jump to navigation

Evening 24 January 2010

Posted by marisacat in 2010 Mid Terms, 2012 Re Election.
trackback

A woman feeds pigeons in a park, Ljubljana, Slovenia  [Srdjan Zivulovic/Reuters]

****************************

“feeding the pigeons”, sounds like politics to me…….  😉

Advertisements

Comments»

1. catnip - 24 January 2010

This is interesting, considering Hillary’s finger-wagging at China: U.S. enables Chinese hacking of Google

marisacat - 24 January 2010

hmm the close of the article.. which is by Bruce Schneier:

[T]his problem isn’t going away. Every year brings more Internet censorship and control, not just in countries like China and Iran but in the U.S., the U.K., Canada and other free countries, egged on by both law enforcement trying to catch terrorists, child pornographers and other criminals and by media companies trying to stop file sharers.

The problem is that such control makes us all less safe. Whether the eavesdroppers are the good guys or the bad guys, these systems put us all at greater risk. Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in. And it’s bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state.

Madman in the Marketplace - 24 January 2010

I think it’s already too late, and it’s the “need” to stop file-sharing that is driving it, not “security”.

Corporate persons need to protect what is “theirs”, after all.

marisacat - 24 January 2010

yeah I agree.. I thought Schneier kind of punted there… liek it is all far in the future. years off…

Welcome to the present suckas.

Madman in the Marketplace - 24 January 2010

There is a long piece by James Fallows in “The Atlantic” that basically keeps circling back to how things will all work out in the end.

My eyes kept glazing over … didn’t make it all the way through. Maha from Mahablog apparently made it through, and highlighted this pretty good description of where we are:

The most charitable statement of the problem is that the American government is a victim of its own success. It has survived in more or less recognizable form over more than two centuries—long enough to become mismatched to the real circumstances of the nation. If Henry Adams were whooshed from his Washington of a century ago to our Washington of today, he would find it shockingly changed, except for the institutions of government. Same two political parties, same number of members of the House (since 1913, despite more than a threefold increase in population), essentially same rules of debate in the Senate. Thomas Jefferson’s famed wish for “a little rebellion now and then” as a “medicine necessary for the sound health of government” is a nice slogan for organizing rallies, but is not how his country has actually operated.

Every system strives toward durability, but as with human aging, longevity has a cost. The late economist Mancur Olson laid out the consequences of institutional aging in his 1982 book, The Rise and Decline of Nations. Year by year, he said, special-interest groups inevitably take bite after tiny bite out of the total national wealth. They do so through tax breaks, special appropriations, what we now call legislative “earmarks,” and other favors that are all easier to initiate than to cut off. No single nibble is that dramatic or burdensome, but over the decades they threaten to convert any stable democracy into a big, inefficient, favor-ridden state. In 1994, Jonathan Rauch updated Olson’s analysis and called this enfeebling pattern “demosclerosis,” in a book of that name. He defined the problem as “government’s progressive loss of the ability to adapt,” a process “like hardening of the arteries, which builds up stealthily over many years.”

We are now 200-plus years past Jefferson’s wish for permanent revolution and nearly 30 past Olson’s warning, with that much more buildup of systemic plaque—and of structural distortions, too. When the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it’s unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the “saucer” George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might “cool,” into a deep freeze and a dead weight.

marisacat - 24 January 2010

”deep freeze and dead weight” is very on target.

not a fan of either fallows or maha…. but will go take a look.

Madman in the Marketplace - 24 January 2010

I check in from time to time, so I know what the donks will be selling next.

marisacat - 24 January 2010

actually the last thing I read from Fallows was an analysis in the 2008 mess of Ob as debater, published before election, I think around the time of the transition from primary to GE. I agreed with most of what Fallows wrote. A long piece, can’t think many slogged thru it. But I figured he’d be good on that.

marisacat - 24 January 2010

he keeps on, as do ALL Democrats, pushing this fictio:

Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes.

The Republicans had 51 and at other points 55 under Bush… now on a lot of stuff they got the lousy shitty Dems they needed but they ran a lot thru under “reconciliation”.

Poo Democrats, their tongues so far up the R monopoly that it grazes the teeth. NTIM…. 🙄

Madman in the Marketplace - 24 January 2010

I guess I’m thinking he pushes what the Clinton/DLC donks are pushing …

Who knows … I see PR behind every pixel.

