The Total Failure Of The War On Poverty

[Penguin]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

You know something, you have a point. There is a part of me that really respects those who truly desire a more Darwinian economic landscape. I think I'll address your post on its own terms. I admit that I am no ecologist.... but I do have more thermodynamics under my belt than you could imagine. There is a lot of common ground.

First of all I will admit that the world we live in needs good predators. God or Darwin or whomever you put your faith in annointed it this way. Our economic system is no exception. Good predators are vital to keeping the system healthy. What is re it is vital that we nurture the economic landscape in such a way that predators are free to roam. But the point needs to be made that the role of a predator is such he must serve a positive role for the health of the herd. A predator takes out the weak, the dimwitted, the unlucky, what have you. It should also be mentioned that predators die themselves. Thermodynamics dictates that there is only so much excess to be skimmed off. There is a caloric limit and it dictates that only so many levels of complexity can exist before the system is topped out.

But there is a huge difference between a predator and a parasite.

Parasites show no distinctions. The weak and the healthy alike fall prey to them. A system overpopulated with parasites can fall readily and to no purpose. Whether through biology or natural immunity or some other means parasitic behavior must be constrained if the system is to remain vibrant. In addition, whereas a predator population will help guarantee the long term health of the herd a large unconstrained parasitic population will doom it.

This is where regulation comes in. It has to drawn up in such a way as to free up predators to fulfill their natural duty while constraining parasitic behavior. Unconstrained parasitic behavior is a lost caloric resource. It taxes they system and makes it much less efficient. Left to its own devices unconstrained parasitic behavior results in sickness, disease, annd eventually the death of the herd outright. Immunity from parasitic behavior is as necessary as being subjected to honest predation.

One of the things you will find is that predation is a hard way to make a living. Even those gifted in its art seek to break free from it. In economic terms history is rife with examples of the predator population, capital, trying to escape their profession and stop being predator. They try to establish a permanent place where the hard work of taking down stragglers is not needed. They become rentiers if at all possible. Rentiers fill the role of parasite. Economics devoted itself historically to trying to find a way to allow predators to flourish to the extent the system will support them.

My point should be clear by now. To try and justify what we have now as a healthy ecosystem and those at the top as topline predators who get their wealth honestly is about as far from the truth as one could possibly be. Honest predators don't inherit a waiting herd of docile prey animals who surrender themselves to generation after generation of offspring of a once marvelously predator. But a parasite can spawn generation after generation who suck the lifesblood from an unlucky host while serving no other purpose than to prevent an otherwise genetic winner from succeeding at all.

I'd caution you to try and digest these ideas a bit before getting ready to get out the knife and castrate those who happen to sit lower on the economic ladder. When it comes to the health of the system an unbiased arbitor may end up neutering quite a few who come to the show expecting only those who are 'unfit prey' to be victims. Poor souls who fancied themselves powerful predators only to find that they are needless parasites who add nothing to a healthy ecosystem

Will

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

You know something, you have a point. There is a part of me that really respects those who truly desire a more Darwinian economic landscape. I think I'll address your post on its own terms. I admit that I am no ecologist.... but I do have more thermodynamics under my belt than you could imagine. There is a lot of common ground.

First of all I will admit that the world we live in needs good predators. God or Darwin or whomever you put your faith in annointed it this way. Our economic system is no exception. Good predators are vital to keeping the system healthy. What is re it is vital that we nurture the economic landscape in such a way that predators are free to roam. But the point needs to be made that the role of a predator is such he must serve a positive role for the health of the herd. A predator takes out the weak, the dimwitted, the unlucky, what have you. It should also be mentioned that predators die themselves. Thermodynamics dictates that there is only so much excess to be skimmed off. There is a caloric limit and it dictates that only so many levels of complexity can exist before the system is topped out.

But there is a huge difference between a predator and a parasite.

Parasites show no distinctions. The weak and the healthy alike fall prey to them. A system overpopulated with parasites can fall readily and to no purpose. Whether through biology or natural immunity or some other means parasitic behavior must be constrained if the system is to remain vibrant. In addition, whereas a predator population will help guarantee the long term health of the herd a large unconstrained parasitic population will doom it.

