keepthefaith Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Well, it looks like Amateur Hour is getting extended to 90 minutes. Obama tax credit to 95% of America will cost at least 15 million people up to $400. Fortunately, more people have jobs today than ever bef...oh, wait. No they don't. But hey...surely they won't screw up health care like everything else, right? Right? You're forgetting that there was no time to read and review the bill. It was critical that Congress vote on it as soon as they did. With only 1200 pages devoted to the $800 billion dollar monster, it's easy to understand why some details would be overlooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 You're forgetting that there was no time to read and review the bill. It was critical that Congress vote on it as soon as they did. With only 1200 pages devoted to the $800 billion dollar monster, it's easy to understand why some details would be overlooked. Fortunately that won't happen with the health care bill. Surely they'll read THAT bill, right? Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Well, it looks like Amateur Hour is getting extended to 90 minutes. Obama tax credit to 95% of America will cost at least 15 million people up to $400. Fortunately, more people have jobs today than ever bef...oh, wait. No they don't. But hey...surely they won't screw up health care like everything else, right? Right? You should see the new real estate regulations that go into effect January 1. That HUD and Treasury wrote without talking to each other. That they somehow managed to write in such a way that it will be literally impossible to sell a house without breaking the law. And that's not even the worst thing in the new regulations, either. (Note, too: it's a Bush Administration program.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 You should see the new real estate regulations that go into effect January 1. That HUD and Treasury wrote without talking to each other. That they somehow managed to write in such a way that it will be literally impossible to sell a house without breaking the law. And that's not even the worst thing in the new regulations, either. (Note, too: it's a Bush Administration program.) Didn't know about them, and I'm in commercial real estate. So what are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Didn't know about them, and I'm in commercial real estate. So what are they? Oh, they're bad. My wife works in (manages, at this point) a title company. She had a meeting with HUD Friday, and came home livid. Get this: the lenders are required to provide a binding good faith estimate of all costs to the borowwer Great idea in principle...except that they're required to estimate other parties' expenses, and since the estimate is binding the other parties' cannot change them. That opens up a whole rats' nest of problems. Like: the bank is required to estimate the settlement fees on behalf of the settlement company, which means they can simply low-ball private settlement companies out of business (they can effectively put $0 on the estimate, eat the cost as a cost of doing business for their own settlement companies, and force private companies out of business). Same thing goes for title insurance underwriters - banks can drive them out of business by marking down their own premiums and simply marking up the loan terms instead. Or: the banks are now required to estimate the recordation fees and taxes, and those estimates are binding on the states and counties. And this is specifically intended to eliminate collusion between lenders and other parties. The lenders are also required to consolidate expenses on the GFE in a way that's illegal according to HUD rules, but itemize expenses on the new HUD forms that's now illegal according to Treasury regulations. In addition to lenders jacking their rates a quarter-point to cover their low-balling expenses to drive the rest of the industry out of business, It's literally going to be illegal to sell a house next spring. I'm not sure what the legislation itself looks like - the implementation couldn't be more screwed up. That's just my brief understanding of it - the wifey brought home several hundred pages of notes on the new regulations. I don't think this affects commercial real estate. Just residential. And while there's some good ideas in it in principle, in practice...my God, what a fuster cluck. (And if anyone thinks health care would be different...think again. Insurers are already regulated by Treasury; under the new health insurance plan they'd ALSO be regulated by HHS.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 That's just my brief understanding of it - the wifey brought home several hundred pages of notes on the new regulations. Did your wife come home livid because of the stupidity of the regulations, or because she had several hundred pages of new regulations she had to read up on? Tell her she shouldn't get livid about either of those, but instead should be glad to come home to a loving husband willing to listen to her complain about her long day, while walking in new shoes on the way home from a manicure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Did your wife come home livid because of the stupidity of the regulations, or because she had several hundred pages of new regulations she had to read up on? Tell her she shouldn't get livid about either of those, but instead should be glad to come home to a loving husband willing to listen to her complain about her long day, while walking in new shoes on the way home from a manicure. The stupidity. I don't think she minds the reading. Seriously...these regs could drive her company and other independents out of business by March, the title insurance underwriters out of business by June. The only companies that will be able to do business will be the ones directly affiliated with the lenders - brought to you in the interest of reducing collusion between companies. And I didn't mind the listening...I needed the sleep. New shoes and manicure were Saturday - but then, I just got a new 46" Samsung LED TV for a steal, so it's not like I could say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 The stupidity. I don't think she minds the reading. Seriously...these regs could drive her company and other independents out of business by March, the title insurance underwriters out of business by June. The only companies that will be able to do business will be the ones directly affiliated with the lenders - brought to you in the interest of reducing collusion between companies. And I didn't mind the listening...I needed the sleep. New shoes and manicure were Saturday - but then, I just got a new 46" Samsung LED TV for a steal, so it's not like I could say no. Doesn't effect me, I guess. Glad you got the new 46" LED. Better to watch the Sabres on and someday maybe the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 It looks like they are admitting that their Jobs numbers were wrong. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/abc-news-ex...tory?id=9095621 The Obama administration, under fire for inflating job growth from the $787 billion stimulus plan, slashed over 60,000 jobs from its most recent report on the program because the reporting outlets had submitted "unrealistic data," according to a document obtained by ABC News. The Office of Management and Budget document shows that before an Oct. 30 progress report on the program the administration asked the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to remove information from 12 stimulus recipients that contained "unrealistic data," including "unrealistic job data." One recipient – Talladega County of Alabama – claimed that 5,000 jobs had been saved or created from only $42,000 in stimulus funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/1...re?hpid=topnews Another day, another flurry of outrage over the jobs numbers claimed by the government for the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus program. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) released a blistering statement Tuesday morning taking to task flawed data in the federal figures released on the stimulus tracking site recovery.gov Oct. 30 showing that $160 billion in spending had so far created or saved 640,000 jobs. His shot came in response to two ABC News stories. The first reported that the administration deleted 60,000 jobs from a recovery.gov list after it became clear that the jobs figures were overstated. Then, on Monday, another news report revealed recovery.gov reports had claimed $761,420 in spending and 30 jobs created in Arizona's 15th congressional district -- a district that doesn't exist. "The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes," Obey said. "We designed the Recovery Act to be open and transparent and I expect the the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, who oversees the recovery act web site and data to have information that is accurate, reliable and understandable to the American public. Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now." good for him, not to fall in line with the other puppets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/1...re?hpid=topnews Another day, another flurry of outrage over the jobs numbers claimed by the government for the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus program. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) released a blistering statement Tuesday morning taking to task flawed data in the federal figures released on the stimulus tracking site recovery.gov Oct. 30 showing that $160 billion in spending had so far created or saved 640,000 jobs. His shot came in response to two ABC News stories. The first reported that the administration deleted 60,000 jobs from a recovery.gov list after it became clear that the jobs figures were overstated. Then, on Monday, another news report revealed recovery.gov reports had claimed $761,420 in spending and 30 jobs created in Arizona's 15th congressional district -- a district that doesn't exist. "The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes," Obey said. "We designed the Recovery Act to be open and transparent and I expect the the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, who oversees the recovery act web site and data to have information that is accurate, reliable and understandable to the American public. Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now." good for him, not to fall in line with the other puppets Maybe I'm having a hard time deciphering this in my excitement to hear Jauron is fired, but is he being critical of the idiocy of the Recovery Act committing money to districts that don't exist, or to "the inaccuracies of recover.gov"; that is, is he pissed about the bill or pissed about the website reporting things inaccurately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I think it's funny that he thinks fast food joints aren't owned by baby boomers. I guess he thinks no one owns them, the just exist. I am not saying I can't live without them... I won't die tommorrow if they all went bust. Just saying they are staffed (people who actually do the WORK) by anything but baby-boomers. Like I said... I wasn't 7 for 7... I said 5 or 6 for 7. This was one of the ones that you may have got me looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 i am trying to figure this one out....lets say the guys father was born in 1899(technically the 1800's still) that would put the father at 110 years old. you are 31, therefore the guys son is 43.....the guys dad had him when he was 67 at the youngest? not completely unheard of(tony randall to name one)....but man....I would hate to have a 70 year old as a father when i was in my toddler days...... I am 41... My friend is 53. Yep... He was almost 70 when my friend was born (12 years older than me!)... Really! Dude, it was 1956... The great p*ssy famine didn't end till the baby-boomers ushered in the sexual revolution during the 1960's... Even for an almost 70 year old guy! Did I say he (the old guy/father) was a UPer too? That is from UP of Michigan. I can tell you more wild stories later about this guy (he would apporve too)... I gotta go get a boat and then go home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I would advise you to keep some of this to yourself. It's like you're having a garage sale of your personal virtues. Why? I probably have better virtues than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Why? I probably have better virtues than you. Exiled what the hell are you doing in PPP, you should be celebrating on TSW right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Why? I probably have better virtues than you. Mine are solid. Let's call it a tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The numbers of false jobs that are being reported keeps getting higher and higher. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/maps/Bog...e-Stimulus.html We've added thousands more jobs in several dozen cities to our not really "created or saved" stimulus jobs map. The total number of jobs we have found to be "not really created or saved" now approaches 80,000. Several new states and the Territory of Guam have new entries. We will continue updating the map in the coming weeks. I love me some Obama Thanks AD, you inspire me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts