Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul V. who wrote (114326)	10/1/2011 1:52:54 AM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224648

"Bush took less time to find Saddam that Hillary did to find the Rose Law Firm billing records!"

To: Paul V. who wrote (114326)	10/1/2011 1:58:03 AM
From: grusum	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224648

but who would bare the blunt of the pain? everyone, but it doesn't have to be all that bad. the longer we wait, the more pain there will be. Forget about manufacturing jobs-it is contrary to capitalism of maximizing your, mine and other stockholders. if you're trying to say that manufacturing jobs are contrary to capitalism..... i don't know what to say. that has to be the dumbest assertion i've ever seen. Lower wage, and fringes go to where the supply of low wage/fringe earners are located, low wages are the result of low labor efficiency within a country and the low amount of wealth it has. profits are maximized and we make the most money even as stockholders. Ross Parow (sp) was correct when he stated, "there will be a great sucking sound to Mexico. However, he did not figure China, India and Africa would come into the equation. this is incoherent. Without manufacturing we will have to issue tremendous number of "green cards" to residents of other countries to get the high skill sets needed to perform the jobs. really Paul.. what are you saying?? why don't you slow down a little and try to make your point/question a little clearer? And, then they will return to their own countries. without manufacturing, it wouldn't be long before no one would want to come here anyway.

To: Paul V. who wrote (114326)	10/1/2011 9:49:49 AM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224648

Trumka Calls Gov Walker ‘Lucifer’ talk about projecting

To: Paul V. who wrote (114326)	10/1/2011 10:27:18 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224648

LEHIGH ACRES, Fla.—Joseph Reilly lost his vacation home here last year when he was out of work and stopped paying his mortgage. The bank took the house and sold it. Mr. Reilly thought that was the end of it. In June, he learned otherwise. A phone call informed him of a court judgment against him for $192,576.71. It turned out that at a foreclosure sale, his former house fetched less than a quarter of what Mr. Reilly owed on it. His bank sued him for the rest. The result was a foreclosure hangover that homeowners rarely anticipate but increasingly face: a "deficiency judgment." Until recently, "there was a false sense of calm" among borrowers who went through foreclosure, Mr. Englett says. "That's changing," he adds, as borrowers learn they may be financially on the hook even after the house is gone. In Mr. Reilly's case, "there's not a snowball's chance in hell that we can pay" the deficiency judgment, says the 39-year-old man, who remains unemployed. He says he is going to speak to a lawyer about declaring bankruptcy next week, in an effort to escape the debt. Full Article online.wsj.com

To: Paul V. who wrote (114326)	10/1/2011 10:30:04 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224648

Message 27673307

To: Paul V. who wrote (114326)	10/1/2011 10:32:22 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224648

Thank Dodd-Frank For That FeePosted 09/30/2011 06:51 PM ET Politics: Damned as an "outrage" in the press, Bank of America's just-announced $5 monthly fee for ATM use was a logical and predictable result of a Dodd- Frank financial bill that fixed prices. Guess who gets to pay for it? Throwing their weight around at the height of the banking crisis, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut vowed to stick it to banks. They blamed them for the mess to cover up the fact that they forced banks to lend to favored constituencies who could not repay. The two Democrats pushed through the much-vaunted Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which President Obama signed and touted as one of the signature accomplishments of his presidency. That act, which included a micromanaging amendment on fees, carried a $2.9 billion implementation cost for that alone over five years, according to the Government Accountability Office. It was nothing but the same old pandering to special interests. Named after Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, the amendment limited fees that banks can collect from sellers when their customers make debit card purchases — cutting 44 cent fees to 21 cents. That little bomb is now why battered Bank of America has no choice but to impose a $5 monthly fee — $60 a year — to consumers to make up for lost revenue. The "economics of offering a debit card have changed with recent regulations," a bank spokeswoman told ABC News Friday. BofA says it stands to lose $2 billion from the arbitrary Durbin price-fixing amendment and now has no choice but to make up for the lost revenue some other way. Now that consumers will be stuck with that fee, they can thank Dodd, Frank and Obama for that special little spike in inflation tailored just for them. Other banks, by the way, might follow. And like banks, consumers may respond in a way that is logical to their interests, too. As banks are forced to impose fees, it would not be surprising if some consumers responded by moving to a cash economy — the kind they have in places such as Argentina and Zimbabwe, where government meddling has trashed the banking system. That's what happens in all economies where a government attempts to legislate the transactions of willing buyers and willing sellers and impose its own vision of what prices for particular transactions should be. And in the end, it's always the people at the bottom of the economic food chain who get it — consumers. Which is interesting because Democrats claimed to be standing up for the little guy with this "reform." "American taxpayers, many of whom were significantly harmed by the financial crisis, would have shouldered none of the burden for implementing the legislation," Frank promised. In those palmy days of 2010, the Democratic line was straight out of the Gilded Age: Banks are thieves. Wall Street vs. Main Street. Union thugs invading branch banks and busing in baying mobs to the home lawns of bankers. Now the reality is here: Democrats' rabid intervention in market mechanisms is pushing costs onto consumers. Like taxes, fixing prices always passes costs down to the little guy. Until Democrats understand this, banks should be identifying the $5 charge as the Dodd-Frank-Durbin-Obama fee.