Plan) to stop the bankers nonsense.

The fat cats and power brokers did not like the introduction of the Volker Plan and immediately the markets responded with a large loss. In retaliation, the leaders of some of the banks hurried to Davos to meet with their handlers and devise a plan to destroy Volker and his said plan.

Will the fat cats be successful? Will Helicopter Ben be reappointed? Will Tax Man Timmy be fired? Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of Kabuki on the Potomac.

[Loge23]

31. Complete with predicable outcome! (eom)

[ozymandius]

5. Owners: $5.4B NY housing complexes go to creditors

NEW YORK – The financially troubled owners of two massive apartment complexes that sold for a record $5.4 billion a few years ago said Monday they're turning them over to their creditors.

The joint venture ownership team led by Tishman Speyer Properties and BlackRock Realty, hurt by the real estate market collapse, couldn't make a multimillion-dollar loan payment earlier this month for the Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village apartments in Manhattan. ...

The record purchase price seemed outrageous to many real estate analysts, but the partnership believed it had a winning strategy: It would aggressively convert thousands of rent-regulated apartments occupied by middle-class families into luxury units that would fetch top dollar. ...

The group, which used a $3 billion mortgage and a $1.4 billion secondary loan to buy the properties, had been trying to restructure its debt. It couldn't make a $16 million loan payment due Jan. 8.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100125/ap_on_bi_ge/us_stuyvesant_town

[Demeter]

19. Hope the Tenants Are Smart Enough to Buy It at Auction

[fasttense]

21. So, they are walking away from their loans. Yet, Americans who are underwater

have a moral obligation to pay their ridiculous loans. Two sets of standards for the same issue. The fat guy never pays the bill.

[Demeter]

23. Walking? Looks Like Having It Yanked Out From Under Them

But given the evil of their intentions, I hope it seriously hurts them for a long time.

[FarCenter]

34. So who are the creditors?

Insurance companies? Pension funds? Foreign banks? Sovereign wealth funds?

Who got stuck with this turkey and is taking the loss? Tishman Speyer and Blackrock lost some, but someone else is taking most of the loss between the $5.4 billion paid for it and the current estimated value of about $2.7 billion.

Depending on who the creditors are, the tenants could be in a world of hurt.

[FarCenter]

36. California Public Employees Retirement System, for one!

The following is incomplete. The capital structure seems to have included:

$1.9 billion equity, including $112.5 million each from Tishman Speyer and BlackRock.

$1.4 billion mezzanine debt, incuding Gramercy Capital Corp. and a group led by Winthrop Realty Trust, which also includes Deutsche Genossenschafts-Hypothekenbank AG, a mortgage bank based in Hamburg; Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.; and Dublin-based Allied Irish Banks Plc.

$3.0 billion mortgage, from Wachovia which was packaged with other commercial-property loans and sold as securities. The biggest holders are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. government-owned home-loan finance companies.

Others investors include Singapore Investment Corp., manager of more than $100 billion of the city- state’s foreign reserves; the Florida State Board of Administration, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the Church of England. The position of these investors in the capital structure is not clear, although the story on Bloomberg says that Florida has written its investment down to $0. So Florida must be either equity or mezzanine debt.

Extracted from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atzSKZKSUti4&pos=6

[ozymandius]

8. Geithner warns of Bernanke fallout (puke alert)

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned that the financial markets would view a Senate rejection of Ben Bernanke's renomination as "very troubling" but said he's sure the embattled Federal Reserve chairman will prevail. ...

"He's done a remarkable job of helping steer this economy out of the great recession. And I think he'll play a very important role in helping in the success of our efforts to try to make sure we are bringing this economy back to durable growth."

Asked about possible market reaction to a defeat, Geithner said: "I think the markets would view that as a very troubling thing to the economy as a whole. But, as I said, I don't think they should be uncertain. I think they should be confident because we are very confident he will be reconfirmed." ....

The White House was rushing to shore up Bernanke as the stock market was dropping, after Obama's announcement that he wanted further restrictions on the activities of the biggest banks. Geithner rejected the banks' contention that the proposed rules could mean thinner markets and less money available for lending.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100125/pl_politico/31804

---

Consider conversely the noted comments above.

• Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned that the financial markets would view a Senate rejection of Ben Bernanke's renomination as "very troubling encouraging..."

• "He's done a remarkable job of helping steer this economy out of into the great recession."

Both cases are equally plausible.

[Demeter]

20. Dump Bernanke - How You Can Help!

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/dump-bernanke-how-you-can-help.html

...Are the Votes There?

Inquiring minds are reading "Senate Democrats Not Sure They Can Get Enough Votes to Reconfirm Bernanke":

Amidst the voter anger at Wall Street and Washington, D.C., ABC News has learned that the Senate Democratic leadership isn't sure there are enough votes to re-confirm Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

"The American people are disgusted with the greed and recklessness of Wall Street," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in an interview with The Associated Press last month. "People are asking, 'Why didn't the Fed intervene at the appropriate time to stop the casino-type activities of large financial companies?'"

Sanders, Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., have all put holds on Bernanke's nomination, requiring 60 votes to proceed to a vote.

Roll Call reported this week that at the Senate Democratic caucus meeting on Wednesday, "according to senators, liberals spoke out against confirming Bernanke for a second term. Those liberals tried to make the case that the White House needs to put in place fresh economic advisers to focus on 'Main Street' issues like unemployment rather than Wall Street concerns. Moderates were more reserved, senators said, but have similarly withheld their support for Bernanke.

Tally of Senate Vote Count

Inquiring minds are investigating the Wall Street Journal's Tally of Senate Vote Count on Bernanke Confirmation.

The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones have compiled a tally of senators who have declared their intentions for the confirmation vote based on interviews with the senators or their offices. Currently, 17 senators (13 Democrats and 4 Republicans) have committed to support the nomination, while 12 (7 Republicans, 4 Democrats and 1 Independent) said they will vote no. Five senators have said they are undecided in interviews, while the remainder haven’t officially commented.

From the tally ...

Undecided
LEVIN, Carl (D-MI) phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
zipcodes if asked - pick one Lansing:48906 thru 48919 except 48914 Flint: 48501 thru 48507 Grand Rapids:49501 thru 49510 Farmington:48331 thru 48336 Holland:49422 thru 49424 Kalamazoo:49003 thru 49009 Traverse City 49684 thru 49686

MIKULSKI, Barbara A. (D-MD) phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
zipcodes if asked - pick one Baltimore:21209 thru 21218 Ocean City:21842-21843 Columbia:21044 thru 21046 Ellicott:21041 thru 21043 Silver Spring:20901 thru 20911

NELSON, Ben (D-NE) phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
zipcodes if asked - pick one Omaha:68101 thru 68112 Lincoln:68501 thru 68512 Bellevue:68005

NELSON, Bill (D-FL)Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
zipcodes if asked - pick one Jacksonville:32201 thru 32212 Miama:33124 thru 33138 Tampa:33601 thru 33626 Orlando:32801 thru 32812 St. Petersburg:33701 thru 33716

REID, Harry (D-NV)Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
zipcodes if asked - pick one Las Vegas:89101 thru 89157 Henderson:89011 thru 89016 except 89013 Reno:89501 thru 89513

Against Confirmation
BOXER, Barbara (D-CA)
DORGAN, Byron L. (D-ND)
FEINGOLD, Russell D. (D-WI)
MERKLEY, Jeff (D-OR)
SANDERS, Bernard (I-VT)
BUNNING, Jim (R-KY)
CRAPO, Mike (R-ID)
DeMINT, Jim (R-SC)
HUTCHISON, Kay Bailey (R-TX)
McCAIN, John (R-AZ)
SHELBY, Richard C. (R-AL)
VITTER, David (R-LA)

For Confirmation
AKAKA, Daniel K. (D-HI)
BAYH, Evan (D-IN)
BENNET, Michael F. (D-CO)
BROWN, Sherrod (D-OH)
DODD, Christopher J. (D-CT)
DURBIN, Richard J. (D-IL)
JOHNSON, Tim (D-SD)
KOHL, Herb (D-WI)
MENENDEZ, Robert (D-NJ)
REED, Jack (D-RI)
SCHUMER, Charles E. (D-NY)
TESTER, Jon (D-MT)
WARNER, Mark R. (D-VA)
BENNETT, Robert F. (R-UT)
CORKER, Bob (R-TN)
GREGG, Judd (R-NH)
JOHANNS, Mike (R-NE)

How You Can Help!