This is where regulation comes in. It has to drawn up in such a way as to free up predators to fulfill their natural duty while constraining parasitic behavior. Unconstrained parasitic behavior is a lost caloric resource. It taxes they system and makes it much less efficient. Left to its own devices unconstrained parasitic behavior results in sickness, disease, annd eventually the death of the herd outright. Immunity from parasitic behavior is as necessary as being subjected to honest predation.

One of the things you will find is that predation is a hard way to make a living. Even those gifted in its art seek to break free from it. In economic terms history is rife with examples of the predator population, capital, trying to escape their profession and stop being predator. They try to establish a permanent place where the hard work of taking down stragglers is not needed. They become rentiers if at all possible. Rentiers fill the role of parasite. Economics devoted itself historically to trying to find a way to allow predators to flourish to the extent the system will support them.

My point should be clear by now. To try and justify what we have now as a healthy ecosystem and those at the top as topline predators who get their wealth honestly is about as far from the truth as one could possibly be. Honest predators don't inherit a waiting herd of docile prey animals who surrender themselves to generation after generation of offspring of a once marvelously predator. But a parasite can spawn generation after generation who suck the lifesblood from an unlucky host while serving no other purpose than to prevent an otherwise genetic winner from succeeding at all.

I'd caution you to try and digest these ideas a bit before getting ready to get out the knife and castrate those who happen to sit lower on the economic ladder. When it comes to the health of the system an unbiased arbitor may end up neutering quite a few who come to the show expecting only those who are 'unfit prey' to be victims. Poor souls who fancied themselves powerful predators only to find that they are needless parasites who add nothing to a healthy ecosystem

Will

I'm not sure if your comment is directed to me or not, but I don't think I've ever "justified what we have now as a healthy ecosystem." It absolutely is not. The banks, GM, AIG, etc should have been allowed to fail in 2008. Actually, they should never have been allowed to grow - with the help of government regulators and legislators in their pockets - to a size where they were a systemic danger.

And if you are referring to me when you suggest that someone was "getting ready to get out the knife and castrate those who happen to sit lower on the economic ladder,", well, put the hyperbole back in your bag. I said nothing like that.

It is eye-opening how quickly people jump to conclusions. I simply say the word "Darwinian" and people assume I approve of castration, gassing, starving or otherwise heartlessly killing off poor people. Geebus. Get a grip!

How about this for an actual suggestion I think might help: any woman who applies for public support must agree to have that subcutaneous birth control technology implanted. (I've forgotten the name of it - it's good for six months or so.) She is certainly not FORCED to use this form of birth control; she can go to private charity if she wants, or family, or what-have-you. But if she is going to be living off of the public dole, she is not going to be making new children. She can't support them, so she has no business creating them. If we can develop a similar technology for men, then we require that of men too. Anytime she wants the implant removed, she can do so - but there will be no more public assistance without it.

Is that so heartless and extreme? I think it is common sense. No one forces anyone to be sterilized, castrated, or shoved in an oven. But if you can't support yourself and are asking the rest of your countrymen to support you, then for the duration of the period that they are supporting you, you have no business creating children - and your good faith action in that regard is to agree to that sort of temporary birth control measure for as long as you expect to be supported.

Oh, and let's also get rid of this idea of "too big to fail" and stop big government from cozying up to big business. That is as obviously destructive of society as subsidizing the unrestrained reproduction of people who can't or won't support themselves.

My ideal is a society that prizes excellence, determination, self-reliance, hard work, discipline, and a gentlemanly/ladylike character. Yes, of course you look out for those who can't take care of themselves, but "equality" and "social justice" are not the paramount values. Excellence is. That kind of society can flourish for the long run.

[lektrode]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

yes MN - it might be common sense - but whats happened in The US - over the past 50years or so, in particular - is the ascension of the 'victim/rights/socialwelfare'-industrial complex, which coupled with the .edu-industrial complex - along with their enablers in the FIre brigade that profits from the .gov DEBT-induced oversupply of useless degrees - has grown to rival, if not surpass the power of the .mil-industrial complex.

and to merely question whether their policies have caused most of the problems we see in the urban ghettos, rural backwaters and that their lobbyists and political-pandering machines have risen to the .mil level is blasphemy for those that are benefitting and profitting from it all.

but to even question the very idea that those who cant or WONT support themselves should be free to reproduce in ever larger numbers is to deny them in the political class a big chunk of THEIR power - and the larger the numbers of the dependent class, the MORE POWER THE POLITICAL CLASS WIELDS in the battle over the budget.

and the last 1/2 dozen years have proven that the beltway has utterly LOST CONTROL of the budgeting process is now incapable of budgeting or gaining control of anything concerning SPENDING.

and to even suggest that the welfare-industrial complex be 'sustainable' ?

well now your're REALLY goin off the deep end.

