Sunday, February 22, 2009

Bend Godfather: "Doctrine of Bend Exceptionalism, Dead"

I think Bend reached a seminal point in it's collapse last week.

One of the Boss Hogg's of Bend, if not The Boss Hogg, declared Bend non-Exceptional.

Through the Looking Glass With John and Bill

In his Sunday column, Bulletin Editor John Costa talks to three of Bend’s biggest movers and shakers to find out why the Bend real estate market went belly-up and how to keep it from happening again. They offer a number of ideas. Some of them make sense; one is just crazy.

Developer Mike Hollern blames the Doctrine of Bend Exceptionalism – the peculiar notion that Bend is so special that it’s immune to outside economic forces. “We were overwhelmed by the amount of money pouring in,” Hollern told Costa. “We thought that we were different from the rest of the country. It turned out that we are not so much [different].”

This really is astounding. It's more or less a declaration that all we have done, all that we have thrown our energy, time, and vast, Vast quantities of money at all these years, is actually Harming Us.

The PR & Marketing Industrial Complex of Bend is Dead.

Now I don't want to say that I originated the idea that holding ourselves above all others was a bad Idea, but I'll admit that I mentioned it once or twice:

A Prayer for Bend

And speaking of bullshit pieces, thank you Baby Jeebus for the Bulletin piece basically printing that this place is a deluded bunch of drug-addicts, by printing this quote from Sandy Henderson, new head of the perennial money-losing BendFilm: 'You know what, there’s got to be Prozac or something in the water, because everybody is happy.’

It's called
KOOL-AID Sandy, and it will soon render your mind whithered & useless...

Take off the Beer Goggles, and Start ta Chewin'

The Bulletin is a prime conspirator in Boss Hogg's little pump-n-dump scheme, but sadly it is too late for that, as the idiotic RiverWild "auction" proved.

NO ONE is buying the Kool-Aid anymore.


The ass-ugly imploding nature of Bend's RE market is clearly visible in high-relief for all to see, and no amount of bullshit shoveled into the locals gullets will change that.

They've done it a million times before to good effect, and the Bulletin still believes that we can "market our way out of anything", but obviously we cannot.

IT IS OVER.


Bends Mayor Arrested and Jailed For Embezzlement

"The softness in our real estate markets has worsened in the past quarter, putting increased pressure on cash flows of developers and builders of new homes and subdivisions," said Patricia L. Moss, CEO.

"While we are disappointed in reporting this action, we feel strongly that it is prudent to be assertive in recognizing the heightened risk in this segment of our loan portfolio."

She added, "Despite the immediate cost of these steps, Cascade remains a solidly profitable and well-capitalized institution serving some of the best growth markets in the nation.

I am confident that the long-term strength of our markets and our experienced management team will enable us to effectively navigate this downturn in the real estate cycle."


You see Moss, despite being slapped upside the head with Reality, is still is bobbing for apples in the Kool-Aid vat.

Extinct Species Found In Bend Oregon

Local banks, that only months ago declared themselves fit as a fiddle financially & almost completely IMMUNE from the collapse... LIED. They were firmly planted in some Kool-Aid fueled hallucination where they were exempt from reality.

The Cult of Bend

You hold an auction, that gets press coverage FAR & WIDE, you actually get a hard-core contingent of buyers to show up, they actually BID on these shithole, shoddy tubs of shit you call "homes", and you say they are trying to STEAL THEM?

This comes back to a point I've written about several times on here, despite it's unpopularity, the idea that Bend is a town that has been indoctrinated & brainwashed into thinking that WE ARE GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE.

Not the "Jew Thing", but that as a town we are better than "The Rest". We deserve better. Hell, we deserve THE BEST, and by God, we'll wait until our dying day to get it.

This is a mindset cultivated DAILY by ALL BEND MEDIA.


EVERYTHING IS BETTER IN BEND. ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE. AND IF WE ARE GREAT, SO ARE OUR HOMES, AND THUSLY THEY CANNOT & WILL NOT GO DOWN IN PRICE. PERIOD.


Q1 2007 Numbers
There's also the acknowledgment that Bend is 75% overvalued... BUT, there's also floated the idea that What Applies To The Rest Of The Country Does Not Apply To Bend.

This is my Gods Chosen People thesis
, an attitude reflected in Jonestown before they all killed themselves by pounding down a little Kool-Aid with an arsenic chaser.


So, yes, I think I may have mentioned it once or twice, that the worst thing that could happen to this place was this carefully cultivated & continuously reinforced idea that Bend Is Better. I, and others on this blog, have repeatedly said that Bend Is Not Better.

Bend is Not A Flint, MI. It's Not Cleveland. But neither is it Aspen.

Bend is a regular place. With regular people. Regular, if not low-paying, jobs. Regular.

But we were fed the Kool-Aid, and were made to think we were God's Chosen People, and what applied elsewhere, did not apply here.

And the Boss Hogg's, like Hollern & Smith, as well as all of Bend media did all in their power to perpetuate this myth, that we are better, that we deserve The Best.

And they accomplished this to fantastic effect. The Kool-Aid was drunk far & wide, and almost no one is immune.

So why is Hollern turning on his own?

He's turning on the very PR/Marketing Industrial Complex that he & other God Fathers of Bend helped establish. Why is he turning on COVA, Costa, the Bend Visitors Bureau, EDCO, Roger Lee, Alana Audette, and the vast hordes of minions that run this factory, all to the assumed benefit of him & others like him? Why?

Because, as I suggested 2 years ago, it is Killing Bend. It's killing this town. It's killing Hollern. It's killing his business. It's killing everything.

The Doctrine of Bend Exceptionalism is the worst man-made disaster that will ever afflict this town.

And Hollern is 100% responsible.

Well, that's not true. Costa is also responsible. The Incredible Hulce is responsible.

No. That's not true. The Incredible Hulce is actually retarded, and cannot be held accountable for her actions.


No, the blame lies with the vast hordes of Realtors, Hometown Newspaper Editors, RE developers, contractors, builder associations, and everyone else who lied to line their own pockets. And in this place, 2-3 years ago, that was almost everyone.

But Hollern has seen the light. Maybe he's seen this blog, who knows. But Yarrow & Ironhorse have to be some pretty unmistakable thorns in his side, that Exceptionalism does Not Sell Houses. Not in a downturn. Exceptionalism actually grinds the gears of industry to a halt.

Look at all the listings in Bend: Most are still Wildly Overpriced. Nothing is moving when credit goes away, and you then have to rely on local incomes to actually move product. And Bend has lousy incomes.
Bend IS Exceptional!

Look at these 2 graphs of national housing stats, and you see that Bend is exceptional: We are still Wildly Overvalued.

Nationally, prices have fallen back to 120 months of rent. I know that most Eastside Bend STD's are still well above 200X rent!

Nationally, prices have fallen to 3.2X median incomes. Even after the incredible 40+% plunge in local medians, homes in Bend are still almost 4X median family incomes, a level that was just barely hit nationally at the absolute top of the housing bubble.

In Bend, we'll probably fall back to 80-100X rent for homes. That means medians on the Eastside may go below $100K.

If we go back to 2.4X median family income, and incomes remain constant (a fairly dubious assumption), then Bend medians will fall to around $140K.

The End of an Era. The End of Exceptionalism.

To that end, here are the hard numbers:

National recession takes its toll locally

Some parts of the regional economy are stabilizing; others are not

By Jeff McDonald / The Bulletin
Published: February 22. 2009 4:00AM PST

Central Oregon’s economy took a severe hit from the national economic collapse in the fourth quarter of 2008, and as it moves forward there is no single remedy for recovery, according to a University of Oregon economist who authors a quarterly business index for The Bulletin.

The national recession hit Central Oregon in the form of skyrocketing unemployment claims, continued weakness in housing and depressed visitor activity, said Timothy Duy, adjunct professor of economics who authors the Central Oregon Business Index.


The index provides a seasonally adjusted look at the region’s economy based on nine economic variables, including Deschutes County building permits and Central Oregon housing units sold, Bend lodging tax revenue and unemployment claims.

The index dropped to 145, down 1.8 percent from the previous quarter and 7.2 percent from the same quarter in 2007, according to the report. It is the fifth consecutive quarter the index has declined.


The trajectory of the index, rather than its numeric value, is more important for understanding the health of the economy, Duy said.

Already, the last five quarters are showing a steeper decline than the recession at the beginning of the decade, he said.

The index weighs data from Central Oregon’s economy dating back to 1997.
Some things are stabilizing because they couldn’t get any worse,” Duy said.

“But I don’t think the employment outlook is stabilizing. I don’t think the forces of the national picture are stabilizing. I don’t think foreclosures are stabilizing.”


Tourism and the region’s employment were especially hard hit in the fourth quarter, bringing home to Central Oregon a national economic crisis that froze credit and tightened consumer spending.


Lodging revenues, adjusted for inflation, contracted to levels last seen in 2004, Duy said.
Home sales appear to have stabilized at around the 200-homes-sold-per-month mark with 183 homes sold in Deschutes County on a monthly, seasonally adjusted basis during the quarter.

By comparison, there were roughly 250 monthly sales in the preboom era and a bubble high of 560 monthly sales in second and third quarter 2005, according to the report.
Building permits remained depressed.

A monthly average of 56 permits were issued during the quarter, according to the data.
If you are an economy that is geared to build 600 homes per month and you are only building 50, you are essentially at zero,” Duy said.

On a brighter note, median days on the market declined significantly, likely a result of falling housing prices, he said.


“There is some evidence that home sales have stabilized at relatively low levels,” he said. “This suggests the possibility that some bottoming is occurring.

However, the reason that home sales are stabilizing is that prices are coming down to realistic levels.”


Also clouding Central Oregon’s economy was an increasingly bleak jobs picture.

Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson counties posted monthly unemployment rates that were among the state’s highest in the fourth quarter.


Deschutes, Jefferson and Crook counties reported 11.3 percent, 13.3 percent and 14 percent unemployment, respectively, in December, according to the Oregon Employment Department.


Unemployment claims for Deschutes County shot up to a seasonally adjusted average of 4,133 per month in the fourth quarter from 3,032 in the third quarter, according to Duy’s data.


Nonfarm payrolls, meanwhile, remained steady, which is unlikely to continue in the first quarter of 2009 due to the high number of jobless claims, Duy said.


Duy’s report was completed before revised data was released earlier this month by the Oregon Employment Department that showed a much gloomier picture of job growth in the region.


In previous reports, Deschutes County’s employment picture remained soft, with 0.9 percent job growth in 2008. But the revised data posted Feb. 12 on the agency’s Web site, www.qualityinfo.org, showed a 3.9 percent job loss in the county and monthly job losses dating back to December 2007, said Stephen Williams, the region’s economist and a Salem-based usability analyst for the Employment Department.

December 2007 marked the official start of the recession, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.


Almost every industry in the county lost jobs in 2008, Williams said.
“It shows the picture that people are feeling,” Williams said.

“This finally reflects the sense of what’s going on in the community.”


Construction was hardest hit in the county, losing 2,000 jobs in 2008.

The job losses brought the county’s construction employment down 25 percent, or down to 6,070 jobs, about equal with its 2004 numbers, Williams said.


Manufacturing lost 240, or 9.6 percent of its jobs, in 2008, while professional and business services lost 300 jobs, or 3.9 percent.


The only sectors to gain jobs were education and health services, leisure and hospitality, and government, Williams said.


The new data was “astonishing,” said Roger Lee, executive director of Economic Development for Central Oregon, which promotes business recruitment and retention.

He was skeptical about the state’s employment data, which changed from only one month of job declines in 2008 to every month showing job declines back to December 2007.


“When you go from modestly positive numbers to fairly severe ones, that’s a shock,” said Lee, who called the fourth-quarter economic collapse “historic” in its scope.


“It came down to the collapse of the credit markets, which trickled down locally to the aircraft industry,” he said, referring to layoffs locally at Cessna Aircraft Co. , which started to take effect in January.

“We had been projecting growth for 2009. But all of a sudden the credit crunch came along and Wall Street had its issues.

People did not feel nearly as wealthy as they once did.

Overall, the wealth of the nation has taken a … dive.”


Lee predicted a slow recovery, contingent upon a revival of the credit markets. “2009 is going to be largely a contractionary year,” he said. “But I think the region will start to emerge in 2010.”

Duy was not surprised by the revised data, saying job losses would be reflected in declining payrolls in the next index.


The region’s economy will stabilize with small increases of activity across multiple industries, he said. “There is no magic bullet for the region’s recovery.”


December was an “absolutely brutal month” for Central Oregon tourism, said Alana Audette, president and CEO of Central Oregon Visitors Association, which promotes tourism for the region.

Room-tax collections for the city of Bend and Deschutes County dropped 28.6 percent and 18.6 percent, respectively.


It was a wake-up call for the industry, which expected bad but got much worse, Audette said.


“We were doing OK and it’s not that we didn’t see it coming,” she said. “But December was the month where we learned that weather plays a tremendous role in our success as a visitor destination. The state was seeing a lot of layoffs, and combine that with brutal weather conditions … that made accessing our destination very difficult.”


Realtors are hopeful the region hit bottom in the fourth quarter.

2008 was a painful year for the region’s Realtors, builders and mortgage professionals and has resulted in a thinning of the ranks of real estate brokers, said Wendy Adkisson, principal broker with The Garner Group Realtors and Development LLC, in Bend.

Adkisson is on the Central Oregon Association of Realtors board.


The number of licensed Realtors in Central Oregon dropped from about 2,129 in January 2008 to 1,477 on Feb. 19, a 30.6 percent decline, according to Central Oregon Association of Realtors.


Those brokers who are still active are seeing sales pick up as prices decline.


The first quarter of 2009 is on pace to match the first quarter of 2008 in sales, Adkisson said. “We’re just excited to be even.”

Median sales prices, which were $396,000 in Bend in May 2007, have fallen to $227,500 in the first 1½ months of 2009, according to data from the Central Oregon Association of Realtors. That’s a decline of 42.5 percent.

“The truth is we have taken a huge hit from our highest price point,” she said. “I wouldn’t want to swear that we are at the bottom, but I think we’re at a trough.”


At least half the 2009 sales have either been short sales, in which a home is sold for less than the amount owed on it, or sales of bank-owned property, Adkisson said.

We’re down inventory-wise because for the most part we’ve got sellers who are realistic about where they need to be if they want to sell,” she said.

“You can buy a nice house for $150,000. That may be a blessing for all of us.”


After the downturn, Central Oregon — and the rest of the country — will emerge looking very different, Duy said.


“There is a tendency for people to think that their boom was somehow unique, but the growth that occurred the last five to six years was fueled by credit intertwined with an asset bubble,” Duy said.

“We’re moving to the other side of that. You have to think what the world’s going to look like in the absence of that credit growth. Even when you get to the other side of this, you won’t have the factors that were responsible for this surge in consumer spending.”


Jeff McDonald can be reached at 541-383-0323 or at jmcdonald@bendbulletin.com.


The End of an Era

Pretty bleak.

But what's funny, is you can still smell a whiff of hope there. A whiff of, "We'll be back to bubble times again, if we just believe!"

Of course that's ludicrous. And Duy, for once, hit's the nail on the head in his final sentence: We're in uncharted waters here. Bend has Never, in modern history, faced an economic climate like it does now.

You can see why Hollern sees Bend Exceptionalism as the New Enemy. Exceptionalism doesn't sell houses. Exceptionalism doesn't sell anything. We're looking at the complete destruction & meltdown of this place, and The Doctrine of Bend Exceptionalism (ie Drinking The Kool Aid, We Are God's Chosen People) is the root primary cause.

RIP: The Doctrine of Bend Exceptionalism.

OK, some final ideas. I find myself over at Jesse Felders My Back Pages blog fairly often, and I think it's fair to say that he is Up on the stock market.

And maybe for good reason. For the First Time In Modern History, the DJIA is DOWN over 50% from it's peak. We came close in the 70's. But I don't think we made it to -50%.

Even some unquestioned dogma is starting to look shaky:

A Bigger Bargain Than Buffett Bought


One of the complaints people made about Warren Buffett's investments in financial companies last year was that regular investors weren't able to secure similar terms for their own portfolios.

In 2008, Buffett invested in companies like Goldman Sachs and General Electric receiving preferred stock that pays a dividend of 10% and warrants to purchase common stock at a set price.
Well those people should take a second look. Right now, regular investors can secure terms even better than the Oracle of Omaha.

GE common stock currently trades at a 50% discount to the strike price on Buffett's warrants AND currently pays a dividend yield significantly greater than 10% (this may be reduced in the near future, however, to help maintain GE's AAA credit rating).


People are starting to question Buffett and whether he's lost his touch.

People are starting to question "Buy & Hold" as a philosophy.

This only happens after severe losses. And it has ALWAYS been a Great Harbinger of a Time To Buy.

And I largely agree with Jesse on a lot of points, and I actually do think that stocks can & will represent value someday.

But I'm starting to wonder just how long that will be. I think I'm a lot like Felder, in that I and much of the Vast Contrarian Stock Buying Contingent in this country, people that think they're smarter than the herd, just may have it wrong. Terribly Wrong.

I know I have. My IRA is a shriveling prune of investment crap at this point. And I bought well off the highs.

I think we're looking at our Black Swan moment. The time when we say It's Different, and unlike the past 20X when the herd all said this, this time it actually IS DIFFERENT.

Look at Japan. After topping out near 40K, the Nikkei today sits near 7,400, or down 81%.

Sometimes IT IS DIFFERENT. Sometimes Buy On The Dip is a TERRIBLE IDEA. Even when it's a historic dip. Even when it's a down 50% dip. Buying the Nikkei at 20K, 50% off the top, would have been buying a historic dip... and a TERRIBLE IDEA.

