From DSNews:
Three States Hold a Quarter of Foreclosure Inventory
While the nation’s foreclosure inventory and volume of 90-plus day delinquent mortgage loans have been on the steady decline nationwide as a whole, those levels remain elevated in some areas.
Namely in three states—Florida, New York, and New Jersey, which hold approximately one quarter of the nation’s homes currently in foreclosure and mortgages that are three months or more past due, collectively known as non-current inventory, according to Black Knight Financial Services’ March 2016 Mortgage Monitor released on Monday.
Florida leads the nation with slightly more than 145,000 in the two categories combined; New York is second with 133,000, and New Jersey is third with 107,000. But despite the high number of loans in foreclosure or three months delinquent in Florida, Black Knight estimates that at the current rate of reduction in the Sunshine State (36 percent), non-current inventory in Florida will normalize close to the same time as the national average—which Black Knight estimates to be mid-2018.
New York and New Jersey, with lower reduction rates of 21 percent and 22 percent, respectively, are estimated to take much longer to normalize in the areas of foreclosure inventory and severely delinquent loans. Black Knight estimates that New York and New Jersey will take five and six years from now, respectively, at their current rates of reduction to achieve their normal pre-crisis levels of serious delinquency.
“Despite the concentration of inventory in the two states, New York and New Jersey are not the slowest to recover when we look across the country,” Black Knight stated in the report. “They are actually number seven and nine nationally, respectively.”
Black Knight estimates that Wyoming, Maine, and Rhode Island, at their respective rates of reduction, would all take more than seven years to reach their 2000 to 2005 average severely delinquent levels.
Party at the NJ Treasury, we have a new one percenter with a big tax bill.
From the APP:
NJ job growth; slow might be ‘new normal’
New Jersey’s economy has been slow in recovering from the Great Recession. While the nation recovered all of its lost jobs over two years ago, New Jersey recovered its jobs only in the last two months. Rutgers economists think “slow-go” growth in New Jersey might be the new normal.
“Is slow-go now the new economic normal for New Jersey? It kind of looks that way,” said James W. Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers. “Our once great 20th century suburban job creation machine has really faltered in the 21st century.”
Hughes said New Jersey’s job recovery pales in comparison to the nation’s, even after a robust 2015.
Last year, it looked like someone pushed an “economic refresh button. In 2015 we had … the state’s best job growth year since 1999, and we actually eclipsed the national growth rate in private sector jobs for the first time in this century,” Hughes said.
But New Jersey job growth has flat-lined so far in 2016, after 1,900 private sector jobs were lost in the first quarter of the year, Hughes said.
“It looks again like we have failed to gain traction,” he said. “I think this is a real headscratcher. There really is no easy explanation for this.”
At times during the recession, New Jersey’s unemployment rate was much higher than the national average, sometimes exceeding a full percentage point, said Nancy Mantell, director of the Rutgers Economic Advisory Service.
But suddenly this year, the rate dipped below the national average. Currently, New Jersey’s unemployment rate is 4.4 percent, compared with the nation’s approximately 5 percent.
“I don’t think that’s going to last,” said Mantell. “When New Jersey residents who are not in the labor force currently realize there are actually jobs out there … they’re going to get back into the labor force and they’re going to be counted as unemployed at that point, so I think that’s going to push the rate back up to the five percent range.”
…
The highest growth sectors in the state will be education and health services and leisure and hospitality services, which isn’t necessarily good news because those jobs tend to be lower paying, Mantell said.
“I think that’s one thing that’s keeping down growth rates,” she said. “The really high (wage sectors) — transportation, utilities, information and finance — they’re growing really slowly if at all.”
Population growth will also be relatively slow compared with the nation because there will be less foreign in-migration and less job growth than nationwide, Mantell said.
From yesterday, Juice:
Juice, even better, sort it high to low.
You have to go through twelve before any regular school district appears. And that is before the privates – Bosco, SHP, Delby, Pingry, etc.
I was wondering why my district had such a disappointing STEM effort. Now I know. After the privates and vocationals, blue ribbon means you are starting in third place.
http://www.nj.com/education/2016/05/whats_the_average_sat_score_in_your_high_school.html#incart_river_home
And, on the above, although the schools are ‘vocational’ the kids have not just the top math scores, they have the top reading scores as well.
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/05/professor_questioned_for_doing_math_on_plane_taugh.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home
We’re becoming dumber by the day.
All by design.
Democrats to women:
If you had an expectation of privacy in your locker rooms and bathrooms from men, too stinking bad.
Up in Bergen County today. All I can say is allot if properties up here are looking really shabby, unkept yards and detteriorating concrete walkways and driveways falling apart.. Paramus and Oradell etc, not the same pride in ownership there was 30 years ago.
[5] The woman who complained had to be a liberal. I’ve never met one who could do math, so it’s understandable that she would mistake it for Arabic when she saw someone else doing it.
Intellectual activity is terrorism.
Good times.
“We suggest readers set aside at least an hour, and two coffees for this “must read” report. For those pressed for time, the executive summary is as follows: using data from the LBMA and Bank of England on gold stored in London vaults and net UK gold export data from HM Revenue & Customs, Mylchreest calculates that the “float” of physical gold in London (excluding gold owned by ETFs and central banks) has recently declined to +/- zero.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-08/death-gold-market-why-one-analyst-thinks-run-london-gold-vaults-imminent
#8 been like that for a while now. Big changes over the last few years.
3b – and the high taxes too. We took the kids to the park, it was not maintained well at all compared to our facilities down here in Monmouth. Also went to the Van San Zoo, caught a break right after the rain place was empty but the cages were all overgrown with weeds etc, not like I remeber when that zoo was sparking maybe 10 years ago.
I’m sure there are some Walking Dead fans here. The season ended with Negin destroying one of the good guys just to get the others in line. Trump is Negin and Paul Ryan is who will be taken down as an example to the others. If McCain obeys, like he proved on Sunday morning TV today he can, he will get to keep his job.
Here’s the guy that Palin’s PAC will be using to “Cantor” Ryan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcVsuCgYf0U
13 agree. The whole area is starting to get a very neglected air. Even the mc mansions built in the last 10 years are getting shabby looking. And I will be accursed of being racist but many of the homes purchased by immigrants are not being maintained. No mowing weeding gardening etc. I don’t know if they cannot afford it or are just not into it. But you really see the difference. Changing times. Big difference from what it used to be up here.
Time to re-read Love in the Ruins by Walker Percy.
Should be a good series on this subject. Seems like an open minded approach of the issue.
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-09/the-wisdom-to-know-which-causes-of-inequality-can-be-changed
@nbcchicago
Palin says Paul Ryan will be ‘Cantored’ over reluctance to back Trump,
works to oust him
“Nobel laureate Angus Deaton and bestselling author Thomas Piketty joined more than 300 fellow economists in arguing there is “no economic justification” for tax havens as policy makers prepare to meet in London for anti-corruption talks.
In a letter organized by the charity Oxfam, the economists said “territories allowing assets to be hidden in shell companies or which encourage profits to be booked by companies that do no business there are distorting the working of the global economy.”
