I'm sure all you bloggers in the SOB Alliance are used to being quoted by big media outlets, but not this lowly blogger. So when I noticed that I was getting hits from a Newsbusters.org link, I checked it out. Turns out that they quoted a few paragraphs. Nice.
Thanks Newsbusters.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Andrew Cuomo's Investigation of Bank Pay
Attorney General for the state of New York, Andrew Cuomo, conducted an investigation in why the financial markets had a melt down recently. Part of that investigation swung to the part employee compensation may have played. In his report, which is discussed in the Wall Street Journal blog, he lists the number of employees who received bonuses in excess of $1m, $2m, and $3m dollars in 2008.
The worst "offender" was JP Morgan Chase. Some non-profits who deal with mortgage lenders, in attempts to get loan modifications for home owners, have already sent out emails lambasting Chase for their supposed excesses.
But what are the facts? The facts are that Chase claims it was forced to participate in TARP. Chase tried to repay the TARP money early, but was initially prohibited from doing so. When Chase was finally allowed to repay, they did so in full and with interest. Chase has posted profits for the first and second quarters of 2009.
So, why is it that Chase is considered an "offender?" Is it because they remained profitable when other companies fell apart? That wouldn't make sense. It seems to me that Chase would be an example of how to operate a company. I mean, if your competitors are falling apart under the strain, but you remain profitable, isn't that a good thing?
But some of these non-profits say, "but Chase is really difficult to work with and they don't work out loans for defaulting borrowers." Okay. And? So what if Chase is difficult to deal with. These borrowers defaulted on their mortgage through no fault of the lender's. Yet, these organizations act like the lender is supposed to bear the entire burden and assist the borrower by giving him a lower payment or interest rate, and forgiving past due balances.
Now, I do agree that it makes sense that a company would do well to accept $1000 a month over $0. And that is often the choice. If the lender doesn't modify the terms, the lender will become a property owner. Whereas, if they lowered the payment by 10% or more, they may be able to keep a borrower who can pay. But again, that it totally the lender's decision to make. And the lender is not some disgusting slime simply because he expects people who make promises and sign contracts to keep and abide by them.
The worst "offender" was JP Morgan Chase. Some non-profits who deal with mortgage lenders, in attempts to get loan modifications for home owners, have already sent out emails lambasting Chase for their supposed excesses.
But what are the facts? The facts are that Chase claims it was forced to participate in TARP. Chase tried to repay the TARP money early, but was initially prohibited from doing so. When Chase was finally allowed to repay, they did so in full and with interest. Chase has posted profits for the first and second quarters of 2009.
So, why is it that Chase is considered an "offender?" Is it because they remained profitable when other companies fell apart? That wouldn't make sense. It seems to me that Chase would be an example of how to operate a company. I mean, if your competitors are falling apart under the strain, but you remain profitable, isn't that a good thing?
But some of these non-profits say, "but Chase is really difficult to work with and they don't work out loans for defaulting borrowers." Okay. And? So what if Chase is difficult to deal with. These borrowers defaulted on their mortgage through no fault of the lender's. Yet, these organizations act like the lender is supposed to bear the entire burden and assist the borrower by giving him a lower payment or interest rate, and forgiving past due balances.
Now, I do agree that it makes sense that a company would do well to accept $1000 a month over $0. And that is often the choice. If the lender doesn't modify the terms, the lender will become a property owner. Whereas, if they lowered the payment by 10% or more, they may be able to keep a borrower who can pay. But again, that it totally the lender's decision to make. And the lender is not some disgusting slime simply because he expects people who make promises and sign contracts to keep and abide by them.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Murderer Re-Captured After Furlough
A man convicted of murder in Portugal was recaptured recently after had lived for 16 years in caves near his hometown. Now, the Breitbart article stresses the fact that this man lived in caves for years, but I thought the circumstances of his "escape" were more interesting.
You see, this man had committed murder and his sentence was a measly 10 years. But what is really shocking is that this murderer was given "furlough". In other words, he was released into the general public for a weekend as a sort of "break" from prison life. It was during this break that he fled to the hills where he lived for the next 16 years.
You see, this man had committed murder and his sentence was a measly 10 years. But what is really shocking is that this murderer was given "furlough". In other words, he was released into the general public for a weekend as a sort of "break" from prison life. It was during this break that he fled to the hills where he lived for the next 16 years.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Ben Konop - A Liar In Liar's Clothing
Ben Konop...oh, Ben "Gravel Throat" Konop, he is a unique one. It's not often that a politician is as bad a liar as Ben Konop. I want to point out just a few items for your consideration.