Whether they are in your state or not, please call all 5 undecided senators.

Concentrate on the senate. The house has no say on this.

What To Say: Make it simple so as to not tie up the lines ... "I am opposed to the reappointment of Bernanke and I think we should start all over on health care ."

Be prepared to name your city and give a zipcode. Here is the Zip-Code Database.

Next call your senators with the same message.
Look up the phone numbers in the Online Directory For The 111th Congress .

Send A Message

Remember it takes 60 votes for confirmation. All it takes to send Bernanke flying is a change in a handful of undecided senators!

Call Now!

[Demeter]

22. What if Bernanke Isn’t Reconfirmed

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/what-if-bernanke-isnt-reconfirmed.php

What happens if Ben Bernanke isn’t reconfirmed? Well, some folks seem to think it will send markets into a tailspin. But it’s worth emphasizing that in literal terms almost nothing will happen. If a left-right coalition of 40 Senators blocks his confirmation, then it’s hard to see what other candidate would be more to their liking. You’d have gridlock. But Bernanke’s term as a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors is actually a 14-year term that doesn’t expire for a long time. Consequently, the same Open Market Committee that’s making decisions right now would just go on making decisions. Bernanke would, however, be unable to perform the formal responsibilities of the Chairman, so that role would devolve to Donald Kohn, the Vice Chair.

Would that be a ridiculous situation for an erstwhile major country with a functioning political system to find itself in?

Why yes it would. But it would merely be a reminder that we are, in fact, in a ridiculous situation and do not, in fact, have a functioning political system. Take a look at the current Treasury Department org chart and note that only one Undersecretary has been confirmed by the Senate. We’re missing the Undersecretaries for Domestic Finance and for International Affairs as well as a boatload of assistant secretaries. Those sound like important subjects to me amidst a financial crisis. And, in fact, they are important jobs. And they’re not exactly going undone—an ad hoc group of “counselors” to Tim Geithner and such are keeping the show running. But this is not really a good way to run the government.

By the same token, the routine filibustering has done something odd to the president’s ability to fire subordinates. Obama can’t really sack any member of his cabinet or subcabinet unless he has a specific replacement in mind who he’s certain can secure 60 votes in the Senate. Which means he basically can’t fire anyone. I suppose in some cockamamie way all this might advance the electoral interests of Republican Senators (although it’s actually hard for me to see how it does) but it’s not good for the country.

[Ghost Dog]

37. ... do not, in fact, have a functioning political system.

Is this a situation analogous to a First Triumvirate leading into a Second Triumvirate, then, here?

Is your Corporate Congress about ready to pass a modern Lex Titia (You Know It Makes Sense®)?

[Tansy_Gold]

38. (snicker, snicker, snort, snort)

heh, heh, he said "titia," I heard him. (giggle, giggle)



Tansy Gold, thinking she has fallen asleep and wakened in Beavis & Buttheadland for sure, since the buttheads (aka assholes) are running things

[Demeter]

39. Waaay too complicated for the US

There are a bunch of petty men, no more than 100, probably, who think they own us. They are wrong. They will find out soon enough, sooner if they push it.

You can't own a democracy. And after 200+ years, it will be very hard to kill the idea, since it has expanded to include all persons over the age of 18.

Peril abounds. But the "organization" is pretty shallow, very greedy, vain and fundamentally stupid in its intent. It will destroy itself by destroying its source of wealth and power.

[Ghost Dog]

42. Hmm. Hope you're right. But haven't we been seeing democracy already trumped

by the exigencies of the (trumped-up) Long War (on Terror)^TM?

On the other hand, maybe they're still playing to the crowds in the Forum (see next post).

[tclambert]

44. Hey, America has the best democracy money can buy.

Just make an offer. But remember, you're bidding against Exxon Mobil and Goldman Sachs.

[Ghost Dog]

45. Either of which could shift their "head offices" / accounting centres

(not just their "off balance sheet" (mostly British) offshore accounts) to wherever they choose, à la Halliburton, whenever they choose, right?

... After all, who owns them?

Seems to me, USA has going for it right now not much more than some, much diminished, European good will and, uh, guns. And an enormous (but relatively small and disposable) quantity of observably illiterate and clearly innumerate cannon fodder.

With a dubious but nevertheless hilarious sense of humor.

(And I'm trying to help you out here).

(Same applies to most Brits, BTW).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbXO4cD2TLo

(Edited to aid comprehension).

9/11? Remember the Maine.

[Ghost Dog]

47. By way of illustration and food for thought I would offer you (without endorsing the source)

this.

Also BTW, get the best DAVOS propaganda here: http://blogs.reuters.com/davos/2010/01/22/special-reports-from-our-biggest-davos-team-ever/

And, from The Economist (sends representatives to Bilderberg Meets):

The coming days
The week ahead
Barack Obama's first state-of-the-union address

Jan 24th 2010
From Economist.com
JAS

• A BRUISED Barack Obama is set to deliver his first state-of-the-union address on Wednesday January 27th. A recent defeat of the Democratic candidate for the Massachusetts Senate seat once held by Edward Kennedy has given the Republicans enough votes to break the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority in the upper house. This puts Mr Obama's precious health-care reform bill in doubt. So Mr Obama will need to deploy plenty of his customary eloquence to convince Americans that he can still deliver “change you can believe in” after the knocks of his first year in office.

... snip/comments ...

[email protected] wrote:
Jan 24th 2010 12:13 GMT

USA and UK are family and always support each other no matter what, so Blair probably felt he had no real choice. But killing the scientist who spoke the truth about the lack of weapons was more like Russia than a democracy.
Recommend (3)
Permalink
Report abuse
Spectacularj1 wrote:
Jan 24th 2010 5:35 GMT

I would never have thought that by the time this event rolled around that I would have become completely despondent and disinterested in politics.
Recommend (1)
Permalink
Report abuse
doublehelix wrote:
Jan 24th 2010 10:27 GMT

Obama is expected to take a more populist tack and attempt to tap into voter anger over Washington, bailouts, and the economy while still pushing for a government takeover of the healthcare industry. It's too bad he has no credibility. He has not been a post-partisan leader who stands for the broad populace, and has been more than content to let the leftist base of his party run the legislative process. He has not brought transparency and change to Washington, so much as he as been willingly absorbed and consumed by the culture of business as usual. When Obama points out all the reasons why voters should rightfully be angry in his State of the Union address, will he actually listen to his own rhetoric?

The words of truth, though in the mouth of folly. - Sir Walter Scott
Recommend (13)
Permalink
Report abuse
Spectacularj1 wrote:
Jan 25th 2010 2:10 GMT

@ doublehelix

you are right for the wrong reasons.

Obama has been incredibly centrist, not leftist as you claim - to claim so only identifies you as an extreme rightist.

Rather it is because he has been centrist and has ignored his base that he has lost credibility.
Recommend (5)
Permalink
Report abuse
doublehelix wrote:
Jan 25th 2010 2:44 GMT

Spectacularly wrong

If you had bothered to read my post with any care, you would have realized that I never actually called Obama a leftist. Furthermore, Obama's unwillingness or ineffectiveness as a supposed post-partisan leader is not to be misconstrued as having taken a centrist position.

