From the WSJ:
FHA Looks to Ease Banks’ Worry on Mortgage Mistakes
A U.S. housing regulator is considering limiting one of the most powerful tools federal attorneys have to punish banks for making mistakes in mortgage lending, a move the Federal Housing Administration hopes will encourage banks to give more home loans to worthy but weaker borrowers, according to people familiar with the matter.
Since the mortgage crisis, the government has extracted billions of dollars in penalties from lenders that made mistakes on loans to borrowers who later defaulted. The errors ranged from small mistakes to ones that affected the riskiness of the mortgages.
Because banks must certify that FHA-backed mortgages they originate have no errors, when mistakes are found, the Justice Department has sometimes pursued damages under a Civil War-era law known as the False Claims Act that lets the government recover triple damages. In one high-profile application of the act, the Justice Department a year ago reached a $614 million settlement with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Some banks, believing the penalties are too harsh relative to the errors made, have pulled back from originating mortgages backed by the FHA and argued that the broad “certification” they must make when originating a mortgage should be limited to significant errors. The agency, which doesn’t make loans but sells insurance to make investors whole if mortgages default, guarantees loans for a wide swath of middle-class and lower-income Americans, including those who can only make down payments of as little as 3.5%.
The FHA’s attempt to change the provision shows the tightrope policy makers and regulators are trying to walk. While they want to hold lenders accountable for crisis-era mistakes and retain recourse should the loans go bad, they also want the banks to extend loans to some consumers who have been largely shut out of the mortgage market since the crisis.
…
Lenders typically have pulled back on FHA lending by having more stringent requirements than what the FHA would allow. For example, even though the FHA will guarantee loans to borrowers with credit scores of as little as 580, on a scale of 300 to 850, a bank might not give loans to borrowers with a score below 640.“The real question to me is, should we be in the FHA business at all?” said J.P. Morgan CEO James Dimon on an earnings call with analysts last July, as the bank still smarted from the $614 million penalty.
The bank seemingly followed through with its threat, reducing its FHA business by 74% last year, while the rest of the FHA market shrank by about 37%, according to trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance. Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf also has made public statements critical of the government’s enforcement mechanisms and that bank’s FHA business has seen similar cuts.
Good Morning New Jersey
Ruthless Coldwell Banker goes straight for the heart in their new dog commercial that premiered during the grammys:
http://adage.com/article/see-the-spot/coldwell-banker-find-dogs-homes-oscar-night/297077/
All dogs featured in the commercial were adoptions. Wonder what agency this came out of, because it’s a bit brilliant. Sucker for a cute dog.
ADP estimate has NJ jobs up by 2400 in January.
New Jersey Added 2,400 Private Sector Jobs in January, According to ADP Regional Employment Report(R)
Changes in New Jersey State Nonfarm Private Employment: 2,400*
— By Sector *
— Goods-producing 300
— Service-providing 2,100
— By Select Industries
— Natural Resources/Mining and Construction 400
— Manufacturing -100
— Professional and Business Services 100
— Trade, Transportation and Utilities 900
Thank goodness for Jersey City…
Jersey City outpaces state, nation in unemployment reduction
New Jersey’s second largest city continues to outpace the county, state and nation in reducing unemployment, U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics indicate.
Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop is touting a 4.1 percent reduction in unemployment since he took office July 1, 2013. The city’s unemployment rate at the time was 10.6 percent, but is now down to 6.5 percent — the most dramatic drop in Hudson County over that time period — according to preliminary Bureau of Labor data from December 2014.
“We had a plan when we took office and we have put a great deal of focus on job creation. This is strong independent validation that we are doing it better than anyone,” Fulop said in a statement.
The statistics, which were released last week by the Bureau of Labor, show Hudson County’s unemployment rate dropped in the last 18 months from 9.7 percent to 6.2 percent, well below the state’s highest rate — 12.7 percent — in Cape May County.
At 4.1 percent, Hunterdon County has New Jersey’s lowest unemployment rate.
Since July 2013, New Jersey’s rate dropped 2.9 percentage points to 5.7 percent while the nation’s unemployment rate dropped 2.4 percentage points to 5.6 percent in that span through December.
Jersey City has slightly outpaced Newark in unemployment reduction since July 2013. At the time, the state’s largest city had an unemployment rate of 13.8 percent, but now has that figure down to 9.8 percent.
However, New Jersey’s third largest city, Paterson, saw a 4.2 percent drop in unemployment, going from 14.9 percent in July 2013 to 10.7 percent at the beginning of this year.
Meanwhile, Jersey City has added more than 9,000 new jobs since Fulop took office, ranging from new small businesses to construction jobs to corporate jobs, according to a City Hall press release.
Increasing the tax on gasoline too much of a political risk? No problem, we’ll just tax paint at 75 cents a gallon instead…
Flipping through the Schott report this morning. This is incredibly disappointing reading. Dropout rates even worse than I thought across the country. NJ pat yourself on the back, you’ve got one of the smallest gap in dropout rates.
Income inequality will never improve until we fix the massive high school dropout problem we have across the country.
2- Excellent!
FHA being primed again as a BK/bailout vehicle.
“Our era is a strange one when considering how social attitudes have developed in such a contrary fashion to the rest of history. I think that our forefathers would look upon our current culture with bewilderment when confronted with the fact that our generation has all but abandoned the option of physical rebellion as a tool for social change. Even among the most enslaved of nations and peoples, the idea of revolution has been held in regard as an entirely moral and principled affair involving every individual, no matter their age or economic station. Today, however, that which we call “revolution” has been delegated mostly to college-age intellectuals and has been so watered down and whitewashed with politically correct restrictions that the concept is hardly recognizable.