[lektrode]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

And school breakfast and lunch programs. Are the USDA figures doctored to get more money in THEIR budget. Something doesn't compute.

Meanwhile government is spending a huge amount of money for what? Where is the accountability?

Woody, respectfully because you care for the poor as do I,

where is Rector wrong in that all this money spent hasn't worked?

in all this back n forth - NOWHERE has this question been answered.

far be it from me - just another J6P, unschooled in the political 'sciences' or experienced in debate at this level - to even ask - but it would appear that WHEN THE FACTS CANT BE REFUTED, THE ONLY THING.... uhhhh....

'left' ?

is to SHOOT THE MESSENGER

[Penguin]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Well maybe the prudent thing would be to refrain from talking about how the system is rewarding high IQ individuals and making lower IQ individuals unnecessary until the system actually starts behaving in that manner. Speaking of the need to curb the breeding habits of the unproductive when a good many of them are the very ones singled out for unbelievably high rewards in this status quo is foolish.

It reminds me of Mitt Romney speaking of those who produce versus those who only take. I couldn't agree more... the problem I have is the ridiculous spectacle of having such a privileged parasite as him having the gall to do so.

Reform the system and then come back and we can have an honest discussion about your other concerns.

Will

[Woodsman]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

My ideal is a society that prizes excellence, determination, self-reliance, hard work, discipline, and a gentlemanly/ladylike character. Yes, of course you look out for those who can't take care of themselves, but "equality" and "social justice" are not the paramount values. Excellence is. That kind of society can flourish for the long run.

Your ideal society crumbled under the boots of the Red Army on 30 April 1945.

[vinoveri]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Very very smart people get it wrong all the time - especially when they venture outside theire fields of expertise.

Here's an excerpt from Firing Line where Nobel laureate inventor of the transistor asserts how we should implement social policy to encourage "good breeding" ... Would recommend this whole episode if you have the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_2WaVXZC7U

Shockley on eugenics ... Dawkins on existence of God ... on and on ...the lunacy spewing forth from experts who have deluded themselves of their "universal genius" illustrates of course the fundamental and capital sin

[vinoveri]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

My ideal is a society that prizes excellence, determination, self-reliance, hard work, discipline, and a gentlemanly/ladylike character. Yes, of course you look out for those who can't take care of themselves, but "equality" and "social justice" are not the paramount values. Excellence is. That kind of society can flourish for the long run.

What do you think about LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? What do you think of inalienable rights and the creed of the United States?

Goodness, truth, and beauty are far far more important and valuable than "excellence" IMO.
Bees and ants societies exhibit hard work and discipline par excellence.

[vt]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Woodsman thank you for your viewpoints and offer of Hedge's book.

We both agree that we need to help the poor overcome poverty, expand the middle class, and get rid of the elites that prevent this. However Hedges is not the answer.
He is at best a reminder that the far left is bankrupt.

First Hedges is guilty of false advertising: he speaks of the false left-right paradigm. Hedges is so far left he is off the playing field. When he says that "Marx is correct about unfettered capitalism" he fails to understand that free markets are held back by excessive regulation and red tape. Sure we need reasonable regulation but not empire building bureaucrats.

He attacks "Neo Liberals" when he is nothing but a Neo Marxist. Hedges attacks Clinton on welfare reform when Bill was only trying to end the cycle that imprisoned the poor in poverty. Hedges attacks NAFTA when it is really free trade that creates jobs. Hedges is correct to call out Glass Steagall; this unfortunately let FIRE put us on the road to destruction.

Hedges speaks of corporate fascism, when in fact today's Democrats are the leading proponents. Obama wants to use corporations to make the left's hold on power even larger. This is liberal fascism. True conservatives want smaller, efficient government; this is not fascism.

Canceling debt for student loans? What about going to the root of asking why have the liberal academic elites allowed tuitions to rise to unpayable levels? Soon we may see online, reasonably priced, accredited college degrees being granted. The Ivy towers have abandon their duty to educate the middle class. They want to go to Washington to control the government with theories that don't work.