2. Madman in the Marketplace - 24 January 2010

Strike the root

… below are some updated stats from 2005:

Of the world’s largest 150 economic entities, 95 are corporations (63.3%) according to data released this month by Fortune Magazine and the World Bank. Wal-Mart, BP, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch/Shell Group all rank in the 25 largest entities in the world, above countries that include Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Denmark, Poland, South Africa, and Greece.

But even taking all that into account, I’m not particularly bothered by this decision. It ultimately does little to change the reality of corporate control of our political system, and in a sense it’s an improvement because it makes that reality clear and undeniable. The mask is gone. Also, this will be the first time many people have heard (or fully understood) that our legal system treats corporations as persons, with all the rights that entails—and that’s a good thing, because only the clinically insane believe that it’s desirable for immortal and amoral profit-driven entities to have more power over our lives than they already do. Even hardcore conservatives will usually agree on this point if you talk to them about it one on one, with specific examples. I would never have imagined at the beginning of this week that by the end of it the phrase “corporate personhood” would be on so many lips, yet here we are. Thanks, Supreme Thwart!

And the fact that this makes it impossible to pass laws limiting corporate brainwashing is also arguably for the best. McCain-Feingold was never more than a half-assed palliative that left corporate domination over the system essentially intact—the illusion of reform, not the real thing. In its breathtaking, overreaching arrogance, this decision forces us toward the only real solution to ending corporate dominance not only of our political system but of every aspect of our lives: passing a constitutional amendment to put an end to the offensively absurd fiction of corporate personhood.

So now that the Supreme Snort has made it illegal to waste our time hacking at the branches of evil, maybe we can finally start striking at the root.

marisacat - 24 January 2010

I love the nicknames for the SCOTUS… Supreme Thwart is excellent.

And you know, Scalia passed with 98 – 0… cuz he was so cosy with so many senators.

CSTAR - 24 January 2010

“The Junta”?

marisacat - 24 January 2010

😆

That works too!!

Madman in the Marketplace - 24 January 2010

this has been in the works for a long time, and is deeply desired by BOTH parties and their owners.

marisacat - 24 January 2010

well one tip off was the dollar numbers Ob raised. And his charge card form did not bother to check where the money was sourced from, domestic or other. The rightie sites had a lot of fun playing iwth the form. And certainly Clinton hauled in foreign Chinese money, supposedly a chunk of it from the Chinese mil. Etc.

YOu don’t raise 800 + million all that easily…

BooHooHooMan - 24 January 2010

LOL. 800 mil …
So much for love thy neighbor..

Coakley pollster: ‘The campaign had no money’

By Ed O’Keefe

National Democrats believed Martha Coakley (D) did not need more money to win the Massachusetts senate race despite the campaign’s pleas for financial assistance, her top pollster said Sunday.

“It’s not true that the campaign wasn’t focused, but the campaign had no money,” Celinda Lake said on CNN’s “State of the Union” when asked about the campaign’s troubles in the closing days. “And there are lots of people that can be blamed for that including national establishment institutions in D.C. that weren’t giving her money, that were turning her down.”

The campaign reached out to the White House and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for financial assistance, Lake said, but officials in Washington said, “You don’t need it.”

Ha! I suspected as much, the chiselers. They let her die on the vine.. IMO, again, this loss strengthens Schumer in the Senate caucus and the tired tough talk shtick he is running thru Wieiner and Grayson in the House.

WRT the whole Candidate v Committee…The real deal is more like a Mafia Street Crew…The Gangsters aren’t investing in anybody…The more the lower echelon types brings in and kick to the top, the more they can keep…When they ran the screening ops themselves, Rahm and Chuck never beat around the bush: “How much you got for us? Where’s your list…” …Then their ops could put the bite on the local’s suckers.. the bigger tuna would get personal calls…really impresses the rubes.

In the 90’s and right through till the crash, there were countless small potatoes suckers that would shell out 50 , 60 grand in cash totals to these fucks through the various Party Committees and favored individual PACS….

One thing I can say is not me regarding the cash, the foolishness is another matter. I never had that kinda money BUT – more egg on the face here – relative to my earnings and lot in life? The value of time invested.?..Shiyaat…. Definitely the dumbass: A minimum of 80 hours a year x 25 YEARS……plus the cash donations, the out of pocket expenses : Even moreso when the kids in the extended family got involved…Need some cell phones? Sure! Need a car ? Sure! Some money for hand carved beef with an au jus made from the 1945 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild Jeroboam recommended by the Campaign sommelier? I GUESS SO!!! LOL. I got 20!