I believe the civil rights movements in America and in India in the 20th century have in many ways warped the public view of how opposition to totalitarianism is actually accomplished. I find it interesting that movements led by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. enjoy so much adoration in mainstream media and in public schooling, while the American Revolution is often either misrepresented or not discussed at all. Gandhi’s movement was, in concrete terms, a failure until Indians had actually began organizing to physically fight the British, causing the Crown to attempt to defuse the movement by suddenly offering up a reformation of Indian governance (one that would continue to benefit them). When one examines the facts surrounding Cointelpro operations by the FBI and CIA during the civil rights movement in America, one realizes that half the efforts and actions were legitimate and the other half entirely manipulated.
Over the course of half a century, the philosophy of “anti-violence” has come to include a distinct distaste for self-defense. Self-defense is now consistently equated to “violence” (and is, thus, immoral), regardless of environmental circumstances.”
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2506-understanding-the-fear-of-self-defense-and-revolution
8 – We go the other way now
“The suspect — Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, of Chapel Hill — has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder and appeared in court Wednesday morning. The judge denied bond.
“Our investigators are exploring what could have motivated Mr. Hicks to commit such a senseless and tragic act,” Chapel Hill Police Chief Chris Blue said in a statement. “We understand the concerns about the possibility that this was hate-motivated and we will exhaust every lead to determine if that is the case.”
@UNCDentistry:
It has been a long, difficult day. We thank all of you standing with us, @UNC and @NCState as we grieve the loss of Deah, Yusor and Razan.
All whites are privileged racists, why is this news?
Can we just skip the trial and execute Hicks?
ya think!?
@WEWS: Ex-wife of shooter that killed 3 near UNC says he had “no compassion at all”
Meanwhile, back in real estate . . . .
So this explains why Wells Fargo doesn’t have a dedicated section giving mortgages to baristas.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102417008
[13] anon
Definitely. If he had any compassion, he’d off a couple of quasi-soc1alist trolls instead of a dental student and his wife.
Grim….this in the Ledger this morning about the gas tax….
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/02/congressman_scott_garretts_tax_plan_would_be_a_rea.html#incart_river
By Paul Mulshine | The Star Ledger
Follow on Twitter
on February 12, 2015 at 8:00 AM, updated February 12, 2015 at 8:06 AM
In the New York Times the other day a panel of experts debated the wisdom of lowering the drinking age. Those in favor of doing so pointed out that current law encourages younger people to binge on hard liquor in private instead of drinking beer or wine at a bar.
The article was sent to me by Assemblyman Mike Carroll of Morris County. Carroll, who is a father of five or six or some such number, said he supports lowering the drinking age to the voting age, which is 18.
“If you’re not capable of making a determination to drink a beer, are you capable of making a determination that Barack Obama should be president of the United States?” asked Carroll.
As you might deduce from that remark, Carroll is a conservative Republican. But there are liberal Democrats who also support lowering the drinking age. It all makes for a high-toned and illuminating debate and it might have great meaning – if this were a free country.
Unfortunately it’s not. Americans love to yammer on about their love for freedom, but they love pushing other people around even more. That’s how we ended up with such draconian regulations as a national 55-mph speed limit and a national drinking age of 21.
Scott Garrett has an idea that would end all that over-regulation – and free up a lot of money for transportation as well. Garrett, a conservative Republican who represents the northwest corner of the state, is sponsoring a bill that would accomplish both those ends through the simple expedient of turning the federal gas tax into a state tax.
Here’s how it would work: Currently the federal government collects a tax of 18.4 cents for every gallon of gas sold in the United States. That tax money then goes to Washington, where bureaucrats sort it into categories and then send some of it back to each state with all sorts of strings attached.
Many of those strings were put there by people we New Jerseyans sent to Congress. The late Jim Howard, a Democratic House member from central New Jersey, sponsored the 55-mph speed limit. The late Frank Lautenberg, a Democratic senator for many decades, sponsored the law raising the drinking age, which had been as low as 18 in many states.
In both cases, the federal government lacked the authority to impose such laws unilaterally. Instead, they were enforced via the threat of withholding transportation aid to any state that refused to adopt them.
“Maybe all those ideas were good ideas,” said Garrett when I called him yesterday. “But that should be up to the wisdom and discretion of the voters of New Jersey to decide.”
Garrett came up with an innovative way to return that decision-making power to the states. His bill stipulates that any state that raises its gas tax can have the federal gas tax reduced by the same amount. The incentive for most states would be to raise the state tax by the full 18.4 cents. The price at the pump wouldn’t change but now state officials would have that revenue to spend on transportation in any way they desire.
For New Jersey, that would produce about a billion dollars in revenue, about $100 million more than we now get. But that’s just the beginning, Garrett said. He cited a Heritage Foundation paper showing that states are forced to spend their current federal aid on “non-transportation projects such as nature trails, museums, flower plantings, metropolitan planning organizations, bicycles, Appalachian regional development programs, parking lots, university research,” as well as “thousands of earmarks.”
Those program can eat up a third of the aid, said Garrett. Get rid of them and you’d free up hundreds of millions more for the transportation projects New Jerseyans most want.
“Every time the transportation secretary comes before the committee, whether he’s Democratic or Republican, I ask him what about Route 46 or Kinderkamack Road,” he said. “They’ll say I have no idea where those roads are. I’ll say, “Don’t you think the local traffic engineer who rides on that road every day has more concern about it than you do?”
The original idea behind the federal gas tax was a good one, Garrett said. Back in the 1950s, the feds needed a revenue source to fund construction of the Interstate Highway System and a federal gas tax was the logical source. But now that the system’s done, road maintenance can be handled just fine by the states.