Canceling foreclosures? Yes for the small percentage that were due to medical layoffs and loss of jobs. But not for those who speculated in get rich quick flipping schemes, building investment portfolios too quickly or expensively, and using homes as ATMs for overconsumption. Hedges ignores responsibility. Yes, we should punish the dishonest mortgage brokers and real estate agents that aided and abetted, but not all "victims" were innocent.

Hedges supports Occupy as the only alternative. That left wing band of misfits can't do anything to help the 99%.

What we must do is form a New Majority Party that will significantly reduce FIRE and build TECI. But also:

Support education that prepares our young for real jobs and raises standards to the levels of nations that teach math and the sciences at high levels. Education that creates literate graduates.

A government that ends lobbying so candidates only receive a fixed stipend to campaign on the issues. Interest groups on the left or right will not be able to buy elected representatives. An end to politicians; replaced by statesmen and women. A government without special favors. Yes, government can help industry to create jobs with proper policy, but not favor "friends".

A level playing field for competitive industries, new businesses, reasonable regulation, far less red tape, and jail for violators.

There are other examples that we as a community can develop.

My reason for starting this thread was to point out that government's excessive spending to fight poverty has been a huge loss of taxpayer funds. That is the issue that must be addressed not the tangents that attack a message.

We must move forward not backward or sideways with political talking points.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

I don’t think anyone has been more eloquent in calling out Obama on his support for corporate fascism.

The failure of NAFTA has been acute.

The TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) is the “inverted coup” Hedges often mentions.

Suggesting the suckers who borrowed/gambled money they couldn’t repay are the root of the mortgage mess is absurd. Lending that money has been a felony prosecuted for decades.

[Woodsman]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Woodsman thank you for your viewpoints and offer of Hedge's book.

We both agree that we need to help the poor overcome poverty, expand the middle class, and get rid of the elites that prevent this. However Hedges is not the answer.
He is at best a reminder that the far left is bankrupt.

First Hedges is guilty of false advertising: he speaks of the false left-right paradigm. Hedges is so far left he is off the playing field. When he says that "Marx is correct about unfettered capitalism" he fails to understand that free markets are held back by excessive regulation and red tape. Sure we need reasonable regulation but not empire building bureaucrats.

He attacks "Neo Liberals" when he is nothing but a Neo Marxist. Hedges attacks Clinton on welfare reform when Bill was only trying to end the cycle that imprisoned the poor in poverty. Hedges attacks NAFTA when it is really free trade that creates jobs. Hedges is correct to call out Glass Steagall; this unfortunately let FIRE put us on the road to destruction.

Hedges speaks of corporate fascism, when in fact today's Democrats are the leading proponents. Obama wants to use corporations to make the left's hold on power even larger. This is liberal fascism. True conservatives want smaller, efficient government; this is not fascism.

Canceling debt for student loans? What about going to the root of asking why have the liberal academic elites allowed tuitions to rise to unpayable levels? Soon we may see online, reasonably priced, accredited college degrees being granted. The Ivy towers have abandon their duty to educate the middle class. They want to go to Washington to control the government with theories that don't work.

Canceling foreclosures? Yes for the small percentage that were due to medical layoffs and loss of jobs. But not for those who speculated in get rich quick flipping schemes, building investment portfolios too quickly or expensively, and using homes as ATMs for overconsumption. Hedges ignores responsibility. Yes, we should punish the dishonest mortgage brokers and real estate agents that aided and abetted, but not all "victims" were innocent.

Hedges supports Occupy as the only alternative. That left wing band of misfits can't do anything to help the 99%.

What we must do is form a New Majority Party that will significantly reduce FIRE and build TECI. But also:

Support education that prepares our young for real jobs and raises standards to the levels of nations that teach math and the sciences at high levels. Education that creates literate graduates.

A government that ends lobbying so candidates only receive a fixed stipend to campaign on the issues. Interest groups on the left or right will not be able to buy elected representatives. An end to politicians; replaced by statesmen and women. A government without special favors. Yes, government can help industry to create jobs with proper policy, but not favor "friends".

A level playing field for competitive industries, new businesses, reasonable regulation, far less red tape, and jail for violators.

There are other examples that we as a community can develop.