1.) Ben promised, on multiple occasions, and twice in writing, that he would serve his full 4 year term as County Commissioner before running for any other office.
He signed an "Ethics Pledge" on February 9, 2006 and again on May 15, 2006. He said that he would serve his full 4 years. But what has Ben actually done? He served a little over two years and then announced that he was running for Mayor of Toledo. And what reason did he give for his breach of his Ethics Pledge? He said, "I am the best candidate to take our community in a new direction...That was my calculus in evaluating my pledge. It was an equation. What is in the best interest of the community?"
Oh, it was "an equation." Well that explains it. His ethical pledges, his promises, are always subject to an ever-changing equation that only he knows. I see.
What's even more ironic about this supposed pledge is that when Ben called on his opponent, George Sarantou, to sign the pledge, Ben surmised that it was Sarantou's intention to simply "use the Commissioner's office as a springboard to run for Mayor?"
Well, it seems that the Gravel Throat is the one who was using the Commissioner's office as a springboard to run for Mayor.
2.) Mr. Konop says that he wants fiscal responsibility and to cut waste from Toledo's budget.
So, Konop says he is for fiscal responsibility and accountability, but what has he done as Commissioner?
He took Federal dollars, even though the county didn't need it, and created a gas card program. Why did he do this? Because he didn't want the money to "fall into the hands of Dick Cheney, or some big oil company."
He proposed a few items to "save" the county money, like privatizing EMS services and combining County departments, which are actually decent ideas. But money is only saved if you don't use it. Ben, instead, wanted to use the money to fund scholarships. Scholarships? Is that an essential function of county government? Isn't there a proposal to make townships pay for sheriff's services because of budget problems, but within the last two years, Ben has wanted to spend money on scholarships, loans for art, and gas cards. You're right, Ben, police services are less important than buying art.
Lastly, just as a note, if you have looked at Ben's mayoral campaign website, you may have noticed something. Or, rather, you may NOT have noticed something. Where are the proposals, the ideas, the "fresh, bold" ideas he spouts off about so regularly? I would think that if I was running for office, I would want my ideas, the basis on which I am trying to get people to vote for me, to be prominently displayed on my campaign website. But that's just me.
1.) Ben promised, on multiple occasions, and twice in writing, that he would serve his full 4 year term as County Commissioner before running for any other office.
He signed an "Ethics Pledge" on February 9, 2006 and again on May 15, 2006. He said that he would serve his full 4 years. But what has Ben actually done? He served a little over two years and then announced that he was running for Mayor of Toledo. And what reason did he give for his breach of his Ethics Pledge? He said, "I am the best candidate to take our community in a new direction...That was my calculus in evaluating my pledge. It was an equation. What is in the best interest of the community?"
Oh, it was "an equation." Well that explains it. His ethical pledges, his promises, are always subject to an ever-changing equation that only he knows. I see.
What's even more ironic about this supposed pledge is that when Ben called on his opponent, George Sarantou, to sign the pledge, Ben surmised that it was Sarantou's intention to simply "use the Commissioner's office as a springboard to run for Mayor?"
Well, it seems that the Gravel Throat is the one who was using the Commissioner's office as a springboard to run for Mayor.
2.) Mr. Konop says that he wants fiscal responsibility and to cut waste from Toledo's budget.
So, Konop says he is for fiscal responsibility and accountability, but what has he done as Commissioner?
He took Federal dollars, even though the county didn't need it, and created a gas card program. Why did he do this? Because he didn't want the money to "fall into the hands of Dick Cheney, or some big oil company."
He proposed a few items to "save" the county money, like privatizing EMS services and combining County departments, which are actually decent ideas. But money is only saved if you don't use it. Ben, instead, wanted to use the money to fund scholarships. Scholarships? Is that an essential function of county government? Isn't there a proposal to make townships pay for sheriff's services because of budget problems, but within the last two years, Ben has wanted to spend money on scholarships, loans for art, and gas cards. You're right, Ben, police services are less important than buying art.
Lastly, just as a note, if you have looked at Ben's mayoral campaign website, you may have noticed something. Or, rather, you may NOT have noticed something. Where are the proposals, the ideas, the "fresh, bold" ideas he spouts off about so regularly? I would think that if I was running for office, I would want my ideas, the basis on which I am trying to get people to vote for me, to be prominently displayed on my campaign website. But that's just me.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Observation About Customers Of Subway
I went to Subway for lunch the other day and made an observation. There about 40 people in line (really) because it was just after noon, downtown on a Friday. I would guesstimate that approximately 60% of the people in line and an higher percentage of those sitting to eat, were obese.