0 for 2. Par for the course.
Recommend (9)
Permalink
Report abuse
SADMAN2901 wrote:
Jan 25th 2010 6:28 GMT

President Obama had inherited a basketful of matters around the world to take care of. The debackle in the banking sector distracted his attention.The greed and selfishness of Wall Street banks along with large banks in Europe has shown everyone about their nature. President Obama has rightly proposed to levy or surcharge on the banks to take care of any such situation in future.
Recommend (3)
Permalink
Report abuse
sbaddog wrote:
Jan 25th 2010 8:21 GMT

Like there is a hard and fast definition of leftist, centrist, rightist.

That being said, any delusions of Obama governing from the center is only to hide his leftist tendencies. He tried to get his health care reform rammed through before he slammed us with the rest.
Recommend
Permalink
Report abuse
AMERICAWAKEUPNOW wrote:
Jan 25th 2010 8:31 GMT

IT IS TIME FOR AMERICANS TO TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!

NO MORE TIME FOR COMPLACENCY!

WWW.AMERICAWAKEUPNOW.NET

THE AWAKENING OF AMERICANS!!
Recommend
Permalink
Report abuse
Back to top ^^
1-8 of 8

* Recommend (26)
* E-mail
* Share
o Facebook
o LinkedIn
o Twitter
o Delicious
o Digg
o more...
* Rights & reprints

Advertisement
Click here to find out more!
The Economist welcomes your thoughts

We are making continuous improvements to The Economist website and are interested in your thoughts.

Please leave your feedback.

Advertisement
Click here to find out more!

/... http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15327951&source=features_box1

:scratching head:

:puke:

[Ghost Dog]

51. Lyrics: Lágrimas Negras

Aunque tú me has echado en el abandono
Aunque tú has muerto mis ilusiones
En vez de maldecirte con justo encono
En mis sueños te colmo
En mis sueños te colmo de bendiciones

Sufro la inmensa pena de tu extravío
Siento el dolor profundo de tu partida
Y lloro sin que tú sepas que el llanto mío
Tiene lágrimas negras
Tiene lágrimas negras como mi vida

Aunque tú me has echado en el abandono
Aunque tú has muerto mis ilusiones
En vez de maldecirte con justo encono
En mis sueños te colmo
En mis sueños te colmo de bendiciones

Sufro la inmensa pena de tu extravío
Siento el dolor profundo de tu partida
Y lloro sin que tú sepas que el llanto mío
Tiene lágrimas negras
Tiene lágrimas negras como mi vida

Viendo el Guadalquivir
Las gitanas lavan, los ninõs en la orilla
Veindo los barcos pasar
Aqua del limenero, aqua del limenero
Si te acaricio la cara
Tienes que darme un beso

En el Guadalquivir, mi gitana lavaba
Pañuelo de blanco y oro
Que yo te daba, que yo te daba
Aqua del limenero, aqua del limenero
Si te acaricio la cara
Tienes que darme un beso

Tú me quieres dejar
Yo no quiero sufrir
Contigo me voy flamenca
Aunque me cueste morir
Contigo me voy gitana
Aunque me cueste morir







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEBMPbIbWRM&feature=related

[Ghost Dog]

43. 5 Reasons to Worry the 'Volcker Rule' May Just Be Hype

At the broadest level, Thursday’s announcement from the White House was encouraging – for the first time, the president endorsed potential new constraints on the scale and scope of our largest banks, and said he was ready for “a fight”. After a long tough argument, Paul Volcker appeared to have finally persuaded President Obama that the unconditional bailouts of 2008-2009 planted the seeds for another major economic crisis.

But how deep does this conversion go? On the “deep” side is the signal implicit in the fact that Volcker stood behind the president while Tim Geithner was further from the podium than any Treasury Secretary in living memory. Where you stand at major White House announcements is never an accident.

Increasingly, however, there are very real indications that the conversion is either superficial (on the economic side of the White House) or entirely a marketing ploy (on the political side). Here are the five top reasons to worry.

1. Secretary Geithner’s spin on the Volcker Rule, Thursday night on the Lehrer NewsHour, is in direct contradiction to what the president said. At first, it seemed that Geithner was just off-message. Now it is more likely that he is (still) the message.

2. The White House background briefing on Thursday morning gave listeners the strong impression that these new proposals would freeze the size of our largest banks “as is”. Again, this is strongly at odds with what the president said and seemed – at the time – to indicate insufficient preparation and message drift. But who is really drifting now, the aides or the president?

3. At the heart of the substance of the “Volcker Rule,” if the idea is literally to freeze the banks at or close to their current size, this makes no sense at all. Why would anyone regard twenty years of reckless expansion, a massive global crisis, and the most generous bailout in recorded history as the recipe for creating “right” sized banks? There is absolutely no evidence, for example, that the increase in bank scale since the mid-1990s has brought anything other than huge social costs – in terms of direct financial rescues, the fiscal stimulus needed to prevent another Great Depression, and millions of lost jobs. On reflection, perhaps the president really still doesn’t get this.

4. Since Thursday, the White House has gone all out for the reconfirmation of Ben Bernanke, whereas gently backing away from him – or at least not being so enthusiastic – would have sent a clearer signal that the president is truly prepared to be tough on big banks and their supporters. Unless Bernanke unexpectedly changes his stripes, his reappointment at this time gives up a major hostage to fortune – and to those Democrats and Republicans opposing serious financial reform.

5. As the White House begins to campaign for the November midterms, how will they answer the question: What exactly did they “change” relative to what any other potential administration would have done in the face of a financial crisis? How will they counter anyone who claims, citing Rahm Emanuel, that: ”The crisis is over, and we wasted it.” No answer is yet in sight.

The Geithner strategy of being overly nice to the mega-banks was not good economics and has proven impossible to sell politically – the popular hostility to his approach is just common sense prevailing over technical mumbo jumbo.

But selling incoherent mush with a mixed message and cross-eyed messengers could be even worse.

/... http://seekingalpha.com/article/184189-5-reasons-to-worry-the-volcker-rule-may-just-be-hype?source=hp_wc

[ozymandius]

9. Asian Shares End Lower; Risk Aversion Hits Financial Stocks

SINGAPORE (Dow Jones)--Asian markets ended lower Monday as risk-averse investors sold down banking and metals stocks after hefty losses on Wall Street Friday, with Bank of China shares declining on the lender's share-sale plans to raise capital.

Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index fell 0.6% to 20598.55, ending lower for the ninth time in 10 sessions, with China's Shanghai Composite giving up 1.1% to 3094.41 and Japan's Nikkei 225 Average falling 0.7% to 10512.69. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 and Taiwan's Taiex declined 0.7% each, South Korea's Kospi fell 0.8% and Singapore's Straits Times gave up 0.3%. In afternoon trading, India's Sensex lost 0.2%.

The region-wide losses came after the Dow Jones Industrial Average recorded its biggest one-day drop since Oct. 30 on Friday, adding to investor worries about possible U.S. bank restrictions as well as monetary tightening in China. ...

Elsewhere in the region, New Zealand's NZX slipped 0.1% and Philippine stocks dropped 1.8%, while Indonesia's JSX lost 0.6% and Thailand's SET Index shed 0.4% in afternoon trading.

In Tokyo, investors in foreign exchange markets were keeping a close eye on the Bank of Japan's two-day policy board meeting starting Monday and Governor Masaaki Shirakawa's press conference Tuesday to gauge the possibility of further policy tightening down the road.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100125-702580.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

[ozymandius]

10. Walmart to Cut 11,200 Sam’s Club Jobs, Outsource Demonstrations

Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s Sam’s Club chain, the second-largest U.S. warehouse club, will cut about 11,200 jobs in the next month after hiring an outside company to take over in-store product demonstrations.