Garrett said that now that both houses of Congress are in Republican hands, there’s actually a realistic chance that his bill or something similar could passed. That would not only help free up traffic. It would also mean that debate among those experts cited in the Times could have some real influence on public policy.
You know – sort of like what happens in a free country
Every year you lower the drinking age below 21 = more death……
Inexperienced drivers x inexperienced drinkers = fuct
http://nypost.com/2015/02/11/ex-knicks-great-anthony-mason-critical-after-heart-attack/
They’re drinking and driving now anyway. Who here had their very first drink at age 21?
chicagofinance says:
February 12, 2015 at 9:09 am
Every year you lower the drinking age below 21 = more death……
Inexperienced drivers x inexperienced drinkers = fuct
Today’s Privileged News: For some, 50 Shades was their first introduction to doing things differently. People in the know, have always done what they wanted to. You clowns are little boys in bed compared to Dominique.
—————
Dominique Strauss-Kahn: I’m “Rougher” in Bed than Most Men
Dominique Strauss-Kahn admitted to a French court on Wednesday that he is “rougher” in bed than most men — but claimed he had no clue the prostitutes he slept with hated it so much.
http://nypost.com/2015/02/11/dominique-strauss-kahn-im-rougher-in-bed-than-most-men/
Cry me a river . . .
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/12/news/economy/obamacare-costs/index.html?sr=fbmoney021215obamacare0930story
“Inexperienced drivers”
If people follow the law to the letter, a person will have driven a total of 6hrs before taking their test and getting a DL (regardless of what age they decide, or are allowed, to start). Everyone starting something new for the first time is inexperienced at it.
Let’s just ban driving and get it over with
Other Privileged News: You can get a job you are not qualified for simply because of who you know. To be far, this is the norm in investment banks in Asia and union jobs in the States.
———-
In J.P. Morgan Emails, a Tale of China and Connections
Gao Jue did poorly on his job interviews at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., he messed up his work visa, accidentally sent a sexually explicit email to a human-resources employee and was described by a senior banker as “immature, irresponsible and unreliable,” according to internal bank emails and people familiar with the matter.
Yet the bank hired him, saved him during major job cuts and later was prepared to offer him another position if he had responded to their queries.
Mr. Gao is the son of China’s current commerce minister, who, when his son faced a layoff, said he would be willing to “go extra miles” for the bank if it kept him on, according to a J.P. Morgan executive’s email account of a dinner with the father.
Later that year, J.P. Morgan offered Gao Jue a coveted two-year entry-level analyst position in New York, to start the following summer. With a two-year job in New York, he wouldn’t be part of a separate J.P. Morgan hiring program for well-connected Chinese that was informally called “Sons and Daughters.” It gave mostly temporary positions, largely in Hong Kong and China, to children of bank clients, influential businesspeople and Chinese government officials. The program was designed to screen connected candidates and prevent potentially illegal hires but appears to have instead enabled the type of hiring now under investigation, according to people familiar with it.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-j-p-morgan-emails-a-tale-of-china-and-connections-1423241289
My kid drinks already. A sip here or there. I don’t want him to be so mystified by alcohol that he abuses it. I would be very surprised if he was as insane as I was in college. Of course my parents never touched the stuff.
[21] Comrade
Obamacare is like all government programs. Someone gets KY and are very happy and some get nothing and its worst thing in the world. The irony of the program is that in Red states, especially the middle of the country, they have benefitted greatly.
14- Funny, we put so much emphasis on education and going to college for the majority of the population. Based on this passage, why? It’s pointless. They should figure out some way to put people on different tracks in life. Giving someone a great education and then putting them in a low level job is like torture for the mind. Doesn’t make much sense.
“”What we find is that many of America’s fastest growing careers (in terms of numbers of workers) have average or below average homeownership rates,” said Leonard Kiefer, deputy chief economist at Freddie Mac. “At the same time, the professions with higher homeownership rates are generally headed for average or subpar growth.”
Most of the job openings projected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics over the next decade are in retail sales, food preparation and cashiers. Workers in these professions have homeownership rates below the national average. “
16- Wow, finally a politician that actually makes some sense. Kick out Christie and put this guy in.
“Scott Garrett has an idea that would end all that over-regulation – and free up a lot of money for transportation as well. Garrett, a conservative Republican who represents the northwest corner of the state, is sponsoring a bill that would accomplish both those ends through the simple expedient of turning the federal gas tax into a state tax.”
Is there a sleazier outfit around now than United? Just in the past week it looks like the feds are investigating whether they were in cahoots with the PA chairman. Now they are canceling flights that were booked through their own website, treat customer relations there. I hope they nail them on the corruption, everyone knows they are running a monopoly at EWR.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/united_wont_honor_super_cheap_airline_tickets_booked_via_online_goof.html#incart_river
United is the worst airline ever. Our family travels frequently and I’ve gotten to the point where I would rather fly out of JFK on Delta, Jet Blue, Southwest, Virgin America or even American (which can be sucky too at times) than fly out of EWR on United. My success rate of flying with United (success being measured by arriving within two hours of schedule) is about 50%. And twice they have ruined vacations (not due to weather). Our last snafu was really the last straw for us. I’ll share the letter I wrote to United if I can find it.
Traveled with wife Gator, 8 year-old son Gator Jr. and
17-month old son Gator Cray Cray. We are Premier Access customers.
4:20pm – Arrived at airport.
5:20pm – Flight delayed.
7:30pm – Flight delayed again.
9pm – Flight delayed again.
10pm – Kicked out of United Club (closed) and went to gate.
11:00pm – Gate agents asked for 40 volunteers to rebook as plane that
arrived is not large enough to fit all passengers.
11:30pm – Boarding started.