Such offshore holdings undermine the ability of governments to collect taxes, and politicians should respond by requiring companies to report taxable activities in every country they have operations in.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-09/economists-say-no-justification-for-tax-havens-in-oxfam-letter
@nytimes
John Boehner on Ted Cruz:
“I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”
3b, Juice Box – I often wonder if it is the age of the home owner. I’ve seen my own block deteriorate as many owners hit the age of 75+. At some point you just don’t care anymore as health issues, loss of spouse, depression etc take over. I seen many just give up.
As for Monmouth I was at Homdel County park in the winter and was amazed at how clean the restrooms were kept. Overall facilities were in very good shape. Bergen’s facilities do get a lot of use from NYC residents which require more upkeep from the traffic. I just don’t think the county cares.
Think this is pretty spot on. It’s also some immigrants. One group, Indians, seem to do a great job of taking a new house and turning it into sh!t. I’m sure it will change once they realize how much of their home’s value they are pissing away.
walking bye says:
May 9, 2016 at 9:06 am
3b, Juice Box – I often wonder if it is the age of the home owner. I’ve seen my own block deteriorate as many owners hit the age of 75+. At some point you just don’t care anymore as health issues, loss of spouse, depression etc take over. I seen many just give up.
As for Monmouth I was at Homdel County park in the winter and was amazed at how clean the restrooms were kept. Overall facilities were in very good shape. Bergen’s facilities do get a lot of use from NYC residents which require more upkeep from the traffic. I just don’t think the county cares.
Goud-Anon [19];
Oh great, Piketty again.
The justification for tax havens is called freedom. Capital goes where it is treated best. Your alternative, though your dim wits probably don’t even realize it, is totalitarianism. Its the difference between a country having borders with barbed wire that faces out vs. facing in.
I’ve seen plenty of million dollar houses with matresses on the floor, and a small Bobs couch and a tv as the only item in an 800 square foot great room.
Saw a dining room once that had those cheap plastic deck chairs around a folding table – that was like 1.25 mil.
[23] moose
The gourd also ignores the fact that income is taxed in the countries in which it is earned. Virtually every OECD country does this on the territorial basis; do United States goes further by attempting to reach income earned in other countries.
Also, accounts in so-called tax havens orange really secret. They are typically known and declared in so far as income distributed to a beneficial owner will have to be declared and text at some point. The United States requires account holders of four accounts to declare these on the FBAR.
It is interesting that the authors of such studies are largely conflating two completely different concepts namely evasion and avoidance. The latter is perfectly legal and relies on income shifting to a lower tax jurisdiction, or out right deferral were permitted, while evasion is exactly that.
Until now, the entire subject had been ignored because the minor amount of tax leakage that occurred from evasion was more than offset by the benefit of free cross-border exchange of capital. But those advocating a tighter grip aren’t really interested in closing down the offshore banking industry because it enables tax evasion; The real purpose is to shut down the industry because it enables tax avoidance, and they are unable to get legislation or new trees that would accomplish this in a straightforward, legal manner.
Further, once capital is offshore, it is unreachable by a government intent on seizing it.
Yes, but what happens if that capital was a critical piece of that economic system? Serving a critical role in helping pay for the cost of society. So now that capital flees our economic system to avoid in sharing for these costs, but the costs are still there. So now the costs must be picked up by the consumer, who is already getting killed and can no longer support demand to grow the economy, resulting in even less economic activity since their capital that was used to create demand in the economy is going towards covering the costs of the capital being hidden off shore in the name of tax avoidance.
So the biggest profit takers in the pie, are contributing the least to the costs that come with creating that profit. If this keeps up, you will have the biggest market in the world getting strangled to death with less and less capital in the system, while the costs of growing that economy continue to grow. No economic system can survive with significant capital fleeing it’s shores trying to avoid the costs that come with doing business.
Anon E. Moose says:
May 9, 2016 at 9:26 am
Goud-Anon [19];
Oh great, Piketty again.
The justification for tax havens is called freedom. Capital goes where it is treated best. Your alternative, though your dim wits probably don’t even realize it, is totalitarianism. Its the difference between a country having borders with barbed wire that faces out vs. facing in.
Future canary in a coal mine moment to watch for.
The last two Obama budgets had legislation that would repeal or restrict section 1031 exchanges. Progressives in the house have proposed legislation in the past but it has gone nowhere. Should legislation to repeal or restrict section 1031 ever gain traction, this will be a very bad signal for commercial real estate. I would defer to the CRE guys on this board, who know their industry better than I do however, it strikes me that this would be a pretty strong sell signal.
That’s comical. That has to be so embarrassing.
Grim says:
May 9, 2016 at 9:35 am
I’ve seen plenty of million dollar houses with matresses on the floor, and a small Bobs couch and a tv as the only item in an 800 square foot great room.
Saw a dining room once that had those cheap plastic deck chairs around a folding table – that was like 1.25 mil
26. Pumps
Topped yourself, unbelievably. Those are probably the two stupidest paragraphs ever written.
My HS student would flunk his economics course with any of the incoherent drivel in there.
Did that profit in other countries use American infrastructure to create this profit? If so, a bill is due.
Also, when it comes to double taxation, no one gets taxed more than the worker. They are double taxed on a regular basis. The worker is the only individual that automatically has taxes taken out of their income, hence the only one’s paying a real percentage on the income earned. Businesses cry about how much taxes they pay; every business I know is hiding profit in one way or another. From small to large businesses, they all do not pay the true percentage on money earned. So much money is hidden. Think I’m lying, name me one business not lying or hiding income earned. If you think otherwise, you are lying to yourself.
So how much more can the worker become the scapegoat for the tax avoidance of business? I think we have hit the level of resistance where the worker is getting hit so hard in the form of taxes, and in the inability of businesses to share in the record profits they earn by producing jobs or providing raises.
“The gourd also ignores the fact that income is taxed in the countries in which it is earned. Virtually every OECD country does this on the territorial basis; do United States goes further by attempting to reach income earned in other countries.”
#21 I have seen those houses too. And ironically enough still see some older timers out making an effort to clean up. What I am talking about are houses that were in good/ great shape when sold to immigrants and have since turned to crap. Sorry if I offend but I see it all the time. Again I don’t know if its lack of money or time or they just don’t care.
re: #31 – 3B – Probably all of the above, first they overpaid for house and then too boot high taxes will put a cramp on the budget for furniture and maintenance, and perhaps they don’t have time to do the work themselves with many families needing both parents to work to pay the bills.
In what seems like another life decades ago I used to landscape, do plantings, build decks, install brick pavers and do all kinds of manual labor including putting down hardwood and ceramic floors all over Bergen County. Ridgewood, Allendale, Paramus, Glen Rock up and down the Rt 17 corridor etc. Anything manual labor to make a buck we would do it, just like our guest workers from Central America do today. I had three part time jobs in high school and two or three jobs in college. I was in some of the finest homes in Saddle River, Alpine etc up and down Bergen county east and west for most of the late 1980s early 1990s. I know a maintained property when I see it, and I have not seen enough lately to ever recommend buying a home in Bergen County.
All I see now are nice cars parked on a deteriorating property. These owners should skip the lease payment on the expensive SUV or BMW and put the money into the house instead.
on the other hand go through Garfield and you can see some of the immigrant tradesman take great pride in updating a shack into a nice home.
Juice Box, agree. growing up as a teen in the 80’s the dream was to move up and into these towns from South Bergen. I drive through now and wonder if my standards have changed or if the areas are just not maintained.