About 10,000 demonstration employees, most part-time, will lose their jobs in the U.S. as marketing firm Shopper Events LLC takes over sampling, Sam’s Club Chief Executive Officer Brian Cornell said in an interview yesterday. The company also is cutting about 1,200 membership recruiting jobs.

The hiring of Shopper Events, which already works for Walmart’s namesake stores, is part of an effort to improve demonstrations and lure customers from rival clubs, Cornell, 50, said. Sam’s, which trails Costco Wholesale Corp. in sales, will use savings from labor costs to improve the sampling of food, beverages, health items and electronics, the CEO said. ....

Cornell, who became CEO in April, told employees about the change in a memo yesterday. Shopper Events, based in Rogers, Arkansas, a town next to Walmart’s Bentonville headquarters, plans to hire about the same number of workers that Sam’s Club is cutting, the memo said. The fired employees can apply for Shopper Events jobs.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-25/walmart-to-cut-11-200-sam-s-club-jobs-outsource-demonstrations.html

[ozymandius]

12. SEC mulled national security status for AIG details

The request to keep the details secret were made by the New York Federal Reserve -- a regulator that helped orchestrate the bailout -- and by the giant insurer itself, according to the emails.

The emails from early last year reveal that officials at the New York Fed were only comfortable with AIG submitting a critical bailout-related document to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission after getting assurances from the regulatory agency that "special security procedures" would be used to handle the document.

The SEC, according to an email sent by a New York Fed lawyer on January 13, 2009, agreed to limit the number of SEC employees who would review the document to just two and keep the document locked in a safe while the SEC considered AIG's confidentiality request.

The SEC had also agreed that if it determined the document should not be made public, it would be stored "in a special area where national security related files are kept," the lawyer wrote. ...

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who has drawn fire for his role in the bailout, was set to testify before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. Geithner, who led the New York Fed at the time of the AIG bailout, has said he was not privy to the discussions about what information AIG should or should not release to the public and the SEC.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60N1S220100124

---

I will bet a $10 donation to DU that Geithner is lying. Any takers?

[Demeter]

40. Somebody's Out of His Mind

and I don't think it's Ozy.

[ozymandius]

13. Grayson: `Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act'

`SEC. 4491. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND CORPORATE EXPENDITURES ON POLITICAL ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS.

`(a) In General- In the case of a corporation, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 500 percent of the aggregate of the following amounts:

`(1) The amount of contributions (as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) made during the taxable year.

`(2) The amount paid for an electioneering communication described in section 304(f)(3) of such Act.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4431:

It does not stand a chance in hell of passing but I really admire Congressman Grayson for his hutzpah.

[Po_d Mainiac]

32. Thems ain't bells in the halls of congress

That just be Grayson clanging as he strolls.

[ozymandius]

15. Health Care: “Time For Obama to Cross the Rubicon”

From Naked Capitalism

Many people are lamenting the apparent death of the health care bill in the aftermath of Scott Brown’s unexpected election to the Senate last week. They shouldn’t be. Congress and the President should use the opportunity afforded by the loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat to reconstruct a more sensible piece of legislation which genuinely addresses the real problems posed by our current health care system.

Senate Democrats in particular should not obsess about the number, 60. The absence of a so-called super majority of Senators does not preclude the possibility of passing significant health care reform, even the approach is ultimately more piecemeal and incremental. There is still ample opportunity to implement legislation in the Senate via reconciliation (a parliamentary maneuver which allows legislation to pass with a simple majority vote). And it’s fundamentally more democratic: 2 or 3 Senators should not be able to hold an entire piece of legislation hostage to their own narrow political interests, as Senators Lieberman and Nelson, amongst others, were cynically able to do under the previous legislation. ....

Krugman also embraces the principle flaw inherent in the whole health care reform effort. Both the House AND Senate versions of the bill entrench the centrality of private health insurance companies. But health care is not a service that should be provided by private health insurance companies, as L. Randall Wray has pointed out:

Most health “reform” proposals would somehow insure many or most of these people—mostly by forcing them to buy insurance. All of them have pre-existing conditions, many of which are precisely the type that if known would make them uninsurable if insurance companies could exclude them. While it is likely that only a fraction of the currently uninsured have been explicitly excluded from insurance because of existing conditions (many more are excluded because they cannot afford premiums)—but every one of them has numerous existing conditions and one of the main goals of “reform” is to make it more difficult for insurers to exclude people with existing conditions. In other words, “reform” will require people who do not want to buy insurance to buy it, and will require insurers who do not want to extend insurance to them to provide it. That is not a happy situation even in the best of circumstances.

Remember the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which was introduced almost as a footnote to Reagan’s tax reform bill of 1986? At the time, it seemed like a relatively small item as the threshold for the AMT was set at a reasonably high level and it didn’t catch a lot of people initially. But of course, as time went on and incomes rose, more and more of the middle class got trapped by it.

The same thing would have almost certainly occurred in regard to the so-called “Cadillac tax” proposal, a tax on high cost health care premiums ran in excess of $23,000 per annum. Given that neither the House, nor the Senate, versions of the bill contained any serious proposals for cost containment, health insurance premiums likely would have continued to skyrocket, which would have likely guaranteed that an increasing number of health insurance customers would be hit by the tax as time went on. ...

Allowing a Medicare buy-in to Americans under 65 would give people a genuine alternative to private health insurance and thereby render the whole issue of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions moot. It would also lower Medicare costs, by expanding the risk pool of patients (the great bulk of medical expenses are accounted for by a small number of people, mostly the elderly, requiring very expensive treatment). And it would substantially enhance the global competitiveness of American corporations. After all, in what other country in the world is health care a marginal cost of production for business?

More at link...

[Dr.Phool]

33. I'll propose something that will really cross the Rubicon.

If Obama had the balls to do it. And I mean BIG BALLS. It's a big head dive down a slippery slope, but I can't see any alternative.

Look it squarely in the eyes. Government. It's clearly broken. Representative democracy in this country is dead. Fatally proven by the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision.

Remember those police state type laws that Congress passed under the Bush Administration, and with the support of a lot of Dems in Congress? The ones that granted the President to declare an emergency on anything as much as a whim?

Declare a national security medical emergency. Fold every citizen into Medicare by executive order. Repeal the Bush tax cuts by executive order, and implement the funding of HR 676. Seize ALL the assets of the insurance companies. Re-instate the Medicare reimbursement rates that Bush cut. Problem solved.

But, he's have to bring all the troops home to secure the country from all the anticipated unrest. If necessary, dissolve the Supreme Court, and implement public financing.

I don't like the idea much, but when you look at just how badly our government is broken, I don't see any other workable alternative.

But, then again, I'm probably full of shit, as usual.

[Tansy_Gold]

41. You're not full of shit, Doc. You're full of piss and vinegar, mad as hell,

and getting damn sick and tired of being sick and tired.

Like many of us.

I don't want Obama to become a dictator. What I would like him to do is start lobbying for some left of center proposals AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. Some maroon on faux apparently is blaming/crediting the Brown victory in MA to Obama's governing "too far to the left," which is supposed to prompt him to move even further right than he already is. Those of us here who know his policies are already to the right of what "popular opinion" seems to want, at least in terms of the health care isse that has become his "signature" bit of legislation this past year, would like to see him just attempt some more leftward leaning actions and then take a poll.

So far all he's done is try to appease the pukes and they aren't appeased (but probably are amused). In the process he has indeed pissed off his base -- except for a few stalwarts over in GD and GDP -- and hasn't accomplished a damn thing.

the good goddess only knows what his next move will be.