12:00 – Flight was cancelled due to pressurization issue. Gate agents
promised hotel and meals as compensation and a rebook on morning flight
at 11:15am on 5/23/2014.
12:45am – After 45-minute wait on Premier Access line at Customer Care
Center, was told hotel and meals were not being provided, even though we
claimed the gate agent said they were.
1:00am – Returned to gate where line was still large and was told the
Customer Care Center was wrong and to return to Customer Care Center and
they would call them.
1:00am – Returned to Customer Care Center and they had not been called.
Customer Care Center called the gate and finally issued us vouchers for
the Edison Hotel. Had to beg Customer Care Center representative for
care bag, even though our luggage could not easily be retrieved.
1:15am – Took bus over to P4 for lodging shuttle and was told wait would
be 12 minutes from red coat.
1:45am – Called Edison Hotel and was told it would be a 45 minute wait
for the shuttle to arrive, plus a 30 minute ride to the hotel where we
would still need to check in.
2:00am – Returned to terminal by bus to obtain shuttle to off airport
parking facility and drove home.
2:45am – Arrived home.
Results: Missed 3:30pm show in Vegas (tickets purchased in advance).
Missed full day of vacation. No meals provided at airport during 6-hour
delay. Incompetent service at Customer Care Center. Representative said
we were lucky to receive more than a pillow and blanket.
Information/coordination between gate and customer service was
nonexistent.
I thought it was standard practice across all carriers to not provide hotel vouchers if flights are cancelled at origin. I fly 50k+ a year, and never been offered a voucher for an origin cancellation. Far more common for United to rebook on another carrier flying out of EWR.
better to die at 18 in war than at 21 from drinking
chicagofinance says:
February 12, 2015 at 9:09 am
Every year you lower the drinking age below 21 = more death……
Maybe they made a special case due to the fact that it was too late to rebook?
There’s nothing quite like spending 10 hours at the airport with an 8-year old and a 17-month old with the final destination ending up being returning home only to return to the airport seven hours later to take a 5.5 hour flight all due to mechanical issues.
This is a really cool site. Bunch of debates on all types of issues.
http://www.debate.org/debates/The-rich-should-be-taxed-heavier/1/comments/3/
Remember this day in history…..Michael wants a Tea Party Republican to be governor of NJ and anon advocated for individual freedoms. Up is down and cats and dogs living together….what is going on?
Meanwhile, Chifi advocates for government intervention into our personal lives for “public safety”.
35- Have to admit, this guy makes so pretty good points. At the moment, I’m torn between the classical theories of economics vs neo-economic theories. “Classic theories” seem to take a simple approach to understanding economics. While these new theories take a much more deeper approach, for example, not looking at debt in the same light as the classical economists. Which one is right, I have no idea at the moment, but this is a very complicated subject.
“”Spending Trillions of dollars we don’t have is not considered irresponsible spending to you?”
But we’re not doing that. The deficit has plummeted in recent years. The 2014 deficit was only $483 billion (http://www.forbes.com…). And, even if it were, it would be primarily a function of collapsed tax revenues and labor-market slack, so there isn’t much of an issue at all with running deficits in an effort to stimulate the economy, because otherwise, we’re only making it harder to carry the debt that we actually have. Greece, for instance, had to implement draconian austerity measures under the order of the Troika, and ended up *increasing* its debt-to-GDP ratio in the process. Austerity amid demand shocks and zero nominal interest rates, where it isn’t possible to slash wages to equilibrate markets, is self-reinforcing and debilitating.
“You don’t have to look far to see the debt we have now is only increasing.”
It’s increasing, but at a decreasing rate, and much of that we owe to ourselves, anyway, so it’s not as that we’re actually “indebted” to any foreign country or “robbing from our children.” That’s one of the number one myths that truly needs to be squashed.
“As you know, Capitalism is considered an evil and bad system by some Americans and many in the Government, so to say America “allowed” them to become rich is a bit of a overstatement.”
I don’t have a problem with the existence of capitalism, per se. Perhaps “allowed them to get rich” was a bit of a misstatement. What I meant to say was that they became rich by virtue of, not in spite of, the institutions set up by government that resulted from collectively pooling our resources–that government has been, on balance, a boon to business, not an impediment, so naturally it’s only right for them to pay forward so that others may have the same opportunities they did.”
Chi,
Are you going to tell a 19 year old soldier who just had his leg blown off that when he comes back to the US, he won’t be allowed a drink?
You see, that was the original argument back in the 80s when the MADD mom from somewhere in the NW started the 21 year old drinking campaign. And Lautenberg was the tool that grabbed every state by the balls. He introduced the concept of linking anything federally imposed upon handouts of federal highway funds. This trick also gave the feds the power to keep speed limits at 55. I hated Lautenberg from the get-go. Anyone remember the fast lane share-rides on rte 287 right after it was expanded between Bedminster and Morristown? Old Franky, you bet.
Either way, European kids are allowed to drink at restaurants at age 14 when supervised by adults. 2 drinks max, I think in some countries. Guess what their DUI rate is compared to US? one half to a third. My daughter, in college, always talks about it and participates herself sometimes in binge drinking. We know about it. She let’s us know. We can only pray. When kids that age aren’t guaranteed a drink once they leave the confines of their dorm, you sure bet they will be binge.
If the guy helps the economy of our state, I don’t care what party he belongs to. I’m serious when I stated that I don’t belong to any party or school of thought. I’m seriously trying to find what is best. Both sides have good arguments. Instead of attacking each other, find a better way.
Toxic Crayons says:
February 12, 2015 at 11:37 am
Remember this day in history…..Michael wants a Tea Party Republican to be governor of NJ and anon advocated for individual freedoms. Up is down and cats and dogs living together….what is going on?
