Saturday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 03:07:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Not much news today so far.

The southern border fence in Arizona doesn't seem to be working too well. Borderland Beat has a video of some guys using a lift jack to raise the fence off the ground and walk right under it with their duffle bags of (presumably) drugs. How much did we pay for that fence? $3 million per mile.

Federal estimates put the cost of building a mile of solid border fence at $3 million – meaning a border fence running the length of Arizona would cost about $1 billion. But Smith says the state will use inmate labor and donated supplies to cut expenses and meet his initial $50 million budget, though fundraising is expected to continue even after that point if it is reached.

President Obama is ready to send his 2013 budget plan to Congress. It proposes higher taxes on the wealthy, but what will be cut?

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Prosecutors Seek Life for Underwear Bomber | NZ Police Address MegaUpload Raid >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Saturday Open Thread | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I am very much looking forward to reading (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Peter G on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 03:14:57 PM EST

BTD's analysis of the megadeal with the mortgage bankers.

Yves Smith of nakedcapitalism.com (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Edger on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 03:23:52 PM EST

did a very good analysis of it in a video interview with Paul Jay of The Real News the other day...

Obama clearly just wants some talking points for the election. I mean, this is--to think that he has any interest in a serious effort is, you know, counter to the entire history of his administration. You just have to look at all the people he's got in--you know, he still has Geithner in place; you know, Walsh, who's the head of the OCC. I mean, that's an astonishingly bank-friendly regulator. I mean, it's just--I mean, it's not even--to even call it a regulator is a bit of a stretch, it so prostrates itself to what the industry wants. So, you know, there's nothing convincing here to--.
And even Richard Cordray has said some things that are shockingly disappointing. For example, there's been--the new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. For example, he was before Congress, and he was asked about a very clear violation of the Service Members Civil Relief Act, where you're not supposed to--among other things, you're not supposed to foreclose on the homes of active-duty serviceman, and yet the banks were doing that. And, you know, Cordray just said, oh, well, you know, it looked like it was mistakes, and, you know, the banks said they've stopped doing this. Well, how do you know it's mistakes unless you investigate?

I hope BTD addresses the fact that there (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Anne on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 05:52:53 PM EST

is no actual written agreement, no term sheet - that it is, in fact, just an agreement "in principle." Worse, the actual terms of the agreement will not be released until that agreement gets filed with the court for approval.

Reading Yves Smith this morning was to make one want to reach for the antacids:

But in fact, Bank of America's press release said that the deal was "agreements in principle" as opposed to a final agreement. The Charlotte bank had to be more precise than politicians because it is subject to SEC regulations about the accuracy of its disclosures. And if you read the template for the AG press release carefully, you can see how it finesses where the pact stands. And today, American Banker confirmed that the settlement pact is far from done, and the details will be kept from the public as long as possible, until it is filed in Federal court (because it includes injunctive relief, a judge must bless the agreement).
This may not sound all that important to laypeople, but most negotiators and attorneys will react viscerally to how negligent the behavior of the AGs has been. The most common reaction among lawyers I know who been with white shoe firms (including former partners) is "shocking". Let me explain why.
Negotiating of large, complex deals (or even little deals) does not happen in one fell swoop. Even when the two sides have outlined the major terms, and in sone cases hammered out the really important ones in some detail, there is still a great deal of negotiating that takes place in finalizing the text of the contract. The negotiation over the definitive agreement makes a great deal of difference on how fair the pact turns out to be. For instance, one of the sayings of transaction lawyers is "He who controls the document controls the deal." The party that writes up the initial version of the contract has undue influence because that becomes the default and the other side has to negotiate back from that language.
[snip]
And the American Banker article indicates that the deal has a lot more points still open that the Administration's victory lap would lead you to believe:

...a fully authorized, legally binding deal has not been inked yet....A representative for the North Carolina attorney general downplayed the significance of the document's non-final status, saying that the terms were already fixed...
Other sources who spoke with American Banker raised doubts that everything is yet in place. A person familiar with the mortgage servicing pact says that a settlement term sheet does not yet exist. Instead, there are a series of nearly-complete documents that will be attached to a consent judgment eventually filed with the court. That truly final version will include things such as servicing standards, consumer relief options, legal releases, and enforcement terms. There will likely be separate state and a federal versions of the release...
Whatever the reason for the document's continued non-appearance, the lack of a public final settlement is already the cause for disgruntlement among those who closely follow the banking industry. Quite simply, the actual terms of a settlement matter.
"The devil's in the details," says Ron Glancz, chairman of law firm Venable LLP's Financial Services Group. "Until you see the document you're never quite sure what your rights are."...
And there is plenty more still to be worked out under all circumstances.
"Even once we get to the final terms, the servicers we're told are going to be allowed to develop their own plans," says NCLC's Thompson. "They're going to have three months to develop those from when the settlement is approved by the court. We are a long way in lots of ways from being able to kick the tires.
[snip]
Oh, and what about the other bombshell in the American Banker story:

American Banker asked The Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the offices of Attorneys General in Iowa, North Carolina and Colorado for a copy of the settlement last night. Only Iowa, North Carolina and the Department of Justice have responded, saying that the document would not be available until it is filed with the court on a yet-undetermined date.