The other thing to remember is that many of these homes were built in the 60’s-70s. So in 1980 they were still under 20′ years old and were considered “The Bomb” as a realtor explained to me. These developments now are hitting the 60 year mark.
Juice Box, agree. growing up as a teen in the 80′s the dream was to move up and into these towns from South Bergen. I drive through now and wonder if my standards have changed or if the areas are just not maintained.
Oops, I guess I should have stayed where I was! :)
Speaking of the joys of home ownership. I have some 1 x 4 hardwood decking that I need to maintain. Anyone here have advise?
I have to oil it and am looking for a product recommendation. This seems ok. Anyone ever use it?
http://www.messmers.com/messmers-uv-plus-for-hardwood-decks
What is the purpose of tax evasion? What is the individual trying to do? What is the impact on the society? Answer those three simple questions before you insult my intelligence with your misguided self described intellectual superiority on economics.
leftwing says:
May 9, 2016 at 10:32 am
26. Pumps
Topped yourself, unbelievably. Those are probably the two stupidest paragraphs ever written.
My HS student would flunk his economics course with any of the incoherent drivel in there.
Reinforce and coat that deck so you can launch an Exocet missile from it.
“What is the purpose of tax evasion?”
I think it’s to evade taxes, Einstein.
And what kind of impact does this have society? Who makes up for that lost revenue?
Splat What Was He Thinking says:
May 9, 2016 at 11:37 am
“What is the purpose of tax evasion?”
I think it’s to evade taxes, Einstein.
30/37:
“Did that profit in other countries use American infrastructure to create this profit? If so, a bill is due”
Hmmm, so in your book infrastructure in support of industry is a liability? No problem, let American companies build all their production facilities overseas. Foreign governments will gladly welcome them, they won’t use any US infrastructure, and the American populace will be better off with it reverting to farmland. D-.
“What is the purpose of tax evasion?” To go to jail. If you had an inkling, you would understand the difference between evasion (illegal) and avoidance (legal) especially since Nom discusses it right above your post. C-.
Work harder, you may get to a gentlemen’s C.
As always when you get on your high horse about corporations using the tax code legally to minimize taxes, please square that view with your personal mortgage deduction and depreciation on your rental. Both are tax artifices to minimize YOUR liability. That’s an assignment for extra credit.
And btw, I have no particular economic superiority complex. Just common sense, which is enough to beat, bend, and twist you given your entire lack of knowledge and reason.
Make sure you clean and condition the wood so it’s ph balanced. Skip this step and you just wasted your time with the stain. Also, stripped and stained my garage doors. If you don’t know what kind of stain is currently on your deck, I would strip it, clean it, and then apply two coats of stain. If you know the stain that was applied, just clean it with the conditioner, and then reapply same stain.
Btw, from the looks of the stain, you have a hard wood deck? I have an exotic wood deck too (brazilian tigerwood). Hard wood does not absorb stain that easily. So you might need to get the specialized stain. I got away with the behr premium stains. They actually are a really good product. I know a lot of the home depot stuff is terrible, but this product seemed to work beautifully on the deck and garage doors.
If you do it correctly, you shouldn’t have to stain again for at least 3 years on flat surfaces (rails and garage doors should last at least 5 years depending on how much sun hits it). Skip steps and it won’t last a year.
Juice Box says:
May 9, 2016 at 11:30 am
Speaking of the joys of home ownership. I have some 1 x 4 hardwood decking that I need to maintain. Anyone here have advise?
I have to oil it and am looking for a product recommendation. This seems ok. Anyone ever use it?
http://www.messmers.com/messmers-uv-plus-for-hardwood-decks
Pumps, I know it is entirely inappropriate to ask, but please, please, please give me some inkling of where you work.
I already have a short view of the market generally. Any place that would employ a late 30s person in your role with your knowledge of finance and reasoning capability has to be going down the tubes. Seriously, I will PAY you to tell me where you work so I can short that stock. Please.
Who pays for the upkeep of highway’s like rt 80? Ports? Airports? Libraries? Public education? Emergency services? Police protection? Biggest infrastructure cost of them all….military? Who pays for that got damn military services that protect our business interests? Who pays for the judicial system so that we can conduct business with laws? I can go on and on, but somehow you totally ignore the cost for all this sh!t!. I guess money grows on trees, we don’t need taxes.
“Did that profit in other countries use American infrastructure to create this profit? If so, a bill is due”
Hmmm, so in your book infrastructure in support of industry is a liability? No problem, let American companies build all their production facilities overseas. Foreign governments will gladly welcome them, they won’t use any US infrastructure, and the American populace will be better off with it reverting to farmland. D-.
44. You are correct, the government collects taxes to provide these services.
The problem – surprise, surpise – is not that taxpayers (corporations and individuals, don’t forget those monster personal tax breaks of yours) pay too little.
The problem is that this government is nearly incompetent at allocating the resources (taxes) it receives efficiently.
So, yes, you are barking up the wrong tree. Very badly. Taxpayers (corporates and individuals) are running from giving more money to the drunken, lying sailors in a swamp near VA. As they should.
Funny, that seems to be an efficient market attempting to work and explains a lot of easily observable events from corporate inversions, to individual renunciations of citizenship (or on a state level, change of domicile for Mr Tepper), to I would argue the apparently illogical rise of Mr Trump.
But, I suppose it is just easier (ie, more intellectually lazy) for you to continue to bray on for ‘fairness’ and demonize corporates.
The problem with corporate tax avoidance is that a lot of it came about from lobbying. You keep bringing up the mortgage deduction tax and comparing it to corporate tax avoidance laws as a means of justifying the existence of these corporate avoidance tax laws. Let’s leave the mortgage deduction tax alone. It spurs economic activity in one of the most important aspects of our economy, housing. You get rid of that law, and a lot of people will avoid buying a house. Why would you want to drive people away from performing such a powerful economic activity such as housing? On the other hand, what economic benefits are we getting from these corporate tax avoidance laws that leave an unfair playing field in business? So one business gets it, while another does not?
Please explain to me why I should support this? How does it make the economy stronger by allowing huge corporations legal means to avoiding their share of the cost of running society and putting it on everyone else? I would have no problem with these corporations if they actually care about our society, but they only care about money, they will move their place of business from country to country, not giving a crap about the people they impact. But when it comes to getting that tax break, the marketing of “nationalism” becomes up close and personal. All of a sudden they love America and the American people.
““What is the purpose of tax evasion?” To go to jail. If you had an inkling, you would understand the difference between evasion (illegal) and avoidance (legal) especially since Nom discusses it right above your post. C-.”
Eddie,
How is the new Teterboro flight route treating you? Swing by one day I’ll give you a couple of goldfish for the kids.
Govt is no different than a corporation. Both are run by the same people. So why do you think that if these services were in control of private hands (looking to profit significantly) you would be paying cheaper? Why doesn’t anyone get this? They think the govt is some magical being, when it’s being run by the exact same people in the private industry. So now that it is run “for profit”, I’m going to be getting dirt cheap services? Give me a fuc!ing break.