I'm wondering if my own predilection to buy in the DJIA 5,000's will be usher in yet another round of punishment. Because I agree with Felder: When compared to historical markers of value, the US Stock Market is plumbing historic lows.

But that's exactly the nature of Black Swan events: They blow away historic expectation. They're something you've never seen before.

And I've said it before: This will end worse than anyone thought possible, even me.

OK, I'll leave it on an Up Note, as always!
I believe in Exceptionalism!

506 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 506 of 506   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

0.95 and HOLDING cacb, note low today 0.85

Anonymous said...

Knife-River MDU stock is going to be worth a fortune with all this infrastructure spending by OREO.

NOTE, the MOSS only ran CACB for PR&MARKETING the real deal was always KNIFE-RIVER(HAP-TAYLOR), NW TAYLOR, ... JRMB, JR, ... $200M city debt, all $$$ Bend Gone.

Bewert said...

DP revised to 6.2% rate of decline in fourth quarter
Worst quarter since 1982 as spending, investment and exports drop sharply
By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
Last update: 10:36 a.m. EST Feb. 27, 2009

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. economy was hitting on virtually no cylinders in the fourth quarter, as gross domestic product fell at the fastest pace since 1982 on sharp declines in consumer spending, investment and exports, the government said Friday.

GDP fell at a 6.2% seasonally adjusted annualized pace in the final three months of 2008, revised from the initial estimate of a 3.8% drop, the Commerce Department reported. It was the worst decline in GDP since a 6.4% decrease in the first quarter of 1982.

"Economic developments in recent months have been consistently worse than the worst-case scenarios," noted Stephen Stanley, chief economist for RBS Greenwich Capital.

Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had expected a revision to a 5.5% decline, based on updated monthly data on inventories, exports and other key measures. See Economic Calendar.
The revision showed inventory investment and exports "substantially weaker" than first reported, the government said. Consumer spending was also revised lower. Read the full report.

Final sales of domestic product fell 6.4%, the worst since 1980. Final sales to domestic purchasers, a measure of domestic demand, fell 5.7%, also the worst since 1980.

Unadjusted for price changes, GDP fell 5.8% to an annual rate of $14.2 trillion in current dollar terms, the data showed...

Anonymous said...

Representative Gene Taylor of Mississippi, a conservative who often breaks with his party, criticized the plan for its deficit spending.

“Change is not running up even bigger deficits than George Bush did,” Mr. Taylor told CNN on Thursday. -- NY Times


I'm laughing my ass off watching the congressional Republicans trying to make Chimpy the scapegoat for everything that's fucked up in America today, as if he had been an absolute monarch. For six years, right up until the elections of 2006, when they lost 29 seats in the House and nine in the Senate, Chimpy was the Republicans' fair-haired boy. He could do no wrong in their eyes, and they gave him every damn thing he asked for. Where was all the hand-wringing about deficits then?

Duncan McGeary said...

The Republicans seem to be betting that we'll be in worse financial shape in 2010, and that they'll gain seats.

I wouldn't bet against the first half of that, but I think they'll find that Obama isn't going to be blamed in that short a time span, as long as he seems to be trying, but the Republicans very well might be, if they are perceived as obstructionist.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

Anonymous said...

Dunc,

How often do you see missing pages from comic books??

Have you seen it before where every comic in the city from a DC Comic issue has a particular page missing?

Holmes,

Anonymous said...

The Republicans seem to be betting that we'll be in worse financial shape in 2010, and that they'll gain seats.

*

What matters? Carter inherited the NIXSON mess, and got blamed by the PUG's and it stuck in 1980.

Dont' think they can pull it off again?

By 2010 OREO will be the most hated prez in history.

Today he has defined 'leaving' Iraq, as leaving 50k troop forever. Broken campaign contributions, but the left is pissed.

Yesterday Panetta said that virtually ALL of the chimp's CIA programs would stand under OREO. Change?? Hope? For what? Another election in 2012.

Anonymous said...

CACB closes with a solid 0.900, low 0.85, down today 25%, last two days down 40%.

CBBO at 0.902 is now the leader of the Eastern Orygun pack. Go orygun go!!!

Any bets whether FDIC will close moss tonight 8pm EST?? or was it just a bad day for banks?

Duncan McGeary said...

**"How often do you see missing pages from comic books??

Have you seen it before where every comic in the city from a DC Comic issue has a particular page missing?"**

It happens, but usually someone notices and they're recalled.

Duncan McGeary said...

"Dont' think they can pull it off again?"

No.

I don't think they can pull it off again.

Bewert said...

Re: 50000 troops staying in Iraq

###

You missed the rest of the story:

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq. We will proceed carefully, and I will consult closely with my military commanders on the ground and with the Iraqi government. There will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments. But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed.

After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country. As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.

Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned."

###

Note, down to 50,000 in 18 months, then the rest of them by the end of 2011. Entire text here.

Only troops left there will be guarding the giant fucking Embassy that Cheney built.

Anonymous said...

You missed the rest of the story:

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

*

We have the largest embassy in the world there and the largest bases.

FUCK YOU PUSSY, the "MISSION" CHIMPS MISSION ended years ago, the NEW MISSION will require at least 50K soldiers, and the fighting will continue ( KILLING ) cuz they don't want us there.

NO MORE WAR MEANS ZERO TROOPS IN IRAQ, TROOP MEANS US SOLDIER.

Anonymous said...

Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

*

Yes, 'troops' in this term is 'fighting troops', but 50k peace-keepers will remain.

PUSSY WORDS.

Anonymous said...

Have you seen it before where every comic in the city from a DC Comic issue has a particular page missing?"**

It happens, but usually someone notices and they're recalled.

*

WELL BP & HP noticed so we should recall the BULL?

Duncan McGeary said...

Carter got blamed for the hostage crisis, and Afganistan, and malaise.

However, Gingrich did a pretty good number on Clinton.

Jindal is no Gingrich.

Obama has the Clinton example, and he's been real smart.

The Republicans keep going to the same well again and again, and it's starting to come up dry.

No...I think Obama has them cornered.

And they're stupid enough to fall into it.

Anonymous said...

Only troops left there will be guarding the giant fucking Embassy that Cheney built.

*

The largest embassy in the world.

There is ALSO four 'bases' that are the largest in the world, that we'll be staying also, it will take ten's of thousands to maintain and support each compound FOREVER.

Anonymous said...

The WAR isn't OVER PUSSY, until the OCCUPATION is over.

THE IRAQ OCCUPATION will NOT be over until the USA is BK.

Anonymous said...

The Republicans keep going to the same well again and again, and it's starting to come up dry.

No...I think Obama has them cornered.

*

ONLY TIME will tell.

YOU have obviously isolated you life to the comic-shop.

What fucking PEOPLE know is that under BUSH they had a job, given that between election and say next year as we go to 20% un-employment it will be EASY to blame OREO, cuz it was good under BUSH.

YOUR GIVING the USA people too much fucking credit, all they know is that UNDER BUSH they had a job, and under OREO they lost their job.

The comic MAN is out of touch.

Anonymous said...

Jindal is no Gingrich.

*

Gingrich is coming back.

Duncan McGeary said...

Obama has made a very public effort to reach out to the Republicans.

The Republicans have Limbaugh.

Who is going to look more reasonable?

Bush was a creature of the right, and an abject failure, and now they're trying to distance themselves-- by going even FARTHER right.

It's a moron move.

The 20% base is orgasmic about it, they finally can let their freak flags fly.

And I say, stay true to your pure evil nuttiness. Please....

Duncan McGeary said...

"Gingrich is coming back."

Oh, please let it be so.

Duncan McGeary said...

I remind you, Obama has only been in office for a month. I doubt anyone who has lost his job in the last month blames him, except the lunatic fringe.

The more lunatic, the better.

Anonymous said...

OREO for a month? Feels like a century of JIVE, at least the 'W' was funny, the OREO ain't even fucking funny.

When is the SNL going to create some fucking material?

This FUCKER is like CONDI he walks and talks like he's got porch furniture up his arse.

Anonymous said...

I doubt anyone who has lost his job in the last month blames him, except the lunatic fringe.

The more lunatic, the better.

*

CAUSE & EFFECT don't fucking matter, and BESIDES dunc-shit, OREO has been in power since 11/05/2008, that's when the PUG's handed over the power.

So try four fucking months of OREO.

Anonymous said...

Say what's you WANT dunc, cuz you ain't a real liberal, anymore than the BP, or HP.

Every one in BEND is PUG-SHIT.

Atlantic Monthly ( a lib rag ) predicted last summer that OREO would be a one term prez, and most hated in history, its the fucking LEFT that's going to hate his ass.

OREO is MORE BUSH THAN BUSH.

Bewert said...

Gallup today:

February 27, 2009
Obama Approval Rating Increases to 67%

Had dropped to 59% prior to his Tuesday congressional address

"In the days immediately after Barack Obama's nationally televised address to Congress on Tuesday night, his public support has increased significantly to 67% in Feb. 24-26 Gallup Daily polling, and is now just two points below his term high. This comes on the heels of a term-low 59% reported by Gallup on Tuesday....Obama's approval rebound is due to increased support from all political groups, but especially from independents and Republicans, whose support had been waning. Over the past week, independents' approval of Obama dropped from 62% to 54%, but is now back to 62%. There has been a sharp increase in support among Republicans, from 27% to 42%. Democrats' support for Obama was already extremely high at 86%, but even this has climbed slightly, to 90% in the latest polling."

###

Yep, he's in trouble all right.

Anonymous said...

US-BANK to make a fortune off dunc's un-employed that don't exist.

Note its $3 at the money machine, and that's when I'm on the same exchange.


Oregon contracts with U.S. Bancorp to provide jobless benefits

Fri. February 27, 2009; Posted: 04:09 PM


Feb 26, 2009 (The Bulletin - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- USB | Quote | Chart | News | PowerRating -- Even though money is loaded onto Joe Gardner's state-issued benefits card on a weekly basis, he doesn't withdraw cash until the end of the month.

He does that for a couple reasons. First, it's easier to ensure he has enough money in his account to pay the rent. Second, he doesn't want to pay transaction fees for regularly taking out money, he said.

The Oregon Employment Department gives its unemployment recipients two options. They can get money deposited directly into their bank accounts or they can receive their benefits via a Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp-issued ReliaCard.

Oregon is one of 30 states across the U.S. where states have contracted with banks to provide card services for unemployment benefits. The banks that work with states include Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase, according to a recent article by The Associated Press.

The banks say their programs offer convenience and savings to consumers and state governments. The U.S. Department of Labor, responding to complaints from congressional leaders about tacking fees onto unemployment benefits, says it will allow the fees as long as states create a way for recipients to get their money for free, according to the AP article.

Some banks charge consumers for checking the balance on their accounts or charge overdraft fees of up to $20, according to the AP article.

Gardner, 26, lost his job from Jeld-Wen Windows & Doors in Bend five months ago, he said. He gets $95 per week and is wary of the $1.50 bank fees added anytime he withdraws money from another bank.

U.S. Bank allows cardholders to withdraw money from its branches twice each month for free, but each additional withdrawl costs $1.50, according to the state's Web site.

"I have always had a problem with that," said Gardner, waiting at the state Department of Human Services in Bend on Wednesday to apply for food stamp benefits. "It is just how they are doing it, I guess."

U.S. Bank defended its bank card program, saying the ReliaCard can be used free of charge.

"There is no fee to pay for purchases or get cash back at the point of sale, no fee for a customer to check his or her balance by ATM, phone or Web, no monthly account fees and no statement fees," Teri Charest, a Minneapolis-based spokeswoman, wrote in an e-mail. "The card eliminates expensive check-cashing fees which are typically 2 to 3 percent or more of the check value. Also, cardholders have immediate access to the funds as soon as the state loads the funds to the card."

Nationally, the market for bank-issued unemployment cards is booming due to a 7.6 percent national unemployment rate, according to the AP article. In 2003, states paid $4 million of unemployment benefits through debit cards. By 2007, it had ballooned to $2.8 billion, and by 2010 it will likely rise to $10.5 billion, according to a study conducted by Mercator Advisory Group, a financial industry consulting firm, the AP reported.

The state began contracting with U.S. Bank three years ago, saving the state money by dropping a check-based benefits system, said Craig Spivey, a spokesman for the Oregon Employment Department, in Salem.

When a person files for unemployment, he or she is given an information packet that spells out the direct deposit and bank card option, including what fees may be charged, Spivey said.

"We started offering ReliaCard as an option for two reasons," Spivey said. "A lot of people who receive unemployment benefits don't have bank accounts, so they would get large check-cashing fees. Another reason is that the state was trying to find ways to streamline and save money on the administrative end."

In January, the state paid out $129.1 million for 66,519 unemployment claims, including $7.6 million for 4,406 claims from Deschutes County, according to the department.

Deschutes County's unemployment rate in December was 11.3 percent. The rate was 13.3 percent and 14 percent in Jefferson and Crook counties, respectively.

"We have been doing this for three years and any complaints on the system have been next to nothing," Spivey said. "Claimants really love this program. They get their money faster and they don't have check-cashing fees. From the standpoint of what claimants used to face versus what they face now, this is a much better system."

The system works for David Roosa, 45, a laid-off construction worker who was applying for food stamps Wednesday. Because Roosa does not have a bank account, the bank card is more convenient for him than receiving checks. Roosa draws $113 per week in benefits from the state.

"I usually go to the store and draw extra money out when I buy groceries," Roosa said. "The store won't charge anything for cash back."

Box with story: Understanding fees For Oregon unemployment recipients who receive benefits on a prepaid ReliaCard Visa card, there will be no fees for the following:

--The first two cash withdrawals per month from U.S. Bank, either from a U.S. Bank ATM or a U.S. Bank teller.

--Purchases from merchants who accept Visa debit cards (look for the Visa logo).

--Cash back with purchase from merchants who accept Visa debit cards.

--Replacement of lost cards.

--Monthly statements, online and paper.

--ATM balance inquiries made at a U.S. Bank ATM.

--Customer service inquiries.

In these circumstances, transaction fees apply:

--The third or more ATM or teller withdrawal per month.

--Cash withdrawals made at non-U.S. Bank ATMs will incur a $1.50 fee per transaction. ATM owners may assess an additional surcharge.

--Balance inquiries made at non-U.S. Bank ATMs may incur a fee from the ATM owner even if a transaction is not completed.

--Rush delivery of a replacement card is $15.

--Account overdrafts are $17 per transaction. As a one-time courtesy, U.S. Bank may reverse the overdraft fee.

Anonymous said...

Obama Approval Rating Increases to 67%
Had dropped to 59% prior to his Tuesday congressional address

###

The magic negroe, still got da fucking magic.

Just give him some more time, he'll fuck himself.

He's too fucking 'condi-like'.

Reminds me of HRC with dressed like a man, and painted black.

Yep, I figured he'd be fifty-even this week, well there's always next month.

Anonymous said...

The OREO's problem ain't the RIGHT, its the LEFT.

The LEFT is ones that are pissed, the RIGHT are just smiling.

Duncan McGeary said...

No, they'll grumble, but they'll go along.

Obama is just like Condi.

He's black.

She's black.

Um......


OH, yeah, he's black and she's black and....


um...................

Anonymous said...

>"Obama's approval rebound is due to increased support from all political groups, but especially from independents and Republicans, whose support had been waning. Over the past week, independents' approval of Obama dropped from 62% to 54%, but is now back to 62%. There has been a sharp increase in support among Republicans, from 27% to 42%. Democrats' support for Obama was already extremely high at 86%, but even this has climbed slightly, to 90% in the latest polling.

WOW, it looks like Buster is right... 10% of the left is PISSED. That's huge!! I knew he was going to be a failure. Man, people hate this guy. He's doing worse than Carter after a month - and Carter only had a 71% approval after a month. Can you believe it? 10 percent. Wow. What a fuckup. er... wait... oh.. that's 2% disapprove and 8% have no opinion? Shit...


Remember the good old days of Bush? Now THAT guy was likeable. He started out with a big 57% approval. That stomps the shit out of Obama's 67... oh shit. nevermind.

Anonymous said...

That really surprises me. Usually Buster is spot on when it comes to anything involving politics.

Insert tongue to cheek.

Anonymous said...

Well, looks like the predictions regarding Bank of the Casades didn't come true!


Portland Business Journal

RBC analyst Joe Morford said Bank of the Cascades has good long-term growth prospects, an outstanding management team and an established community banking track record.

Greg Newton, CFO for Cascade Bancorp and Bank of the Cascades, said "We know there's been some real estate market uncertainty," he said. "But with our stabilizing margin, along with our improving loans and deposits that led to a better earnings per share than the market was expecting, we're very pleased."

Anonymous said...

Democrats' support for Obama was already extremely high at 86%, but even this has climbed slightly, to 90% in the latest polling.

*

State of the Union, Coronation Jan-20,... Just give it some time, the OREO is going down, and going to make CARTER look like a hero of his own time.

OREO should have gone below 50 this week, but the press loves the guy, and lets face it, the pugs brought out an idiot, they're just buying their time.

Anonymous said...

Tonight went to BENDBB's trailer party, and what do you know, HP, & BP are there, and on the walls of the trailer is the fucking back page of the local BULL from 10/28/08, looks like the pulled it out of every fucking issue in town.

WHY? Why? Why?

Anonymous said...

Obama is just like Condi.

*

They both look like they got patio furniture up their ass. Especially when the walk.

Just give the OREO some time, so we can see the real OREO, right now he's not had time to be himself.

I love all the PUG's here defending the OREO, I guess they realize he's one of their own.

Anonymous said...