Diane Thompson, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, said it was "unusual" that a settlement agreement had not been released. But the officialdom has gone further than that, and has said they won't release the document until it has to be made public, via a Federal court filing.

I mentioned this lack of a written agreement/term sheet to one of the attorneys in my firm who deals with bankruptcy, and she just rolled her eyes - and then said that it wouldn't surprise her at all to see the eventual terms be much less worthy of the positive press it got in the last day or so.

We shall see, I guess.


: If the deal is not yet "inked" and is (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Peter G on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 07:16:49 PM EST

also subject to some sort of judicial approval, then presumably it is also subject to judicial scrutiny. That, to me, implies there will be some sort of "objection period" for interested and affected intervenors (such as the participants in the pending fraud-theory class actions whose cases would be blocked by the deal) to articulate reasons why the "deal" is insufficient to protect "99%" of those with interests at stake. This could still be interesting ....

Obama 2012! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Edger on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 03:17:47 PM EST

Well. The horse race is over and the election is a lock.

This should lift a great deal of stress from anyone worried that Obama might not win the November election, and save a lot of heartache and soul searching for all those people who would much rather support Obama than support real progressive change.

Losing to win will be such a minor unimportant price to pay to have their guy in the oval office, after all. It just doesn't get any better than this.

Think of it! No one will have to spend 4 years pretending all over again to be opposed to most of what Obama has been doing the past three years, while they get 4 years of the policies they've been cheering for the past three years, and cognitive dissonance can probably be treated with proper medication anyway.

Or booze. At least booze and pills are still manufactured in America.

Not only that, the economic "recovery" will thankfully continue. Why, if you've been wanting to launch a new business soon Obama will have the business climate improved to the point where you'll be able to hire an American workforce for your new venture for no more than the cost of labor in China! Thanks to the first trade agreement entirely negotiated by Obama.

Obama must be doing something "right" - no wonder he grins like that all the time.

Apparently if Romney wasn't so "moderate" Obama would never have had a chance.

20% of Republicans leaning to Obama!

In every case except the match-up against Ron Paul, more than 20 percent of Republican voters said they are more likely to support Obama than the Republican challenger. And Ron Paul is close, as 19 percent of Republicans said they are more likely to support Obama than Paul.

And as a bonus, no one will have to deal with the kind of Obama hating uncomfortable thoughts that Managing Editor of Black Agenda Report Bruce A. Dixon had the temerity and affrontery to publish a few weeks ago when he complained that...

A vote is a terrible thing to waste, they say. But exactly when are votes wasted? Are they thrown away when cast for the least of multiple evils. Are they squandered when cast for what people really need and want, even if that means a Democrat might not win? Are they lost when people with few or no good choices stay home? Or have voters already been robbed when the menu is limited to corporate-funded Republicans vs. corporate-funded Democrats?
[snip]
This is what Eugene Debs referred to a century ago, when he declared he would rather cast a meaningful vote for what did want, and not get it, than a fake and hollow one for what he didn't want, and get that.
And so, a hundred years later, the game is still the game. If we want our votes to have any meaning, it's time to reject the fake choices between the two corporate parties. It's time to wise up, to grow up and like adults, to take a view longer than dessert, or the next two or three elections

Yay team.

Obama is the best president ever! No one who admits to being a republican would ever have had a hope in he!! of achieving this.

Now that's 11 dimensional chess magic if I ever saw it.

The guy blows me away.

Please keep is up-to-date re those fish! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by oculus on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 03:41:22 PM EST

So sad. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by lilburro on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 07:57:28 PM EST

RIP.

That is very sad personally as well (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Edger on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 08:29:08 PM EST

She looked quite a bit like an old girlfriend of mine who also passed away quite a few years ago now.

Rest in peace Whitney... and Cara...

Oh, that's so sad (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by sj on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 09:16:12 PM EST

Her voice was gone and her spirit seemed so broken when last I saw her speak. Peace to her and her family.

As I did for Amy Winehouse, I offer this in sorrow.

Something to think about (none / 0) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 03:34:33 PM EST

I think you'll enjoy this.

We didn't start the fire

The song (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 04:41:01 PM EST

is a rebuttal to criticism of Joel's Baby Boomer generation. The song's title and refrain mention "the fire", an allusion to conflict and societal turmoil; Joel asserts that these can't be blamed on his generation alone - "we didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the world's been turning".


Every new generation (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 04:51:41 PM EST

thinks they have invented sex and discovered that the world is wrong.

Many outgrow that notion.

But it's still a cute video.


So (none / 0) (#9)
by sj on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 05:16:16 PM EST

have you outgrown that notion?