I just want this experiment done once. Get rid of govt and privatize everything, and then let’s see how cheap it really is. I know what’s going to happen already, it’s human nature, you will get the same exact result. You are telling me that there aren’t corporations pissing away money on bs? No corporation turns into a bloated behemoth buying out it’s competition instead of competing? I audited companies for almost 5 years. Share me the bs.
Quit worrying about govt or private, and instead concentrate on the players.
leftwing says:
May 9, 2016 at 1:11 pm
44. You are correct, the government collects taxes to provide these services.
The problem – surprise, surpise – is not that taxpayers (corporations and individuals, don’t forget those monster personal tax breaks of yours) pay too little.
The problem is that this government is nearly incompetent at allocating the resources (taxes) it receives efficiently.
So, yes, you are barking up the wrong tree. Very badly. Taxpayers (corporates and individuals) are running from giving more money to the drunken, lying sailors in a swamp near VA. As they should.
Funny, that seems to be an efficient market attempting to work and explains a lot of easily observable events from corporate inversions, to individual renunciations of citizenship (or on a state level, change of domicile for Mr Tepper), to I would argue the apparently illogical rise of Mr Trump.
But, I suppose it is just easier (ie, more intellectually lazy) for you to continue to bray on for ‘fairness’ and demonize corporates.
Joe Rogan @joerogan 29m29 minutes ago
Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Gizmodo_twitter
Question: Had to redo my dock (noreaster last year damaged dock) and basically half of it looks new (new wood) and the other half remains as it was. Which means there is a difference in the color halfway through the dock (120ft dock). I am being told that a paint roller and bleach over the old wood will make it look as good as new. Is that right?
Is there any coating I can get to spray over the dock to help mitigate any damage from sun/water? Has to be some good coating you can spray on there that some folks recommend. I am right on the bay so the combo of sun and salt water is killer.
walking bye [47],
That depends on where I live. :) I don’t hear anything all day long. I’m working from home right now, not a sound all day and on the weekend. Where is the flight pattern? I don’t even know about it.
I honestly can’t say. I signed an agreement that I would not mention their name anywhere on the internet.
leftwing says:
May 9, 2016 at 12:59 pm
Pumps, I know it is entirely inappropriate to ask, but please, please, please give me some inkling of where you work.
I already have a short view of the market generally. Any place that would employ a late 30s person in your role with your knowledge of finance and reasoning capability has to be going down the tubes. Seriously, I will PAY you to tell me where you work so I can short that stock. Please.
Who pays for the upkeep!! Seems nobody. I go through Hoboken terminal every day. Its falling apart. Roof is going to collapse one day. Old rail car stock. Looks like a 3rd world rail system.
Strip the deck down to eliminate any sealer on the wood. Then clean with an all in one cleaner and the wood should look brand new.
ccb223 says:
May 9, 2016 at 1:47 pm
Question: Had to redo my dock (noreaster last year damaged dock) and basically half of it looks new (new wood) and the other half remains as it was. Which means there is a difference in the color halfway through the dock (120ft dock). I am being told that a paint roller and bleach over the old wood will make it look as good as new. Is that right?
Is there any coating I can get to spray over the dock to help mitigate any damage from sun/water? Has to be some good coating you can spray on there that some folks recommend. I am right on the bay so the combo of sun and salt water is killer.
Bingo, most of the tax money goes towards tax breaks as opposed to infrastructure payments. Corporations and individuals are paying the lowest taxes since the 1800’s and there wasn’t much of an infrastructure back then.
Just think of how many tax breaks Christie gave away to the corporate class in the past 7 years? That’s an investment? Wtf? Take all those breaks and put them towards our infrastructure; that’s really investing and what our taxes were intended to do. Not give tax breaks to some fat a$$ losers drunk off greed.
3b says:
May 9, 2016 at 1:58 pm
Who pays for the upkeep!! Seems nobody. I go through Hoboken terminal every day. Its falling apart. Roof is going to collapse one day. Old rail car stock. Looks like a 3rd world rail system.
Bingo, most of the tax money goes towards tax breaks as opposed to infrastructure payments.
No, most of the money goes towards pension obligations and bloated salaries.
Pumps (too many to reference):
“Let’s leave the mortgage deduction tax alone. It spurs economic activity in one of the most important aspects of our economy, housing. You get rid of that law, and a lot of people will avoid buying a house” C-.
The building activity would still take place. Question of who would have title (homeowner v rental), amount spent per dwelling (arguably, the distortions inherent to the mortgage deduction result in larger dwellings), and systemic risk (mortgages create more leverage and risk of default).
“Govt is no different than a corporation. Both are run by the same people. So why do you think that if these services were in control of private hands (looking to profit significantly) you would be paying cheaper?”
Never said that anywhere. Reading Comprehension, D-.
Good thing you’re only an anonymously employed financial analyst and not in AP Macro.
SENIOR financial analyst
[58],
Lol!
Blah, blah, blah. First, those people don’t save anything, they spend it all. Second, if bloated, by how much? All salaries are public, and honestly, 90% are fine, but you like to cherry pick and use the 10% making 6 figures to paint the picture that all govt employees are overpaid.
Oh wait, you want them to work for dirt cheap with no benefits, right? Oh great, so you are advocating for destroying our economic system, right? Everyone gets paid cheap with no benefits, your ideal world, right? If you had an ounce of logic, you would know how bad that would be for our economy, too bad you can’t understand why.
So yes, rally around taking the pensions away, rally around lower salaries, and rally around the elimination of all benefits; nice job, you just made us into a third world nation. Hope you are happy with the result. You just destroyed the greatest consumer market the world has ever seen. You want cheap, you pay for what you get, and you will have no economy. Nice job!
Fast Eddie says:
May 9, 2016 at 2:18 pm
Bingo, most of the tax money goes towards tax breaks as opposed to infrastructure payments.
No, most of the money goes towards pension obligations and bloated salaries.
And Pumps, please understand that your personal tax avoidance does not end at the mortgage interest deduction.
Your dependent deduction for your child, your depreciation deduction for your rental, and your lower LT cap gains rate are likewise providing you a ‘loophole’ out of your statutory rate.
So, again, I’ll entertain your arguments against ‘loopholes’ so that corporates pay the full statutory rate the day you stop taking advantage of your ‘loopholes’ and pay your full statutory rate.
Same coin, different side.
Hypocrite.
You a$$, you continuously call out govt and claim it can be done privately. Stop fu!king with me!
““Govt is no different than a corporation. Both are run by the same people. So why do you think that if these services were in control of private hands (looking to profit significantly) you would be paying cheaper?”
Never said that anywhere. Reading Comprehension, D-.
Good thing you’re only an anonymously employed financial analyst and not in AP Macro.”
Joyce! Welcome back. Help me here. I’m drowning in an undertow of inanity.
Tag team. You’re in.
leftwing says:
May 9, 2016 at 2:22 pm
Pumps (too many to reference):
No it wouldn’t, lefty! When an INDIVIDUAL BUYS A HOUSE, do you know how much economic activity that sets off? But yes, let’s go with your notion, that building activity would still take place…..by who? You would have a bunch of slum lords out there milking their rental property for all its worth.
““Let’s leave the mortgage deduction tax alone. It spurs economic activity in one of the most important aspects of our economy, housing. You get rid of that law, and a lot of people will avoid buying a house” C-.