“Every year you lower the drinking age below 21 = more death……
Inexperienced drivers x inexperienced drinkers = fuct”
So bump the drinking age to 40? Or eliminate it altogether? Tell me, Senator, at which age does one become an experienced drinker and an experienced driver?
41 – shut up or I will take your federal highway dollars away. Fcuk you….pay my federal gas tax.
The clowns who stay in the left lane aren’t drinking. They are just inexperienced jerks
[24] libturd
First semester freshman year, I’m certain that I nearly drank myself to death on a couple of occasions. I realized pretty quickly that I was lucky not to have died. Scared me so much, I was a booze lightweight from second semester until my last semester senior year. I partied plenty but didn’t overdo it after that.
[39] xolepa,
When I first went to DC, I interviewed for a position as attorney-advisor to the IG at DOT. The one substantive question the GC asked me was about this very scenario of using highway funding to protect states to adopt laws. I was like are you kidding me with that softball? I then proceeded to school him on the Urban Mass Transit Act and the history of his agency. At that point, his deputy laughed and said “stop asking questions, he knows this stuff.”
Protect s/b prompt
35- I don’t know, maybe someone can help me out with this. You guys are older and more knowledgeable than me, so please tell me what is wrong with his positions. They make sense, but maybe I’m missing something. I’m not trying to be annoying. So please don’t call me a troll. Just tell me what is wrong with this guy’s points because I’m having trouble seeing anything wrong with it. Maybe I’m a simpleton, help me.
“” If all rich in America were “allowed” their wealth, then why doesn’t America “allow” all to be rich? ”
That was basically the message of Mitt Romney, is it not? “I want everyone to be rich.” It’s not possible, obviously. I don’t even want to attack rich people, in spite of the fact that many earned their money either by luck or by dishonest means, with Wall Street bankers falling into the latter category. I simply want a more equitable distribution of income, which is both economically and morally sound in the longer run, especially because there’s a myriad of political science research showing that the will of the majority is no longer reflected in government policy, and this has been the case, roughly, since the late 1970s and early 80s when the affluent became able to donate virtually unlimited sums of money to politicians.
“Taxing the rich does not make them richer. They are rich of their own accord.”
No, but they benefit significantly from the services that government provides, and the society we all collectively created contributed heavily to their success.
“And how can the rich owe a debt to society that is all to happy to vote more taxes upon them, while they themselves are sitting at home receiving checks they have not worked for. (people who don’t work and don’t pay taxes can vote, as you know).”
This was something Mitt Romney brought up during the campaign. It was disingenuous then, and it’s disingenuous now. What they won’t tell is that the “47 percent” actually pay more regressive taxes like property taxes, sales taxes, user fees, etc., and many are either seniors on Social Security, veterans, or families with several children and two working parents struggling to make it. The “welfare queens” notion is bull, and applies more aptly to Big Oil than to anyone else.”
My worst drinking experience was at summer camp up in Monticello. I must have been 18 or 19 at the time. To this point, I had never vomited in my entire life (no joke). After a few races at the track and having won some decent money on a trifecta, I decided to try to outdrink a local in shots. The deal was, whoever passed out or puked first paid the bill for both. My drink of choice was Goldschlager. I always wanted to see if I drank enough of it, if there would be sparkles in my dookie. I have no clue what he drank. I was told I won the bet when the guy I challenged puked his brains out in the bathroom. I don’t remember a thing besides waking up in some hedges and then waking up again in the back of a pickup truck in the dawn. Funny story, the other counselors I was drinking with all got in trouble for missing curfew as they were all out looking for me. I was commended that morning at breakfast for not blowing curfew. The looks I got from my buddies was priceless. Of course, the only reason I didn’t get busted was because I returned to camp just before breakfast so no one knew I left. Never did puke that Summer.
I finally hurled about ten years later after a New Year’s Eve party in the Citadel in Hoboken. The last thing I recall was getting stuck in every single one of the doorframes as I walked down the long hallways to the taxi. I made it home and to sleep in Jersey City, but woke up a couple of hours later to uncontrollable drooling. Before I knew it, I finally broke my chunk cherry. Haven’t puked since, but haven’t drank like that since as well. Nowadays, a simple hangover puts me out of business for like two days.
Yes, if he sues he won’t have a leg to stand on in court.
Xolepa says:
February 12, 2015 at 11:42 am
Chi,
Are you going to tell a 19 year old soldier who just had his leg blown off that when he comes back to the US, he won’t be allowed a drink?
Speaking of Drinking. When I turned 18 I could drink in New York. And I was still in HS. Sure we go to local dumpy bars when I was 16 but 18 got you into better places.
I recall once Senior Year in HS I went to My Fathers Place in Roslyn on a Monday night as John Kaye from Stephwolfe was playing “Born to be Wild” etc. Pretty much it was Pitcher night to book and we stayed till 4am. Hammered and broke on the way home we ran out of gas and all at once we are like screwed, car is not legally parked and cant ask a cop for help. Then out of no where a nicely dressed middled aged black man in a big Fleetwood Caddie pulls up and asks if we need help. Told him we are drunk, broke and out of gas and cant call for help for obvious reason, guy goes brother aint we all been there. We scrape together two bucks, guy had a gas can, he drove my brother to gas station, came back with enough gas to get home around 5am and I am sitting in Spanish class holding my head and smelling like a Brewery at 8am. Amazing part all legal. I am old enough to drink. They should put the drinking age back to 18
JJ,
But he could certainly stump for a change in the law.
“Yes, if he sues he won’t have a leg to stand on in court.”
joyce…..in reality it should be limited to men, but you can’t write a law that way…..and it has nothing to do with the driving ability…..
Alcoholic beverages should come with warning labels target at 18-21 year old boys.