DEJU-VU two OREO's with the same case of constipation.

...

Finally, the constipated one, who remains so stubborn and adamant about a practically non-existent foreign policy masked by completely irrational if not impossible (and invisible) diplomacy got taken down big time by the right in the conservative Insight Magazine’s “Dump Condi” article: “…[S]he is incompetent and has reversed the administration?s national security and foreign policy agenda.” Remember when they wanted her to be the next president?!?

Back in the reality-based world, PostGlobal asked a panel of experts how they’d advice Condi. Interesting array of answers have been posted here, capped by David Ignatius’s op-ed.

.

The multilateral panel that met in Rome is now qualified to call their respective consituents screaming “America is mad” after the U.S. (Sec. Rice & her “birth pangs“) became the primary obstacle in brokering any sort of cease-fire. As Marc Lynch noticed — with one eye on Arabic TV at all times — the Arab world is already more or less convinced that this Israeli offensive is only part of “the American project for a new Middle East.”

Anonymous said...

Condi is a neocon, OREO a ziocon, ...

So? Perhaps the LEFT really are more evil than the right??

Condoleezza Rice: Naked Ambition, By Marcus Mabry

Why did a brilliant, left-leaning Democrat fall for the ultimate bad boy, George W Bush?

Reviewed by Cal McCrystal

Sunday, 14 October 2007

In 1964, when Condoleezza Rice was 10, the American author Vance Packard published a memorable book, The Naked Society. It described, among other things, the screening to which job applicants in the United States were subjected, including a lengthy personality test demanding answers to questions such as: "What do you think of your father and mother?", "How often are you bothered by either constipation or loose bowel movements?", "Do you consider yourself ugly?" and "How much are you troubled by itching?".

The book exposed a system in which ordinary Americans were stacked according to ability, colour and "attitude". The implication was that, should you wish to get on in life, you'd better (a) talk out of the side of your mouth; (b) keep your nose clean; (c) worship the political leadership; (d) exude patriotic fervour, and (e) lie about those bowel movements.

Mr Mabry avoids unseemly prying, other than to mention that the black child who is George W Bush's secretary of state "never had to go to the bathroom like children do", while emphasising Condi's positive regard for her strict, but loving, parents. The latter were especially careful in the grooming department. In racist Alabama where their only child was born, they eschewed political protest, abhorred the idea of black "victimhood" and toiled single-mindedly upwards and outwards until they passed from the middle class into the "aristocracy" (as they came to regard themselves).

Their daughter followed suit, riding life's currents "like a shark". Her childhood was bereft of bicycles, skipping-ropes, ball games, sleepovers and trick-or-treats. Instead, there were lessons in violin, glockenspiel, flute, French and Spanish, ballet, book clubs, elocution, manners, dress and decorum. Cajoled by her Presbyterian father, Rev John Rice, to join the Republicans because they "look out for each other and take care of each other", Condoleezza Rice became a nicely rounded – and "autocratic" – neocon who, according to Mabry's researches, would tell an emotional black colleague to "don't act niggerish!".

Her careers in political science, university administration, international relations (with emphasis on Sovietology), and the National Security Council were resounding successes – until, that is, their fateful confluence with that of George W Bush. Why did Dr Rice, a former Democrat of fairly liberal – some say Marxist – bent, ally her remarkable intelligence to miserable hurdy-gurdy neocons grinding their discord through the nation and beyond it; to a political conservatism whose record is as much an illustration of stultified censure and retorted contempt as was Packard's The Naked Society? Why did this brilliant woman fall for a president whose work and worth are darkly painted on a crimson sky – the scion of a rich family who used to drink himself silly, and having stopped drinking stayed silly; who as president, knowing little about "abroad", has endangered Americans and put the rest of us on tenterhooks?

Part of the answers may lie in a remark, quoted by Mabry. "You know what?" Rice is alleged to have said. "The fun guys are all bad boys." The author adds: "There was no denying Bush was a bad boy."

Yet that explanation is hardly good enough in someone trained and exhorted at home to be "twice as good" (this book's US title). Nor is it enough to say that Rice was taken with the idea of teaching a US president the who-what-where-why of the world, or that "politically she liked his 'compassionate conservatism'". Rather it seems reasonable to accept, as Mabry seems to do, that Rice was emotionally incapable of much other than achieving success, in whatever forum she frequented.

Her distinguished piano teacher at Denver University told her she was "too detached emotionally" to be a great pianist, which is why she abandoned music as a career. One of her friends observed later that Rice "couldn't empathise with those less fortunate than she". Her stepmother, Clara Rice, declines to criticise the secretary of state, but allows: "I think they put her on such a high pedestal that she couldn't see down far enough." A Rice employee's view is less charitable: "I observed a cold-hearted, merciless way of dealing with people... so little compassion, so little humanity." Other assessments from those who have been close to her include: "heartless and mechanical", unable to admit to error, "evasive", "lied through her teeth", "disloyalty to the truth".

On the evidence of this book – scrupulously fair, often admiring – it is alarming that Condoleezza Rice could be considered as a future occupant of the White House. Bush, in adoration mode, would call her "the most powerful woman in the history of the world", but this was more a comment on his own mastery of hyperbole than of Dr Rice's mastery of diplomacy.

The catastrophe in Iraq and its immeasurable repercussions have worried Rice less than what she has conceded privately to be a "dysfunctional US government". Publicly, she has acted as "the administration's defender-in-chief", displayed "her phenomenal skill at spinning" and featured as a heroine of infantile journalism. (The magazine Esquire found Rice was men's choice to take as a date to a dinner party.)

For the most part this book is engrossing, relying greatly on interviews with Rice's family, friends, colleagues and other "Condinistas" as well as on several hours with the subject herself. The second half drags somewhat, reading too much like a newspaper cuttings job. Yet this doesn't detract from Condoleezza Rice as an extraordinary African-American woman who has an oil tanker named after her and might well be vice-president of the United States someday.

Anonymous said...

What next??

BP & HP are now talking about taking back page of the the entire sunday BULL main section this week.

When will it end? Will will they quit stealing pages from our BULL?

Anonymous said...

"Obama is not a progressive. NOT even close. Nor, do I suspect he is Black. At least not by the standards of the Congressional Black Caucus is he as Black as say, Kucinich. With a 70% rating he is not very Black...

Obama is a war whore, ready to attack Pakistan and Iran...
Obama claims the U.S. is "coddling" Iraqis..."
(yeah, right, after killing a second million of them - out of a population of 17 million!)

His tactic: take the black vote for granted while selling out to the corporations - collecting $25 in campaign funds.
What future for the party is there in that?

Conclusion: Obamamania is a hoax and a betrayal of the progressives in the Democratic party.

For my part, I've been wondering, is the Obama candidacy good for AA's?
His showing that a black man can win delegates has been a coup, in a positive sense.
But if he wins the nomination and loses the election, it could set more deserving, more really black or progressive politicians, from ever being nominated.

This could be so also if he wins the general election and brings us 4 more years of bushist destruction. An Obama presidency will be bad for everyone except the corporations and the military industrial complex, Wall Street speculators.

So there are a lot of reasons for AA's to demand something substantive now from Obama in return for their support.
Programs, not tokenism. College scholarships, jobs, etc.

Like what earthly good did it do the average black American that Colin and Condi were in the Cabinet? One big zero.

Glen Ford agrees: http://www.counterpunch.org/ford01192007.html

"And what do African Americans get out of the deal? Far less than nothing. By assisting white Americans to believe that painless absolution of collective responsibility for the past and current national sins can be achieved by looking kindly on an ingratiating Black man’s presidential candidacy, Obama has become an active participant in the Great Diversion. He repeatedly reinforces the notion that noisy “partisan politics” is what’s wrong with America, rather than rapacious corporations, structural and overt racism, and rampaging militarism."

Thanks Obama for showing us what can be done, with no more than hope and... big bucks, and a free for all media carnival.
Real hope is not spelled with a Y. That will be enough of the hYpe for now.

Anonymous said...

CONDI BITCH say OREO good house nigger just like me,...

OBAMA FAN CONDI
HAILS DEM, SEES BLACK PREZ SOON
By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent


February 26, 2007

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gushed yesterday that Sen. Barack Obama is an "extraordinary person" and said it won't be long before the nation gets its first black president.

Sounding like she had come down with a severe case of Obama-mania, Rice affectionately referred to the Democratic senator - a Foreign Relations Committee member - as a member of "my committee," since she frequently testifies there.

"I think he's very appealing and a great person," she enthused. "He's on my committee. And we've always had good exchanges. I think he's an extraordinary person."

Rice - who has repeatedly denied having an interest in running for president herself - said barriers to blacks have been disappearing one by one, and that the door to the White House may soon swing open.

Asked about a recent Gallup poll in which 94 percent of respondents said they are willing to vote for an African-American for president, Rice responded, "I think it just shows that we've come a very long way. I do think we've come a long way in overcoming stereotypes, role stereotypes about African-Americans.

"I will say race is still a factor. When a person walks into a room, I still think people still see race," she continued, speaking on "Fox News Sunday."

"But it's less and less of a barrier to believing that person can be your doctor, or your lawyer, or a professor in your university, or the CEO of a company. And it will not be long, I think, before it's no longer a barrier to being president of the United States."

To illustrate how much blacks can achieve, Rice pointed to her own top-level Cabinet post.

"If I serve my full term, we will not have had a white male secretary of state for 12 years - a white woman, black man and a black woman. That's how far our country has come, even though we can't deceive ourselves. Race is still a factor in this country."

Rice was preceded by another African-American, Colin Powell, who was preceded by Madeleine Albright, the first female secretary of state.

Despite her praise, Rice ducked when asked whether Obama had the experience to be president.

"Oh, I'm not going to make that choice," she said. "The American people are going to make that choice."

Anonymous said...

Is CONDI jewish? Is OREO jewish??


The first Jewish-President-elect Obama is silent. This silence is part of the deliberate appeasment to his Zionist handlers. He is not facing any dilemma such damned if he speak and damned if he doesn’t. Of course, if he opens his mouth, he will be lyinglike any of the past presidents of Israel in the White House.

However, now that he is not saying a word and instead has chosen to keep surfing while the Palestinians are being butchered by the Nazis of our age, Obama is demonstrating tot eh world that he is an ineffectual, indifferent coward.
Obama spoke for eight minutes on Saturday to Condoleezza Rice but could not bring himself to say even one word about the savage Israeli attacks which continued on the second day, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians.

All an Obama spokesman was prepared to say was, “He (Obama) will continue to closely monitor these and other global events.” Bracketing the Israeli assaults with “other global events” is intended to suggest that the Israeli airstrikes were yet another of “global events’ that called for no more notice than the president-elect had already taken of them.

Obama was extremely quick in responding to the Nov 26 attacks in India. There he once more displayed his sick mindset with jumping to the conclusions. India has yet to prove that the attackers were Muslims from Pakistan. However, Obama was quick to jump to conclusions and state: “We stand with the people of India, whose democracy will prove far more resilient than the hateful ideology that led to these attacks.” We exposed this sickness of Obama mindset here long before he won the election.

Obama is reflection of a sick mindset. Browse media report and you will find total absence of the fact that Israel - with full backing of the US, UK and the UN - chose to disregard the democratic will of the Palestinian people when they elected a Hamas-led government in 2006.

There is no mention to the fact that Israel broke the truce on November 5 before facing the reaction from the Palestinians.

There is no mention to the fact that the rockets were launched by Islamic Jihad, not Hamas.

There is no mention to the fact that the siege on Gaza has been condemned by the UN as collective punishment that “constitutes a continuing flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

There is no mention to the fact reported by Haaretz that the genocide at Gaza was being planned even before Israel and Hamas entered an Egyptian-brokered “truce”. In front of all their critics who cried out that a truce would simply give Hamas time to rearm, Olmert and Barak can now grin with satisfaction, knowing that the truce was a ruse that Israel could use while it gathered intelligence in preparation for its next genocide. As Mechi Fendel, mother of seven in Sderot said: “What’s been happening in Gaza is fantastic” — although she still intends to vote for Netanyahu.

Imagine if the massacres of Gaza was now unfolding in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. President-elect Obama would not have his chief national security spokesperson Brooke Anderson telling the press that he was “monitoring” the situation, mindful that “there is one president at a time.” Obama himself would be speaking in person about the unthinkable horror of what was being inflicted on Israel.

But the dead and wounded are not Israelis — they’re Palestinians. And so today is a day for international handwringing mixed in with the occasional absolving from guilt for those who can do no wrong.

Once Obama takes office, is he going to find the political courage that he clearly lacks right now? His current willingness to duck for cover suggests that when it comes to Israel, the prevailing view across the Middle East — that it makes little difference who occupies the White House — is well-founded.

At the same time, one message will go out for the millionth time across the Middle East: the political leadership across the region is not just impotent but complicit in Israeli crimes against humanity and their Western masters largely indifferent when it comes to the misery inflicted on Palestinians.

Europeans colonialists will frown and say that the Israeli response is disproporationate, while Americans warlords won’t even go that far. Another few thousand young men will be radicalized and the foundation of their conviction will be that institutionalized political power is indifferent to their plight. What do we have to tell them if they ask with simple, straight forward questions to which the world has no answers.

Let us agree with Condi Rice and say: ‘We hold Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire, for violence.’ Let us agree with Zalmay Khalilzad that Israel has the right to self-defence.

By this definition and this standard, let us see what response and to what extent does the US deserve for lying to the world through its teeth, launching a war of aggression on Iraq and butchering at least 1,305,837 Iraqis
. For the reported 14 Israelis killed, Isreal has killed more than 300 Palestinians so far. By that proportion what does Iraq deserves to do to the US or what price the US should pay for its crime?

Let use simple logic and simple math without going into complications that Gaza is already occupied and they have the right to freedom, self-determination and self-rule.

Palestinians are accused of pre-empting the attacks. But what did Iraqis do to the US?Did Iraqis pre-empt any attacks on the US?
How is killing 14 Israelis criminal but not killing 1,305,837 Iraqis?

Why should only Israel have the right to self-defense? What about Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine?



Has the president busy in surfing any answer to these questions?

Anonymous said...

CONDI&OBAMA: AIG, The Stanford Group and Israel; Cozy as Bedbugs
Wall Street loses trillions of dollars, mostly from elderly stockholders and pension funds and no one seems to know where all that loot disappeared to?

It didn't evaporate, but it sure as hell is gone. Some reports put the money stolen, oops, missing from banks and accounts around the world at over 20 TRILLION dollars.

Where has all of that money in those 401K accounts and pension funds got off to?

Welcome to IDC Herzliya held each year in Israel.

"The Herzliya Conference is Israel‘s primary global policy annual gathering, drawing together Israeli and international participants from the highest levels of government, business, and academia to address pressing national, regional and world strategic issues."

Heavy emphasis on business, especially Wall Street banks.

"Sir" Allen and the Stanford Group

Another investment fund, the Stanford Group goes "Uh-Oh", billions of dollars disappear and who's to blame?

Maybe you should look at the recent Ninth Annual Herzliya Conference held in Israel, February 2-4, 2009 and attended by members of the Stanford Group.

Yes, that Stanford Group that seems to have lost at least 8 BILLION dollars of investors money.

The World Economic Crisis: Recalibrating Financial Risk, Management and Regulation

Ms. Joanne Thornton Senior Vice President, Policy Research, Stanford Group Company


The Stanford Group went belly up and defrauded investors of billions of dollars. Who's behind this monkey business?

Reading their list of employees is like reading a Bar Mitzvah guest list. Wonder if the luggage Joanne took to Israel for the 2009 conference was extra heavy, because a little over one week later, the SEC shed its blinders and started looking into his fund, AFTER the 8 BILLION mysteriously disappeared.

Had to give "Sir" Allen time and his fellow brigands time to get the plunder to the Kosher Nostra.

What other American financial company that lost billions and billions of investors money and is now being funded by the American taxpayer to the tune of over 200 billion was in Israel at this conference?

AIG

Prof. Jacob Frenkel Former Governor: Bank of Israel, Chairman, Group of Thirty (G-30); Vice Chairman, American International Group (AIG)


Not only is "Uncle Yakob" with AIG, he previously was with the now defunct Merril Lynch . Amazing set of coincidences.

Herzliya could mean "Take the Money in Run" in Yiddish, but is named after the Godfather of Zionism, Theodore Herzl.

Amazing. Yes, simply amazing. Wonder where all that money that disappeared from Wall Street 401K accounts and retirement fund went to?

Any guesses?

The only one missing from this "Swindler's List," is Bernie Madoff. But Bernie had already spirited much of the 50-100 BILLION in stolen loot back to the Mother Ship.

Besides hauling the loot to Israel, Bernie found time to spend some of that money on luxury homes, like the ones shown here.

An Aerial Tour of the Homes of Bernie Madoff and the Bailed-Out Bankers

Think any of that plunder made it back to the USA and into the pockets of our corrupt Congress?

Or maybe this is the "Clean Break: Securing the Realm" scenario talked about where Israel gets some type of outside money to permanently prop up that racist and apartheid, Jews only state.

A document written by some of the same thugs that lied the US into the Iraq War.

Thugs like, David Wurmser, Doug Feith and Richard Perle.

The Clean Break document here, says that "...[financial] self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past."

20 TRILLION dollars would keep Israel on its war mongering path for decades to come.

Anonymous said...

GALLOPING OREO

Obama's speech was well-received, and appears to have won him back support he had been losing in prior days, and then some.

The speech certainly came at an opportune time for Obama, but a recovery was easily achievable because the decline in his approval rating was accompanied by an increase in the percentage of Americans expressing no opinion, rather than an increase in the proportion disapproving of his performance in office.