Tansy Gold

[Tansy_Gold]

50. I wish to hell the good goddess had told me this morning

that Obama's "next move" was going to be a freeze on domestic spending while "homeland security" and the international death squads military budgets continue apace.

I wouldn't have believed her, but at least I'd have been prepared.

:puke:


Tansy Gold, who spent much of the afternoon posting in pom-pom threads that are now locked. . . .

[Festivito]

17. Debt: 01/21/2010 12,300,163,248,044.69 (DOWN 27,217,556,652.13) (Thu)

(Down big here. Debt seems to jump up big then drop slowly maybe up a little and down a little for days--repeat. Good day all.)

= Held by the Public + Intragovernmental(FICA)
= 7,783,227,771,568.19 + 4,516,935,476,476.50
DOWN 31,161,420,148.11 + UP 3,943,863,495.98

Source: Debt to the penny:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

THINKING IN BILLIONS: Think 3 or 4 dollars per billion in a 309-Million person America.
If every American, man, woman and child puts in $3.24 each THAT'S 1B$.
A family of three: Mom, Dad, Child: $9.72, ABOUT TEN BUCKS for a 1B$ federal program.
I hope that is clear. However, I'd suggest using $3 per 1B$ to underestimate it.
Use $4 per 1B$ to overestimate the cost when thinking: Is the federal program worth it?
Aid to Dependant Children: 2B$/yr =$8/yr(a movie a year) Family of 3: $24/yr(an hour of bowling)

PERSONALIZED DEBT:
Every 10 seconds we net gain another American, so at the end of the workday of the report, there should be 308,530,398 people in America.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html ON 11/07/2009 08:19 -> 307,879,272
Currently, each of these Americans owe $39,866.94.
A family of three owes $119,600.82. (And that is IN ADDITION to their mortgage.)

ANALYSIS:
There were 21 reports in the last 30 to 31 days.
The average for the last 21 reports is 9,567,629,586.67.
The average for the last 30 days would be 6,697,340,710.67.
The average for the last 31 days would be 6,481,297,461.94.
There were 252 reports in 365 days of FY2007 averaging 1.99B$ per report, 1.37B$/day.
There were 253 reports in 366 days of FY2008 averaging 4.02B$ per report, 2.78B$/day.
There were 75 reports in 112 days of GWB's part of FY2009 averaging 8.03B$ per report, 5.38B$/day.
There were 174 reports in 253 days of Obama's part of FY2009 averaging 7.33B$ per report, 5.07B$/day so far.
There were 249 reports in 365 days of FY2009 averaging 7.57B$ per report, 5.16B$/day.
There were 76 reports in 113 days of FY2010 averaging 5.14B$ per report, 3.45B$/day.
Above line should be okay

PROJECTION:
There are 1,095 days remaining in this Obama 1st term.
By that time the debt could be between 13.8 and 19.4T$.
It could be higher. It could be lower.

HISTORICAL:
President's term begins and ends on Jan 20.
(Guess who might want to hide the Reagan Bush years. Jan 20 data is missing before 1993.)
01/20/1993 _4,188,092,107,183.60 WJC Inaugural
01/22/2001 _5,728,195,796,181.57 WJC (UP 1,540,103,688,997.97)
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08 GWB (UP 4,898,681,252,731.43)
01/21/2010 12,300,163,248,044.69 BHO (UP 1,673,286,199,131.61 so far since Obama took office.)

FISCAL YEAR DEBT CHANGE, Sep 30 prior year to Sep 30 named year:
(One "* " for each 40B$ reached)
FY1994 +0,281,261,026,873.94 ------------* * * * * * * WJC
FY1995 +0,281,232,990,696.07 ------------* * * * * * * WJC
FY1996 +0,250,828,038,426.34 ------------* * * * * * WJC
FY1997 +0,188,335,072,261.61 ------------* * * * WJC
FY1998 +0,113,046,997,500.28 ------------* * WJC
FY1999 +0,130,077,892,735.81 ------------* * * WJC
FY2000 +0,017,907,308,253.43 ------------WJC
FY2001 +0,133,285,202,313.20 ------------* * * C&B
01-WJC +0,053,598,528,417.78 ------------* WJC 31% of FY, 40% of FY-Debt
01-GWB +0,079,686,673,895.42 ------------* GWB 69% of FY, 60% of FY-Debt
FY2002 +0,420,772,553,397.10 ------------* * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2003 +0,554,995,097,146.46 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2004 +0,595,821,633,586.70 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2005 +0,553,656,965,393.18 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2006 +0,574,264,237,491.73 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2007 +0,500,679,473,047.25 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2008 +1,017,071,524,649.92 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2009 +1,885,104,106,599.30 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B&O
09GWB +0,602,152,152,000.60 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB 31% of FY, 32% of FY-Debt
09-BHO +1,282,951,954,598.70 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BHO 69% of FY, 68% of FY-Debt
FY2010 +0,390,334,244,532.90 ------------* * * * * * * * * BHO
Endof10 +1,260,814,152,694.77 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Linear Projection

LAST FIFTEEN REPORTS OF ADDITIONS TO PUBLIC DEBT(NOT FICA):
12/30/2009 +007,596,599,767.56 ------------*********
12/31/2009 +083,831,281,729.66 ------------**********
01/04/2010 -007,102,898,314.32 -- Mon
01/05/2010 +000,354,346,864.84 ------------********
01/06/2010 +000,123,816,367.19 ------------********
01/07/2010 -022,790,950,811.50 -
01/08/2010 -000,177,723,158.27 ---
01/11/2010 -000,226,209,166.36 --- Mon
01/12/2010 +000,163,748,521.92 ------------********
01/13/2010 -000,144,326,167.15 ---
01/14/2010 -025,105,278,682.17 -
01/15/2010 +057,080,501,160.91 ------------**********
01/19/2010 -000,292,818,574.91 --- Tue
01/20/2010 +001,498,198,188.82 ------------*********
01/21/2010 -031,161,420,148.11 -

63,646,867,578.11 Total of 15 above reports.

Heavy borrowing seems to start after 09/18/2008 while Bush was in power JUST BEFORE fiscal year end.
Bush admin borrowed $962,245,245,654.01 in those last 124 days in office crossing two fiscal years.
$360,093,093,653.42 in last 12 days of FY2008, and $602,152,152,000.59 in subsequent 112 days before leaving office.

For a prettier and more explanatory view of our nation's debt:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
DUer primer on National debt

(Debt to the penny keeps changing. Stuff is missing. Best to keep our own history.) LAST REPORT:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4237515&mesg_id=4237542

[Festivito]

49. Debt: 01/22/2010 12,302,465,487,917.34 (UP 2,302,239,872.65) (Fri)

(Not much of a move. Debt seems to jump up big then drop slowly maybe up a little and down a little for days--repeat. Good day all.)

= Held by the Public + Intragovernmental(FICA)
= 7,783,157,721,690.45 + 4,519,307,766,226.89
DOWN 70,049,877.74 + UP 2,372,289,750.39

Source: Debt to the penny:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

THINKING IN BILLIONS: Think 3 or 4 dollars per billion in a 309-Million person America.
If every American, man, woman and child puts in $3.24 each THAT'S 1B$.
A family of three: Mom, Dad, Child: $9.72, ABOUT TEN BUCKS for a 1B$ federal program.
I hope that is clear. However, I'd suggest using $3 per 1B$ to underestimate it.
Use $4 per 1B$ to overestimate the cost when thinking: Is the federal program worth it?
Aid to Dependant Children: 2B$/yr =$8/yr(a movie a year) Family of 3: $24/yr(an hour of bowling)

PERSONALIZED DEBT:
Every 10 seconds we net gain another American, so at the end of the workday of the report, there should be 308,539,038 people in America.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html ON 11/07/2009 08:19 -> 307,879,272
Currently, each of these Americans owe $39,873.29.
A family of three owes $119,619.86. (And that is IN ADDITION to their mortgage.)