OT, but (none / 0) (#10)
by Edger on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 05:22:45 PM EST

I recall that it was a lot easier for me to do programming 40 years ago when my brain was still part of a new generation than it is lately (especially today for some reason). Does that ever happen to you? ;-)


It's harder to get in the groove (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by sj on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 05:37:57 PM EST

that's for sure. Once I'm in the groove where my hands take over, I'm good. But it's a lot harder to get there. Had you seen this? The Secret Life of the Grown-up Brain.


: Lol (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Edger on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 05:53:06 PM EST

As it turns out, I wrote about that very thing only yesterday ;-)
I Realize This Is A Serious Problem

Nope (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 09:01:56 PM EST

I know my generation invented sex.

lol


: LOL (none / 0) (#21)
by sj on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 09:07:44 PM EST

: Oh really??? (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 08:52:43 AM EST

I suppose you've never heard of rock n' roll...

On the fence. (none / 0) (#6)
by Gerald USN Ret on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 03:46:15 PM EST

You have to understand a fence out in the "wilds."

The fence won't stop determined people. It will just slow them down so that suspicious activity can be picked up by physical, video and electrical surveillance, etc. Then it is just a matter of going to pick them up.

Personally, I would have gone with multiple rows of razor wire if they weren't going to use concrete. Sure you can cut the wire, but it is easy to fix, and a lot cheaper.

Of course this really works well with drug mules. People can run, back track and hide pretty quick, but NOT WITH 80 TO 100 POUNDS OF DRUGS IN A BAG.
These guys are careful not to have too much activity that puts that amount of DRUGS at risk.

Occupy Olympics (none / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 06:11:20 PM EST

ATHENS | Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:10am EST
Article Via (Reuters) - Greece's largest police union has threatened to issue arrest warrants for officials from the country's European Union and International Monetary Fund lenders for demanding deeply unpopular austerity measures.

In a letter obtained by Reuters Friday, the Federation of Greek Police accused the officials of "...blackmail, covertly abolishing or eroding democracy and national sovereignty" and said one target of its warrants would be the IMF's top official for Greece, Poul Thomsen.
The threat is largely symbolic since legal experts say a judge must first authorize such warrants, but it shows the depth of anger against foreign lenders who have demanded drastic wage and pension cuts in exchange for funds to keep Greece afloat.
"Since you are continuing this destructive policy, we warn you that you cannot make us fight against our brothers. We refuse to stand against our parents, our brothers, our children or any citizen who protests and demands a change of policy," said the union, which represents more than two-thirds of Greek policemen.
"We warn you that as legal representatives of Greek policemen, we will issue arrest warrants for a series of legal violations ... such as blackmail, covertly abolishing or eroding democracy and national sovereignty."
The letter was also addressed to the European Central Bank's mission chief in Greece, Klaus Masuch, and the former European Commission chief inspector for Greece, Servaas Deroose.
more...

Romney (none / 0) (#19)
by CoralGables on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 08:59:08 PM EST

continues his strange trip through the primary/caucus cycle. Tonight he wins Maine just as he did the last go round. In 2008 Romney won with 51%. Tonight he pulls a narrow victory with 39% of the vote edging out Paul by about 200 votes.

Weather has improved (none / 0) (#23)
by observed on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 03:41:00 AM EST

It's a few degrees below 0F right now---typical these days.
That's cold, but not horrid, and not dangerous.
I'm told we probably won't get -40 temperatures again this winter.

Anonymous to the State of Israel (none / 0) (#25)
by Edger on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 06:30:33 AM EST

You label all who refuse to comply with your superstitious demands as anti semetic. And have taken steps to ensure a nuclear holocaust. You are unworthy to exist in your current form. and will therefore face the wrath of anonymous. Your empire lacks legitimacy and because of this you must govern behind a curtain of deceit. We will not allow you to attack a sovereign country based upon a campaign of lies. Your grip over humanity will weaken and man will be closer to freedom.
But before this is accomplished the people of this world will rise against you and renounce you in all your worth. Our crusade against your reign of terror shall commence in 3 steps.
Step one will be initiated after the release of this video and will be comprised of systematically removing you from the internet.

Step two will be later disclosed and is already in initiation. And as for step 3, well think of this one as a present from Anonymous to you. We will not stop untill the police state becomes a free state.
We are anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Israeli government; Expect us.
youtube, Feb 09, 2012

Well, I suppose that's one way to (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Anne on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 09:08:53 AM EST

get the US to label Anonymous a terrorist organization; I mean, does anyone get to threaten Israel like that and get away with it?


: Funny how that works, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Edger on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 09:14:39 AM EST

Anyone strongly enough opposed to terrorism is labeled a terrorist...

Anonymous needs a spell-check (none / 0) (#29)
by ruffian on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 11:47:50 AM EST

I stopped reading at 'semetic'


: That's too bad (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by sj on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 01:05:53 PM EST

It was worth reading.