Since the speech, the percentage having no opinion of Obama has fallen back to 11% from 16%, while his approval rating has increased eight points. There has been a slight drop in his disapproval rating as well, from 25% to 21%.

Anonymous said...

Obama has become an active participant in the Great Diversion. He repeatedly reinforces the notion that noisy “partisan politics” is what’s wrong with America, rather than rapacious corporations, structural and overt racism, and rampaging militarism.

*

YEP, the GREAT DIVERSION, that be the OREO, and he got the DUMB NUTS of BEND by the pug balls.

But Bend ain't got no AA ( colored ) so what we care?

Duncan McGeary said...

"Squid, like all cephalopods, have complex digestive systems. Solid waste is passed out of the rectum. Beside the rectum is the ink sac, which allows a squid to discharge a black ink into the mantle cavity at short notice."

Anonymous said...

>OREO should have gone below 50 this week,

The guy was handed the biggest shitstorm of our generation, a shitstorm that no one knows how to get out of with the least damage. It's a job that NOBODY could do to everyone's satisfaction. FACT.

So I'd say he's doing pretty well all things considered.

Anonymous said...

Bend police captain in FBI investigation announces retirement

A Bend police captain, who along with his wife and their companies is currently being investigated by the FBI, has given notice that he will retire, Bend Police Chief Sandi Baxter said Friday.

According to the Bend Police Department’s Web site, Kevin Sawyer started as a reserve police officer in 1977, and Baxter said Sawyer was hired full time in 1979.

He served stints as a traffic officer, narcotics investigator, SWAT commander, supervisor of the Central Oregon Drug Enforcement team, patrol sergeant and patrol lieutenant.

Most recently, Sawyer was promoted to captain and oversaw the investigations and support services division, including criminal investigation and drug enforcement detectives, as well as records and evidence.

Sawyer was placed on paid administrative leave beginning in January. He and his wife, Tami, as well as their companies, Baxter said, are currently the subject of an FBI investigation.

Baxter noted Sawyer’s police work is not part of the FBI investigation.

The pair has been heavily involved in real estate and run as many as six businesses out of their home and two offices. Last week, Oregon Real Estate Agency representative Dean Owens said The Sawyer Five closed its doors. The Sawyer Five was one of the companies registered with the Secretary of State’s Office in Kevin Sawyer’s name.

Sawyer and his lawyers had no comment on the case.

Anonymous said...

Why would he retire? He's getting paid for being investigated, isn't he? Previous story said he was on paid leave, didn't it?

Bewert said...

Re: Obama has become an active participant in the Great Diversion. He repeatedly reinforces the notion that noisy “partisan politics” is what’s wrong with America, rather than rapacious corporations, structural and overt racism, and rampaging militarism.

*

YEP, the GREAT DIVERSION, that be the OREO, and he got the DUMB NUTS of BEND by the pug balls.

But Bend ain't got no AA ( colored ) so what we care?

###

Business Groups Oppose Obama’s Budget After Supporting Stimulus

By Jonathan D. Salant

Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s proposed 2010 budget is running into opposition from some of the same business groups that backed his stimulus package.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers issued statements criticizing the $3.55 trillion proposal, which would raise taxes on businesses and wealthy Americans to boost domestic spending and lay plans for a health-care system overhaul.

“The administration’s proposed budget will take us in exactly the wrong direction,” NAM President John Engler, a former Michigan governor, said in a statement yesterday. The benefits of the NAM-backed stimulus plan will be “dwarfed by major, job-destroying tax increases on thousands of manufacturers of all sizes across all industry sectors,” he said.

Obama’s budget, proposed yesterday, would impose almost $1 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade on the wealthiest Americans, Wall Street financiers, U.S.-based multinational corporations and oil companies to pay for tax breaks for lower earners as well as spending on health care, education and the environment.

“The budget is a new game” following approval earlier this month of the business-backed $787 billion economic stimulus plan, said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in Washington. The stimulus plan didn’t include major tax increases.

“If businesses can frame the proposal as being a roadblock to recovery, Obama will have to scale back his ambitions dramatically,” said David Primo, a political science professor at the University of Rochester in New York.

Small Businesses

Chamber of Commerce Vice President Bruce Jostenwrote today on the group’s Web site that the proposed tax increases would harm small businesses.

“They are the most successful of the businesses and the effects of increasing taxes will be significant,” wrote Josten. The chamber, the nation’s largest business lobby, represents companies including Armonk, New York-based International Business Machines Corp. and Beaverton, Oregon-based Nike Inc.

Another group that supported Obama’s stimulus plan, the Financial Services Roundtable, took aim at the president’s proposal to end subsidies for private student loan providers such as Reston, Virginia-based SLM Corp., better known as Sallie Mae, and making the federal government the sole provider of federally backed college lending.

“The president’s budget would end a successful public- private partnership that has fostered both innovation and competition that has benefited students,” said Steve Bartlett, president of the roundtable, whose members include New York- based Citigroup Inc. and Portland, Maine-based TD Banknorth Inc.

‘Strong Supporter’

Engler’s statement said the Washington-based manufacturers’ group was a “strong supporter” of the stimulus plan signed into law by Obama on Feb. 17. NAM Chairman Michael Campbell, chief executive of Norwalk, Connecticut-based Arch Chemicals Inc., stood with Senate Democrats Feb. 11 and endorsed the legislation.

NAM, whose members include Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries Inc. and Midland, Michigan-based Dow Chemical Co., has said its rankings of lawmakers will consider whether they supported the stimulus package because it would boost the economy.

Anonymous said...

The $3.5T doesn't have HP/BP chance in HELL every fucking LOBBYIST in DC is opposed, like every thing the OREO has done to date, this thing will NOT appear what he's selling when its approved.

Lastly, at the last count of the current OREO bills signed, and endorsed by PELOSI there are 9,000 'ear-marks', yes change & hope we can believe.

Anonymous said...

BUFEETEEE admits he's a fucking BP/HP IDIOT for selling derivative futures so CHEAP ( like selling PUT's ), he should have asked MORE money, and now he's retroactively demanding the new re-pricing and mark-to-market, to stop his fucking bleeding.

...

Buffett says derivative values can be misleading

By JOSH FUNK – 1 hour ago

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Billionaire Warren Buffett has devoted nearly five pages of his letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders to explaining the role derivatives played in the company's nearly $7.5 billion investment losses last year.

Buffett said in the letter released Saturday morning he initiated all of Berkshire's 251 different derivative contracts because he believes they were mispriced in Berkshire's favor.

Berkshire has received $8.1 billion in payments for derivatives which can be invested until the contracts expire years from now.

But Berkshire has to estimate the value of its derivatives every quarter. Buffett says he supports that mark-to-market accounting, but the formula used to estimate that value can produce absurd results for long-term contracts.

Anonymous said...

What do you get when you mix ink & shit? Comics.

What do you call it when the back pages are missing? HP-BP toilet paper.

Anonymous said...

Buffeeteet says BEND will go to comic shit in 2009, and 2010, and 2011, ... and remain in the shit

Buffett Says Economy Will Be ‘In Shambles’ for 2009 & On

By Rick Levinson

Feb. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire Warren Buffett said the economy will be “in shambles” for the rest of this year as financial firms take losses tied to reckless loans made during the housing boom.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index will probably gain in three-quarters of the next 44 years, just as it did in the period since Buffett took over Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in 1965, he said today in his annual letter to the company’s shareholders.

While Buffett and business partner Charlie Munger can’t predict how stocks will perform in 2009, they’re certain “that the economy will be in shambles throughout 2009 - and, for that matter, probably well beyond,” he wrote.

Gross domestic product shrank at a 6.2 percent annual pace from October through December, the most since 1982, the Commerce Department said yesterday in Washington. Buffett said the consequences of the U.S. housing bubble are now “reverberating through every corner of our economy.”

Home purchases should involve an “honest-to-God down payment of at least 10 percent,” Buffett said. “Putting people into homes, though a desirable goal, shouldn’t be our country’s primary objective.”

Buffett endorsed efforts by the U.S. government to prevent the failure of financial firms including Bear Stearns Cos., which was sold to JPMorgan Chase & Co.

‘Immediate Action’

“Whatever the downsides may be, strong and immediate action by government was essential last year if the financial system was to avoid a total breakdown,” Buffett said. “Had that occurred, the consequences for every area of our economy would have been cataclysmic. Like it or not, the inhabitants of Wall Street, Main Street and the various Side Streets of America were all in the same boat.”

Buffett’s letter accompanied the release of Berkshire’s fourth-quarter results, in which net income fell 96 percent to $117 million on losses from derivative bets tied to stock markets. Berkshire shares have fallen 44 percent in the past year as the value of the firm’s top stock holdings dropped and losses increased on the derivatives.

By the fourth quarter of last year, “the credit crisis, coupled with tumbling home and stock prices, had produced a paralyzing fear that engulfed the country,” Buffett said. “A freefall in business activity ensued, accelerating at a pace that I have never before witnessed. The U.S. - and much of the world - became trapped in a vicious negative-feedback cycle. Fear led to business contraction, and that in turn led to even greater fear.”

Anonymous said...

DEAD FUCKING MAN WALKING, JUST LIKE THE GOVERNMENT

Berkshire's fourth-quarter net income was $117 million, a whopping 96% decline from last year's $2.9 billion fourth-quarter income. The results mark Berkshire's fifth year-over-year quarterly decline in a row.

It's going to take more than hope & change, to keep buffeeete alive, its going to take confidence.

Anonymous said...

Do as I say, Not as I do, listen carefully KUNTS, ...

Buffett added that economic woes don't indicate "whether the stock market will rise or fall." And he contended that the "investment world has gone from underpricing risk to overpricing it." Future historians will comment on the Internet bubble of the 1990s and the housing bubble of the early 2000s, he said, adding, "But the U.S. Treasury bond bubble of late 2008 may be regarded as almost equally extraordinary."

###

All done by Geithner&bernanke, BUSH can argue that he would have fired Geithner from the FED and not promoted him, OREO has set himself to be blamed for one MOFU mess.

Anonymous said...

Buffet's HP/BP move was buying two IRISH cacb's -

He also said he made a $244 million investment in two Irish banks "that appeared cheap." At year-end, Berkshire wrote the holdings down to their market value of $27 million, an 89% loss on the investment.

Anonymous said...

This here is MOST IMPORTANT TO KUNTS OF BEND SOMETHING I HAVE LONG PREDICTED

BEND WILL BK, and BUFFEETE will have to PAY the claim, hell yes BEND will BK, cuz MOSS (MDU-JRMB) has driven up our DEBT so high, that we no longer even have enough revenue to pay the interest.

Still, Mr. Buffett sounded a warning for the municipal-bond insurance business: the risk that local governments running short of cash may decide to default on bond payments if they carry bond insurance. Shortfalls in many local cities' and states' pension funds at the end of the year were "staggering," he wrote, and could push some local governments to inflict pain on bond insurers.

"What mayor or city council is going to choose pain to local citizens in the form of major tax increases over pain to a far-away bond insurer?" Mr. Buffett said.

Anonymous said...

"But the U.S. Treasury bond bubble of late 2008 may be regarded as almost equally extraordinary." ( as dot-com, or DOT-RE )

###

All done by Geithner&bernanke, BUSH can argue that he would have fired Geithner from the FED and not promoted him, OREO has set himself to be blamed for one MOFU mess.

***

This is where the FUCKING comic dunc arg is lame, OREO telegraphed to the fucking WORLD back on NOV 5, 2008 that Geithner would be RUNNING THE world, which was code for MORE of the fucking same, more BUSH-THAN-BUSH.

In time OREO will plummet like hell, just like BUFFETE he's manufactured his own 'aura', but he'll go MADE-OFF, he will,

OREO is an empty suit that is more bush-than-bush. The real question is how well does OREO's Teflon work?

Anonymous said...

Buffeeete say's Treasury Bond Bubbles are next fucking PANIC, ... so what does he really mean? Let's go back to what the experts were say Dec 08, after OREO was elected, and GEITHNER&BERNANKE 'made gold'.

...

When Treasury Bond Bubble Bursts
Dec 12th, 2008 | By Martin Hutchinson

The Fed and Treasury are doing untold damage to the US economy and the dollar with their unprecedented bailout spending, says Martin Hutchinson. That’s why there will soon be a stampede to the exits from the Treasury bond market. Martin gives four ways for investors to prepare for the coming crash.

This from Money Morning:

The plethora of bank and corporate bailouts, stimulus plans and interest-rate cuts that the U.S. government has produced over the last three months can only lead to one outcome: The U.S. dollar has to decline.

During the crisis so far, the dollar in general, and U.S. Treasury bonds in particular, have been regarded as a “safe haven,” making the dollar strong and pushing long-term U.S. Treasury rates downward. In the New Year, however, this is likely to change – the weight of the added supply of dollars in circulation will be too great for the greenback to shrug off.

Back in November 2007, when I wrote about the U.S. dollar becoming the “Bernanke peso,” I suggested that the dollar – then trading at $1.50 to the euro – would get weaker. Alas, I was wrong: It is currently trading at $1.29 to the euro, although it did reach $1.60 in May. However, I recommended buying not euros, but yen. The chaos of 2008 has reversed the decline in the dollar against the euro, but not against the yen, which has reached Yen 92.8 = $1 compared to a rate of Yen 114.8 = $1 when I wrote the piece. A gain of 24% against the dollar is not bad, and indeed I defy you to find a stock market that has done as well over that period.

The fundamentals tending to weaken the dollar remain. The U.S. trade deficit was $57.2 billion in October, which annualizes to $700.3 billion – down but a little from the 2006 peak of $758 billion. Although the recession and recent sharp decline in the value of U.S. oil imports will reduce the U.S. trade deficit further – perhaps to $500 billion annually – there is still no reason why foreigners should continue to so highly rate the currency of a country that is running a $500 billion balance-of-payments deficit, and a $1 trillion budget deficit.

After a pause during the summer, the U.S. money supply has begun rising again rapidly. The excess money has flowed into Treasury bonds, sending the yield on the 10-year bond down to a recent 2.71%. The distortion in the market can be shown by the yield on the 10-year Treasury Inflated Protected Securities (TIPS), which was 2.44%; that combination of prices said that investors expect U.S. inflation to average a mere 0.27% annually over the next 10 years.

Clearly that’s nonsense; the explanation is that yields on long-term Treasury bonds have been driven far below their economically appropriate level. In other words, U.S. Treasury bonds are currently benefiting from a bubble, and like the bubbles that we’ve seen in Japanese stocks, real estate, U.S. tech stocks, the American housing market and global commodities, this bubble, too, will ultimately burst.

The budget deficit in the 12 months through to September was $455 billion, but that’s expected to expand to close to $1 trillion in the year to September 2009 – and that’s even before President-elect Barack Obama’s stimulus plan, which is expected to cost at least $500 billion, and could possibly cost that much a year over several years.

If that’s surprising, consider this: The U.S. budget deficit was $237.2 billion in October 2008, a record monthly figure. That puts a huge strain on the U.S. Treasury Department’s financing capacity, and will probably result in the U.S. Federal Reserve printing yet more money, since the alternative would be for the huge amounts going into Treasuries to choke off demand for private investment – not the desired objective. With more money being printed, inflation is likely to soar and the dollar to weaken.

Net foreign purchases of long-term U.S. securities declined to $793 billion in the 12 months to September 2008, from $1.03 trillion in the previous year. Of those purchases, Treasury bonds and notes represented $385 billion, up from $192 billion in the previous year, while purchased corporate bonds shrank from $447 billion to $168 billion. Thus, the “flight to quality” has so far been enormously helpful in enabling the U.S. Treasury to finance its growing budget deficit; in October and November it will doubtless have been even more so.

Anonymous said...

I'm new to Bend.

Somebody tell me why this Bp & Hp are removing pages from the old copies of the Bulletin at the library??

Anonymous said...

Well established that this group is a vast collection of illiterate moron, HP, & BP included and CP ( comic pussy 'DP'? ), ... Yes, BUSH is an asshole, and so is OREO, but do ameriKKKans not get the leadership they deserve? The following is an excellent story about what it means to be the 'worst us president in history'.


Was George W. Bush the Worst President?
A historian urges us to take a deep breath before we answer.


By THOMAS FLEMING

Several polls of historians have named George W. Bush the worst president in American history. This baffles me. I've been writing about presidents for a long time. What I know, and what I presume these gentleman know, doesn't connect.


Is Mr. Bush worse than John Adams? When a shooting war at sea started between the United States and revolutionary France in 1798, Honest John wrote a letter to George Washington, offering to resign so that George could resume the job. How's that for presidential leadership? Meanwhile, Adams had kept Washington's cabinet officers on the job, although he loathed them. He finally fired them in a fit of hysteria, which made them wonder if he had lost his mind.

Is Mr. Bush worse than Thomas Jefferson in his second term? Rather than build a decent navy to deal with the British -- who had a habit of boarding American ships on the high seas and forcing kidnapped sailors into semislavery -- Jefferson declared an embargo on all trade with England and the rest of Europe. The American economy came to a horrific standstill; smuggling became New England's chief industry. Someone described the embargo as "cutting a man's throat to cure a nosebleed." Nonplussed, Jefferson quit, telling only James Madison, his secretary of state, who was de facto acting president for the last year of Tom's term.

James Madison, who officially succeeded Jefferson in 1808, made presidential passivity into an art form. "Little Jemmy," as they called him in New England, watched while 4,500 British troops disembarked from their ships, marched to Washington, D.C., and burned the White House, the Capitol and almost everything else worth torching. You can't do much worse as a war leader than that performance.