ANALYSIS:
There were 21 reports in the last 30 to 31 days.
The average for the last 21 reports is 9,875,851,938.49.
The average for the last 30 days would be 6,913,096,356.94.
The average for the last 31 days would be 6,690,093,248.65.
There were 252 reports in 365 days of FY2007 averaging 1.99B$ per report, 1.37B$/day.
There were 253 reports in 366 days of FY2008 averaging 4.02B$ per report, 2.78B$/day.
There were 75 reports in 112 days of GWB's part of FY2009 averaging 8.03B$ per report, 5.38B$/day.
There were 174 reports in 253 days of Obama's part of FY2009 averaging 7.33B$ per report, 5.07B$/day so far.
There were 249 reports in 365 days of FY2009 averaging 7.57B$ per report, 5.16B$/day.
There were 77 reports in 114 days of FY2010 averaging 5.10B$ per report, 3.44B$/day.
Above line should be okay

PROJECTION:
There are 1,094 days remaining in this Obama 1st term.
By that time the debt could be between 13.8 and 19.6T$.
It could be higher. It could be lower.

HISTORICAL:
President's term begins and ends on Jan 20.
(Guess who might want to hide the Reagan Bush years. Jan 20 data is missing before 1993.)
01/20/1993 _4,188,092,107,183.60 WJC Inaugural
01/22/2001 _5,728,195,796,181.57 WJC (UP 1,540,103,688,997.97)
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08 GWB (UP 4,898,681,252,731.43)
01/22/2010 12,302,465,487,917.34 BHO (UP 1,675,588,439,004.26 so far since Obama took office.)

FISCAL YEAR DEBT CHANGE, Sep 30 prior year to Sep 30 named year:
(One "* " for each 40B$ reached)
FY1994 +0,281,261,026,873.94 ------------* * * * * * * WJC
FY1995 +0,281,232,990,696.07 ------------* * * * * * * WJC
FY1996 +0,250,828,038,426.34 ------------* * * * * * WJC
FY1997 +0,188,335,072,261.61 ------------* * * * WJC
FY1998 +0,113,046,997,500.28 ------------* * WJC
FY1999 +0,130,077,892,735.81 ------------* * * WJC
FY2000 +0,017,907,308,253.43 ------------WJC
FY2001 +0,133,285,202,313.20 ------------* * * C&B
01-WJC +0,053,598,528,417.78 ------------* WJC 31% of FY, 40% of FY-Debt
01-GWB +0,079,686,673,895.42 ------------* GWB 69% of FY, 60% of FY-Debt
FY2002 +0,420,772,553,397.10 ------------* * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2003 +0,554,995,097,146.46 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2004 +0,595,821,633,586.70 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2005 +0,553,656,965,393.18 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2006 +0,574,264,237,491.73 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2007 +0,500,679,473,047.25 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2008 +1,017,071,524,649.92 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2009 +1,885,104,106,599.30 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B&O
09GWB +0,602,152,152,000.60 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB 31% of FY, 32% of FY-Debt
09-BHO +1,282,951,954,598.70 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BHO 69% of FY, 68% of FY-Debt
FY2010 +0,392,636,484,405.60 ------------* * * * * * * * * BHO
Endof10 +1,257,125,586,035.48 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Linear Projection

LAST FIFTEEN REPORTS OF ADDITIONS TO PUBLIC DEBT(NOT FICA):
12/31/2009 +083,831,281,729.66 ------------**********
01/04/2010 -007,102,898,314.32 -- Mon
01/05/2010 +000,354,346,864.84 ------------********
01/06/2010 +000,123,816,367.19 ------------********
01/07/2010 -022,790,950,811.50 -
01/08/2010 -000,177,723,158.27 ---
01/11/2010 -000,226,209,166.36 --- Mon
01/12/2010 +000,163,748,521.92 ------------********
01/13/2010 -000,144,326,167.15 ---
01/14/2010 -025,105,278,682.17 -
01/15/2010 +057,080,501,160.91 ------------**********
01/19/2010 -000,292,818,574.91 --- Tue
01/20/2010 +001,498,198,188.82 ------------*********
01/21/2010 -031,161,420,148.11 -
01/22/2010 -000,070,049,877.74 ----

55,980,217,932.81 Total of 15 above reports.

Heavy borrowing seems to start after 09/18/2008 while Bush was in power JUST BEFORE fiscal year end.
Bush admin borrowed $962,245,245,654.01 in those last 124 days in office crossing two fiscal years.
$360,093,093,653.42 in last 12 days of FY2008, and $602,152,152,000.59 in subsequent 112 days before leaving office.

For a prettier and more explanatory view of our nation's debt:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
DUer primer on National debt

(Debt to the penny keeps changing. Stuff is missing. Best to keep our own history.) LAST REPORT:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4241459&mesg_id=4241492

[Demeter]

24. Joseph Stiglitz: Why we have to change capitalism

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7061058/Joseph-Stiglitz-Why-we-have-to-change-capitalism.html


In an exclusive extract from his new book, Freefall, the former World Bank chief economist, reveals why banks should be split up and why the West must cut consumption:

In the Great Recession that began in 2008, millions of people in America and all over the world lost their homes and jobs. Many more suffered the anxiety and fear of doing so, and almost anyone who put away money for retirement or a child's education saw those investments dwindle to a fraction of their value.

A crisis that began in America soon turned global, as tens of millions lost their jobs worldwide – 20m in China alone – and tens of millions fell into poverty.

This is not the way things were supposed to be. Modern economics, with its faith in free markets and globalisation, had promised prosperity for all. The much-touted New Economy – the amazing innovations that marked the latter half of the 20th century, including deregulation and financial engineering – was supposed to enable better risk management, bringing with it the end of the business cycle. If the combination of the New Economy and modern economics had not eliminated economic fluctuations, at least it was taming them. Or so we were told.

The Great Recession – clearly the worst downturn since the Great Depression 75 years earlier – has shattered these illusions. It is forcing us to rethink long-cherished views.

For a quarter century, certain free-market doctrines have prevailed: free and unfettered markets are efficient; if they make mistakes, they quickly correct them. The best government is a small government, and regulation only impedes innovation. Central banks should be independent and only focus on keeping inflation low.

Today, even the high priest of that ideology, Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board during the period in which these views prevailed, has admitted that there was a flaw in this reasoning – but his confession came too late for the many who have suffered as a consequence.

In time, every crisis ends. But no crisis, especially one of this severity, passes without leaving a legacy. The legacy of 2008 will include new perspectives on the long-standing conflict over the kind of economic system most likely to deliver the greatest benefit.

I believe that markets lie at the heart of every successful economy but that markets do not work well on their own. In this sense, I'm in the tradition of the celebrated British economist John Maynard Keynes, whose influence towers over the study of modern economics.

Government needs to play a role, and not just in rescuing the economy when markets fail and in regulating markets to prevent the kinds of failures we have just experienced. Economies need a balance between the role of markets and the role of government – with important contributions by non-market and non-governmental institutions. In the last 25 years, America lost that balance, and it pushed its unbalanced perspective on countries around the world.

The current crisis has uncovered fundamental flaws in the capitalist system, or at least the peculiar version of capitalism that emerged in the latter part of the 20th century in the US (sometimes called American-style capitalism). It is not just a matter of flawed individuals or specific mistakes, nor is it a matter of fixing a few minor problems or tweaking a few policies.