SUCKA! — > MOI! 😯

😆 DLTH! 😆

marisacat - 24 January 2010

I am guessing Celinda Lake must be upset, she has been no holds barred talking since the finger pointing started (finger pointing, a few days before election, she started as soon as the loss was racked up)

marisacat - 24 January 2010

hmm on related note I see at Google News that Marion Berry, ARK congressman will annouce retirement tomorrow, nto running for relection.

I have lost track now of how many………………….

marisacat - 25 January 2010

hey…… no matter what, we are spared Beau Biden.

Something is working.

😆

3. Madman in the Marketplace - 24 January 2010

Ed Schultz To Robert Gibbs: You’re ‘Full Of Sh*t’

May they all club each other to death with their campaign dinner rubber chicken.

marisacat - 24 January 2010

Gibbs did really badly today on the FOX thing with Chris Wallace. Axelrod seems nervous … talking REALLY fast on TW.

Good luck to them all.

4. marisacat - 24 January 2010

yeah what a shock… from the Independent:

British troops will have to fight the Taleban for another five years, according to a leaked draft of the communiqué that will conclude the London conference on Afghanistan this week.

Participating governments are also expected to agree to bribes totalling hundreds of millions of pounds which will be paid to leading insurgents in the hope that they will stop fighting.
….

The draft closing statement lays down a timeline which is significantly less optimistic than that envisaged by President Obama, who has suggested that US forces would aim to begin drawing down troops from mid-2011.

It commits Afghan forces to “taking the lead and conducting the majority of operations in the insecure areas of Afghanistan within three years and taking responsibility for physical security within five years”.

“Providing conditions are met”, it adds, some of the more stable regions of the country may be put under the control of Afghan security forces at the end of this year or in early 2011, with Western troops providing support. ….

5. Madman in the Marketplace - 24 January 2010

Because this ALWAYS works so well

White House Decides to Outsource NASA Work

The White House has decided to begin funding private companies to carry NASA astronauts into space, but the proposal faces major political and budget hurdles, according to people familiar with the matter.

The controversial proposal, expected to be included in the Obama administration’s next budget, would open a new chapter in the U.S. space program. The goal is to set up a multiyear, multibillion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying U.S. astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system.

Congress is likely to challenge the concept’s safety and may balk at shifting dollars from existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs already hurting for funding to the new initiative. The White House’s ultimate commitment to the initiative is murky, according to these people, because the budget isn’t expected to outline a clear, long-term funding plan.

marisacat - 24 January 2010

what goes up, must come down. One way or the other………………..

6. BooHooHooMan - 24 January 2010

The Mcat-mobile.

It’d be PERFECT for Netroots Nation!

We can bring our own Fondue!

CSTAR - 24 January 2010

Cadillac? Tax?

7. marisacat - 25 January 2010

Gah.

Just catching up to Moyers… Eric Alterman and Melissa Harris-Lacewell………………………

Two people who should just drift off the scene frankly. If only they would, but in our system they will be with us for 30+ more years.

8. marisacat - 25 January 2010

Well… this should work really well…………….. ESP in Cali.

Via Mike Allen’s Playbook:

WaPo lead story, ‘Lifelines dry up for mortgage lending,’ by David Cho, Neil Irwin and Dina ElBoghdady:

‘For more than a year, the government pulled out the stops to revive home buying by driving down mortgage rates. Now, whether the housing market is ready or not, the government is pulling out. The wind-down of federal support for mortgage rates, set to end in two months, is a momentous test of whether the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve have succeeded in jump-starting the housing market and ensuring it can hold its own.

The stakes for the economy are massive: If the market again falls into a tailspin, homeowners could face another wave of trouble, and it would deal a body blow to President Obama’s efforts to get the economy on track.’

Maybe they want to lose — AND the people to lose as well…. Has to be considered, at all times.

catnip - 25 January 2010

‘For more than a year, the government pulled out the stops to revive home buying by driving down mortgage rates.