Woodrow Wilson? When World War I exploded, Irish-Americans objected to his pro-British tilt. Wilson responded that ethnics like these loudmouthed micks were "pouring poison into the veins of our national life," alienating the largest voting bloc in the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, as a Southern-born pol to his wingtips, he segregated almost all employees of the federal government.

Next, Wilson talked Congress into declaring war on Germany on the assumption that we would not have to send a single soldier to France. Before the war ended, we had 2,000,000 troops overseas, and in three months of fighting lost 144,000 men.

Elected by seven million votes thanks to the electorate's loathing for Wilson, Warren G. Harding confessed to reporters that he was not up to the job. He told one newsman that he wanted to make the U.S. tariff higher than the Rocky Mountains to help Europe's industries recover from World War I. The appalled reporter realized the president had one of the biggest issues of the era exactly backward.

Harding had a concealed box at the Gayety Burlesque Theater where he spent many afternoons and nights. In the leftover hours he concentrated on poker and trysts with a blonde named Nan Britton -- reputedly in a closet off the Oval Office -- while his appointees looted the federal government.

Is Mr. Bush worse than Roosevelt in his second term? Re-elected by a massive majority, FDR wanted to pack the Supreme Court with Democrats. Congress, dominated by members of his own party, wasted a year wrangling over the bill and ultimately rejected it. Meanwhile, FDR's intemperate remarks about greedy businessmen wrecked confidence and triggered a semireplay of the Great Depression in 1937. The Republicans made massive gains in the 1938 midterm elections. FDR was rescued from an exit even more humiliating than Jefferson's by World War II, which he used as an excuse to run for a third term.

Worse than Jimmy Carter, the self- proclaimed Washington "outsider" who presided over the most horrendous stagflation in our history? As his poll numbers sank, Mr. Carter had the temerity to lecture citizens on their "crisis of spirit." His approval rating had plummeted to 22% when Ronald Reagan defeated him. Let us skip Bill Clinton. He and Bush are too contiguous; proximity makes comparisons inevitably rancorous.

My purpose is not to denigrate these men. John Adams had great political courage. He often espoused unpopular views, warning us, among other things, that a majority can be as tyrannical as a king or dictator -- something that we may need to remember in the next few years.

Thomas Jefferson displayed good judgment in his first term when he put aside his ideological scruples and purchased the Louisiana Territory. James Madison deserves admiration for the way he gave his remarkable wife, Dolley, a chance to create the role of First Lady and establish women as important political players. Woodrow Wilson's idealism was flawed, but his vision of America's role as a world power was profound. FDR's masterful confrontation with the fear created by the Great Depression made his first term an unforgettable achievement.

In this light, however wavering, maybe it's time to suspend the rush to judgment on George W. Bush for 10 or 20 years. I suspect we will decide Mr. Bush's first term, with his decisive response to 9/11, deserves some praise, and that his second term succumbed to an awesome amount of bad luck, from his generals' disagreements on how to fight the war in Iraq to the Wall Street collapse of 2008.

Many presidents have run out of luck in their second terms, but Mr. Bush's record in this department will be hard to match. Beyond the popularity polls there may be a dimension we should remember in judging every president: sympathy.

Mr. Fleming is a former president of the Society of American Historians. His most recent book, "The Perils of Peace, America's Struggle to Survive After Yorktown," (Smithsonian) has just been issued in paperback.

Anonymous said...

HP&BP are getting REAMED a new FUCK-HOLE over at the SORE about their creating a hysteria about missing pages from the BULL.

...


I believe the letter HBM posted was the fact that backed up my claim. I allowed him to do it because this is his blog, and he's the reporter who misstated the fact originally in his column. And, I had no doubt he'd get it right.

Now I understand that it's his duty to jump on anything he can find to diminish Bend's mainstream press, but I hope that he learned that following up on newly discovered information with the parties both accused and involved is the prudent way to practice journalism. (In fact, rather than continually speculating and plotting out what your new information might mean, why don't you make some phone calls, ask for the records yourself and find out if your speculation is correct?) Just because you want to believe something, and a source seems to support you, doesn't mean the buck's meant to stop there. It seems the laziness and lack of true, ambitious reporting The Wandering Eye constantly criticizes regarding other media outlets doesn't always apply to the criticizer. I have no beefs with this column or TS Weekly in general. I love the alternative viewpoint it typically provides. But I also love the truth, and the lazy route toward "truthiness" only diminishes the value of the news, regardless if it's reported by the mainstream media or those who police it.

Anonymous said...

Then HPuss responds, ... ( The case of missing toilet tissue )

HPuss said:
"I believe the letter Hpuss posted was the fact that backed up my claim."

Yes ... if one believes Ms. High's story that it was all an honest mistake, a mere clerical error, and that the Iverson Group was really the contributor even though The Bulletin was listed as the contributor. Frankly I remain skeptical.

In the first place, Ms. High did not come up with this story until after Bruce Ewert discovered the record of the $4,000 Bulletin in-kind contribution and told the Secretary of State's office about it, prompting them to investigate.

In the second place, High also handled the contributions from COAH and COAR and apparently didn't make any mistakes in how she reported them, so she obviously knew how to do it. Odd that she would screw up in this one particular case.

"he's the reporter who misstated the fact originally in his column"

I did not misstate any fact. I reported that ORESTAR records showed a $4,000 in-kind contribution by The Bulletin to BB-PAC on Ocyt. 28, 2008. That is an undisputed FACT. But High is NOW claiming the record is wrong because she made a mistake. This ex post facto excuse-making looks highly dubious, IMHO. But we probably will never know "the real story" because the SOS seems disinclined to pursue the case.

Anonymous said...

Every once in awhile the HPUSS is right, ... KILL COVA TODAY!!!!!!!!!


Trimming the Tourist Industry's Juicy Cut


Written by H 'Bruce-Wanna-Be' Puss
Friday, 27 February 2009

A move’s afoot in the state Legislature to change the formula under which the tourist industry gets the lion’s share of room tax revenue, and the industry is squealing.

Under present state law, 70% of the funds generated by taxes on hotel rooms and other visitor accommodations must go to tourism promotion and facilities. That’s a huge windfall for organizations like the Central Oregon Visitors Association (which, according to Director Alana Audette, got nearly half of its $2 million operating budget from transient room taxes) and its counterparts throughout the state.

So they’re not at all happy about Senate Bill 440, which would uncouple the room tax from tourism and allow the money to be used for anything the city or county that collects it sees fit.

According to KCBY-TV in the coastal town of North Bend, Katherine Hoppe, director of promotions and conventions, told the city council Tuesday night: “Right now because tourism generates lodging tax, which the majority of which the cities keep already, we feel like when you invest back into tourism, you're already investing back into the cities because you're creating a larger tax base the more visitors you bring in.”

If you can figure out the logic in that George W. Bushian statement you probably should be a professor of philosophy at Oxford.

The more coherent arguments The Eye has heard for spending 70% of room tax revenue on tourism promotion are (A) that tourists bring in money and create jobs and (B) that tourism encourages businesses to locate here because their executives visit the place, fall in love with it and decide to move their businesses here.

As for Argument A: Tourists undeniably do bring in money, and the tourist industry does create jobs. But they’re mostly low-wage, no-benefits, often part-time service jobs. And at the first downturn in business those jobs are gone. Tourism is a nice adjunct to the local economy, but it’ll never be a solid foundation for it.

Argument B is even shakier. We’ve been promoting the hell out of Central Oregon as a tourist destination for decades, and very few big private-sector companies that pay living-wage jobs have been lured in. A CEO might visit Bend, like it and buy a vacation home in Broken Top or Pronghorn, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to move his company here; decisions like that have to be based on more hard-headed calculations.

The City of Bend took in more than $3.4 million from its 9% transient room tax in the 2007-2008 fiscal year. Suppose we devote one-third of that to tourism promotion instead of 70%. That would put almost $1.4 million more a year in the city’s treasury.

Without even trying, The Eye can think of a half-dozen better things than tourism promotion to spend it on – like plowing the streets, fixing potholes and keeping cops on the force.

Anonymous said...

Just run an ad in craigslist and offer $10 for that paper, there should be tons of people with that old paper laying around in Bend that need $10.

*

Good question, even sherlock-dunc thinks this is a big story, hell if a page were missing from one of his 498M comic books, he would call the FBI.

WHY DOESN'T SOMEONE IN THIS FUCKING TOWN run a craigs-ad and offer some fucknut $1 for the paper and see find the infamous fucking page??

It seems to be that HP/BP may have pulled the page themselves from library and BULL, and then made that into a story of itself.

You have heard of "man bites dog", now we have "Pages disappears", but is this news? Especially MOST likely there's a full page ad there, and its presence would EMBARRASS BEND PUSSY.

Anonymous said...

“Right now because tourism generates lodging tax, which the majority of which the cities keep already, we feel like when you invest back into tourism, you're already investing back into the cities because you're creating a larger tax base the more visitors you bring in.”

If you can figure out the logic in that George W. Bushian statement you probably should be a professor of philosophy at Oxford.

*

But YOUR NOT 'investing' in tourism, your giving PORK to Audette & COVA to fund the polticial MACHINE of BEND.

This is still taxpayer dollars.

HBM is right, 'W' says NO-TAXES, but like TEAM-MOSS, taxpayer dollars seem to be ok to be pillaged by right-wing jeebus freaks.

Selectively they don't pay taxes, as they don't stay in BEND hotels.

Most jeebus-freaks are tax-exempt in Bend.

MOSS(MDU-JRMB) getting the city into TON's of DEBT is no big deal, as all $200M will be default on when we BK, so no taxes are involved.

PR&MARKETING is FOREVER what has made a shit-hole of BEND orygun.

Time to put Audette to pasture and shutdown COVA.

Anonymous said...

Feb 09 RE stats so far:

Bend SFR
59 sold @$210k median
1166 active
87 pending @$230k
77 contingent @200k, mostly short sales
Highest sale $699k
159 active over $700k

Deschutes County
all types residential
107 sold @$210 median
3565 active
Lots/Land
6 sold
1564 active
234 NOD's

Crook County
All residential
5 sold @150k median
450 active
Highest sale price $237k
166 acitve over $250k
OUCH! 80 month supply?

tim said...

Does anyone else hate the name "The Wandering Eye?" That name makes no sense to me, because whenever my eye begins to wander, it inevitably lands on an attractive lady. The column is rarely about the female body. The column over-promises and under-delivers.

Anonymous said...

tim said...
Does anyone else hate the name "The Wandering Eye?" That name makes no sense to me, because whenever my eye begins to wander, it inevitably lands on an attractive lady. The column is rarely about the female body. The column over-promises and under-delivers.


I've seen those folks down at the Sore, and read their shit. It ought to be called the Wonky Eye.

Anonymous said...

Bill Maher's New Rules:

February 20, 2009

New Rule: Now that banks have taken hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars, they must open another window.

And, not to be rude, last month, you were Washington Mutual, and now you're claiming to be J.P. Morgan Chase? Before I give you any more money, you're going to need to show me two forms of I.D.

New Rule: She gained weight. She lost weight. She's playing a retard with an accent in a Holocaust movie. She's taking her clothes off in harsh light, crying, wearing old lady makeup. For the love of God, can we give Kate Winslet her Oscar so we can get on with our lives?!

New Rule: We all have to tighten our belts. And, to start, John Boehner has to cut back on the bronzer. John Boehner is from Cincinnati. He works in Washington, D.C. It's February. Why the hell is he this color?! Are you playing the part of the loyal opposition, or Othello?

New Rule: Calm the hell down! [video shown of Asian woman throwing tantrum in airport] You just missed your flight. It's not the rape of Nanking! A comfortable airplane is going to take you across the Pacific in seven hours. It took Magellan a year, and he didn't freak out this much when cannibals ate his crew! So, you've got some time at the airport. Do what all the other Asian ladies do: ride the escalator ahead of me, and when you get to the bottom with your roller-bag, just stand there.

And, finally, New Rule: Stop pretending that other governments have nothing to teach us. From those socialists in Sweden, we can learn how to fix a banking crisis. And from our friends in China, we can learn how to punish the jerks who caused it.

You know, the ones who took bailout money and bought private jets made out of rubies and veal.

This is Dick Fuld of Lehman Brothers. [slide of Fuld] What a "dick" Fuld. He personally made $500 million in sub-prime mortgages, and he gets to keep it while you and I pay off his bad bets.

[slide of Madoff] This is Bernie Madoff. Bernie stole $50 billion, mostly from other Jews.

For Jews, this was the worst pyramid scheme since the actual pyramids.

Which brings me back to China. Now, a couple months ago, some greedy businessmen in China were caught spiking the milk they sold to children with melamine, a plastic-derivative which boosted the protein levels and, thus, their profits.

Well, you know what the Chinese are doing to the businessmen behind their milk scandal? They're putting them to death.

Talk about lactose intolerant.

Now, am I saying we should treat the bankers who poisoned our financial markets with tainted investments the way China treated its poisoners? Please, we're not China. We're just owned by China. So, no, I don't think we should put all the bankers to death.

Just two. I mean, maybe it's not technically legal, but, let's look at the upside. If we killed two random, rich, greedy pigs. I mean, killed. Like, blew them up at halftime at next year's Super Bowl. Or left them hanging on the big board at the New York Stock Exchange. You know, as a warning, with their balls in their mouth. I think it would really make everyone else sit up and take notice.

This crisis is rooted in greed. And if two deaths shocked a society of 300 million into acting decently enough to avoid this in the future, well, they'd die as heroes. And, you know, it's not like collateral damage isn't built into our assessment of things.

Cars kill almost 50,000 people a year, but we accept that as a fair price for being able to get around without riding on top of an animal.

So, two dead bankers really starts to look like a bargain. And isn't that what they love? Bargains?

Anonymous said...

From Obama's budget message:

Over the decades, the United States has grown and prospered when all Americans have shared
in the opportunities created by our economy. Bottom-up growth that empowers hardworking families to climb the ladder of success and raise their children with security, opportunity, and
hope for the future lies at the heart of the American dream. It is the responsibility of our elected
leaders to create the conditions for our people to aim high, work hard, and realize the full promise
of American life. Yet for far too long, the resilience, optimism,
and industriousness of the American people have been frustrated by irresponsible policy choices in Washington. Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care, and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected. In the face of these trade-offs, Washington has ignored the squeeze on middle-class families that is making it harder for them to get ahead. Our Government has spent taxpayer money without making sure the numbers add up and without making it clear and understandable to the American people where
their money was being spent. Tough choices have been avoided, and we have failed to make the wise investments we need to compete in a global, information-age economy.

While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as
neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not. They have taken
risks and piled on debts that while seemingly profitable in the short-term, have now proven to
be dangerous not only for their individual firms but for the economy as a whole. With loosened
oversight and weak enforcement from Washington, too many cut corners as they racked up record profits and paid themselves millions of dollars in compensation and bonuses. There’s
nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few.

This is the legacy that we inherit—a legacy of mismanagement and misplaced priorities, of missed opportunities and of deep, structural problems ignored for too long. It’s a legacy of
irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it.


I have nothing to add but: BRAVO! It's about fucking time!

The Repukelicans, of course, are screaming "class warfare!" -- after they've been waging war against the middle class for 30 fucking years.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else hate the name "The Wandering Eye?" That name makes no sense to me, because whenever my eye begins to wander, it inevitably lands on an attractive lady. The column is rarely about the female body. The column over-promises and under-delivers.

Thanks for the input. I'll ask Aaron if I can include a few titty pictures from time to time.

Anonymous said...

Redmond is hunting for a new city manager to replace the wife-beater. What is it about Central Oregon cities that leads them to make so many bad choices in hiring managers? The last two Bend city managers (before Eric King) were duds. Not long ago the guy Madras hired turned out to be a convicted felon and it cost Madras a fortune to buy out of his contract. And wasn't there some scandal involving a Prineville city manager a while back?

My theory: Central Oregonians are just too damn NICE. They're not hard-headed and cynical enough. They take what people say about themselves at face value. They think it's rude to ask tough questions or challenge somebody's veracity.

Just my hunch. Any others?

Anonymous said...

I mean, maybe it's not technically legal, but, let's look at the upside. If we killed two random, rich, greedy pigs. I mean, killed. Like, blew them up at halftime at next year's Super Bowl. Or left them hanging on the big board at the New York Stock Exchange.

I like the general idea, but it shouldn't be random. I nominate Madoff and the prick who owns that peanut processing plant that killed people with salmonella.

Also we should make the punishment fit the crime. Madoff could be choked to death with wads of $100 bills, and the other dickwad could be force-fed gallons of his own peanut butter until he croaked.

Anonymous said...

Every once in awhile the HPUSS is right, ... KILL COVA TODAY!!!!!!!!!

I don't want to kill it -- just realign our priorities to put more important stuff (basic city and county services) first.

Bewert said...

While, I contacted the person at the BULL whose name I was given by the reception girls who were surprised by the missing page, but no word back yet. She assured me she could find it and get me a copy.

So we'll see.

Anybody near Redmond? Their library probably has a copy. I'm getting really curious about actually seeing that ad. I read the BULL everyday and have a tough time remembering it.

Anonymous said...

If you take all hotel taxes, and put it into General Fund then COVA is dead, as COVA is a GOB cigar club, that is dependent upon corporate welfare.

Support this new bill in Salem is a stake in the heart of COVA.

Anonymous said...

So the Bpuss & Hpuss are too fucking stupid to put an ad in craigslist willing to pay $10 for the missing BULL?

Do I have to do it for you? Or do you NOT want it to be found which is why you pulled the pages?

Anonymous said...

By the TIME FDIC shut's down CACB the FDIC will be BEND-BROKE!!!


With 16 failed through February, can the FDIC handle 2009's 100 bank failures?