My reason for starting this thread was to point out that government's excessive spending to fight poverty has been a huge loss of taxpayer funds. That is the issue that must be addressed not the tangents that attack a message.

We must move forward not backward or sideways with political talking points.

Respectfully, vt, you're just not getting it. This mantra of yours, Obama Democrats Socialists, man that is weak tea brother. You're certainly not paying close attention here because your analysis - while not entirely incorrect - is glib and superficial enough that it tells me you don't know as much about Hedges as you believe you do. I hate to say it, but much of what I hear of late is little more than slogans. I tell you, vt, you might change your mind if you read Empire of Illusion and Death of the Liberal Class closely. Maybe that's why you are content with this superficial view of the man and his analysis and won't dig deeper; I don't know. And you make a mistake if you believe that I endorse every proposal uncritically or have no awareness of his political orientation.

But who else on any part of the spectrum speaks truth about the GOP and the Democrats and the status quo like Chris Hedges? Where else - save for iTulip, thank goodness - do we get the kind of deep contextual analysis as we do from Hedges. And where else can we turn to receive such analysis and opinion and know that source has identified his biases, declared his allegiances and was unequivocal about his ideological motives? I don't care if Hedges wears red underwear and sings the Internationale in the shower. The truth comes from all sorts of curious places. And this man fights. I can't spare him.

Hedges is an out and out, real left wing democratic socialist. Says so right off the bat so your notion that he practices false advertising confuses me. He doesn't attempt to slide it under the radar or convince you that white is black and night is day. He has no sponsors, no advertisers and no party. The right can't touch him and won't because they understand the power of his rhetoric and argumentation and so won't take the risk. The left won't touch him because they know he will strip them bare of any remaining pretense to egalitarianism and social equality. And so he is ignored and is generally unknown by the mass of people.

Find me a man on the right with his intellectual prowess, political independence and moral (and physical) courage and I'll give him the same attention I give Hedges. I'm not just blowing smoke. Please, share with me any name that you would consider analogous to Hedges on the right and I'll start reading today. Vt, you might be surprised to learn that you and Hedges occupy (pun intended) much common ground. At the very least you should appreciate the fact that Hedges correctly identifies the right as the winners of this struggle and liberals as corrupt empty suits obsessed with identity politics. After all we've witnessed, I'm not sure how anyone can argue with the idea that capitalism without restraint is a destructive force to society, or that welfare reform was not really about reforming welfare, or that free trade as realized by NAFTA was a disaster for most Americans.

You want to be a political independent, no? This is an aspiration of yours, yes? Well, if you are serious about it, the first step it to turn that discerning eye of yours against yourself and the premises you hold dear. It's a hard thing to do and I will tell you there is no Earthly reward for it, save the opportunity to see the world closer to what it actually is. I'm not there yet, but taking in aggregate your statements here and elsewhere I think you're still trailing. And I'll put the politics and economics aside for a minute and speak here merely as a human and someone who - while not quite a friend, is no enemy. I would say that it is probably not worth the effort and the pain for you to try. There really is no reward and can get very lonely. And certainly it will make no difference to the outcome.

Peace to and yours this Sunday, vt.

[vt]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Peace to you and yours too Woodsman. We could certainly break bread together. I have many close friends that are on the left as well as right.

Of course Capitalism needs to be restrained, as I stated with reasonable regulation AND jail for egregious violators. Jail is something we have not seen for the heads of Wall Street for their crimes during the AFC.

Democratic left wing socialists, while well meaning, cannot create jobs like freely competitive markets, unfettered by special government favors to participants. The key is create jobs and opportunity to all, not equal outcomes with little effort. We're looking to RAISE living standards for all, not equalize them at a low level as socialism does. Ask Eastern Europe about their experience.

Yes, both parties are corrupted by oligarchies; but the media attacks the free market side of one, while supporting the oligarchies of both. I did not deny Hedges speaking to this; I just don't agree with a left leaning solution.

You speak of NAFTA being a disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA's...tes_employment

Are the American jobs lost because of NAFTA or because of the lack of border enforcement allowing millions of workers to undercut American labor? Of course there are unscrupulous businesses on the right that have used illegal labor to the detriment of American labor. And now we want to legalize over 10 million border violators while denying citizenship to millions who have applied legally and are waiting patiently in line? Is this fair? Is the call for amnesty a political ploy for votes?