The building activity would still take place. Question of who would have title (homeowner v rental), amount spent per dwelling (arguably, the distortions inherent to the mortgage deduction result in larger dwellings), and systemic risk (mortgages create more leverage and risk of default).”
Leftwing…yeah. I stopped reading innocent pumpkin.
“I go through Hoboken terminal every day. Its falling apart.”
I haven’t commuted through Hoboken in a couple of years since I found it more cost effective and significantly quicker to drive. With that said, I recall seeing at least three NJT maintenance workers every morning watching everyone walk off of the trains. Not once had I ever seen those guys working. You see the same thing every morning in NY Penn. Tons of transit workers standing around. Might as well give them guns and call them security guards.
Señor Financial Analist.
Please use the appropriate restroom when traveling to SC.
The lines for the mens room at the redbull games are really long at halftime. Not so bad for the womens room. I know which one I’ll be using if I ever get to go to another game.
Still in CHOP.
There was a previous comment by pumpkin stating that the construction of new apartments eventually bought by rich people did not generate much economic activity. I’m not going to look for it, but it was amongst his comments about how spending money buying stuff is somehow hoarding money.
Pumps: why is the mortgage deduction untouchable? Because it works for? Why can’t renters have it also? Oh I know your answer because they are low income in your mind and might move into your neighborhood?
43 – Leftwing,
I cannot be the only person who found his Linkd’in Account? You guys still don’t know who he is?
Whomever bought that Powerball ticket should get out of dodge.
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/05/njs_429m_powerball_winner_spent_6_on_tickets.html#incart_river_home
This is wrong. People are renting no matter what, so why exactly are you dangling a carrot in front of the renters? What economic activity are you trying to spur? All you are doing is subsidizing their rent, you are not incentizing any economic activity at all. What do you want everyone to rent?
Do you know how many people continue to purchase/upgrade because of this law? It does a damn good job of pushing people to buy that were on the fence. This is a good thing because of all the economic activity that is created when someone now owns a home. Landlord is in the business of making money, aka as little maintenance as they could get by with. So Joyce, no way in hell are you getting the amount of economic activity you get from personal home purchases as compared to investment purchases. Not even close. Remember, a renter doesn’t make much personal purchases in the house they rent. They get by on bare necessities. They don’t want to have a lot of stuff when they move. A person settled down in their own house will conduct significantly more economic activity as opposed to when they were renting.
3b says:
May 9, 2016 at 3:32 pm
Pumps: why is the mortgage deduction untouchable? Because it works for? Why can’t renters have it also? Oh I know your answer because they are low income in your mind and might move into your neighborhood?
#72 so renters produce no economic activity?
You get a NJ deduction for renting…
“The property tax deduction reduces your taxable income. Your tax benefit varies depending on your taxable income, the amount of your property taxes or rent, and your filing status. You may be able to deduct up to 100% of your property taxes due and paid or up to $10,000, whichever is less. For tenants, 18% of rent paid during the year is considered property taxes paid. The property tax credit reduces your tax due. The credit increases the total payments and/or credits on your income tax return. These payments and/or credits are subtracted directly from your tax liability. The minimum benefit is a refundable credit of $50”
Since renters are getting an indirect property tax deduction, we should remove the ability for those greedy dirty landlords to deduct property taxes as a business expense? No double dippers!
70. Hahaha, good sleuth work. Totally inappropriate to out him though.
re# 76 – Why would you bother? What started as a tennis cheerleader for the Fed propping housing with trillions of printed money has devolved into a on sided Stuart Smalley esque debate with himself.
Where did plummy work? You guys are killing me!
#74 well then I guess I got the 50 bucks credit.
@nypost
House Speaker Paul Ryan said he would do “whatever” Donald Trump asks
— even if that means stepping down as chairman
Another day of retweets and inane punkin’ mental jerkoff.
Great.
“The pattern of capital claiming a larger share of national income is a well-documented phenomenon in many countries, including the U.S. In a recent paper, economists Loukas Karabarbounis and Brent Neiman show that capital’s share of U.S. net income increased from about 33 percent in 1975 to 37 percent in 2012. This is a new development because it was generally assumed that capital and labor income shares are fixed over the long term. This was deemed so obvious that relatively little empirical work was dedicated to the issue. The main reason for the recent increase is that as the price of capital goods declined, companies used ever-more capital — more than enough to make up for the decline in price. A continuation of this trend seems likely, as machines keep on replacing workers and further erode labor’s income share.
If capital ownership were evenly distributed, the rising share of income from capital wouldn’t be a big concern. However, in all modern societies capital ownership is heavily concentrated. In principle, a “deconcentration” of capital ownership would go a long way toward defusing the problem. But this isn’t anywhere on the horizon. Data from economist Edward Wolff indicate that concentration, instead, is increasing. In 2007, 38 percent of all stocks were owned by the wealthiest top 1 percent of individuals; the top 10 percent owned 81 percent of all stocks; and both represented an increase from 2000.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-10/five-powerful-forces-are-driving-inequality
Wtf?
http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas-last-act-is-to-force-suburbs-to-be-less-white-and-less-wealthy/
Splat [81];
As if on cue…
[70] leftwing
Honestly, I really don’t care who the Gourd actually is. And I have to agree that outing is bad form.
84. LOL.
82, Pumps
“If capital ownership were evenly distributed, the rising share of income from capital wouldn’t be a big concern. However, in all modern societies capital ownership is heavily concentrated. In principle, a “deconcentration” of capital ownership would go a long way toward defusing the problem. But this isn’t anywhere on the horizon.”
As my AP Macro HS student would say, no duh.
A basis of “capitalism” is the efficient allocation of capital (see how those two connect there?).
If one were to evenly distributed capital by fiat as opposed to where it would be most efficiently utilized then one would take a few billion from Sand Hill Rd and give it to the denizens of the South Bronx. Which is the functional equivalent building a big pile of Benjamins and Harriets and setting them aflame under the Cross Bronx Expressway. And doesn’t solve the “problem”, which is misidentified anyway.
What is the problem? Analytically, one needs to take relative percentage shares with a grain of salt and look at underlying growth rates as well in any data set. Both income from labor and capital has grown over time. Income from capital has just outpaced the growth in labor. What are the causes, and what actually is the problem? Capital has become more efficient in finding profitable uses, while labor has not been as productive. Why not? Perhaps because labor has been held back by unions, work force rules, poor education, an increase in jobs with no productive output (regulatory, HR), etc.
Grade: F. Student has difficulty identifying issues and with basic analytical frameworks. Should seek extra help.
Your slipping spunky.
85. I just wanted to know his employer. Bang on short.
84- Yes, seems like intelligent people all around the world find this problem I regularly discuss on here to be a major problem too.
Funny, I’ve been told on this blog that there is no pie that we all share, that the pie is continuously growing. Yet, the experts find the labor’s share of income pie is eroding. Who care’s, right? The pie is always growing, who cares?
“The main reason for the recent increase is that as the price of capital goods declined, companies used ever-more capital — more than enough to make up for the decline in price. A continuation of this trend seems likely, as machines keep on replacing workers and further erode labor’s income share”
No one is calling for the even distribution of capital. What they are calling for is answer to the majority of the capital getting stuck in a few hands. How can a capitalist economy function with all the capital in a few hands? How can the system remain “competitive” under these conditions, which is the essence of capitalism.