1. Average car insurance premium for an 18-21 year old
2. Average car insurance premium for an 18-21 year old after a conviction for DUI
joyce says:
February 12, 2015 at 9:48 am
“Inexperienced drivers”
If people follow the law to the letter, a person will have driven a total of 6hrs before taking their test and getting a DL (regardless of what age they decide, or are allowed, to start). Everyone starting something new for the first time is inexperienced at it.
Let’s just ban driving and get it over with
So, is the spring market underway? It begins after the super bowl, right?
One more. If you could show me how he is wrong, that would be great. Not trying to be annoying, just trying to understand this.
“”Not sure why you are opposed to less spending. Cutting spending is necessary, because increasing taxes only shrinks the economy, for all people, not just the rich.”
Because cutting spending amid a depressed economy and zero nominal interest rates is self-reinforcing. A fall in spending reduces inflation, which raises real rates and chokes off more investment and consumption, reduces inflation again, ad infinitum. The problem is a lack of demand, not a lack of supply. Increasing tax does not shrink the economy, and even a basic macroeconomic textbook will tell you that the spending multiplier is much larger than the tax multiplier. If we raised taxes to pay down the deficit, yes, that may hurt the economy, but I want to raise taxes and spend that money wisely to put people back to work.
“. And shrinking the economy means less tax money anyways.”
This is precisely the point I was making on Greece. If you cut spending, you *actually* shrink the economy, and deficits/debt tend to rise faster. There’s empirical evidence for this point.”
Another short sale in prestigious Bergen County. Like I said the other day, 3 of the 4 I went to visit recently were two short sale specials and one pre-foreclosure.
http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1504018&dayssince=&countysearch=false
54- This is a response to the post #54.
“By cutting spending, I was referring to the government spending and increasing debt. And increasing taxes only gives money to a government that will throw it away and not “spend it wisely”. Increasing taxes only takes money away from the people, (which they could use on consumption of goods and services, increasing flow of money within the economy, increasing business prosperity, therefore increasing employment, therefore increasing the production and consumption further, therefore growing the economy), and gives it to a government that will increase debt.
There comes a point that, as is said often, the government will run out of other people’s money. Taxing the rich doesn’t solve the problem, because the problem is not that rich people have money. The problem is that the government is taking in less than they are spending, hence the debt. And no matter how much money you take in from the rich in taxes, it will never balance with the amount that is going out. And cutting spending will decrease the amount of money going out (being spent).
The government has already shown that, even in trillions of dollars in debt, they refuse to spend money wisely, and in fact have increased the debt. So how is giving them more money to throw away a good thing?”
This was sold in May of 2014 and then listed for sale two months later. Another stellar muppet decision. The master bedroom is separated from the rest of the house. I guess the Jones’ weren’t impressed:
http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1504141&dayssince=&countysearch=false
56- Now this is his response and he tears it apart. I’m seriously lost on what to believe. This guy makes a lot of sense, but I know you guys throw this right out the door. My question is why?
“”By cutting spending, I was referring to the government spending and increasing debt.”
Yes, I’m aware, but because we’re at zero nominal interest rates, we fall victim to the paradox of thrift: your spending is my income, my spending is your income, so if we all cut back at the same time, we’re all worse off. The paradox is that, by trying to reduce our savings, we actually end up *increasing* it. And, at a time when private-sector consumption is still lackluster due to a post-recession debt overhang, the government is the only player that can compensate for a lack of private sector spending, which means spending cuts is the exact opposite of what we ought to be doing.
“And increasing taxes only gives money to a government that will throw it away and not ‘spend wisely.'”
Even if you think the government won’t spend it wisely–and let me be clear that I want to invest it in jobs training programs, education, research, healthcare, etc., so I’m not a big fan of wasting money–then it’s still better than the status quo, because at zero rates, investors tend to hold onto cash. Case in point, they’re hoarding about $2 trillion in cash that they’re not investing, so by taxing some or all of that away, we’re increasing GDP by X percent * 2 trillion, which is obviously a stimulus. Keynes’s analogy is also applicable: we could quite literally pay people to dig holes and fill them up again, and because they consume with roughly 100 percent of their income, it would be stimulative.
“Increasing taxes only takes money away from the people, (which they could use on consumption of goods and services, increasing flow of money within the economy, increasing business prosperity, therefore increasing employment, therefore increasing the production and consumption further, therefore growing the economy), and gives it to a government that will increase debt.”
This is completely wrong for a number of reasons.
First, never once did I advocate for raising taxes on the middle class or the poor, who actually would spend the vast majority of their income. We’re talking about the affluent, who have much larger marginal propensities to save relative to their incomes and who are *already hoarding cash,* so I’m not in any way inhibiting their ability to consume, because they already don’t consume with everything they have. The moving part in the equation–when 95% of income gains since the recovery have gone to the top 1 percent–is consumption by the bottom and middle, not by the top.
Second, you’re acting as though government will simply take that money and it will suddenly disappear. No, that would be the case if we were to cut spending and thus *remove* money from the economy. The government takes that tax money and reinvests it, which itself stimulates activity.
Third, the tax multiplier is extremely low, especially relative to the spending multiplier, because people tend to save the first round of a tax cut. For instance, Bush gave out tax rebates of about $600 to everyone who filed a tax return in 2008, and they ended up paying down debt and not consuming.
“There comes a point that, as is said often, the government will run out of other people’s money.”
That’s a strawman, because I’m not suggesting that it tax people until they bleed to fund these lavish homes for the poor while they sit back in their expensive leather reclining chairs eating sirloin steaks. That’s the “welfare queen” caricature, and it’s nonsensical.