It has been hard to see these flaws because we Americans wanted so much to believe in our economic system. "Our team" had done so much better than our arch enemy, the Soviet bloc.

Numbers reinforced our self-deception. After all, our economy was growing so much faster than almost everyone's, other than China's – and given the problems we thought we saw in the Chinese banking system, it was only a matter of time before it collapsed too.

Even now, many deny the magnitude of the problems facing our market economy. Once we are over our current travails – and every recession does come to an end – they look forward to a resumption of robust growth. But a closer look at the US economy suggests that there are some deeper problems: a society where even those in the middle have seen incomes stagnate for a decade, a society marked by increasing inequality; a country where, though there are dramatic exceptions, the statistical chances of a poor American making it to the top are lower than in "Old Europe".

It is said that a near-death experience forces one to re-evaluate priorities and values. The global economy has just had a near-death experience. The crisis exposed not only flaws in the prevailing economic model but also flaws in our society. Too many people had taken advantage of others. Almost every day has brought stories of bad behaviour by those in the financial sector – Ponzi schemes, insider trading, predatory lending, and a host of credit card schemes to extract as much from the hapless user as possible.

My book, Freefall, is focused, though, not on those who broke the law, but the legions of those who, within the law, had originated, packaged and repackaged, and sold toxic products and engaged in such reckless behavior that they threatened to bring down the entire financial and economic system. The system was saved, but at a cost that is still hard to believe.

We should take this moment as one of reckoning and reflection, of thinking about what kind of society we would like to have, and ask ourselves: are we creating an economy that is helping us achieve those aspirations?

We have gone far down an alternative path – creating a society in which materialism dominates moral commitment, in which the rapid growth that we have achieved is not sustainable environmentally or socially, in which we do not act together as a community to address our common needs, partly because rugged individualism and market fundamentalism have eroded any sense of community and have led to rampant exploitation of unwary and unprotected individuals and to an increasing social divide.

Economics, unintentionally, provided sustenance to this lack of moral responsibility. A naive reading of Adam Smith might have suggested that he had relieved market participants from having to think about issues of morality. After all, if the pursuit of self-interest leads, as if by an invisible hand, to societal well-being, all that one has to do is be sure to follow one's self-interest. And those in the financial sector seemingly did that. But clearly, the pursuit of self-interest – greed – did not lead to societal well-being.

The model of rugged individualism combined with market fundamentalism has altered not just how individuals think of themselves and their preferences but how they relate to each other. In a world of rugged individualism, there is little need for community and no need for trust. Government is a hindrance; it is the problem, not the solution.

But if externalities and market failures are pervasive, there is a need for collective action, and voluntary arrangements will typically not suffice (simply because there is no "enforcement").

But worse, rugged individualism combined with rampant materialism has led to an undermining of trust. Even in a market economy, trust is the grease that makes society function. Society can sometimes get by without trust – through resort to legal enforcement, say, of contracts – but it is a very second-best alternative.

In the current crisis, bankers lost our trust, and lost trust in each other. Economic historians have emphasized the role that trust played in the development of trade and banking. The reason why certain communities developed as global merchants and financiers was that the members of the community trusted each other. The big lesson of this crisis is that despite all the changes in the last few centuries, our complex financial sector was still dependent on trust. When trust broke down, our financial system froze.

It's easy to curtail excessive risk-taking: restrict it and incentivise banks against it. Not allowing banks to use incentive structures that encourage excessive risk-taking, and forcing more transparency will go a long way. So too will requiring banks that engage in high-risk activities to put up much more capital and to pay high deposit insurance fees. But further reforms are needed: leverage needs to be much more limited and restrictions need to be placed on particularly risky products.

Given what the economy has been through, it is clear that the federal government should reinstitute some revised version of the Glass-Steagall Act. There is no choice: any institution that has the benefits of a commercial bank – including the government's safety nets – has to be severely restricted in its ability to take on risk.

There are simply too many conflicts of interest and too many problems to allow commingling of the activities of commercial and investment banks. The promised benefits of the repeal of Glass-Steagall proved illusory and the costs proved greater than even critics of the repeal imagined. The problems are especially acute with the too-big-to-fail banks.

The imperative of reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act quickly is suggested by recent behaviour of some investment banks, for whom trading has once again proved to be a major source of profits.

The alacrity with which all the major investment banks decided to become "commercial banks" in the fall of 2008 was alarming – they saw the gifts coming from the federal government, and evidently, they believed that their risk-taking behaviour would not be much circumscribed. They now had access to the Fed window, so they could borrow at almost a zero interest rate; they knew that they were protected by a new safety net; but they could continue their high-stakes trading unabated. This should be viewed as totally unacceptable.

There is an obvious solution to the too-big-to-fail banks: break them up. If they are too big to fail, they are too big to exist. The only justification for allowing these huge institutions to continue is if there were significant economies of scale or scope that otherwise would be lost. I have seen no evidence to that effect. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary, that these too-big-to-fail, too-big-to-be-financially-resolved institutions are also too big to be managed. Their competitive advantage arises from their monopoly power and their implicit government subsidies.

This crisis has exposed fissures in our society, between Wall Street and Main Street, between America's rich and the rest of our society. While the top has been doing very well over the last three decades, incomes of most Americans have stagnated or fallen.

The consequences were papered over; those at the bottom – or even the middle – were told to continue to consume as if their incomes were rising; they were encouraged to live beyond their means, by borrowing; and the bubble made it possible. The consequences of being brought back to reality are simple – standards of living are going to have to fall.

Someone will have to pick up the tab for the bank bail-outs. Even a proportionate sharing would be disastrous for most Americans. With median household income already down some 4pc from 2000, there is no choice: if we are to preserve any sense of fairness, the brunt of the adjustment must come from those at the top who have garnered for themselves so much over the past three decades, and from the financial sector, which has imposed such high costs on the rest of society.

But the politics of this will not be easy. The financial sector is reluctant to own up to its failings. Part of moral behaviour and individual responsibility is to accept blame when it is due; all humans are fallible – including bankers. But as we have seen, they have repeatedly worked hard to shift blame to others – including to those they victimised.

America is not alone in facing hard adjustments ahead. The UK financial system was even more overblown than that of the US. The Royal Bank of Scotland, before it collapsed, was the largest bank in Europe and suffered the most losses of any bank in the world in 2008.

Like the United States, the United Kingdom had a real estate bubble that has now burst. Adjusting to the new reality may require a decrease in consumption by as much as 10pc.

I have argued that the problems our nation and the world face entail more than a small adjustment to the financial system. Some have argued that we had a minor problem in our plumbing. Our pipes got clogged. We called in the same plumbers who installed the plumbing – having created the mess, presumably only they knew how to straighten it out. Never mind if they overcharged us for the installation; never mind that they overcharged us for the repair. We should be grateful that the plumbing is working again, quietly pay the bills, and pray that they do a better job this time than the last.

But it is more than just a matter of "plumbing": the failures in our financial system are emblematic of broader failures in our economic system, and the failures of our economic system reflect deeper problems in our society. We began the bail-outs without a clear sense of what kind of financial system we wanted at the end, and the result has been shaped by the same political forces that got us into the mess. And yet, there was hope that change was possible. Not only possible, but necessary.

That there will be changes as a result of the crisis is certain. There is no going back to the world before the crisis. But the questions are, how deep and fundamental will the changes be? Will they even be in the right direction? In several critical areas, in the midst of the crisis, matters have already become worse. We have altered not only our institutions – encouraging ever increased concentration in finance – but the very rules of capitalism. We have announced that for favoured institutions there is to be little, or no, market discipline. We have created an ersatz capitalism with unclear rules – but with a predictable outcome: future crises; undue risk-taking at the public expense, no matter what the promise of a new regulatory regime; and greater inefficiency.

