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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (135963)	8/20/2013 8:23:18 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

So what do you think is the problem with social security you want to solve? I see no problem. The problem is the rich are not paying their fair share. And there is no such thing as common sense. That is a myth.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (135963)	8/20/2013 10:17:57 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

Of course, most people in this country don't think having 50% of the work force on government welfare is a problem either. We're in such massive denial that we can't even begin to muster the steam to solve problems. When you conclude like this, then it indicates that you do not know how SS works. Just consider this. With higher unemployment, the SS contributions decrease. With the high rate of withdrawal, which occurs when the Govt. borrows money to fight wars or when the more of the population qualifies as they keep aging. So you increase the revenue by removing the cap, increase the qualification age and ban the Government's borrowing from the fund. None of these politicians have a desire to solve it.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (135963)	8/20/2013 2:57:42 PM
From: Alex MG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Of course, most people in this country don't think having 50% of the work force on government welfare is a problem either. We're in such massive denial Wow... you sure do like to continually make a fool of yourself 50% of the workforce on govt welfare? is that you Mitt Rmoney? is that all you and a few others have to bitch and moan about is poor people and people less fortunate than you? yet not a peep about the corporate welfare and welfare for the rich why don't you do something constructive with your life instead of bitching and moaning 24/7 about those less fortunate than you now you will of course bitch and moan about a "personal attack", boofuckinghooo... if the shoe fits then wear it, don't be a moaner

To: RetiredNow who wrote (135963)	8/20/2013 3:21:31 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Obama Presses for Action on Bank Rules By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and PETER EAVISWASHINGTON — President Obama urged the nation’s top financial regulators on Monday to move faster on new rules for Wall Street, telling them in a private White House meeting that they must work to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis. Aides said Mr. Obama also told the regulators that the United States needed a more simplified and certain system of financing housing. The president recently endorsed proposals to reduce the government’s role in providing mortgages. Administration officials and some lawmakers have expressed frustration that critical parts of Mr. Obama’s overhaul of the financial system, which was voted into law three years ago and is known as the Dodd-Frank act, remain unenforced as an alphabet soup of federal agencies wrangle over how to adopt it. In particular, top presidential aides have highlighted the failure in putting the Volcker Rule into effect. It would prohibit banks from risking institutional money in certain speculative investments. Last month, Jacob Lew, the Treasury secretary, complained in a speech that the regulators were moving too slowly to confront the dangers of banks that are so large that governments cannot allow them to fail for fear of bringing down the economy. “If we get to the end of this year, and cannot, with an honest straight face, say that we’ve ended ‘too big to fail,’ we’re going to have to look at other options because the policy of Dodd-Frank and the policy of the administration is to end ‘too big to fail,’ ” Mr. Lew said. The meeting on Monday was an attempt to raise those concerns directly with the agencies that are responsible for turning the law into reality. Among those in attendance were Mr. Lew; Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve; and top officials at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union Administration. Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Obama wanted to convey “the sense of urgency that he feels about getting these regulations under Wall Street reform implemented promptly.” “There are some important rules that have been put in place,” he added. “More work needs to be done.” Congress passed Dodd-Frank in 2010 in response to the financial crisis of 2008. Since then, regulators have been working to turn the mammoth law into workable regulations, often in the face of opposition from lobbyists for banks that opposed the law. Among the rules that have yet to be put into effect, according to Treasury Department officials, are enhanced prudential standards for banks and certain other institutions, capital and margin rules for derivatives, new mortgage disclosure regulations and the Volcker Rule. Treasury officials said they expected regulators to finish work in those areas by the end of the year. As the banks have returned to profitability, the Obama administration has sounded increasingly impatient about the pace of bank regulation. Its desire to speed things up comes at what appears to be an opportune time. The fear that banks are too big, and could jeopardize the wider economy if they fail, is shared by people on both the left and right. Congress has introduced two bills in recent months that envision far more drastic overhauls than Dodd-Frank, both with bipartisan support. “The politics are pretty good for the administration if they can do something on this,” Nolan McCarty, a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton. Some lawmakers also have expressed concern that the regulators are moving too slowly. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, and several other senators have proposed new laws that would reinstate a firewall between banks and investment firms like those in the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act. Senators David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, and Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, have introduced separate legislation that would increase the amount of capital that the nation’s biggest banks are required to carry. “For too long, financial watchdogs were asleep on the job, allowing Wall Street megabanks to become too complex to manage and regulate and ‘too big to fail,’ ” said a spokeswoman for Senator Brown. She said Senator Brown was “hopeful that today’s meeting will lead to progress in ensuring that taxpayers and our financial system are no longer threatened by ‘too big to fail’ banks.” The administration may also want to sound the right notes as the financial crisis’s fifth anniversary approaches. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the event blamed for paralyzing the world financial system, occurred on Sept. 15, 2008. The fact that many rules have not been completed so long after Lehman’s failure could be a source of embarrassment to the administration and regulators. “They certainly don’t want that story dominating things over the next couple of months,” said Marcus Stanley, policy director of Americans for Financial Reform, a group that has called for stricter regulation of financial firms. Michael D. Shear reported from Washington and Peter Eavis from New York.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (135963)	8/20/2013 7:10:55 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Housing Market Won’t Recover Until Unemployment Falls Below 7%: Miller Samuel CEO By Bernice Napach \| Daily Ticker – 7 hours ago There are many signs that the housing market is in full recovery mode: home prices are up 12% from a year ago; Re/Max, one the nation’s largest real estate brokerages, just filed for an IPO; and Zillow, which operates the largest U.S. real estate Internet site, announced it was buying StreetEasy, another real estate site. But Jonathan Miler, CEO of real estate appraisal firm Miller Samuel, says the housing market has not recovered yet. Related: Detroit Builders Aren't Betting on a Housing Recovery but Investors Are The rebound in housing "is based on nothing,” says Miller.“Incomes are flat, credit is tight and unemployment and underemployment are unacceptably high," Miller says in the attached clip. " Yet housing prices nationally are rising in excess of 12%." Related: Home Flippers Come Roaring Back One of the big drivers of the jump in prices is the growing number of purchases by investors rather than homeowners--many of those purchases in cash. Thirty percent of existing home sales are paid for in cash according to the National Association of Realtors. Goldman Sachs estimates more than 50% of new and existing home purchases are paid in cash. Investors have been big buyers of foreclosed homes, but Miller expects those sales will slow. Looking ahead, Miller says the current “breakneck pace” of home sales overall will decline as interest rates rise, which is expected as the Fed reduces its aggressive easing policies. But contrary to conventional wisdom, Miller says rising rates are not necessarily bad for this housing market. Related: Did Bernanke Just Kill the Housing Recovery? “Higher rates will reduce froth in the market which makes the rise in housing prices more sustainable,” says Miller, adding that it will knock about 7% to 8% of potential buyers off the market. So what’s really needed for a sustainable recovery in housing? “A much more historically normal unemployment rate—something in the 6% range," he says. *Tell Us What You Think!* Send an email to: thedailyticker@yahoo.com. finance.yahoo.com

To: RetiredNow who wrote (135963)	8/20/2013 10:40:12 PM
From: John Vosilla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Of course, most people in this country don't think having 50% of the work force on government welfare is a problem either That includes those who currently work for government, veterans ect? An amazing stat is our government workforce is now lower than it was when Obama took office. Do you realize how much lower the unemployment rate would be if we had normalized growth in public sector employment like coming out of any prior recession? We'd have monthly growth in employment much closer to the Reagan and Clinton boom years for almost four years now. That is astounding considering the hole we dug during the financial collapse and continued deleveraging by the middle class the entire time.