“A basis of “capitalism” is the efficient allocation of capital (see how those two connect there?).
If one were to evenly distributed capital by fiat as opposed to where it would be most efficiently utilized then one would take a few billion from Sand Hill Rd and give it to the denizens of the South Bronx. Which is the functional equivalent building a big pile of Benjamins and Harriets and setting them aflame under the Cross Bronx Expressway. And doesn’t solve the “problem”, which is misidentified anyway.”
88.
The machine does not inhibit labor. Never has.
If so, then we should go back to the hand scythe and outlaw the mechanical reaper. Or prohibit sewing machines and automated looms. And take those nail guns from all the contractors and make them hammer by hand – think of how many more people would be employed just here in NJ alone! The PC, of course, gone. Bring back slide rules.
Wouldn’t we all be so much better off with the above?
Labor is inhibited only by its ability to produce products or services of value, utilizing available resources (including the latest machines).
The ‘failing’ of labor now is a societal failing on many levels, but not what you think. The failures are the belief that less productive jobs can be paid value greater than what they produce, that labor is not being educated and trained in the manner to be able to produce services or goods of value, that so much of labor is now put into non-productive jobs, etc, etc.
89
“No one is calling for the even distribution of capital. What they are calling for is answer to the majority of the capital getting stuck in a few hands.”
LOLOL.
And the opposite of “even distribution” is…….concentration? If not one or the other, then what spanky?
I’m tapping out. You’re just becoming tedious at this point.
83, it’s great section 8 destroyed the american city, lets export this to wealthy suburbs so the we can pay greater property taxes to have school test scores and property values go down! I’m at the point where even the two schmucks running for president might be better than Obama the communist organizer.
See, you don’t even understand the issue at hand. How do you get the economy to function properly if income from capital is destroying income from labor in growth patterns? How many people make an income off capital? Not many, yet you support this? You support having an economy that will eventually crash when the division of income made off capital and labor has grown too much? How will the income from capital support the rest of the economy when the income from labor no longer can? WE ARE HEADING DOWN THIS ROAD FAST. So what’s the answer? Out of principle of your ideology, we ignore the coming economic disaster and allow the winners of capitalism to take control of all capital?
I’m really trying to get you to understand this. Let me try explaining it this way. If income inequality is not a problem, then think of it like this. Let all the capital accrue into the hands of a few, make automation eliminate labor, now what purpose does everyone else in the economy serve? To consume? How? They have no means to consume. They are hungry, but have no job to feed that hunger. How is this good for the economy? There is no economy under these conditions, it’s game over, they won the game of capitalism. Too bad the economic system was never meant to be treated like a game, there are lives at stake here. We don’t ever want to see someone become so dominant in capitalism that they win the game and finish it.
“What is the problem? Analytically, one needs to take relative percentage shares with a grain of salt and look at underlying growth rates as well in any data set. Both income from labor and capital has grown over time. Income from capital has just outpaced the growth in labor. What are the causes, and what actually is the problem? Capital has become more efficient in finding profitable uses, while labor has not been as productive. Why not? Perhaps because labor has been held back by unions, work force rules, poor education, an increase in jobs with no productive output (regulatory, HR), etc.”
[83] juice
Yep, not news. Castro has made this HUD’s focal point for awhile now.
There is no shortage of candidates and Hillary won’t have to shore up her left so I cannot see Castro being named. With his baggage, he’d be a gift to Trump and the cabal of Bill and Hill will not take any chances.
[93] pumps
Shouldn’t you be throwing your shoes into the machinery?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#Etymology
[91] left
“I’m tapping out. You’re just becoming tedious at this point.”
Precisely why I stay out of these tax policy arguments. I’ve no problem starting one but I cannot stomach those with closed minds, agendas, poor cognitive function, or all of the above.
[81] splat
Much as I disagree with the gourd, if I had one bullet left and it came down to the gourd or the twitiot, it isn’t even a close choice.
You would still have to endure the long, multiple posts. Sorry.
Why does it have to be “even” or “concentrated”. That’s what my entire position is calling for, a movement away from the extremes. Why would you want extremes?
““No one is calling for the even distribution of capital. What they are calling for is answer to the majority of the capital getting stuck in a few hands.”
LOLOL.
And the opposite of “even distribution” is…….concentration? If not one or the other, then what spanky?
I’m tapping out. You’re just becoming tedious at this point.”
[92] jcer
This point should be hammered long and hard by the GOP, that Hillary is Obama 2.0, with even more redistribution and social engineering than the original. And this issue is precisely one that should be put front and center in ads–liberals love the poor but they don’t want to live near them. Hit them where they live and pick off the more moderate voters by making Trump the lesser of two evils.
93
“See, you don’t even understand the issue at hand. How do you get the economy to function properly if income from capital is destroying income from labor in growth patterns?”
ABSOLUTE FALSEHOOD.
Income from capital is not ‘destroying’ income from labor.
Income from capital is continuing to expand as it has through much of the course of history through investment. From kingdoms financing exploratory expeditions in the 1500s through every invention of the industrial and digital age.
Income from labor’s growth rate is decelerating relative to that.
Perhaps, ask yourself, what is so different now than during the past centuries when the fruits of capital benefited labor?
It is not ‘capital’ displacing labor. It is a failure of society and labor.
Firemen now have four year degrees.
CBS This Morning today had a woman with $140k in college loans who chose a career in alumni relations.
What’s next? Army infantrymen with MBAs?
Point is, capital continues to be allocated efficiently as despite governments’ most ardent attempts they have not been able to put overly egregeous constraints on it.
Labor has ceased to be allocated efficiently. We don’t need firemen with baccalaureates, junior level administrators with $140k+ educations, and infantrymen with MBAs. Nor do we need $300k+ HR administrators talking to $160k government employees who in the course of their jobs produce nothing. Monitor, yes. Produce, no.
Misallocation of labor resources is causing labor earnings to slow.
Doesn’t matter if you overpay for a garbage house, garbage stock, or garbage job. It will come back to haunt you.
99, I’d be livid if I lived in Scarsdale and they wanted to import bronx project dwellers into a place I’ve spent so much money to live in. The same goes for Newark project dwellers to Short Hills, etc. People pay so much to live in these places because they are exclusive.
[83] LOL. Just an accelerator thrown on a fire that’s going to burn anyway. It will be a double-edged sword as the really wealthy will sell out early and move to either the city or someplace Costa Rica-like.
Wtf?
http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas-last-act-is-to-force-suburbs-to-be-less-white-and-less-wealthy/
100- Leftwing, do you understand why income from capital is growing faster than income from labor? Automation! That’s why capital is killing it right now, and it will only get worst. So go re-read my post and understand that something has to be done to get money into the consumer’s hands, the traditional way through labor is no longer working. When you have this many people out of work, or with stagnant wages, the system is breaking. Until capital gets into these hands, how do you expect the economy to grow? It’s impossible, the signal for growth can only be created with capital. If the capital is in a hands of a few, how much growth can a few hands demand? NOT FUC!ING MUCH!. Put that capital in a billion hands and you will see growth.
You are so focused on the idea that some jobs are overpaid, when in reality, it really doesn’t matter that much. You worry about some little guy making chump change, and somehow think this is bringing harm to the economy. Even if the little guy is making decent money (100k), most likely he is in mortgage debt, and every penny he earns is put directly back into the economy in the form of consuming.
Consuming equals demand. Investment capital does not equal demand, it serves a major role in the economic system, but it does not serve the purpose of creating demand. Investment capital is the complete opposite of capital going towards consuming. Investment capital seeks out capital in the economic system going towards consuming. This is what we need right now, capital going towards consuming. It will create demand, which will then create a demand for investment. We will then see growth in the economy. We do not need more investment capital at the moment, which is exactly what happens when the money concentrates in a few hands, it has nowhere to invest, there is no capital in the consumer ranks creating demand for more investment.
Why do you think there are zero rates, or better yet, negative rates? They are trying to force that capital to consume. If they left rates at 7% right now, economy is over. All the capital concentrated in a few hands will seek out the safest return on money without risking it, which is why the rates are zero. The banks are already flush with money, and they will become even more flush, and what will they do with all this capital? Who will want to borrow it? People qualified to borrow are already sitting on insane amounts of cash, and the people with no capital(majority of population) are too much of a RISK to loan to on such low rates. Good portion is stuck without a job, or in a dead end job. They can’t borrow money, even though it dirt cheap to borrow. They need good jobs to access that capital.
Bottom line, income inequality has caused a lot of money to sit there and do nothing. There is nowhere to invest. Don’t tell me that there are tons of avenues for investment either, why the hell would someone accept negative or zero rates if there was? Need to get capital back into the hands of the consumer or this gig is up.
93 pumps: you are always going on about income inequality and yet you don’t want low income people living in your neighborhood. Ironic.
That’s the bottom line. If people are paying a premium to live in a place where they feel safe, is it a violation of their rights to put people that will take that away? Are you going to compensate these individuals for lowering their quality of life that they justly paid for?
jcer says:
May 10, 2016 at 11:48 am
99, I’d be livid if I lived in Scarsdale and they wanted to import bronx project dwellers into a place I’ve spent so much money to live in. The same goes for Newark project dwellers to Short Hills, etc. People pay so much to live in these places because they are exclusive.
I only care about the economy. If income inequality is a threat to our economy, I’m against it. I understand that we are in a capitalist based economic system, so I would never advocate for the govt stepping in to help the poor live next to rich people. That goes against everything capitalism is based on. I will never ever stand for bs like this. I will stand against income inequality, not because I care about poor people, but because I care about the economic system. Income inequality is a clear signal that our capitalist system is very sick. Ignore it and there won’t be an economy to speak of.
3b says:
May 10, 2016 at 1:02 pm
93 pumps: you are always going on about income inequality and yet you don’t want low income people living in your neighborhood. Ironic.
Hard to believe…
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/staten-island-man-killed-wife-love-online-article-1.2631666
76 / 85 –
Of Course and 100% agreed.
I’m actually somewhat insulted you think I would stoop to some liberal tactic like publishing
gun owner’s addresses, I mean Pump’s address, online or something just because he is a nasty troll.(However it doesn’t mean I wont brag about my elite googling skills)
Coming to a lawyer-rich jurisdiction near you. . . .
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/03/news/boring-job-lawsuit/index.html?iid=ob_article_footer
“Mr. Samuels, who is known for his lengthy reporting on complex topics, says the Obama administration found it easy to manipulate an “information environment that is mediated less and less by experienced editors and reporters with any real prior knowledge of the subjects they write about.””
WSJ
OPINION
The administration’s cynical manipulations have lowered the bar for what voters expect.
By L. GORDON CROVITZ
Top presidential advisers often go public as administrations end, but there has rarely been a disclosure as illuminating as how President Obama’s top spin doctor helped turn American foreign policy upside down.
In a New York Times Magazine article this weekend headlined “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru: How Ben Rhodes Rewrote the Rules of Diplomacy for the Digital Age,” writer David Samuels details how Mr. Rhodes, a former speechwriter, sold the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran by creating a false claim of “moderate” Iranian officials.
Mr. Rhodes brags about keeping Mr. Obama’s long-standing plan to elevate Iran over allies such as Israel and the Gulf States hidden from the public by manipulating liberal journalists and think-tank analysts and using the short attention span of social media to obfuscate the truth.
Critics of Donald Trump, including this columnist, object to his policy incoherence and flip-flops. But the Obama administration set a new low bar for cynicism that for many makes even a celebrity candidate seem reasonable in contrast. Mr. Obama promised hope and change, but his administration gleefully misled the public, on everything from ObamaCare to immigration policy. Now we see up close how the administration’s manipulation extends even to the most important change to U.S. foreign policy in decades.
Mr. Rhodes, whose official title is deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, is described by Mr. Samuels as “the master shaper and retailer of Obama’s foreign-policy narratives, at a time when the killer wave of social media has washed away the sand castles of the traditional press.”
Mr. Samuels adds: “His ability to navigate and shape this new environment makes him a more effective and powerful extension of the president’s will than any number of policy advisers or diplomats or spies. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes great responsibility for the fate of nations—like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing—is still startling.”
Mr. Rhodes says he has a “mind meld” with the president. “I don’t know anymore where I begin and Obama ends.”
He proudly discloses the false narrative regarding Iran that claimed the nuclear negotiations started only after Hassan Rouhani became president in 2013. In fact, the deal was set well before the supposed moderate was in power. Mr. Samuels calls the administration’s arguments “false” and “actively misleading.”
Mr. Obama’s strategy all along was to cede power to Iran, hoping this would reduce U.S. responsibilities in the region, or as Mr. Samuels puts it, “would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey.”
This argument for faith in Iran was so absurd that it could not be made or even admitted in public—the foreign-policy experts Mr. Rhodes dismisses as “the blob” would have been astounded at the naïveté of elevating terrorist Iran above allies.
But the false-narrative strategy worked, justifying what Mr. Samuels calls the “brutal contempt” Mr. Rhodes has for journalists. “The average age we talk to is 27 years old and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns,” Mr. Rhodes says. “They literally know nothing,” making them easy to spin.
Mr. Samuels describes how Mr. Rhodes and his team “ventriloquize” sympathetic columnists and reporters. The administration’s media “compadres” acted as “force multipliers.” One of Mr. Rhodes’s staffers says: “I’ll give them some color and the next thing I know, lots of these guys are in the dot-com publishing space, and have huge Twitter followings, and they’ll be putting this message out on their own.” Another brags of an “echo chamber” of cheerleaders for the Iran deal at think tanks who “were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
Mr. Samuels, who is known for his lengthy reporting on complex topics, says the Obama administration found it easy to manipulate an “information environment that is mediated less and less by experienced editors and reporters with any real prior knowledge of the subjects they write about.”
Mr. Obama’s serious foreign-policy advisers seem taken aback by what happened under their watch. Leon Panetta, Mr. Obama’s former CIA chief and defense secretary, assured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Mr. Obama would never let the Iranians get the bomb. Mr. Samuels asked Mr. Panetta if he still thinks Mr. Obama would block Iran from going nuclear. “Would I make that same assessment now?” Mr. Panetta said. “Probably not.”
As more details such as the role of Mr. Rhodes emerge about how the Obama administration operates, there may be more voters who see Mr. Trump simply as an equal and opposite reaction to Mr. Obama. False narratives and media manipulation worked for Mr. Obama and have empowered Mr. Trump, making him seem to many voters just another flavor of politics as usual.