And, even if I accepted your premise, it’s also flat wrong factually, because the government can issue bonds and can even issue money. It’s impossible for the U.S. government to go bankrupt. Indeed, there does come a point where they may be dire consequences in terms of interest rates and inflation if we were to perpetually run deficits, but we’re nowhere near that point, and cutting back right now would only make it harder, once again, to carry the debt we’ve already accumulated.
“Taxing the rich doesn’t solve the problem, because the problem is not that rich people have money. The problem is that the government is taking in less than they are spending, hence the debt.”
No, that’s not the problem–at least it’s not the problem right now. That’s a symptom of the problem. The economy is depressed, so tax revenues are depressed.
And, not to mention, you need to consider where the debt–not the deficit, but the debt–came from. It came from two rounds of tax cuts under George W. Bush, two wars he didn’t pay for, and a prescription drug benefit program he, also, didn’t pay for and that was a give-a-way to the drug companies because the federal government was unable to–by virtue of the Bush Administration–to negotiate lower drug prices, as they can for Medicaid. That’s on top of a recession, which resulted from *removing* government from the equation via deregulation in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. Again, you’re attacking the symptom, not the problem itself.
You need to walk through this piece of sh1t to truly appreciate the abuse this one has endured. Another short sale in the works and 20% over-priced:
http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1503925&dayssince=&countysearch=false
A knockdown for $610,000. And the description says to bring your builder. I mean, we all know a guy with two young kids working 50+ hours a week has 610K just to bulldoze the place plus the money to build a new house plus a builder in his back pocket. This is f.ucking priceless:
http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1503732&dayssince=&countysearch=false
I don’t understand your response and how it’s related to driver inexperience/ability.
chicagofinance says:
February 12, 2015 at 1:30 pm
Alcoholic beverages should come with warning labels target at 18-21 year old boys.
1. Average car insurance premium for an 18-21 year old
2. Average car insurance premium for an 18-21 year old after a conviction for DUI
What do you do when a house doesn’t sell? Why, you raise the price, of course!
http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1503566&dayssince=&countysearch=false
Well clearly an error, everyone searching $700k and over would have completely missed it.
You gotta love the price history on this one. Who was saying here just yesterday that foreigners love the haughty symbol on a main road?
http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1503441&dayssince=&countysearch=false
joyce:
please re-read…
chicagofinance says:
February 12, 2015 at 9:09 am
Every year you lower the drinking age below 21 = more death……
Inexperienced drivers x inexperienced drinkers = fuct
You convinced me…….let’s get rid of the “age of consent” too……
Toxic Crayons says:
February 12, 2015 at 11:39 am
Meanwhile, Chifi advocates for government intervention into our personal lives for “public safety”.
The trick with drinking is to be able to do it until the day you die.
Eddie (61) – That’s exactly what the former owner of our house did. And you all know how well that one turned out.
Fast Eddie says:
February 12, 2015 at 2:20 pm
What do you do when a house doesn’t sell? Why, you raise the price, of course!
The bloom is off the rose, the emperor has no clothes and Graydon’s mommy is turning tricks. Sounds like a Lou Reed song!
Chicago,
Using your formula, would you be okay lowering the drinking age to 18 while raising the age to drive 21?
Let’s get rid of the government required professional license & certifications, though. No more barriers to entry for certain fields.
chicagofinance says:
February 12, 2015 at 2:39 pm
You convinced me…….let’s get rid of the “age of consent” too……
Toxic Crayons says:
February 12, 2015 at 11:39 am
Meanwhile, Chifi advocates for government intervention into our personal lives for “public safety”.
Look at the price history on this one – truly remarkable! Start at 2004 and just imagine the carnage and angst along the way!
http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1503482&dayssince=&countysearch=false
One after the other – sold for $1,195,000 in 2005 and currently asking $799,000. No matter which one I click on, it’s a horror movie:
http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1503184&dayssince=&countysearch=false
Eddie – Love that the house sits for 13 months at 1.499mm, so naturally re-list at 1.645mm. Don’t ask about the price history, we all know the market has improved by 15% for this house.
I was drinking in clubs in the city at 16. Kids today cannot do anything wrong without the book getting thrown at them.
As far as the European thing drinking young etc. The under 21 crowd mostly does not have cars.
homeboken,
Incredible, isn’t it?
“Without the book getting thrown at them”
Unless their parents know of someone, of course
re # 76- Joyce – maybe if the kid’s parent is a cop in the town they live in. No police discretion anymore and especially because of cameras, as far as drinking ANY Alcohol in an under 21 driver means arrest, so called “baby DWI” law.
We did not have these issues back int he 1980s. Cops sent everyone home unless there was an accident in my town.
Interlock devices should be mandatory on all vehicles including police cars, ambulances and buses. I used to watch the bus drivers get loaded at the rail-head bar in Hoboken who knows how many of them drove with a few drinks in them.
Sits for years, listed and re-listed, won’t sell so we’ll raise the price. Amazing.
http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1441741&dayssince=&countysearch=false
And so the lumps keep coming.
————-
Chris Christie accused of blocking casino deal to help billionaire donor
A plan to bring one of the world’s largest online gambling companies to Atlantic City has seemingly stalled, and some critics are pointing their fingers at New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino mogul who is one of the GOP’s most influential donors.
Adelson has a reputation as a man whose money can make or break a presidential campaign and Christie is widely seen as a likely 2016 hopeful. Their relationship made headlines last week after revelations about Adelson loaning the governor his plane
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/christie-accused-of-blocking-casino-deal-for-adelson-2015-2#ixzz3RZJmB2xe
This article helped a lot. I think I get it, or at least I think I do. Free markets is the principle we should desire. It fixes itself with no one’s help because it is based on fundamentals of price and scarcity. So these fundamentals provide the most efficient means of guiding an economy on where to bring needed resources.