We have lectured about the importance of transparency, but we have given the banks greater scope for manipulating their books. In earlier crises, there was worry about moral hazard, the adverse incentives provided by bail-outs; but the magnitude of this crisis has given new meaning to the concept.

It has become a cliché to observe that the Chinese characters for crisis reflect "danger" and "opportunity". We have seen the danger. The question is, will we seize the opportunity to restore our sense of balance between the market and the state, between individualism and the community, between man and nature, between means and ends?

We now have the opportunity to create a new financial system that will do what human beings need a financial system to do; to create a new economic system that will create meaningful jobs, decent work for all those who want it, one in which the divide between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' is narrowing, rather than widening; and, most importantly of all, to create a new society in which each individual is able to fulfill his aspirations and live up to his potential, in which we have created citizens who live up to shared ideals and values, in which we have created a community that treats our planet with the respect that in the long run it will surely demand. These are the opportunities. The real danger now is that we will not seize them.

[Demeter]

25. Wall Street's $26m lobbyists gear up to fight Obama banks reform

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/24/wall-street-lobbyists-banks-obama

[Demeter]

27. A toy model of money, growth, and inequality

http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/507.html

...They tell three stories, with very careful models: i) when capital markets are imperfect, inequality might reduce the efficiency of investment, as the less productive opportunities of the wealthy are funded in preference to the more productive opportunities of the poor; ii) the borrowing required to fund investment under inequality impose agency costs, because entrepreneurs expend less effort when the benefits and costs of their labors are shared with financiers; and iii) unequal access to investment opportunities may combine with financial market imperfections to create macroeconomic downcycles during which savings cannot be efficiently invested.

Those are good stories, and there are others. The oldest story has to do with incentives. The traditional notion of a trade-off between efficiency and equity comes from the idea that redistribution blunts incentives to invest and produce. In almost any model, reducing after-tax returns on investment will reduce investment, ceteris paribus. It is worth pointing out that inequality and redistribution are separate questions. Inequality may be harmful (or helpful) to growth regardless of whether redistribution by the state would would be good policy. That lower after-tax investment returns reduce growth doesn’t really tell us all that much about the effect of inequality. Also, incentives swing both ways: see ACG story (ii) above, or models of effort in tournaments (e.g. Freeman & Gelber via Benign Brodowicz and commenter Indy).

Anyway, there are lots of stories. I want to add one more, and illustrate it with a very simple model. My intuition goes like this: when people are relatively poor, they spend nearly all their income on real goods and services with care, in ways that yield positive returns in present and future consumption. As people grow wealthy, they spend an increasing fraction of their wealth on financial assets, purchases of which only imperfectly translate to productive mobilization of real goods and services. To make my life as a modeler easier, I conjecture that financial assets are phenomenally inefficient — not only do they fail to yield any positive return, but the net expenditure of real goods and services for financial assets is “thrown into the sea”. We’ll see that despite this, under not-entirely-outrageous assumptions, it might be optimal for wealthy agents to purchase an ever larger “stock” of financial assets, but that by doing so rather than mobilizing real resources, they exert a drag on aggregate growth. We’ll find that transfers (or zero-interest loans) of real resources from the issuers of financial assets to the relatively poor can restore growth, and be Pareto optimal if no deductions are made from the claims of the wealthy when real resources are transfered to the poor. In other words, printing money and giving it to poor people (who then buy real resources from the rich, who prefer the insurance value of money to the use value of their marginal goods) can be optimal and noninflationary. We’ll also find that if there is a monopoly issuer of conventionally “safe” financial assets, the value of those assets can be kept stable even if the issuer totally wastes the real resources it receives in exchange for them, and even if the waste and “insolvency” of the issuer is widely known. Effectively, an arbitrarily insolvent Ponzi scheme can be sustained indefinitely due to the usefulness of having a conventional financial claim that agents can use to pool idiosyncratic risks which they cannot contract to diversify. However, if the economy suffers a shock deep enough not only to halt but to reverse the steady state net positive flow of real goods and services from the economy, a devaluation (inflation) or collapse might occur....

[DemReadingDU]

26. love the toon, lol!

[UpInArms]

29. dollar watch

http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?acs=NYBOT_DX&v=i

Last trade 78.255 Change +0.045 (+0.06%)

US Dollar Rally Will Depend on Steady Risk Aversion, Dow Losses

http://www.dailyfx.com/forex/fundamental/forecast/weekly/usd/2010-01-23-0010-US_Dollar_Rally_Will_Depend.html

While an objective look at the week-over-week changes for the US dollar-based majors may not point to a potentially market-defining reversal this past week; a look at charts clues us into the magnitude of recent price action. The US dollar forged ahead to five months highs against the euro, a month high against its Canadian counterpart and multi-week highs against both the Australian and New Zealand dollar. On the other hand, USDJPY would actually end the week in the yen’s favor. How do we explain this seemingly dichotomous outcome? Risk appetite - or more appropriately risk aversion. With China announcing its intentions to cool its economy and markets and US President Obama proposing a limit on the size and risk-taking activity of the nation’s largest banks, the world’s largest governments are taking an active role in slowing speculative positioning. As such, traders are growing antsy that profits on positions established through 2009 could quickly turn into losses. So far, panic has not set in and the tides are being held back. However, with the Dow, commodities, bond yields and many other asset classes establishing a bearish bias; all the ingredients are in place for a significant correction.

Heading into next week, there are plenty of fundamental drivers to keep track of when trading the greenback. Yet, when it comes down to it, risk appetite will win out should sentiment (bullish or bearish) swell. How do we know when risk appetite is a significant factor in price action, we will see a distinct correlation between the major securities. If risk aversion is in control, the Dow will tumble, commodities will fall, bond yields will fall and the US dollar will advance. If optimism is revived, we will see exactly the opposite situation. Now that we know the ‘how,’ we need to define the ‘why.’ What would revive the tug-o-war between risk appetite and risk aversion? The most influential factor at this point are speculators themselves. Should traders decide to unwind some of their exposure ‘just in case,’ it would actually feed momentum. Looking for additional fuel from forces outside the market there are plenty of key economic indicators to keep track of and perhaps exogenous risk that we won’t see until it is already upon us.

Preparing for what we can, the docket holds a heavy round of serious data. The most threatening piece of data on hand is the advanced reading of 4Q GDP due Friday. There are two peculiarities to this report. The first consideration is that considering this is a release for the end of the week, it could actually work to anchor the dollar (as long as risk trends aren’t too violent) as FX traders hold off on making dramatic changes to their portfolio before such a meaningful report. The other point to make is that this indicator can have a straightforward fundamental influence on the dollar (establishing its relative strength against it counterparts) or it play a risk appetite role. As the largest economy in the world, a hearty pace of expansion could bolster the outlook for global activity and balance investors’ fears. There are many other indicators that will weigh in as well (consumer confidence, durable goods orders, existing home sales); but the only other events that can rival or play into the undercurrent of sentiment are the FOMC rate decision and perhaps the expected comments from the Fed’s Kohn about interest rate risk. Speaking of interest rates, we should not forget that the US dollar and Japanese yen are both vying for the unwanted title of primary funding currency. When the US 3-month Libor rate is once against at a premium to its counterpart, the US dollar will not be considered the ideal funding currency for a resurgent carry and it will still be considered a safe haven.



...more...

Daily Sound Bites

http://www.dailyfx.com/forex/fundamental/article/daily_sound_bites/2010-01-25-1124-Daily_Sound_Bites_01_25.html



...more...

[boomerbust]

30. I can see it now

Wal Mart greeters, the ultimate lobbyists. And only seven bucks an hour. This country is in a heap of trouble.

[Demeter]

46. It's a Bipolar Market!

[hamerfan]

48. K&R. n/t