We are all immigrants, and we need more added to vitalize the nation. But we need to be fair and take millions more from the rest of the world and not just from the 6% of world population amnesty addresses. We need more Asians, more Africans, more Latin Americans, more Europeans; these are the people who have been applying under the law. We should have the ones the immigration bill addresses take their place in line too. Since these individuals have been here for some time, even if illegally, we can give some preference in numbers, but nothing like the total amount. We do need to increase the total number of immigrants we take each year, but in a fair process from all parts of the globe.

[vt]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Thailandnotes said

"Suggesting the suckers who borrowed/gambled money they couldn’t repay are the root of the mortgage mess is absurd. Lending that money has been a felony prosecuted for decades."

I clearly stated that the lenders were culpable. But why should an honest lender let a buyer lied to get a loan, and speculated on real estate, get away with not paying?
And where were the regulators? Who in their right mind would have allowed for 125% mortgages? Free spending governments seeing visions of more property taxes allowed this charade to continue. Banking regulators allowed this to go on. The media feed the frenzy with stories of those getting rich on real estate. Greed had a thousand authors.

"Canceling foreclosures? Yes for the small percentage that were due to medical layoffs and loss of jobs. But not for those who speculated in get rich quick flipping schemes, building investment portfolios too quickly or expensively, and using homes as ATMs for overconsumption. Hedges ignores responsibility. Yes, we should punish the dishonest mortgage brokers and real estate agents that aided and abetted, but not all "victims" were innocent."

[lektrode]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

T...."Canceling foreclosures? Yes for the small percentage that were due to medical layoffs and loss of jobs. But not for those who speculated in get rich quick flipping schemes, building investment portfolios too quickly or expensively, and using homes as ATMs for overconsumption. Hedges ignores responsibility. Yes, we should punish the dishonest mortgage brokers and real estate agents that aided and abetted, but not all "victims" were innocent."

+1
but 'cancel foreclosures' ?
thats a tuff nut to krack - esp if done blanket style, since there was - and quite OBVIOUSLY - too many 'strategic defaults'
and those opportunistic parasites should get a/the haircut too.

some of us - esp us J6P's - 'naturally' live below our means and quite frankly BRISTLE at the idea of the(a) free ride - even if its some sort of 'penalty' for the other side of the trade - and which wouldn't be any where near enough -

no - NOBODY should get away without a haircut on this column.

i got/worked/got-worked/qualified and *paid* MY mortgage the HARD WAY and i'll be damned if i'd sign off on any MORE giveways at this point -

this should at the minimum be a CASE BY CASE EXAMINATION of each/every line item on all the docs in question.

since - after all - thats what would happen if it was a CAPITAL MURDER case - and the whole shitstorm thats happened ...

and thats THE WHOLE SHITSTORM thats happened - since 2008-09 in particular - and OOOOPS - sorry - i almost typed
s__t storm

sorry for forgetting.

since what happened was nothing less than the MURDER OF CAPITAL -
mostly that of those of us, that'd be The Rest of US, the something-more-than-47% of US that PAID-FOR most of the SHITSTORM.

after this whole series of events has somehow or another managed to 'blow by' - since, well - HEY!
the stock market is BOOOOOMIN
house prices are right back upto LAUNCHIN
(along with food,rents,meds,cars,edu-exp/cost/loans and stuff like... oh, i dunno - pick something - pert near EVERYTHING is going UP - except the barbarous relic - NOR WORKING CLASS/private-sector WAGES - which is/are going down, while the CB's and certain .gov entities (and party aparatchiks) load up their trucks... )

SO WHY SHOULD THERE BE ANY MORE WRITE-OFFS; ESP 'after the fact' YEARS LATER WRITE-OFFS ???

i call BS.

CALL TIME

no more 'raises' - not without some day of reckoning = show me the evidence
i dont think The US Treasury (read: TAXPAYERS) should be on the hook for another GD dime (never mind TRILLION)!!!!

[vt]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Well, not cancelling but holding off foreclosure for those with medical problems and laid off work. Hedges SEEMS to suggest cancelling all foreclosure action for any loan, which is a true moral hazard. But we should help those who find themselves behind in payments by working out a way to have them stay in their homes. The speculators and liars need to be foreclosed. Of dishonest mortgage and real estate professionals need to be prosecuted.