Keynesianism goes against the free market fundamentals, hence it is anti-free market. It gives people that think they know better than the rest, the means to mess with the economy to their liking.
“Keynesianism is favored by politicians and academics because it offers a theory by which government actions can become the decisive factor in the economy. It offers a framework whereby governments and central banks can meddle in the economy and feel justified. It allows 12 people sitting in a board room in Washington DC to feel that they are in charge of setting the price of money (interest rates) in a free marketplace and that they know more than the entrepreneurs and business people do who are actually in the market risking their own capital every day.
This is essentially the Platonic philosopher king conceit: the hubristic notion that there is a small group of wise elites that is capable of directing the economic actions of a country, no matter how educated or successful the populace has been on its own. And never mind that the world has multiple clear examples of how central controls eventually slow growth and make things worse over time. It is only when free people are allowed to set their own prices as both buyers and sellers of goods and services and, yes, even interest rates and the price of money, that valid market-clearing prices can be determined. Trying to control those prices results in one group being favored over another.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2014/03/09/mauldin-the-problem-with-keynesianism/2/
Come on, they dropped the price close to 40% from what they paid and you are complaining? You want more of a drop? Love your kind, never will be happy. Are they not doing what they have to do to sell? Are they not acknowledging that they overpaid? They are sucking it up and moving on. They know they lost, the price reflects it. Is this not what you want the bag holders to do?
Fast Eddie says:
February 12, 2015 at 3:38 pm
One after the other – sold for $1,195,000 in 2005 and currently asking $799,000. No matter which one I click on, it’s a horror movie:
http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1503184&dayssince=&countysearch=false
Indian man paralyzed after Alabama cop body-slams him
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/ndian-man-paralyzed-after-alabama-cop-body-slams-him-for-walking-in-wealthy-white-suburb/
PotatoHead – The day of reckoning comes when the deal closes, only then has the market value been established. Based on your reasoning, I should can list my 2009 Jeep for $100,000, then drop the price down incrementally for 2 years. Finally when I start getting closer to market value, you claim that the buyers are still stupid/stubborn? I can price chop by 80% and guess what, it is STILL an overpriced used car.
When it sells – only then has the truth been revealed. If it doesn’t, then the bid/ask spread is still to wide. Which side do you think is the cause of that? I’ll give you a hint – It’s not the bid.
I’m still coming to grips with the idea of drinking enough Goldschlager to have sparkly poop.
Similar to when cops recklessly shoot at a suspect and kill innocent bystanders, then charge the suspect with (their) murder…
In that article I posted, can we charge the police and the @ss hat neither who called it in with aggravated assault?
Neither = neighbor
For the record, it wasn’t enough.
Liquor Luge says:
February 12, 2015 at 5:18 pm
I’m still coming to grips with the idea of drinking enough Goldschlager to have sparkly poop.
Fast Eddie, I didn’t know an NJMLS listing now includes the full listing history, including re-listings, price changes, and when taken off the market. I thought realtors were driven nuts by such information when that vulture was out there?
“Look at the price history on this one – truly remarkable! Start at 2004 and just imagine the carnage and angst along the way!”
http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1503482&dayssince=&countysearch=false
Official Confection of the NJ RE Report
Rainbow Sparkly Unicorn Poop Cookie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wVOXmbClUs
That has to be a first.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/obese-100-year-old-crocodile-dies-from-overeating-after-worshippers-keep-throwing-it-chickens-and-goats-for-good-luck-115714124.html#10yQ9pf
Dude, we’re talking about the Feds controlling transportation funds. Stay on topic man. “What about the children” is usually the liberal argument. Sheesh.
chicagofinance says:
February 12, 2015 at 2:39 pm
You convinced me…….let’s get rid of the “age of consent” too……
Toxic Crayons says:
February 12, 2015 at 11:39 am
Meanwhile, Chifi advocates for government intervention into our personal lives for “public safety”.
I’m guessing chi didn’t lose his virginity until he was 21.
scary coincidence considering my above post
LAPD cop accidentally shoots teen after toy gun pointed at him by friend — who could be charged
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/lapd-cop-accidentally-shoots-teen-after-toy-gun-pointed-at-him-by-friend-who-could-be-charged/
Los Angeles police officer accidentally shot a 15-year-old in the back after spotting another teen pointing what appeared to be a handgun at the boy.
Two officers spotted a group of teens in an alley about 7:45 a.m. Tuesday, police said, and one teen appeared to be aiming a gun at another boy in the gathering, reported the Los Angeles Times.
Officers ordered the boy several times to drop the weapon, police said, and then one of the officers opened fire.
The boy holding the weapon – which turned out to be a replica firearm – was not hit, but the other boy was shot once in the back.
71- What is truly amazing is that after almost 9 years of relistings and price drops, last week they finally convinced themselves that after all this time all it needed was another 0.24% drop in list price for it to sell
http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1503482&dayssince=&countysearch=false
Bet whenever chi lost it, Depeche Mode was playing.
Bunch of depressed guys wearing eyeliner wouldn’t do much for my woody.
Just saying.
I think I was high in class the day my teacher tried to explain how driving to upstate NY to buy beer would kill us all. Thank goodness I wasn’t drunk.
Chi
Talking of guys with eyeliner.
Steve Strange < Abe Vigoda
I miss buying cases of Piels bottles for $3.99 at Wegman’s…….I could drink half the case myself since it was maybe 3% alcohol…….total piss water……
Toxic Crayons says:
February 12, 2015 at 10:35 pm
I think I was high in class the day my teacher tried to explain how driving to upstate NY to buy beer would kill us all. Thank goodness I wasn’t drunk.