Posted Feb 28th 2009 9:12AM by Peter Cohan

The FDIC closed down two more banks yesterday. This puts the U.S. on pace for almost 100 bank failures this year (16 so far in 2009 x 6 = 96). And of course, the FDIC is severely undercapitalized and is going to be charging an emergency fee increase to its member banks to make up the difference.

The two banks that failed Friday?

* Heritage Community Bank of Glenwood, Ill. -- With $232.9 million in assets and deposits of $218.6 million, MB Financial Bank of Chicago will assume its deposits and take over its four offices.

* Security Savings Bank of Henderson, Nev. -- Security Savings had $238.3 million in assets and $175.2 million in deposits. Bank of Nevada in Las Vegas will assume its deposits and operate its two offices.

Meanwhile, the FDIC lacks the money to handle what could be 100 bank failures this year. The FDIC insures deposits on accounts worth up to $250,000 and estimates it will lose $65 billion through 2013 as a result of bank failures. It has 252 banks on its watch list and will increase its fees from banks by $27 billion to bolster its current low level of reserves -- $19 billion.
When you consider what would happen if people lost confidence in bank deposits, the increase is a small price to pay.

Anonymous said...

My theory: Central Oregonians are just too damn NICE. They're not hard-headed and cynical enough. They take what people say about themselves at face value. They think it's rude to ask tough questions or challenge somebody's veracity.

Just my hunch. Any others?

*

FUCK YOU HPUSS, never heard of Ron Garzini, the #1 prison booster in the USA and prior BEND city-manager, and still JRMB consultant and savior of GOB's of BEND??

Ronald. A. Garzini. Special Project Manager. City of Bend. JUNIPER RIDGE PARTNERS LLC

Anonymous said...

we can learn how to fix a banking crisis. And from our friends in China, we can learn how to punish the jerks who caused it.

*

Now that I agree with, in CHINA they say, kill one monkey, and silence 1,000, it would only take a few bankers to the gallows and our banking problems would be fixed in a week, but with all these golden-parachutes, its everybody's interest to wait like MOSS for their golden taxpayer shower.

Anonymous said...

From Obama's budget message:

*

Obama's writing team is two 24 yr old kids at starbucks, and they also wrote his coronation speech, so fucking what?

It don't mean shit. Its as about as useful as the term 'Bend Median', it don't mean shit.

Anonymous said...

While, I contacted the person at the BULL whose name I was given by the reception girls who were surprised by the missing page, but no word back yet. She assured me she could find it and get me a copy.

So we'll see.

Anybody near Redmond? Their library probably has a copy. I'm getting really curious about actually seeing that ad. I read the BULL everyday and have a tough time remembering it.

*

They set the BULL with pagemaker for some software, it would be easy to bring up that issue.

All 'advertisement' is invoiced, and a copy of the ad is attached, certainly in 'accounting' the BULL would have a copy of the ad and detail.

The H/B-puss seems to think that a missing page is the 'big story', but they don't really want to see the AD cuz that would end their conspiracy theory so they keep talking shit. Just run an ad in craigs-list for that all paper, and pay the $5 and get the ad, but then that would end the BIG-STORY of it not being found, ... Typically pussy stuff in BEND.

Anonymous said...

It has 252 banks on its watch list and will increase its fees from banks by $27 billion to bolster its current low level of reserves -- $19 billion.
When you consider what would happen if people lost confidence in bank deposits, the increase is a small price to pay.

*

Now that is really fucking interesting, cuz just two months ago FDIC had about $50B in reserves left, so they're losing $15B/mo and the avalanche hasn't even started, and so far they have 'FORCED' people to BUY the bad banks.

I'm sure the FDIC has begged UPQUA to BUY CACB, but why the FUCK with 'The Shire',...et-al, ... would UPQUA want anymore exposure to non-performing BEND?? Who the fuck wants BEND?? That's the fucking problem, thus CACB will go down, but its going to be fucking ugly.

Anonymous said...

Garzini considered for Bend manager | News Archives | The Bulletin
Bend Bulletin - Dec 4, 2003

*

Prison Booster, Enforcer, GOB's GOB, he's been called MANY FUCKING THINGS,

But don't tell us that hard ass bad-boyz haven't ran Central Orygun HPUSS, it shows your either stupid, or a newbie.

Regarding Redmond, what happened up there was the the city-manager became 'untouchable' he hired/fired the police-chief, and controlled the city, and the mayor was a patsy like aber-pussy. The Redmond city-manager had been on a rampage in bars for a year, drunk every night, and finally they had to have the Sheriff arrest him, cuz the cops couldn't touch him, also Redmond is ALL NEPOTISM.

The NEW POLICE CHIEF from 'Springfield-ORYGUN' is a good guy, and now that he got the sheriff to remove the city-manager, things in REDMOND will be fixed. It's BEND that is FUCKED, the Sawyer story is just the tip of the iceberg in BEND, but in BEND we have NOBODY that can or will fix the fucking city. The city-hall/staff don't have the balls to HIRE OUTSIDERS for fear they'll all go to jail.

Anonymous said...

Garzini considered for Bend manager | News Archives | The Bulletin
Bend Bulletin - Dec 4, 2003
Bend city councilors may tap former assistant city manager Ron Garzini to fill in as city manager while there's a search for a permanent replacement for ...
Related web pages

POLICY WATCH.(room tax increase in Bend)(Brief Article)(Statistical...
Free with registration - Oregon Business - AccessMyLibrary.com - Oct 1, 2001
The Bend City Council is increasing it again for general fund purposes." ... (9.5%) and Burns (9%) -- according to Bend interim city manager Ron Garzini. ...
Related web pages

Heppner ponders manager choices
EastOregonian.info - EastOregonian.info (subscription) - Jul 26, 2007
I think it's very rewarding to help a smaller community do something," Garzini said, adding that his most rewarding job was being city manager of Seward, ( BUILT THE BIGGEST CITY OWNED PRISON IN USA ) ...
Related web pages

Bend, Ore., voters to decide whether to add bus system
Seattle Times - Nov 1, 2004
"The community is radically changing," said Ron Garzini, a former interim city manager and a member of the group backing the levy. "Bend is going through

Anonymous said...

Here's the deal someone last night called buster 'wrong' about OREO and popularity, ... he was at 57 heading south, the state-of-union gave him a lift, but the FDIC has to raise reserves, but heres the DEAL their passing the cost directly of all people to those who hold credit-cards, this is the kind of thing that you can't blame 'W', this is 100% OREO,... Mark my Words, OREO will go south, and quick....

Bad Banks? Right? Golden Showers for MOSS? So why the FUCK are the little people paying the BILL?

CALL IT WHAT IT IS, its a MOSS-TAX, a little extra to keep MOSS in biz,... so she can get more MDU&JRMB.


Bank failures lead to credit card rate hikes


05:12 PM PST on Friday, February 27, 2009

By WAYNE HAVRELLY, kgw.com

Many customers are about to face shocking rate increases on credit cards.

Friday the FDIC imposed an emergency assessment on every bank in the nation. This after the fund that protects our bank accounts dropped to unacceptable levels.

The move will cost all of us, especially those carrying high credit card balances like Robert Brown of Salem. He opened a credit card to pay thousands in vet bills for his dog buddy.

He used another card from a big national bank to pay his own hospital bills. He's disabled from a head injury and now lives on a fixed income.

“So that credit card saved your dog buddies life?” asked Havrelly. “Yes it did”, said Brown.

Brown said, “We didn't default, we didn't stop or miss any credit card payments, but we're one of the Americans now living from paycheck to paycheck trying to pay them off.”

A few days ago he learned one of his credit cards was jumping from the 0 percent he thought he would enjoy for another year, to 17.9 percent. The company said it's changing terms because of extraordinary changes in the economy. If Brown is just three days late with a payment, that interest rate balloons to 29.4 percent.

“It's unreal”, said Brown. “The thing is we just got done giving those big banks billions of dollars to help them out and now they are sticking it to us.”

Lark Wysham is Chairman of the Oregon Bankers Association, a group that represents smaller community banks in our area.

KING photo

Credit and debit cards.

“My heart goes out to those consumers. It doesn’t sound fair to me and if I were him, I'd go to his bank and work with a community banker to get some help with that,” she said.

However, some smaller community banks have also suffered big problems recently. This year, 24 banks have failed so far and three of them were right here in the Portland area.

Because of the failures the Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation took a dramatic step on Friday. It assessed every bank in the country an extra 20 cents for every $100 in deposits because the insurance fund that protects our accounts dropped below acceptable levels.

“Nobody has ever lost a dime of money in a bank failure and that’s because we’ve continued to fund the FDIC fund and I believe that will always be there to help the consumers," Wysham said.

She also says the higher FDIC assessments will force all banks to cut costs and raise fees.

Robert Brown said, “I'm afraid of the next bill that's going to come in with the new rate that I didn't sign up for. I don't think I'll be able to afford it.”

Brown says with $15,000 currently on those cards, dramatically higher interest rates might just force him into bankruptcy.

Bewert said...

Re: The H/B-puss seems to think that a missing page is the 'big story', but they don't really want to see the AD cuz that would end their conspiracy theory so they keep talking shit. Just run an ad in craigs-list for that all paper, and pay the $5 and get the ad, but then that would end the BIG-STORY of it not being found, ... Typically pussy stuff in BEND.

###

Yeah, that's what I thought. The nice lady on the phone said give her a few minutes and she would call me back. After a few hours it was past five and still nothing.

So I'll try again on Monday. If it's a non-story fine by me. It sure has some people worked up, though.

Duncan McGeary said...

"What is it about Central Oregon cities that leads them to make so many bad choices in hiring managers?"

I think it's because we like to think we're big time, when we're a backwater.

We overreach, never asking ourselves why these guys would take a step down...

Better to promote someone who's lived here for awhile. Too many peculiarities to hire outside...

Anonymous said...

KUNT's WANT TO KNOW WHY OREO WILL GO DOWN AS THE BIGGEST ASSHOLE IN HISTORY?? READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY...

Timothy Geithner told CNBC that "We will preserve the system that is owned and managed by the private sector."
This suggests that the Treasury Secretary might not liquidate the toxic assets at all, but try maintain the appearance that these underwater banks are solvent. What do you think will happen if Geithner refuses to nationalize the banks?

I would not interpret Geithner's statement that way. Rather we are experiencing one of the greatest robberies in history. I have written on the question of nationalization for the “Notes from the Editors” forthcoming in the March 2009 Monthly Review . All the attempts to rescue the financial system at this time go in the direction of nationalization. The federal government is providing more and more of the capital and assuming financial responsibility for the banks. However, they are doing everything they can to keep the banks in private hands, resulting in a kind of de facto nationalization with de jure private control. Whether the federal government is forced eventually toward full nationalization (that is, assuming direct control of the banks) is a big question. But even that is unlikely to change the nature of what is going on, which is a classic case of the socialization of losses of financial institutions while leaving untouched the massive gains still in the hands of those who most profited from the whole extreme period of financial speculation.

To get an idea of what is happening one has to understand that the federal government, as I have already indicated, has committed itself thus far in this crisis $9.7 trillion in support programs primarily for financial institutions. The Federal Reserve (together with the Treasury) now has converted itself into what is called a “bad bank.” It has been swapping Treasury certificates for toxic financial waste, such as collateralized debt obligations. As a result the Federal Reserve has become the banker of last resort for toxic waste with the share of Treasuries in the Fed's balance sheet dropping from about 90 percent to about 20 percent over the course of the crisis, with much of the rest now made up of financial toxic waste.

Obviously, full, straightforward nationalization would be more rational than this. But one has also to remember the system of power—both economic and political—that we are dealing with at present. The classic case of full bank nationalization was Italian corporatist capitalism of the 1920s and ‘30s, and was carried out by the fascist regime. Without suggesting that we are headed this way now it should be clear from this that nationalization of banks itself is no panacea.

The fact that Geithner, Obama's pick for Treasury Secretary, is overseeing the enormous robbery taking place, probably exceeding any theft in history, with the ordinary taxpayers picking up the tab, should certainly cause one to ask questions about the “progressive” nature of the new administration.

Anonymous said...

We overreach, never asking ourselves why these guys would take a step down...

*

What does it really mean? An efficient 'public servant'? Today in Vallejo,CA that is BK, the city-manager gets over $300k,

Today a city-manager is someone that can shovel shit to the public, and city-hall, its NOT about competence, its about SHIT.

THE US, at local, and state, and federal is PONZI, and NOBODY can fix it, so what what we do is HIRE professional liars, ... and then wonder why the outcome is always the same??

The TRUTH, we don't want the truth, NO US CITY wants the truth.

The TRUTH is DPUSS is an idiot, the US public get the city-staff it deserves.

Anonymous said...

It's NOT often that somebody writes coherently on 'these times', but this guy has put ALL our modern issues today in one article, this is a keeper, there is enough fodder here for sunday HOMER.

...

The Great Financial Crisis
Economics / Credit Crisis 2009 Feb 27, 2009 - 11:18 PM

By: Mike_Whitney

Economics

Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleInterview of John Bellamy Foster - John Bellamy Foster is editor of Monthly Review and professor of sociology at the University of Oregon. He is the coauthor with Fred Magdoff of The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences, recently published by Monthly Review Press.

MW :Do you think that the American people have been misled into believing that the current financial crisis is the result of subprime loans and toxic assets? Aren't these merely the symptoms of a deeper problem; financialization? Can you explain financialization and how the economy became more and more detached from productive activity and more and more dependent on the accumulation of paper wealth?

JBF: I think it is true, as you say, that the American people have been misled by analyses of the crisis into focusing on mere symptoms, or on the straws that broke the camel's back, such as subprime loans. There is still a great deal of toxic financial waste out there in the financial superstructure of the economy, but the real problems go much deeper. One reason for this failure to account realistically for the crisis is that those at the top of the system have very little clue themselves, given the near bankruptcy of orthodox economics. A second reason is that the dominant ideology is designed to naturalize any economic disaster, pretending it has nothing to do with the fundamental nature of the system but is simply the result of external forces, mistakes of federal regulators, deregulation, corruption of a few individuals, etc. Under these circumstances, what you get from the elites and the media is mostly nonsense, though there are individuals in the financial community, in particular, that are now analyzing the problem at a deeper, more realistic level.

The first thing to recognize is that this is a very serious crisis, of an order of magnitude comparable to the Great Depression. It is not a regular business cycle downturn or credit crunch. This should suggest that there are long-term forces at work. These include, over the last third of a century, stagnation , or the slowing down of the economy, and the financialization , the shift in the center of gravity of the economy from production to finance. Financialization refers not to just one or two financial bubbles (such as the New Economy bubble and the housing bubble) but to the growing reliance on financial speculation, which can be treated as a whole series of bubbles one after the other, each new one bigger than the last. This has been the dominant economic development since the 1970s, and especially since the 1980s. This financialization was occurring on top of a "real economy" or productive economy that was more and more stagnant. Given the rot below, financial speculation thus became the only game in town, serving to lift the economy. More and more economic activity was geared not to production but to the pursuit of paper claims to wealth. The last bubble-bursting episode, associated with the housing or subprime bubble, was so severe that it brought financialization to an end, generating what we call in the title of our new book The Great Financial Crisis .

The idea at the top was that the financial explosion could be managed, and a financial collapse prevented. The central banks as lenders of last resort could pour liquidity into the system at critical points to avoid a financial avalanche. And in fact they succeeded in doing this for decades. Ben Bernanke, the current head of the Federal Reserve, even referred a few years ago to “The Great Moderation,” in which the business cycle had been overcome by monetary policy. Following the successful leveraging of the system out of the 2001 crisis that followed the 2000 bursting of the New Economy bubble he assumed that they now had discovered the elixir of indefinite financial-based growth. Yet, the scale of the financial superstructure of the economy kept on rising in relation to the stagnant production system underlying it and finally it overwhelmed the capacity of the Federal Reserve and other central banks to stave off the inevitable financial collapse.

From a long-term perspective we can say that there is a kind of mean reversion taking place whereby the financial system and the inordinate profits it generated over decades is reverting to the long-term trend of the overall stagnant economy, which means that trillions upon trillions upon trillions of dollars in capital assets are being lost. And with financialization no longer lifting the economy as it has in decades past we are face to face with the underlying forces of long-term stagnation. For this reason the best economists and financial analysts are now saying that when the recovery from this crisis begins, perhaps in 2011, it will be an L-shaped recovery, pointing toward long-term stagnation as in the depression decade. Without financialization there is nothing on the horizon to boost the U.S. and other advanced capitalist economies.

MW : Is the financial crisis the result of deregulation, lax lending standards and too much leveraging or are there more important factors involved? In your new book The Great Financial Crisis, you say that stagnation is unavoidable in mature capitalist economies because "a handful of corporations control most industries" which has ended "price warfare". How has "monopoly capital" paved the way for financialization and the creation of derivatives, structured debt instruments and other complex investments? Could you clarify what you mean by stagnation is and how it led to the present crisis?

JBF: The long-term process of the growth of financial speculation or financialization (the shift in gravity of the economy from production to finance) was a process that had to keep going because once it stopped you would have a financial avalanche. As increased debt is used more and more to leverage financial speculation the quantity of debt increases while its quality decreases. This means that the level of risk keeps rising. As speculation becomes more extreme various mechanisms are introduced to manage risk. Structured debt instruments like collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps, and a host of other exotic financial instruments, were introduced supposedly to reduce the risk of the individual investor, but ended up expanding risk system-wide. Ideologically the increased risk is rationalized in various ways--for example the presumed high tech basis of the New Economy bubble and the notion that new financial instruments had sliced and diced risk and thereby lessened risk exposure in the subprime bubble. But eventually, the decrease in quality that goes along with the increase in quantity of debt has its effect. In this respect, the giving out of subprime loans was simply part of the normal evolution (though this time on a massive scale) of financial instability basic to speculative finance. This was well explained by economist Hyman Minsky in his various works on the “financial instability hypothesis,” largely ignored by mainstream economists.