“Mr. Samuels, who is known for his lengthy reporting on complex topics, says the Obama administration found it easy to manipulate an “information environment that is mediated less and less by experienced editors and reporters with any real prior knowledge of the subjects they write about.””
WSJ
OPINION
The administration’s cynical manipulations have lowered the bar for what voters expect.
By L. GORDON CROVITZ
Top presidential advisers often go public as administrations end, but there has rarely been a disclosure as illuminating as how President Obama’s top spin doctor helped turn American foreign policy upside down.
In a New York Times Magazine article this weekend headlined “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru: How Ben Rhodes Rewrote the Rules of Diplomacy for the Digital Age,” writer David Samuels details how Mr. Rhodes, a former speechwriter, sold the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran by creating a false claim of “moderate” Iranian officials.
Mr. Rhodes brags about keeping Mr. Obama’s long-standing plan to elevate Iran over allies such as Israel and the Gulf States hidden from the public by manipulating liberal journalists and think-tank analysts and using the short attention span of social media to obfu5cate the truth.
Critics of Donald Trump, including this columnist, object to his policy incoherence and flip-flops. But the Obama administration set a new low bar for cynicism that for many makes even a celebrity candidate seem reasonable in contrast. Mr. Obama promised hope and change, but his administration gleefully misled the public, on everything from ObamaCare to immigration policy. Now we see up close how the administration’s manipulation extends even to the most important change to U.S. foreign policy in decades.
Mr. Rhodes, whose official title is deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, is described by Mr. Samuels as “the master shaper and retailer of Obama’s foreign-policy narratives, at a time when the killer wave of social media has washed away the sand castles of the traditional press.”
Mr. Samuels adds: “His ability to navigate and shape this new environment makes him a more effective and powerful extension of the president’s will than any number of policy advisers or diplomats or spies. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes great responsibility for the fate of nations—like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing—is still startling.”
Mr. Rhodes says he has a “mind meld” with the president. “I don’t know anymore where I begin and Obama ends.”
He proudly discloses the false narrative regarding Iran that claimed the nuclear negotiations started only after Hassan Rouhani became president in 2013. In fact, the deal was set well before the supposed moderate was in power. Mr. Samuels calls the administration’s arguments “false” and “actively misleading.”
Mr. Obama’s strategy all along was to cede power to Iran, hoping this would reduce U.S. responsibilities in the region, or as Mr. Samuels puts it, “would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey.”
This argument for faith in Iran was so absurd that it could not be made or even admitted in public—the foreign-policy experts Mr. Rhodes dismisses as “the blob” would have been astounded at the naïveté of elevating terrorist Iran above allies.
But the false-narrative strategy worked, justifying what Mr. Samuels calls the “brutal contempt” Mr. Rhodes has for journalists. “The average age we talk to is 27 years old and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns,” Mr. Rhodes says. “They literally know nothing,” making them easy to spin.
Mr. Samuels describes how Mr. Rhodes and his team “ventriloquize” sympathetic columnists and reporters. The administration’s media “compadres” acted as “force multipliers.” One of Mr. Rhodes’s staffers says: “I’ll give them some color and the next thing I know, lots of these guys are in the dot-com publishing space, and have huge Twitter followings, and they’ll be putting this message out on their own.” Another brags of an “echo chamber” of cheerleaders for the Iran deal at think tanks who “were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
Mr. Samuels, who is known for his lengthy reporting on complex topics, says the Obama administration found it easy to manipulate an “information environment that is mediated less and less by experienced editors and reporters with any real prior knowledge of the subjects they write about.”
Mr. Obama’s serious foreign-policy advisers seem taken aback by what happened under their watch. Leon Panetta, Mr. Obama’s former CIA chief and defense secretary, assured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Mr. Obama would never let the Iranians get the bomb. Mr. Samuels asked Mr. Panetta if he still thinks Mr. Obama would block Iran from going nuclear. “Would I make that same assessment now?” Mr. Panetta said. “Probably not.”
As more details such as the role of Mr. Rhodes emerge about how the Obama administration operates, there may be more voters who see Mr. Trump simply as an equal and opposite reaction to Mr. Obama. False narratives and media manipulation worked for Mr. Obama and have empowered Mr. Trump, making him seem to many voters just another flavor of politics as usual.
Chi, dont even dare.
No one except maybe Hillary if she gets in (come on Trump!!) gets to the level of the “W” years deception, delusion, and just pure “Inception like manipulation” from the propagandist to the propaganda recipients.
Remember – “We create our own reality”, “It will pay for itself”, “I care for Katrina’s vivtims” and of course ” It’s a good time to refinance to ARM” and “Housing never goes down”.
In fact from 1/2001 to 1/2009. The only statement made that was thruthful was ” This suck3r is going down”.
chicagofinance says:
May 10, 2016 at 3:42 pm
“Mr. Samuels, who is known for his lengthy reporting on complex topics, says the Obama administration found it easy to manipulate an “information environment that is mediated less and less by experienced editors and reporters with any real prior knowledge of the subjects they write about.””
What does my post have to do with W? Obama was elected on a platform of “Change You Can Believe In”…….in short, W was a little boy playing checkers who surrounded himself with the evil and greedy chess masters Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld………Obama is merely a brilliant but cynical and arrogant ba$tard who hates capitalism and is retiring at 54 to pursue $100M-dom on the genuflecting circuit……
Not ChiFier says:
May 10, 2016 at 4:33 pm
Chi, dont even dare.
No one except maybe Hillary if she gets in (come on Trump!!) gets to the level of the “W” years deception, delusion, and just pure “Inception like manipulation” from the propagandist to the propaganda recipients.
Remember – “We create our own reality”, “It will pay for itself”, “I care for Katrina’s vivtims” and of course ” It’s a good time to refinance to ARM” and “Housing never goes down”.
In fact from 1/2001 to 1/2009. The only statement made that was thruthful was ” This suck3r is going down”.
chicagofinance says:
May 10, 2016 at 3:42 pm
“Mr. Samuels, who is known for his lengthy reporting on complex topics, says the Obama administration found it easy to manipulate an “information environment that is mediated less and less by experienced editors and reporters with any real prior knowledge of the subjects they write about.””
[111] not chifi
It appears to me that you are conflating being wrong with being deceptive. That argument was tried before and it appealed to the faithful on the left but it was logically flawed and fatally so.
Case in point: The left argued that W “lied” about WMD, but in reality, he was mistaken, and in fact was likely deceived (Saddam even admitted that he fostered the perception that he had secret WMD as a deterrent–failed spectacularly). At best, you can call it wilful blindness but doesn’t change the fact that an unreasonable belief in the existence of a thing doesn’t rise to the level of premeditated falsehood if that thing doesn’t exist.
By contrast, this administration has, by its own admission, deliberately undertaken to cause a false narrative to be created and nurtured, and perhaps more insulting, relied on the pliant media, trusting them to be pliant.
As for your other examples, they constitute cheerleading or opinion and are clearly such.
That isn’t to say that the GOP administrations didn’t attempt to manipulate the message and the messenger. I’m sure they did. But you are comparing apples to oranges.