Now, you might be saying, "Well, maybe they're trying to lose wait with the healthy sub choices they have at Subway." But of the people I saw, most had the sandwiches that were more than 6 grams of fat. Many had soda and chips. The kicker was the morbidly obese mother and son who were in front of me. They both got footlong sandwiches with everything on them (including mayo and oil), bags of chips for each, and 2 cookies each. The mother did get did get diet soda, but the son got Cherry Coke.
The point of this post is nothing more than to say that healthy living is a lifestyle, not a restaurant.
Now, you might be saying, "Well, maybe they're trying to lose wait with the healthy sub choices they have at Subway." But of the people I saw, most had the sandwiches that were more than 6 grams of fat. Many had soda and chips. The kicker was the morbidly obese mother and son who were in front of me. They both got footlong sandwiches with everything on them (including mayo and oil), bags of chips for each, and 2 cookies each. The mother did get did get diet soda, but the son got Cherry Coke.
The point of this post is nothing more than to say that healthy living is a lifestyle, not a restaurant.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Pro-Constitution Rally - August 1
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009
Time: 11:00am - 1:00pm
Location:
Commodore Perry Monument, Hood Park
105 West Front St.
Perrysburg, OH
There will be 8 speakers, from what I understand. I don't know who all of them are, but I am among them. I thought about posting a draft of my speech, which last 5-10 minutes, but decided against it. I don't need a bunch of bloggers tell me what a horrible piece of garbage I wrote because I would be tempted to back out. So, if I totally stink it up, you can say so afterward and you can buy me a drink or a stogie to make me feel better.
Time: 11:00am - 1:00pm
Location:
Commodore Perry Monument, Hood Park
105 West Front St.
Perrysburg, OH
There will be 8 speakers, from what I understand. I don't know who all of them are, but I am among them. I thought about posting a draft of my speech, which last 5-10 minutes, but decided against it. I don't need a bunch of bloggers tell me what a horrible piece of garbage I wrote because I would be tempted to back out. So, if I totally stink it up, you can say so afterward and you can buy me a drink or a stogie to make me feel better.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Private Health Insurance Is Practically Outlawed
Recently I have been hearing rumors from different folks saying that the health care bill actually prohibits a person from obtaining private insurance after the bill is passed. I thought, "nah, come on, not even Obama is that stupid." Turns out I was giving Obama too much credit. He is that stupid.
I decided to actually read the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009", and very quickly confirmed that the rumors were not rumors, they were fact. Section 102(a)(1)(A) says, "IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1;"
The section is defining what is termed "Grand-Fathered Health Insurance Coverage". In other words, the law will allow a person to keep his health insurance (as Obama often repeats), but only if certain requirements are met. If those requirements are not met, then it cannot be kept. But what is more important is that if a person is not part of a plan at the time the bill is signed into law, any new enrollment is void. As the bill states, "the...issuer...does not enroll any individual...if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day...[the bill becomes law]."
What is even scarier is that Obama was asked about this provision and his response was, "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
Well, the Heritage Foundation knows what they are talking about and you can read their critique here.
I decided to actually read the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009", and very quickly confirmed that the rumors were not rumors, they were fact. Section 102(a)(1)(A) says, "IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1;"
The section is defining what is termed "Grand-Fathered Health Insurance Coverage". In other words, the law will allow a person to keep his health insurance (as Obama often repeats), but only if certain requirements are met. If those requirements are not met, then it cannot be kept. But what is more important is that if a person is not part of a plan at the time the bill is signed into law, any new enrollment is void. As the bill states, "the...issuer...does not enroll any individual...if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day...[the bill becomes law]."
What is even scarier is that Obama was asked about this provision and his response was, "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
Well, the Heritage Foundation knows what they are talking about and you can read their critique here.
Friday, July 17, 2009
I Can Only Take This So Much Longer...
I am a fairly patient guy. Don't get me wrong, certain things can bring my blood to a boil in short order, but most things take a while.
I have been dealing with people who need help with their mortgages for about 8 months now. They are not all financial numbskulls who fail to pay their mortgages because they need booze or drugs. Most are people who lost their jobs within the last 6-8 months or have had serious medical issues. Nevertheless, only a rare few actually had any form of savings that sustained them for any length of time. Most of these people face a hardship one week and are on the path to financial ruin the next.