Regulation of this system was impossible, since the risk had to keep rising and any attempt to place any limits on the system once financialization got to a certain point risked a financial meltdown. The capitalist state therefore had no choice but gradually to dismantle the entire financial regulatory system and to allow risk to grow. Indeed, in every major financial crisis over the last thirty years the response was financial deregulation. The risk-prone structure that emerged was presented as “optimal” in the governing ideology and the IMF and other institutions worked at imposing the same supposedly advanced, high-risk "financial architecture" on all the countries of the world.

The real underlying problem, as indicated above, was stagnation. Explaining stagnation is a long and complex process. It was analyzed in depth by Paul Baran, Paul Sweezy, and Harry Magdoff. For a fuller understanding, beyond what I am able to give in this short space, I recommend our book The Great Financial Crisis and earlier works by Baran, Sweezy, and Magdoff, especially Baran and Sweezy's Monopoly Capital . There are two factors basically to consider: maturity and monopoly. Maturity stands for the fact that industrialization is an historical process. In the beginning, i.e., the initial industrial revolution phase, there is a building up of industry virtually from scratch as in the United States in the nineteenth century and China today. During this period the demand for new investment seems infinite and if there are limits to expansion they lie in the shortage of capital to invest. Eventually, however, industry is built up in the core areas and after that production is geared more and more to mere replacement, which can be financed out of depreciation funds.

In a mature economy growth is increasingly dependent on finding investment outlets, and capital tends to generate more surplus (or investment-seeking capital) than can be absorbed in existing outlets. New industries arise (such as the computer, digital product industry of today), but normally the scale of such industries relative to the whole economy is too small to constitute a major boost to the entire economic system. Although the capitalist economy is not often discussed in terms of such a historical process of industrialization (which lies outside the governing ideology,) it is taken for granted in discussions of the world economy that the more mature economies of the United States, Europe, and Japan are only going to grow nowadays at, say, a 2.5 percent rate, while emerging economies may grow much faster. The maturity argument was influenced by Keynes and developed by Alvin Hansen in the late 1930s and early 1940s in such works as Full Recovery or Stagnation? and Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles . But the most powerful and clearest theoretical discussion of maturity was provided by Paul Sweezy, building on a Marxian frame of analysis, in his Four Lectures on Marxism.

The second factor is monopoly (or oligopoly). Marx was the first to discuss the tendency in capitalist economies toward the concentration and centralization of capital, an emphasis that has distinguished Marxian economics. In Marxian and radical institutionalist economics this led to the emergence by the last quarter of the nineteenth century (consolidated only in the twentieth century) of a new stage of capitalism that came to be known as the monopoly stage (or monopoly capitalism) displacing the earlier freely competitive stage of capitalism of the nineteenth century. In essence, the economy in the nineteenth century was dominated by small family firms (other than railroad capital). In the twentieth century this turns into an economy of big corporations. Although monopoly capital, remained a stage of capitalism, the laws of motion of the system were modified. The biggest change is the effective banning of price competition. Monopolistic (or oligopolistic) firms, as Paul Sweezy, then a young Harvard economist, famously explained in the 1930s in his theory of the kinked-demand curve of oligopolistic pricing, tend to shift prices in only one direction--up. Price competition among the majors is seen as self-defeating, and replaced by a steady upward movement of prices, usually a form of indirect collusion, following the price leader (usually the biggest firm in an industry).

With the effective banning of price competition in mature industries (there is still price competition in rising industries where a shakedown process is occurring) the main assumption of orthodox conceptions of the capitalist economy is violated. Competition continues over low cost position in an industry (i.e. over productivity), and in other areas aimed at market share, such as advertising and branding of products (referred to as “monopolistic competition”). But actual price competition under monopoly capital is usually treated as “price warfare,” which is no longer acceptable. Throughout the nineteenth century in the United States the general price level fell with the exception of the Civil War years. Throughout the twentieth century the general price level rose with the exception of the Great Depression years.

The result of all of this is that, given rising productivity, monopolistic corporations end up grabbing as surplus a larger portion of the gains of productivity growth (and virtually all the gains when real wages are also stagnant), leading to a tendency of the surplus of monopoly capital to rise. There is then a vast and growing investment-seeking surplus, which, however, encounters relatively diminished investment outlets due to a number of factors: industrial maturity, growing inequality which negatively affects consumption (insofar as this is based on paychecks not debt), and persistent unused industrial capacity which discourages the further expansion of capacity. In Marxian terms, we can say that the rate of surplus value (or the rate of exploitation) within production is too high for all of the surplus value potentially generated through production to be realized in final sales.

As Keynes taught savings/surplus ( ex ante ) that is not invested simply disappears, so this slows down the economy as a whole. But the problem of surplus capital seeking investment is not thereby alleviated, since monopoly capital tends to adopt measures that continually pump up potential surplus even in a crisis. So the contradiction continues.

Baran and Sweezy summed up their argument by claiming that stagnation was the normal tendency of the monopoly capitalist economy. This was in sharp contradiction to received economic theory which assumed that capitalism by nature tended toward rapid economic growth and full employment. In the mainstream view, rapid growth and full employment were intrinsic to the system, so the emergence of slow growth required a specific explanation. In contrast, Baran, Sweezy, and Magdoff, building on a long line of thinkers before them (Marx, Veblen, Keynes, Hansen, Kalecki, Steindl), argued the opposite, that it was periods of rapid growth under monopoly capitalism, such as the now fabled Golden Age of the 1950s and ‘60s, that needed to be explained as due to special factors. In their view, it was necessary to point to the specific historical stimuli that propelled extraordinary periods of rapid development (in the Golden Age: enormous consumer liquidity after the war, a second great wave of automobilization, military spending associated with two regional wars in Asia and the Cold War, the expansion of the sales effort, etc.). Stagnation itself was the normal tendency of the system and so could be accounted for simply by the waning of such special factors.

If investment and consumption are inadequate to maintain demand, as is the normal case under monopoly capitalism, the government is called into help. In the United States this has often taken the form of increased military spending (which is crucial the imperial goals of the system) and lately through financialization. Both of these means of maintaining demand, however, have reached their limits (the U.S. accounts for as much military spending as the whole rest of the world put together and cannot easily expand this at present), resulting in a deepening economic stagnation.

Baran and Sweezy's Monopoly Capital had pointed to financial sector expansion as a possible countervailing factor to stagnation, but in the 1960s this was merely potential and had not emerged to any large extent. The evolution of the system from the 1970s on became so dependent on the growth of finance, and the incorporation of the giant corporations into this, that I have termed this later phase “monopoly-finance capital.”

MW : As the economy has become more dependent on financialization for growth, the gap between rich and poor has grown wider and wider. As you point out in your book, "In the United States the top 1 percent of wealth holders in 2001 owned more than twice as much as the bottom 80 percent of the population. If this was simply measured in terms of financial wealth, the top 1 percent owned more than four times the bottom 80 percent." (p 130). How have working class people managed to keep their heads above water with all this wealth being shifted to the rich?

JBF: The answer is fairly obvious. If people cannot maintain their standard of living on the basis of their income, they will borrow against income and against whatever wealth they have. The result—if their incomes don't rise, or if the value of whatever assets they have do not increase—is that they will simply get deeper and deeper in debt in an attempt simply to stand still. I became concerned about the growth of working-class household debt in 2000 and carried out a study of The Survey of Consumer Finances , which is published every three years by the federal government with a three year lag in the data. This is the only major federal government data source that we have on household debt broken down into income groups so that we can determine the debt burden of different classes. I published an article based on this research in the May 2000 issue of Monthly Review entitled “Working-Class Households and the Burden of Debt.” I then followed this up six years later with an article in the May 2006 Monthly Review on “The Household Debt Bubble,” which was to be incorporated into The Great Financial Crisis . There I wrote that “The housing bubble and the strength of consumption in the economy are connected to what might be termed the ‘household debt bubble,' which could easily burst as a result of rising interest rates and the stagnation or decline of housing prices.” This is of course what happened, and the reason why this crisis has turned out to be so severe was the destruction over decades of the finances of working-class households, on the back of which financialization took place.


MW: Will you define "debt-deflation" and explain its potential danger to the economy? As credit continues to tighten and housing prices sink; aren't we slipping into a reinforcing deflationary spiral? Do you think that fiscal policy will reverse this trend or is the stimulus package too small to stop real estate and equities from continuing to slide?

The term “debt-deflation” is associated particularly with the work of Irving Fisher during the Great Depression. Fisher wrote an article for the journal Econometrica in 1933 entitled “The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions.” Deflation as applied to the general economy is a drop in the general price level, something not seen in the United States since the Great Depression, and catastrophic in the economy of monopoly capital (and even more so under monopoly-finance capital). In the first place, deflation (or disinflation, i.e. the reduction of inflation to what the Federal Reserve calls “below optimal” levels) means that the profit margins of corporations are squeezed, even if the cost structure of production, and productivity remain the same. Under these circumstances price competition is reactivated with giant firms actually in a life and death struggle. This also generates pressure for heavy layoffs and wage reductions, creating all sorts of vicious cycles.

But the real fear of deflation has to do with the enormously bloated financial structure and the huge debt load of the economy. Under inflation, which is usually assumed to be built into the advanced capitalist economy, debts are paid back with smaller dollars (that is, worth less over time). In a deflationary economy, however, debt has to be paid back with bigger dollars (worth more over time). This then creates a debt-deflation spiral, enormously accelerating financial meltdown. As Fisher put it, “deflation caused by the debt reacts on the debt. Each dollar of debt still unpaid becomes a bigger dollar, and if the over-indebtedness with which we started was great enough, the liquidation of debt cannot keep up with the fall of prices which it causes.” Stated differently, quoting from The Great Financial Crisis (p. 116), “prices fall as debtors sell assets to pay their debts, and as prices fall the remaining debts must be repaid in dollars more valuable than the ones borrowed, causing more defaults, leading to yet lower prices, and thus a deflationary spiral.” In order to check this deflationary tendency, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have been trying to reflate the economy by printing money (euphemistically called “quantitative easing”). But they have not succeeded and deflationary forces are still very strong, causing President Obama to warn shortly after his election that “we now risk falling into a deflationary spiral that could increase our massive debt even further.”

It is also worth mentioning the effect that deflation has on investment. With capital faced with the fact that a few years down the line the price level could be lower than it is now, expected profits on investment in new productive capacity (given that this takes years to be built and has to paid for in current prices) are depressed, creating a deeper stagnation of accumulation.

The stimulus package introduced by the Obama administration is far too small to pump up demand and reflate the economy under these circumstances. It is less than $400 billion a year, forty percent of which is tax cuts, so that the increased governmental spending is miniscule compared to the size of the hole created by the drastic drop in consumption, investment, and state and local government spending. It is also dwarfed by the total federal government support programs, primarily to financial institutions, which now amount to more than $9.7 trillion in the form of cash infusions, debt guarantees, swaps of Treasuries for financial toxic waste, etc.

MW : Karl Marx seems to have anticipated the financial meltdown we are now facing. In Capital, he said, "The superficiality of political economy shows itself in the fact that it views the expansion and contraction of credit as the cause of the periodic alterations of the industrial cycle, while it is a mere symptom of them." Marx appears to agree with your theory that the real problem is deeper---economic stagnation which forces surplus capital to look for more profitable investments. While the monetarist theories of Milton Friedman are under withering attack, Keynes and Marx seem to have held up rather well. What does Marx mean when he talks about "political economy"?

JBF: Marx was an acute analyst of financial crises in his time and described their main features. However, he saw financial expansions (as economists in general have until recently) as occurring at the peak of a boom, not as a secular phenomenon. Financialization in the sense of a long-term shift in the center of gravity of the economy toward finance, with financial speculation building over decades, is a completely unprecedented situation.

Marx and Engels did place great emphasis on the growth of joint-stock companies/corporations and the appearance of a market for industrial securities that began to appear near the end of the nineteenth century. It was this creation of the modern market for industrial securities that was the real beginning of the emergence of finance as a relatively independent aspect of the monopoly capitalist economy. There are essentially two pricing structures to the economy: one in the real economy related to the production of goods and services, the other in the financial realm associated with the pricing of assets (paper claims to wealth). The two are interrelated but can be disassociated from each other for periods of time. Keynes in the 1930s singled-out the dangers of an economy that was increasingly governed by the speculative pricing of financial assets. Marx was such an acute observer of capitalism, that even in his time he began to see the contradictions emerging between money (or fictitious) capital and real capital.

One thing that Marx did argue in this context is that surges in financial speculation were responses to stagnation and decline in the real economy, as capital desperately sought a way to maintain and expand its surplus. Thus he wrote that the “plethora of money capital” in such periods was due to “difficulties in employment, through a lack of spheres of investment, i.e. due to a surplus in the branches of production” and showed nothing so much as the immanent barriers to capitalist expansion (quoted in The Great Financial Crisis , p. 39).

Marx remains the strongest foundation for the critique of the capitalist economy, down to our day. But the real Keynes (not to be confused with the bastardized Keynesianism of today) is also important, since he emphasized what he called the “outstanding faults” of the capitalist economy: the tendency to high inequality and high unemployment. He also pointed to the dangers of a system geared to speculative finance.

MW : Is wage stagnation and income inequality a direct result of financialization?

I would put it the other way around. Wage stagnation and growing income and wealth inequality are components of the underlying stagnation tendency. Both have shown a tendency to worsen over time, resulting in deepening stagnation tendencies within the overall economy. Real wages in the United States peaked in 1971, when Richard Nixon was president, and by 2008 had fallen back to 1967 levels, when Lyndon Johnson was president. This is in despite of the enormous growth of productivity and expansion of wealth over the intervening decades. Hence, this is a marker of “the tendency of surplus to rise,” as Baran and Sweezy put it, or a rising rate of surplus value, in Marx's own terms. This was accompanied by a massive growth of income and wealth at the top. As we stated in The Great Financial Crisis (p. 130), “From 1990 to 2002, for each added dollar made by those in the bottom 90 percent [of income] those in the uppermost 0.01 percent (today about 14,000 households) made an additional $18,000.” By 2007 income/wealth inequality in the United States had reached 1929 proportions, i.e., the level reached just prior to the 1929 Stock Market Crash that led to the Great Depression.

I do think you are right, though, that financialization made income and wealth inequality worse, and contributed to the stagnation of wages. We can see neoliberalism as basically the ideology of monopoly-finance capital, introduced originally as the ruling class response to stagnation, and then increasingly geared to promoting the financialization of capital, itself a structural response to stagnation. Neoliberalism promoted incessant breaking of unions, forcing down wages, cutting state social welfare spending, deregulation, free mobility of capital, development of new financial architecture, etc. One way to understand this is the enormous need for new cash infusions to feed a financial superstructure that was voracious in its demand for new money capital, which it needed to leverage still more piling up of debt and financial speculation. Insurance companies, real estate, and mutual funds all provided infusions into this financial superstructure, as did the state. All limits were removed. Under these circumstances workers were encouraged to use their houses like piggy banks to finance consumption, credit cards were handed out to teenagers, subprime loans were pushed on those with little ability to pay. Individual retirement packages were shifted toward IRAs that were tied into the speculative financial system. This had all the signs of an addictive system. In these circumstances, too, the real economy, particularly production of goods and manufacturing, was decimated. In the introduction to The Great Financial Crisis we include a chart covering the period since 1960 showing production of goods as a percentage of GDP in a slow, long-term decline, while debt as a percentage of GDP is skyrocketing over the same period. All of this meant a massive redistribution away from working people to capital, and to those at the pinnacle of the financial pyramid.

MW : In your book The Great Financial Crisis, you are critical of Paulson's capital injections into the banks saying that "at most they buy the necessary time in which the vast mass of questionable loans can be liquidated in an orderly fashion, restoring solvency but at a far lower rate of economic activity--that of a serious recession or depression." On Friday, Timothy Geithner told CNBC that "We will preserve the system that is owned and managed by the private sector." This suggests that the Treasury Secretary might not liquidate the toxic assets at all, but try maintain the appearance that these underwater banks are solvent. What do you think will happen if Geithner refuses to nationalize the banks?

I would not interpret Geithner's statement that way. Rather we are experiencing one of the greatest robberies in history. I have written on the question of nationalization for the “Notes from the Editors” forthcoming in the March 2009 Monthly Review . All the attempts to rescue the financial system at this time go in the direction of nationalization. The federal government is providing more and more of the capital and assuming financial responsibility for the banks. However, they are doing everything they can to keep the banks in private hands, resulting in a kind of de facto nationalization with de jure private control. Whether the federal government is forced eventually toward full nationalization (that is, assuming direct control of the banks) is a big question. But even that is unlikely to change the nature of what is going on, which is a classic case of the socialization of losses of financial institutions while leaving untouched the massive gains still in the hands of those who most profited from the whole extreme period of financial speculation.

To get an idea of what is happening one has to understand that the federal government, as I have already indicated, has committed itself thus far in this crisis $9.7 trillion in support programs primarily for financial institutions. The Federal Reserve (together with the Treasury) now has converted itself into what is called a “bad bank.” It has been swapping Treasury certificates for toxic financial waste, such as collateralized debt obligations. As a result the Federal Reserve has become the banker of last resort for toxic waste with the share of Treasuries in the Fed's balance sheet dropping from about 90 percent to about 20 percent over the course of the crisis, with much of the rest now made up of financial toxic waste.