BFD. Obama mortgage relief program fails to deliver

Not to worry though! He and Joe were out touting their little middle class task force this morning. Hopeyness is on the way.

marisacat - 25 January 2010

and the little they plan to offer is so.very.little. And even so, they only bothered cuz they feel kinda nervous. And all tingly, etc.

ts - 25 January 2010

we’ve known for years that it would take principal reductions to actually make a dent in the problem, but O proposed a tiny $50 billion (well compared to the $700 billion TARP it was tiny) fund to do just that and the screaming from all sides was so loud that several administration officials who floated the idea ran away and disappeared into caves never to be heard from again.

so we get hamp and the lenders are actually using this as an excuse to extend and pretend as much as possible (you can be assured they are actually booking interest payments on these loans as income in the interim). they don’t have to book them as losses and increase reserves (that would hurt earnings and bonuses in that order). these loans are probably thrown into tier 2 and tier 3 mark-to-make-believe capital accounts, and the Fed’s probably bought a bunch of the dreck at par value.

the owner lives in the house rent free until the mod fails and they have to move out as they would have had to anyway. in the end, if the owner does work out a deal to stay it probably involves a principal reduction.

Anyway, the private mortgage mods are redefaulting 60-80% of the time, so why should Obama expect better?

Anyway, HAMP specifies a 31% front end dpi (debt payments, principal and insurance), but no real back end dpi (front end plus interest on all other debts). It would be interesting how much morgage debt gets redefined into back end dpi to conform. Sure looks tempting.

And in the usual style-over-substance category, Obama says these will help everybody when the actual successful mods are in the tens of thousands.

marisacat - 25 January 2010

everybody in Cali is “underwater”… no matter. Whether that is 15% or in some districts that severely overbuilt the past decade, almost 50% … and of course some streets are even more.

A few months ago I read absolute horror stories out of a place called “Mountain Home” and while I sure don’t know every gully in Califormina, I thought it was odd I had never heard of it. WELL… as of 5 years ago it did nto exist. So it just came into being, however briefly, for the peak of the bubble. Actully the downside of the peak.

9. ts - 25 January 2010

Looks like Bernanke will be reconfirmed after all. It really didn’t matter. If he died in a plane crash there are 12 members of the FOMC ready to step in, grow an unmatched beard and do the same thing he did. Only in Washington does putting up a new Potemkin Village when the old one blows down represent “change”.

marisacat - 25 January 2010

I read a report, forget where, just this am, that Ob and his Mobsters reached out to the R corp establishment (Immelt was named, for one) … had THEM calling R senators to get on board.

The WH, it said, decided Bernanke could nto go down, it would look bad for Ob.

Whtever. we are in a swamp. And sinking.

ts - 25 January 2010

see #11 comment below, hit the wrong reply link

10. catnip - 25 January 2010

Shades of Dems rabidly supporting Obama: 117 Russians in hospital after drinking holy water

11. ts - 25 January 2010

Yeah, it’s really about image management more than anything. As if they didn’t notice that image is a lot more transparent and unpopular these days. I guess when that’s all you got you got to manage something to pretend like you’re working.

ts - 25 January 2010

As a practicing economist, I usually read Dave Rosenberg (forced out when BofA took over ML and now works in Canadia). Here’s some commentary from his morning musings:

“So here is what is happening on the U.S. political front. No more than two days after the Democrat defeat in Massachusetts, the President begins a full-scale assault on the banking sector. On the one hand, the policymakers want the banks to start lending money; and on the other hand, they want the banks to derisk
their activities. The banks obviously didn’t help their cause with a lack of contrition and by sanctioning a bonus boom during these difficult times after having been saved by the taxpayer’s pocketbook, but the Obama attacks on the banks are very likely going to do more harm for the economy than good … but
then again, this is an Administration that never did have an economic vision and has so far decided to fight the prolonged period of post-bubble economic malaise with a string of short-term quick fixes with no multiplier impact on job creation and no long-run productivity benefits.

Remember the old adage, ‘when the president is in trouble, so is the market’. And when we see that the title on the Friday FT editorial page is “Obama Declares War on Wall Street”, one has to wonder how this is a war that the economy is going to win. In our view, what the Scott Brown victory last week represented was not a vote against the banks as much as a vote against reckless fiscal policy, a health care plan that was not well articulated to the people, and a level of government incursion into the economy that was making a whole lot of folks, not just “tea baggers”, increasingly of the view that capitalism was going to do much more than just take a sabbatical but was going to go the
way of the Dodo bird. To blame the results on anger at the banks or at anger at the Fed is a little much.