Now, I am a very matter-of-fact person. I don't care about why or how you got in the perdicament you're in. I don't need to know it. As long as the lender knows, I don't care.
What has really grated on me lately has been the total sense of entitlement that so many of these people have. They will often take weeks to get the necessary paperwork to me that allows me to begin trying to help. Then once they finally get everything, they want updates and resolutions within days or a couple weeks, despite the fact that I tell them that it will be 8 weeks. They count the 2-3 weeks of their own ineptitude as part of that time-line.
Then, if they do get offered better terms, the terms aren't as good as they hoped. "You mean to tell me that I'm only gonna save $75 a month? What's $75 a month? That ain't nothing." Really? The fact that you get to keep your house, get a lower interest rate and a lower payment "ain't nothing"? Fine, reject the offer, move out and stop trying to mooch you a-hole.
Why do people, including that jackass President Obama, think that a person should get some special accommodations just because it's a house rather than any other debt? Why should a creditor be barred from collecting on its debt for 3 months, 6 months, or longer? As difficult as it may be to move from place to place, a house is JUST A HOUSE. You will not die if you have to leave it. Your children will not be irreparably harmed because they may have to make some new friends or go to a new school. In fact, I would venture to guess that being in a financially sound family is better than being in one that is worrying about whether there will be food on the table, or a roof over their heads? Maybe that's just me.
All right, I'm done ranting.
I have been dealing with people who need help with their mortgages for about 8 months now. They are not all financial numbskulls who fail to pay their mortgages because they need booze or drugs. Most are people who lost their jobs within the last 6-8 months or have had serious medical issues. Nevertheless, only a rare few actually had any form of savings that sustained them for any length of time. Most of these people face a hardship one week and are on the path to financial ruin the next.
Now, I am a very matter-of-fact person. I don't care about why or how you got in the perdicament you're in. I don't need to know it. As long as the lender knows, I don't care.
What has really grated on me lately has been the total sense of entitlement that so many of these people have. They will often take weeks to get the necessary paperwork to me that allows me to begin trying to help. Then once they finally get everything, they want updates and resolutions within days or a couple weeks, despite the fact that I tell them that it will be 8 weeks. They count the 2-3 weeks of their own ineptitude as part of that time-line.
Then, if they do get offered better terms, the terms aren't as good as they hoped. "You mean to tell me that I'm only gonna save $75 a month? What's $75 a month? That ain't nothing." Really? The fact that you get to keep your house, get a lower interest rate and a lower payment "ain't nothing"? Fine, reject the offer, move out and stop trying to mooch you a-hole.
Why do people, including that jackass President Obama, think that a person should get some special accommodations just because it's a house rather than any other debt? Why should a creditor be barred from collecting on its debt for 3 months, 6 months, or longer? As difficult as it may be to move from place to place, a house is JUST A HOUSE. You will not die if you have to leave it. Your children will not be irreparably harmed because they may have to make some new friends or go to a new school. In fact, I would venture to guess that being in a financially sound family is better than being in one that is worrying about whether there will be food on the table, or a roof over their heads? Maybe that's just me.
All right, I'm done ranting.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Proposed Constitutional Amendments
After some conversations I have had over the last few weeks, I thought I would give readers a chance to put forward their suggestions for amendments to the Federal Constitution. Simply leave them as comments and I may post them as a bar on the side of the front page.
Proposed Amendments:
- Requiring a balanced budget and prohibition on borrowing;
- A 2/3 majority vote of the House will override a decision of the US Supreme Court;
- Amendment repealing the 17th Amendment;
- No member of the House of Representatives shall serve more than 4 terms in total, and no member of the Senate shall serve more than 2 terms in total;
- No judge shall serve as judge in any federal court beyond the age of 70 years (abolishes life long terms);
- Individuals who are not citizens of the United States of America, and are caught or captured outside of the United States shall be held or detained at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, and shall have no recourse before any Court of the United States to challenge that detention;
Now let's see your suggestions...
Proposed Amendments:
- Requiring a balanced budget and prohibition on borrowing;
- A 2/3 majority vote of the House will override a decision of the US Supreme Court;
- Amendment repealing the 17th Amendment;
- No member of the House of Representatives shall serve more than 4 terms in total, and no member of the Senate shall serve more than 2 terms in total;
- No judge shall serve as judge in any federal court beyond the age of 70 years (abolishes life long terms);
- Individuals who are not citizens of the United States of America, and are caught or captured outside of the United States shall be held or detained at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, and shall have no recourse before any Court of the United States to challenge that detention;
Now let's see your suggestions...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