Obviously, full, straightforward nationalization would be more rational than this. But one has also to remember the system of power—both economic and political—that we are dealing with at present. The classic case of full bank nationalization was Italian corporatist capitalism of the 1920s and ‘30s, and was carried out by the fascist regime. Without suggesting that we are headed this way now it should be clear from this that nationalization of banks itself is no panacea.

The fact that Geithner, Obama's pick for Treasury Secretary, is overseeing the enormous robbery taking place, probably exceeding any theft in history, with the ordinary taxpayers picking up the tab, should certainly cause one to ask questions about the “progressive” nature of the new administration.

MW : Former Fed chief Alan Greenspan has dismissed criticism of his monetary policies saying that no one could have seen the humongous bubble developing in housing. In your book, however, you make this observation: "It was the reality of economic stagnation beginning in the 1970s...that led to the emergence of the 'new financialized capitalist regime's kind of 'paradoxical financial Keynesianism' whereby demand in the economy was stimulated primarily 'thanks to asset bubbles.'” (p 129) The statement suggests that the Fed knew exactly what it was doing when it slashed rates and created a speculative frenzy. Debt-fueled asset bubbles are a way of shifting wealth from one class to another while avoiding the stagnation of the underlying economy. Can this problem be fixed through regulation and better oversight or is it something that is intrinsic to capitalism itself?

Greenspan is of course trying desperately to salvage his reputation and to remove any sense that he is culpable. I would agree that the Fed knew what it was doing up to a point, and deliberately promoted an asset bubble in housing—what Stephanie Pomboy called “The Great Bubble Transfer” following the bursting of the New Economy tech bubble in 2000. The view that no one saw the dangers of course is false. It reminds me of Paul Krugman's face-saving claim in his The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 that while some people thought that financial and economic problems of the 1930s might repeat themselves, these were not “sensible people.” According to Krugman, “sensible people” like himself (that is, those who expressed the consensus of those in power) knew that these things could never happen—but turned out to be wrong. It is true, as Greenspan says, no one could have foreseen precisely what really happened. And certainly there were a lot of blinders at the top. But there were lots of warnings and concerns. For example, I drafted an article (“The Great Fear”) for the April 2005 issue of Monthly Review that referred to “rising interest rates (threatening a bursting of the housing bubble supporting U.S. consumption)” as one of the key “perils of a stagnating economy.” Other close observers of the economy were saying the same thing.

The Federal Reserve Board, indeed, was internally debating in these years whether to adopt a policy of pricking the asset bubbles before they got further out of control. But Greenspan and Bernanke were both against such a dangerous operation, claiming that this could bring the whole rickety financial structure down. Since they didn't know what to do about asset bubbles they simply sat on their hands and tried to talk the market up. The dominant view was that the Federal Reserve could stop a financial avalanche by putting a rock in the right place the moment there was a sign of trouble. So Bernanke went ahead, closed his eyes and prayed, raising interest rates to restrict inflation (an action demanded by the financial elite) and the rest is history.

At all times it was those at the commanding heights of the financial institutions that called the shots, and the Fed followed their wishes. Greenspan himself is no dummy. He wrote in Challenge Magazine in March-April 1988 of the dangers associated with housing bubbles. But as a Federal Reserve Board chairman he pursued financialization to the hilt, since there was no other option for the system. Needless to say, such financialization was associated with the growing disparities in wealth and income in the country. Debt itself is an instrument of power and those at the bottom were chained by it, while those at the top were using it to leverage rising fortunes. The total net worth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans (an increasing percentage of whom were based in finance) rose from $91.8 billion in 1982 to $1.2 trillion in 2006, while most people in the society were finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. None of this was an accident. It was all intrinsic to monopoly-finance capital.

MW : The financial crisis is quickly turning into a political crisis. Already governments in Iceland and Latvia have collapsed and the global slump is just beginning to accelerate. Riots and street violence have broken out in Greece, Latvia and Lithuania and worker-led protests have become commonplace throughout the EU. As unemployment skyrockets and economic activity stalls, countries are likely to experience greater social instability. Do you see this crisis as an opportunity political mobilization? How does one take deep-seated discontent and rage and shape it into a political movement for structural change?

JBF: The first thing to recognize is that we are suddenly in a different historical period. One of my favorite quotes comes from Gillo Pontecorvo's 1969 film Burn!, where the main character, William Walker (played by Marlon Brando) states: “Very often between one historical period and another, ten years suddenly might be enough to reveal the contradictions of an entire century.” We are living in such a period; not only because of the Great Financial Crisis and what the IMF is now calling a depression in the advanced capitalist economies, but also because of the global ecological crisis that during the last decade has accelerated out of control under business as usual, and due to the reappearance of “naked imperialism.” What made sense ten years ago is nonsense now. New dangers and new possibilities are opening up. A whole different kind of struggle is emerging.

The sudden fall of the governments in Iceland and Latvia as a result of protests against financial theft is remarkable, as are the widespread revolts in Greece and throughout the EU, with millions in the streets. The general strikes in Guadeloupe and Martinique, the French Antilles, and the support given to these movements by the French New Anti-Capitalist Party is a breakthrough. In fact much of the world is in ferment. Latin Americans are engaged in a full-scale revolt against neoliberalism, led by Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution, and the aspiration of a new socialism for the 21 st century (as envisioned also in Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba). The Nepalese revolution has offered new hope in Asia. Social struggles on a major scale are occurring in emerging economies such as Brazil, Mexico, and India. China itself is experiencing unrest.

The one place in the world where this world historical ferment appears to not be having telling effect at present is the United States. This can be traced to two reasons. First, the United States as the center of a world empire is a fortress of conservatism. Second, the election of the Obama administration has confused progressive forces, leading to absurd notions that the Democrats under Obama are going to create a New New Deal without renewed pressure arising from a revolt from below. Meanwhile, under Obama's watch, and with the help of his chosen advisers, vast amounts of state funds are being infused into the financial system to benefit private capital.

What is needed in the United States today, we argue in The Great Financial Crisis , is a renewal of the classic concept of political economy (with its class perspective), whereby it comes to be understood that the economy is subject to public control, and should be wrested from the domination of the ruling class. The bailing out of the system right now is going on with taxpayer funds but without the say of the public. A revolt to gain popular control of the political economy is therefore necessary.

It is possible to start with the demand for a New New Deal rooted in the best legacy of the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s, most notably the Works Progress Administration. But as Robert McChesney and I argued in “A New New Deal Under Obama?” in the February 2009 issue of Monthly Review , the struggle has to move quickly beyond that to an expansion of workers' rights along socialist principles, breaking with the logic of capital. For this to occur there has to be a great revolt from below on at least the scale of the industrial unionization movement of the 1930s that created a new political force in the country (later destroyed in the McCarthy Era). The story of this struggle is told in David Milton's classic account, The Politics of U.S. Labor , which also points out that the rising labor movement was led by socialists and radical syndicalists.

It is important, as István Mészáros explained in his Beyond Capital , that the radical politics opened up in this historical moment not be diverted into attempting to save the existing system, but be directed at transcending it. As Mészáros wrote: “To succeed in its original aim, radical politics must transfer at the height of the crisis its aspirations—in the form of effective powers of decision making at all levels and all areas, including the economy—to the social body itself from which subsequent material and political demands would emanate.”

In the United States a primary goal of any radical politics should be to cut military spending, which is the imperial iron heel holding down the entire world, while corrupting the U.S. body politic and diverting surplus from pressing social needs.

The obvious weak link of the whole political, ideological and economic structure in command in the United States today, is that the system has clearly failed to meet peoples' real needs. Rather than addressing these pressing needs in the crisis, the emphasis of the economic overlords is to bailout private capital at virtually any cost. Between October 2008 and January 2009 the federal government provided about $160 billion in capital and infusions and debt guarantees to the Bank of America, which had a total net worth in late January of only a small fraction of that amount. The rest had gone down the rat hole.

The robbing of public funds to bailout private capital is now on a scale probably never before seen. A politicized, organized working class capable of understanding and reacting to that theft, and choosing thereby to restructure society, to meet real social, egalitarian needs is what is now to be hoped for. The title of a recent cover story Newsweek declared: “We Are All Socialists Now.” As it turned out, Newsweek 's editors were simply referring to the increase in public spending now taking place—hardly an indication of socialism. But the fact that this is said at all in the mainstream media points to the fact that we are in a different historical moment in which radical forces have the possibility of moving forward.

Anonymous said...

For this reason the best economists and financial analysts are now saying that when the recovery from this crisis begins, perhaps in 2011, it will be an L-shaped recovery, pointing toward long-term stagnation as in the depression decade. Without financialization there is nothing on the horizon to boost the U.S. and other advanced capitalist economies.

Anonymous said...

Whether the federal government is forced eventually toward full nationalization (that is, assuming direct control of the banks) is a big question. But even that is unlikely to change the nature of what is going on, which is a classic case of the socialization of losses of financial institutions while leaving untouched the massive gains still in the hands of those who most profited from the whole extreme period of financial speculation.

Anonymous said...

The one place in the world where this world historical ferment appears to not be having telling effect at present is the United States. This can be traced to two reasons. First, the United States as the center of a world empire is a fortress of conservatism. Second, the election of the Obama administration has confused progressive forces, leading to absurd notions that the Democrats under Obama are going to create a New New Deal without renewed pressure arising from a revolt from below. Meanwhile, under Obama's watch, and with the help of his chosen advisers, vast amounts of state funds are being infused into the financial system to benefit private capital.

Anonymous said...

Between October 2008 and January 2009 the federal government provided about $160 billion in capital and infusions and debt guarantees to the Bank of America, which had a total net worth in late January of only a small fraction of that amount. The rest had gone down the rat hole.

Anonymous said...

California Dreamin' and Bend Realty

Written by H. Bruce Miller
Saturday, 28 February 2009

In a way, you have to admire the indestructible optimism of Bend realtors. If you could take an extract from their brains and turn it into a pill it would be better than Prozac.

In a post on his blog two days ago, Jim Wilson took a look at an Associated Press story reporting an uptick in home sales in California last month and saw it as a harbinger of better times soon for Bend.

“Home sales in the Western U.S. surged in January as first-time home buyers, real estate investors and others seized on bargain-priced foreclosed homes in California, Nevada and Arizona, according to two reports released Wednesday,” The AP said.

“A total of 74,000 existing homes and condos were sold in January in the 13-state region. Sales were up 32.1 percent from the same month in 2008, without adjusting for seasonal factors, according to the National Association of Realtors.”

Based on this rough sketch, Wilson painted a rosy scenario:

“California home sales are a leading indicator of Bend, Oregon home sales. This tells me our real estate market may see the bottom this spring or summer. I showed property last weekend to two different cash buyers and they both wrote offers on bank foreclosures in Bend.”

Some observations by The Eye:

* A total of 74,000 homes and condos sold in a 13-state region is not an impressive number, especially if that region includes California.
* Wilson’s two, count ‘em, two offers on foreclosed Bend properties is not an impressive number either.
* As the AP story says, the surge in California sales was propelled mainly by investors (read “speculators”) coming into the market to snap up bargains on foreclosed properties.
* Median home prices in the West dropped 26% in January from the previous year to $220,000, the realtors’ association said. (The same pattern, incidentally, holds true in Florida, where January sales were 24% higher than in the same month last year – but the median sale price for existing homes has plummeted 33% in a year, to $139,500 from $206,900.) If the market really had turned around shouldn’t we see prices rising, or at least holding steady?

Believe it or not, The Eye really would LIKE to see the Bend housing market bounce back (though not to the insanity of 2004-2006). After all, we live here and own property here too.

But continuing to spin gossamer dreams out of every thin thread of semi-encouraging news is not going to make it bounce back any sooner. Our guess is that no matter what happens in California, we won’t see any real turnaround here until our excess housing inventory has been drained off and prices drop to affordable levels.

Anonymous said...

What is needed in the United States today, we argue in The Great Financial Crisis , is a renewal of the classic concept of political economy (with its class perspective), whereby it comes to be understood that the economy is subject to public control, and should be wrested from the domination of the ruling class. The bailing out of the system right now is going on with taxpayer funds but without the say of the public. A revolt to gain popular control of the political economy is therefore necessary.

*

Yeh, right NEVER fucking happened in US history.

Since day-one in USA, its HAMILTONIAN FEDERALISM, aka rule-by-interest.

Just like our BEND in micro-cosm, BEND is NOT ran by people, but HOGG, and the USA is also ran by HOGG.

The HOGG would just as soon destroy bend as to turn it over to people.

Anonymous said...

Even Tocqueville said during his tour that US 'financial democracy' was something of a joke.

That's why we have an electoral college, to insure that 'people' don't elect the prez.

The 'people' will never know why they lost their job, or their money is worthless, and in time, we'll find someone to blame, and there will be a new war.

Anonymous said...

In Venezuela they know how to feed people, Chavez has 'nationalized' rice company's, perhaps the US could learn something? But not, during the USA depression, it was better to destroy rice and let people starve.

Chavez sends troops to Venezuelan rice companies

International Herald Tribune - ‎1 hour ago‎

AP CARACAS, Venezuela: President Hugo Chavez on Saturday ordered troops to temporarily seize control of all Venezuelan rice processing plants to ensure they produce at full capacity amid soaring inflation and persisting reports of food shortages.
Chavez orders army to seize Venezuela rice mills Reuters
Chavez orders army to take over rice companies ABC Online

Anonymous said...

"we are experiencing one of the greatest robberies in history."

Let's think of an analogy. Suppose my house burns down from an accidental fire. The insurance company pays me $$$ to rebuild. Where did the $$$ come from? All of us! Well, at least those who pay insurance on THEIR home. So by giving me so much $$$ does that mean that a "great robbery" has occured? I don't think so. It just says that we're all in this together.

I think the point to be emphasized is that if taxpayers are buying assets, we ought to be able to benefit down the road from those investments -- i.e., the selling of the good parts -- NOT just the bad parts. Hence the need for temporary receivership ( nationalization ).

Anonymous said...

Yes we do do stupid...

I would not interpret Geithner's statement that way. Rather we are experiencing one of the greatest robberies in history. I have written on the question of nationalization for the “Notes from the Editors” forthcoming in the March 2009 Monthly Review . All the attempts to rescue the financial system at this time go in the direction of nationalization. The federal government is providing more and more of the capital and assuming financial responsibility for the banks. However, they are doing everything they can to keep the banks in private hands, resulting in a kind of de facto nationalization with de jure private control. Whether the federal government is forced eventually toward full nationalization (that is, assuming direct control of the banks) is a big question. But even that is unlikely to change the nature of what is going on, which is a classic case of the socialization of losses of financial institutions while leaving untouched the massive gains still in the hands of those who most profited from the whole extreme period of financial speculation.

Anonymous said...

It just says that we're all in this together.

$$$

Who is this 'we' nigger?

Anonymous said...


Resort rules proposal brings lawmakers to Redmond

March 1, 2009

House committee, local lawmakers got an earful from all sides on a proposal to put more resort oversight in state's hands
House committee, local lawmakers got an earful from all sides on a proposal to put more resort oversight in state's hands

Debate center stage at public hearing

By Jennifer Burns, KTVZ.COM

New legislation in Salem has the spotlight on Central Oregon because of its popularity for building destination resorts.

The Oregon House Committee on Land Use traveled to Redmond Saturday to hear locals testify on the bill.

Nearly 100 people came to the meeting to testify or listen to the debate that has Central Oregon split.

Destination resorts have long been the center of debate on the High Desert - loved by many for their economic benefits, criticized by others for their impacts on rural areas.

They fuel the economy with property tax dollars, but some people say they damage the environment and put new burdens on the water supply and transportation infrastructure.

The latest argument is over House Bill 2227.

Some fear it could take control over resorts out of the hands of counties throughout the state.

"Keep the future of county growth in the hands of the county," said Crescent Fire Chief Kyle Kirchner.

For Crescent, a small town with a struggling economy, residents say the bill would put them on the brink of extinction, but a new resort could help revive it.

"It would also restore our pride in our community," said Cher Dolan, a Crescent resident.

The bill requires an immediate moratorium, and that would stop plans for the area's only destination resort, now in the works.

City leaders say Crescent Creek Resort would provide jobs, and put more money into the city's school and fire department.

"We need this economic boom to come to us," said Dolan.

Many residents in more populated areas like Redmond, Bend and sisters support the bill for its direction to study the impact of resorts on wells, ecosystems and transportation.

"The standards are not adequate to protect agricultural resources or forestlands, or wildlife habitat," said Carol Macbeth, an advocate with 1000 Friends of Oregon.

Redmond-area residents testified about the so-far unexplained drop in well water levels since around the same time resorts were built.

"My own well which is 600 feet deep, and the well of my neighbor went dry in the spring of 2006," said Jack Remington of Redmond.

The strongest support for the bill came from those who have been fighting the controversial plans for two destination resorts in the Metolius Basin.

They arguing the resorts would be in the line of frequent wildfire, prevent game migration, and put stress on nearby cities' infrastructure.

"We need to take immediate action while it's studied," said Macbeth.

Bend's two new lawmakers, Rep. Judy Stiegler and Sen. Chris Telfer listened to testimony from their constituents, along with the House panel members.

MDHN09 said...

"everyone's still listening, still in a trance"

off course it is a trance, including most of the people reading this f'ing blog. We are experiencing alien take over. And like i said, denial of this now is like denying there was an RE bubble- pure ignorance and the unwillingness to confront something that may make you uncomfortable.

Next RE boom is Obama and the Norwegians with a plan that has been in the works for a long time. This is coming soon

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 506 of 506   Newer› Newest»