The problem is that the President’s advisors misread the real meaning of the November 2008 election results – they thought that this was an overwhelming mandate that gave Mr. Obama full ground to be ‘transformational’ – not merely ‘effective’. But who got Barrack Obama elected was not Oprah, per se, but the
massive support from the Independents. On election day back in ’08, exit polls showed that fewer than 1-in-10 believed health care reforms were needed; while two-thirds cited the economy as what needed to be mended first. So what we
get is a President who told us a year ago that his policies would cap the unemployment rate at 8%; instead it is 10% (and not higher because of discouraged workers), employment fell more in 2009 (4 million) than in 2008 (3 million), and no, this was not some carryover from the prior Administration’s failed policies.
It was the lack of focus – health care reforms took center stage; a concrete plan to create a climate of job generation was, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. And we see on the front page of today’s NYT that the President is going to offer a slate of “modest initiatives’ such as tax credits for child care and
caps on student loan payments in the State of the Union Address (on Wednesday) – which continues to beg the question: how does this resolve the job crisis?

And when we have a senator, for example Barbara Boxer from California, come out and say publicly that “it is time for Main Street to have a champion at the Fed”, then you know that there is a populist wave afoot to even further politicize the Fed. Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader) weighed in with this tepid endorsement – “To merit confirmation, Chairman Bernanke must re-double his efforts to ensure families can access the credit they need to buy or keep their home, send their children to college or start a small business”. Why not have Mr. Bernanke just cut everyone a big fat cheque from his printing press?

Whether he gets reconfirmed or not, the damage to the Fed’s reputation has already been sullied by this nonsense. This is not good news for U.S. asset values or the dollar and it represents at the highest levels of politics a complete and utter lack of understanding of what the Fed’s role really is.”

I would add that Dave implicates the Fed’s only available role at this point a couple paragraphs down…

“To little fanfare, regulators closed five banks on Friday, bringing the failure toll in 2010 to nine. Columbia River Bank, The Dalles, Oregon; Evergreen Bank, Seattle, Washington; Charter Bank, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Bank of Leeton, Leeton, Missouri; and Premier American Bank, Miami, Florida have been closed. The credit crisis appears to be over because the government has continued to guarantee all and any banking sector liability [emphasis mine], but it is abundantly clear that strains are still very intense and that impaired loans are still being
squeezed out of the system.”

The Fed has lowered rates to zero and pursued the most agressive monetary expansion in history and it still can’t get banks to lend. I think that pretty much shows that Bernanke, while he can back every loan out there with his helicopter fleet, is basically impotent. Deck chairs? Titanic? Anybody?

marisacat - 25 January 2010

for example Barbara Boxer from California, come out and say publicly that “it is time for Main Street to have a champion at the Fed”, then you know that there is a populist wave afoot

Tom Campbell is polling very well agaisnt her. Carly was nto so much of a threat, but Campbell may be. Campbell ran agaisnt Feinstein at least twice, that I can remember, and ran against her each time from the left, even as a R (I have nto voted for Dianne since ’78 and never voted FOR Campbelll against her, just iwth held my vote)…

Boxer has had her support ptetty well tied down thru out the state (she racked up more votes than Feinstein ever got, in her last re-election), so it may be hard to dislodge her, however in a ‘throw the bums out’ yeear, who knows.

marisacat - 25 January 2010

Don’t make me laugh TOO hard:

January 25, 2010

Categories:White House.

Berry: Obama promised he’d make difference in ’10

Marion Berry, in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, mocks what he says was Obama’s contention that the president, personally, would save Blue Dogs where Bill Clinton couldn’t:

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’

We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

Posted by Ben Smith 12:54 PM

ts - 25 January 2010

On the surface the quote makes no sense. Perhaps if banks are located on Main Street. The purpose of the Fed was to act as JP Morgan did in the Panic of 1907, as a lender of last resort to the banking system. It is, has been, and will ever be staffed by economists, bankers, and banker/economists.

The full employment responsibilities were assumed in 1946, the inflation fighting responsibilities were assumed in the 1970s. Like any institution, the Fed has expanded its mandate in order to increase its own power. Hopefully, now that they’ve shown their complete inability to manage either, policymakers will stop deferring these tasks to the Fed and try to do something positive instead of make speeches. Not right away, but hopefully, someday. It would be a good thing to have the Fed’s power restricted to areas that it can and should control

12. ts - 25 January 2010

My chuckle of the day: Watching former Fed Gov Robert Heller on Bloomberg arguing Tim Geithner will survive the crisis because he has “staying power”. There’s gum on my shoe that has staying power too.

13. BooHooHooMan - 25 January 2010

😆 The New York Jewish Mafia strikes again!

Ponzi Schemers, Inc. just flopped another 5 and 1/2 Billion Dollar bogey on the New York commercial realestate market..
it’s the ripple effect behind it tho..

In 2006, Met Life , itself built on a house of cards, was headed by , yes, ANOTHER Jewish mobster from Brooklyn named Robert Benmosche. Benmoshe had been with Credit Suisse before proceeding to do to MetLife what he did for CS…

Anyhoo, needing cash in 2006 and already packing his golden parachute – you’ll see where he landed later – Benmosche sold the 11,000 unit Stuyvesant Town/ Peter Cooper Village in the Lower East Side of Manhatten to , Tishman Speyer Properties another set of operators in big time New York real estate ( they own Rockefeller Center and the Chrysler Building all bought on big leverage, too) But in this clusterfuck, Tishman Speyer put up $112 million in the deal for 11000 apartments in Manhattan… 2% DOWN on a 5.5 Billion Dollar Deal.
That closed in 30 days.
I shit you not.

After engineering the sale to Tishman , Brooklynite Benmosche jumps MetLife in 2006…{He was forced of the Credit Suisse board last year.}.

Yeh well…today Tishman WALKED….handed it back to “their creditors”, though the New York Times isn’t even citing who they are..
Gotta love it.

MetLife CEO Benmosche ?……Landed at. – wait for it –
..AIG.
He’s Still there, too, when he’s not phoning his psychopathic criminal ravings in from his seaside villa in CROATIA, that is.. Ah well, I guess he never met a bubble he didn’t like. Anyways, Benmosche was the asshat bitching about his jet and threatening to quit over Congressional Hearings AND THAT he’d take the jet with him… LOL ..He’s the fuck who Fortune Magazine – HA! – called “the most tone deaf CEO in the Country”… And this is the motherfucker who just said a few weeks ago that AIG NEEDS MORE TIME AND MONEY.

So ya just know that to make the sale, that Met, using Credit Default Swap toity paper written through MetLife Securities or their Banking Ops – yep, they own them too! – ya just know Benmosche’s Met was holding paper on a 2% down deal that closed in 30 days.

I loved the NYT background piece in the Archive tho…the deal closed “faster than most people buy a house or condominium..”
which was – 😯 – the largest real estate deal in American history..

In 2006, Tishman Speyer Properties and its partner, 😉 BlackRock Realty, completed the largest real estate deal in American history, a $5.4 billion purchase of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, two adjoining complexes of 11,232 apartments in 110 buildings along New York City’s East River. The deal closed in only 30 days, faster than most people buy a house or condominium.
By September 2009, the company’s co-chief executives, Jerry I. Speyer and his son Rob, along with BlackRock Realty had nearly exhausted an additional $890 million set aside for apartment renovations, landscaping and interest payments.

PILLAGERS! 😆

In October, New York State’s Court of Appeals dealt the partnership a stunning financial blow, ruling that it improperly began charging market rents on thousands of apartments while collecting millions in tax breaks under the city’s J-51 housing program.

The program was intended to encourage landlords to rehabilitate their properties by providing tax breaks on the cost of various building improvements or renovations. Owners of the complex had collected more than $24 million under the program since 1992.

The ruling meant that Tishman Speyer and BlackRock, along with the former owner, Metropolitan Life, would be required to pay an estimated $200 million in rent overcharges and damages to tenants of about 4,000 apartments.

But lets put it in perspective…

Built after World War ll, the Stuyvesant Town/ Peter Cooper Village “urban renewal” project was the first of its kind on such a massive scale: …the largest apartment complex ever developed, stretching almost 2 and a half miles along the Manhattan Side of the East River.

Those familiar with the history of the The Lower East Side knows who owned the properties THEN,

and who conceived this template of an urban renewal project that was sold throughout the rest of the U.S. in the 50’s , 60’s, and 70’s as one of the “finest examples” of what Public and “Private” capital could do… 😆
In other words,
People in the loop made a killing.

And for those lucky enough to get rent control in a good location..well they did all right too..By and large, It was a Pillaging then as it is Pillaging now…

Today,
short of the kind of Divine Intervention or Random Event that happens every geological age or so, your chances are nil to
squat plum fuck zero about getting a rent controlled apartment there without going through the NY State Speaker and Schumer compare, Shelly Silver.

And who is going to pay for the default? – “The “creditors”? 😆

14. BooHooHooMan - 25 January 2010

Sorry . This abave can be deleted, Correct HTML and linkage below..

marisacat - 25 January 2010

Done!!

BooHooHooMan - 25 January 2010

Here’s More! LOL.

The other partner in this 2% down Pillage deal that was handed to Tishman is a guy named Larry Fink. Founder of BlackRock..
When Citi Was imploding , There are a number of these cruds who were mentioned as the Big Mahoff who might step in to save the day…

It’s funny in retrospect , given the typical Financial press gush on these MotU types.
And how this Biggest Bestest Real Estate Deal EVER in the US has been propped up…

And then there is Laurence D. Fink, the chief executive of BlackRock – and by several accounts, the former top candidate for the Merrill Lynch position. Mr. Fink is known for his expertise in risk management, having guided his investment firm safely through the subprime mortgage storm this summer.

….propped up…. till now.. by who else?

A person briefed on the situation told The Times that Robert E. Rubin, Citi’s chairman, personally put out feelers to Mr. Fink.

Citi was the ATM that last year gave Shumers DSCC finance manager tuened HILLARY National Finance Director., Hassan Nemazee , 74 Million no questions asked, which he parlayed into almost 300 million that went poof …..Lol – O Ya – he’s the guy who on the day he was arrested “repaid” Citi…LOL ..by beating OTHER Banks with fraudulent “bridge loans”…LOL.

And This whole full court press now to keep Bernanke? Geithner in puddles of sweat over it…That blubbery flustered fraud Dodd out there with the Remain Calm routine? LOL as Biden just went off to Iraq…Schumer of course, grabbing the mic expressing “concerns”! These people are all co-conspirators in Rubin’s cartel trying to keep their bubble gummed together Imperial Books from coming unglued..

BTW, tho apropos of nothing in its truest sense…I notice after Forehead got back, Beau Biden isn’t running for Senate afterall….

marisacat - 25 January 2010

I notice after Forehead got back, Beau Biden isn’t running for Senate afterall….

nor is kaufman…………… the way opens for castle…the republican

BooHooHooMan - 25 January 2010

This is Laugh Your Ass Off Territory here..
via Drudge..

Obama Uses Teleprompters During Speech at Elementary School….

This guy so wants to settle back in Hawaii.

BooHooHooMan - 25 January 2010

no word on whether he took questions. 😆

marisacat - 25 January 2010

yeah I don’t think he and Mama O want a second term. He’s pulling that scheisse again about how he’d rather be a good one termer. Drop the good, and it would be the truth.

catnip - 25 January 2010

That guy behind him looks like a giant.

(Be nice to Obamalama. He’s been very busy and he’s tired.) 😉

15. marisacat - 25 January 2010

hmm reading around… it’s a bloodbath out there.

Someon check Ob’s back for a dozen knives. They are assembled and attacking.

I think he is all dressed up for a fencing match, with a dozen cotton balls on the end of his [rubber] epee.

Not gonna work.

marisacat - 25 January 2010

I will be very shocked… UNLESS the mention is some vague announcement of some board to “study” it all:

January 25, 2010

Categories:White House.

‘Don’t Ask’ repeal in SOTU?

Carl Levin suggests that the recent silence around “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is in preparation for a big announcement:

Levin told reporters today that he has delayed plans to hold Senate hearings to examine the current “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy at the request of administration officials. Why would they want him to hold off? The officials Levin talked to said they expect the President will address the issue of homosexuals serving in the military during the State of the Union Address.

Posted by Ben Smith 04:26 PM

ts - 25 January 2010

My thoughts exactly. Even money odds on an “administration official” going on record the day after the SOTU as saying the administration will focus on the economy and health care priorities and not wanting to touch a divisive issue.

16. marisacat - 25 January 2010

neue………………

LINK

………………….. 🙄


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: