One proposal is to mimic the Massachusetts’ plan. Except there are some problems with that:

Huh. Well, that sounds just perfect – go ahead and implement a program that has quickly gone into the red. Perfect management of our tax-paying dollars, right? Oh, yeah.

So, just how would we even pay for this? Oh, you are gonna love this plan by the US Senate:
Senate Health Plan Could Tax 1 in 8 Workers. One in EIGHT. 12.5% of Americans will be helping to foot the bill for everyone else. Holy smokes. Here’s the nitty gritty:

About one in eight U.S. workers who receive health benefits from an employer — more than nine million workers — could pay higher income taxes on benefits as part of a Senate proposal that aims to raise billions of dollars to finance health-care reform, according an independent analysis of the proposal.

A five-page presentation, obtained by FOX Business, was prepared by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is leading efforts by Senate Democrats to formulate funding alternatives for a reform plan. In the document, Baucus proposes “options to limit allowable tax free health benefits.”

Since World War II, when companies facing work-force shortages began offering comprehensive health-care coverage to attract and retain workers, such benefits have been tax-free to employees. Today, more than 150 million workers and their dependents receive health insurance from their current — or, if retired, former — employer.

Preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of health-care reform at $1 trillion or more over 10 years.

Read the whole presentation here.

According to the document, Sen. Baucus is looking at four ways to tax benefits starting in 2013, when many reform proposals would take full effect:

* Tax benefits of single workers who earn more than $100,000 a year and couples that earn more than $200,000. The presentation cites a previous estimate from the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation [JCT] that the proposal would raise $161.9 billion over 10 years if the changes were effective on January 1, 2010.
* Tax benefits that exceed a value of $6,182 for a single worker and a value of $15,700 for a worker who also receives coverage for his family. The document cites a previous JCT estimate that the proposal would raise $418 billion over a decade if the changes were effective January 1, 2010.
* Tax those “base” benefits plus 10%, or a value of $6,800 for an individual worker and a value of $17,240 for families. The higher cap would eliminate taxes for some workers. The document says Baucus has requested an estimate, presumably from the JCT, of how much this proposal would generate in new tax revenue with the change effective January 1, 2013.
* Tax base benefits plus 20%, or a value of $7,420 for an individual and a value of $18,840 for families, which would shelter even more workers from tax liability. Baucus also has requested, presumably from the JTC, an estimate for this proposal also effective January 1, 2013.

Now, I know numbers like these can make your head spin. But what they are considering is pretty important for, well, one out of EIGHT of us, who will be helping to provide health care. Ahem. It is actually important to all of us, I know. Especially since health care is an important part of many people’s benefits package:

Most of the value of amounts cited in the presentation is the cost of insurance premiums that companies pay for their employees’ health benefits. But the presentation says the total value calculated for taxation would also include supplemental health plans for vision and dental care, as well as contributions employees make to their flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts, which workers contribute to with pre-tax dollars. Baucus would also adjust benchmarks annually to inflation.

A 2008 survey of employer health benefits suggests more than nine million workers could face new tax liabilities under the Baucus proposals, according one of the survey’s authors. The survey was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, for the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Education Trust.

The survey, of 1,900 small and large companies, can be found here.

Among other things, the survey identified insurance-premium levels employers paid for their workers’ coverage last year. To analyze variations around national averages, the survey reported higher premiums due to factors such as geography and benefit differences.

Based on the survey, Jon Gabel, NORC senior fellow for health policy and evaluation in Washington, D.C., said that if the Baucus proposal to tax single workers receiving more than $6,182 in benefits were in effect today, about 15% of single workers, or 4.7 million, could face new tax payments — potentially hundreds of dollars or more per person per year, depending on tax brackets and the size of benefit packages.

Gabel estimated that about 17% of workers with family coverage, or 4.5 million workers, could face new taxes if the proposal to tax employees with families who receive more than $15,700 in health benefits were in effect today. Under the survey methodology, with family coverage defined as a policy insuring four people, the tax could affect benefits for about 18 million people, Gabel estimated.

The survey and the Baucus proposals did not address another 12 million workers who receive coverage for themselves and one dependent, usually a spouse. Presumably any tax proposal would apply to a subset of them as well.

With health care inflation, even more workers could face tax payments by 2013 as premium payments rose. But by adopting higher benchmarks, such as Baucus’ “base plus 10%” and “base plus 20%,” policymakers would narrow the number of workers required to pay taxes, if Congress adopts such proposals. Congress could also limit their impact by combining a benefits level cap with an income test — such as taxing only single workers who receive $6,182 in annual health care benefits and who earn more than $100,000 a year.

Gabel said most workers will have to ask their employer for benefit information to determine the value of their individual health care packages.

For more information on taxation of health benefits, you can read Center for Budget Policy and Priorities report here.

In these difficult economic times, I’m sure this is just what these people want to hear. But this seems to be one area in which there is agreement across the aisle:

The idea of taxing health-care benefits has bipartisan roots. Some conservative economists and Republican policymakers believe health-care costs are soaring faster then general inflation in part because such benefits are excluded from taxable income, encouraging excessive health care spending by consumers. Some Democrats agree.

During the presidential campaign last year, then-candidate Barack Obama criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for proposing to tax all health-care benefits. Under his health-care reform plan, McCain would have used the new revenues to the government to fund health-care tax credits.

But in a meeting with Baucus and other senators earlier this month, President Obama signaled he would not rule out taxing benefits to help finance a reform plan.

“If I’m not mistaken, I can think of at least one Republican off the top of my head that talked about changing the tax benefits for the exclusion,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily press briefing on Friday. “I think if I sat at Google for about five minutes I could probably get you several dozen. I think one of the major reform bills that’s up there right now that’s been written by Sen. [Richard] Burr (R-N.C.) includes, if not a complete ending of the exclusion, some cap of it.”

The Obama Administration has already proposed more than $300 billion in tax increases to pay for reform, mainly by limiting deductions for wealthier families, and proposed more than $600 billion in cuts in Medicare and Medicaid spending.

But NORC’s Gabel said of specifically taxing benefits, “I think it’s very difficult to sell. As we know, Americans are almost schizophrenic in their views on taxing and spending. You name it, they think we should do more on it — spend more on education, more on defense, more on health care. On the other hand, they think taxes are too high and they don’t see a contradiction between the two.”

Well, at least this proposal would apply to everyone, right? Wrong:

The tax proposals also likely face strong opposition from some of the President’s and the Democratic party’s key supporters — unions that enjoy more generous health-care benefits won through hard-fought contact negotiations over decades. Apparently anticipating some objections about the possibility of affecting contracts already in place, Baucus has proposed protecting some union benefits by “grandfathering” collective-bargaining agreements existing on January 1, 2013, in his “base plus 10%” and “base plus 20%” options, according to his presentation.

Did you catch that? Unions may be exempt from having to pony up like everyone else will have to do. WOW – they really DID buy themselves a president, didn’t they??? I wonder how hard it would be to organize a United Office Workers Union (h/t to my partner for that union idea)?? How long are most Americans just going to accept that Union workers have far better benefits and pensions than the rest of us because we are subsidizing them? (Again, I’m not anti-union, but these things kind of stick in my craw…)

But there does seem to be agreement (more or less) that something needs to change:

On Sunday, a New York Times poll on health-care reform suggested taxing health benefits may not be as politically treacherous as assumed: the Times reported that 57% of voters said they would be willing to pay higher taxes “so that all Americans have health insurance that they can’t lose no matter what.” Just over a third — 37% — said they would not be willing to pay such taxes, and 6% had no opinion.

In a press briefing on June 9, Baucus said he was considering either a 50-50 or 60-40 split between taxes and savings to pay for a reform plan. Baucus specifically mentioned a “grandfathering” idea that he said would help mitigate taxes to some people who receive health-insurance benefits and said he favored an income test to narrow the impact as well.

In the House, Democratic leaders announced their own draft reform plan on Friday. But they did not present any options for financing it.

Gabel said taxes on benefits could not only raise some revenue for a new government plan but could also help to reduce health care spending, and thus inflation, as some economists believe.

“People will move from rich benefits where they don’t face deductibles to higher deductibles so their premiums are lower, and this will reduce the use of services,” Gabel said. “Also, they may move back into tightly managed HMOs like Kaiser, which have shown they can deliver care at lower cost.”

Well, that would be something at least. I think it would be great if everyone had health care – as long as we can PAY for it without going further into massive debt as a country. Or without putting the lion’s share of burden on some employees while allowing others off scott free. Surely a more just proposal can be worked out, yes? Let’s hope so, otherwise, those aren’t great odds for the 12.5% of employees who will pay more…

The crusty CNN newsman/commentator Lou Dobbs takes a depressing look at unemployment figures and how taxpayers are being HAMMERED:

California’s Burden: Workers Pay the Price
Workers in California are worrying about losing even more money. The unemployment rate is in the double-digits and climbing. Those who have jobs in the state are bearing an increasingly heavy burden and their tax rates are rising as well. Casey Wian has the report.

Even Maddow had a segment on unemployment, which some have noted does NOT include all of the people forced to work at part-time jobs or those who’ve given up entirely:

The President is doing “everything in his power”? Uh, like what? Well, the unemployment benefits are good — the infusion of cash into the economy also helps. Maddow, to her credit, asks some important questions of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who supplies some solid answers but not any real solutions.

All this talk about the BIG SQUEEZE on the average working person — both from employment crises and increasing taxes — reminded me of a segment I watched earlier Tuesday evening on Hannity:

As I was preparing this story, I stopped by the YouTube channel of Rep. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan — I’ve subscribed to his channel because I KNOW that the economy and jobs are foremost in his mind — mainly the 750,000 jobs that the state of Michigan expects to lose by the end of 2009. That’s a staggering number of lost jobs. Here’s Fox News’s Geraldo interviewing Rep. McCotter over the weekend:

750,000 jobs. That’s one and a half times the entire population of Lansing, Michigan.

“A cherished way of life is being lost,” says Rep. McCotter.

And future generations will have nothing to show for current slapdash solutions except a massive debt they’ll have to try to struggle to repay through exorbitant taxes that prohibit their achieving a decent standard of living.

It’s not such a rosy picture after all, is it.

OF NOTE: Too many blogs, particularly the Hillary-friendly blogs, would never publish a Dick Morris video, solely because of what he’s said about Hillary and Bill. I think that that is a mistake. Let’s leave such strict censorship to the Daily Kos crowd. I’m willing to listen to anyone whose commentary strikes a chord within me, or at the very least raises highly important matters that — sigh — our media do not cover.

I didn’t know that Morris does videos. Here is the link to his YouTube channel.

Mr. Morris’s blog contains more interesting thoughts, including these recent posts:

• “OBAMA, GM: YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT (right on, Dick!)
• “OBAMA’S WORST JOBS-KILLER,” published April 1 in the New York Post:
  

  More than anything else, business needs a predictable environment if it is to create jobs. Changes in the regulatory environment and the tax code make it almost impossible for businesses to make investments.

  Yet President Obama seems to ignore this reality. Each day’s news brings another bold and far-reaching proposal to change the fundamentals of the US economy. And each time he indulges his personal ideology with such a pronouncement, businesses all over the world cut back on their planned investment until the dust settles.

  Most incredible was the fact that he chose the middle of a deep recession to announce a major tax-code overhaul. …

• “OBAMA SOAKS THE RICH: CHURCHES, DAY CARE, HOMELESS SHELTERS,” printed March 28th:
  

  President Obama’s glib assertion that his reduction in tax deductions will not reduce donations is absurd. His pathetic defense at his press conference – that he would still give a $100 dollar check to charity even if he only got $11 less of tax deduction from it was both disingenuous and beside the point.

  And his comment that his reduced deduction would only impact one or two percent of the nation misses the point that it is these folks who are doing almost half of the donating.

  In 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, four million taxpayers had adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more. They comprised 3% of the tax returns, made 31% of the income, but donated 44% of all charitable contributions. Together, they provided charity with $81 billion in that year. …

You can’t say we’re not eclectic in what we post here, eh?

Remember when George Bush and Dick Cheney could rely on the many in the media to help them euphemize that dirty word, “torture?” It wasn’t torture, it was “enhanced interrogation.” That’s like calling the amputation of a leg, “enhanced skin removal below the waist.”

For those of you who were hoping for a new day. For those of you wanting change you could believe in. I have three words for you.

FORGET ABOUT IT!!

Today’s headline in the Washington Post, “GM Chief to Resign at White House’s Behest.” Great Marlon Brando’s ghost!! Talk about using language to cover up the truth. I guess it could have been worse. The White House could have said it made Wagoner an offer he couldn’t refuse. Did Luca Brasi pay Wagoner a visit? (If you have not seen the movie, The Godfather, you won’t have a clue what I’m talking about.)

Let’s be clear about what happened here. Barack Obama, somehow, is now in a position to fire the CEO of a publicly traded company. The phraseology employed to describe what happened to Wagoner reminds me of an observation from my friend Janet. Janet, who is from the midwest, noted that folks on the east coast frequently will complain by stating, “I have an issue.” Janet told me:

They may be issues on the east coast but in the midwest they are fucking problems.

The firing of Rick Wagoner was not made for any rational economic reason. This is pure politics, designed in part to portray Barack as a tough guy who is taking charge on the eve of his international debut at the G20 summit. Not a single person on the Obama economic team has ever run a business or met a payroll. Barack and his team of bozos could not find a Secretary of Treasury who felt it important to pay taxes and wanted to appoint Tom Daschle to run Health and Human Services even though he was a lobbyist taking freebies on the side. And these are the people who want us to believe that they know how to run a car company?

Well Barack, it is your baby now. You are in charge of GM and its fate. If it survives and prospers you will be doing the big booty shake as you celebrate your second inauguration. But if GM falters, no amount of obfuscation and murky language will be able to mask the stink of this turd.

WackyMacky01 posted this video. He asks a great question at the end of his description:

Fox report with Bret Baier focuses on a small Albion Indiana Company with 50 employees that was pressed by UAW organizers into an open vote to unionize. Is this what we’re in for?

BELOW, you and I time-travel back to March 2008, to the sweltering primaries, to Hillary and Barack battling the “brain-spattering, windpipe-slitting art” of presidential primaries warfare. There, we see economics professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, in March 2008, sizing up and dressing down Barack Obama: “Why has Mr. Obama stumbled when it comes to economic issues?” (And has anything changed, or has he learned anything, in one short year?)

First, here’s the Nobel Laureate as a blunt instrument hammering the plan on PBS’s Charlie Rose Monday (March 23rd) for “an update on the economy with Andrew Ross Sorkin, Paul Krugman and Joe Nocera.” Krugman’s condemnation of Geithner’s recycled-from-Paulson “zombie” plan is stunning:

Paul. You’re the man. You nailed it yesterday. And, Paul, one year and 16 days ago (March 8, 2008), you had it all figured out:

Why has Mr. Obama stumbled when it comes to economic issues? Well, on health care — which is closely tied to overall concerns about financial security — there is a clear, substantive difference between the candidates, with the Clinton plan being significantly stronger.

More broadly, I suspect that the Obama mystique — his carefully created image as a transformational, even transcendent figure — has created a backlash among those unconvinced that he’s interested in the nuts-and-bolts work of fixing things.

Ohio voters were more likely to say that Mr. Obama inspires them — but more likely to say that Mrs. Clinton has a clear plan for the country’s problems.

And Mr. Obama’s attempt to win over workers by portraying himself as a fierce critic of Nafta looked, and was, deeply insincere — an appearance particularly costly for a candidate who tries to seem above politics as usual.

Isn’t that remarkable. Paul predicted — perfectly — the central problems of an Obama presidency:

1. A lack of interest in the “nuts-and-bolts work of fixing things”; and
2. A lack of sincerity — in fact, he comes across as “deeply insincere.”

That sums it up for me. The major question is why the hard left, which had adored Paul Krugman for years, turned on him immediately when he dared to criticize Obama as unreal and disinterested in WORKING at governance.

Hell, during the Tuesday night press conference, he didn’t even want to be bothered with working at explaining what he’s not doing.

Here’s a second segment from Charlie Rose’s show Monday night. “The economy continued with Daniel Alpert is a managing director of Westwood Captial and Thomas F Steyer is Co-Managing Partner of Farallon Capital Management.”

FOR INVETERATE READERS ONLY: Boy, if you want to see some historic predictions made, glance through our archives from Spring 2008 on the primary battles involving Hillary, Barack and John (Edwards), and Paul Krugman’s and our commentaries on all three.

Paul Krugman had Obama pegged, and so did we at No Quarter.

And, you know, we’re not pleased that we’re correct. For the sake of this country, we wish we had been wrong.

But you can’t take a guy who’s never worked hard at anything — except campaigning so he can win something — and turn him into an intense, involved chief executive of the most powerful nation on earth and in history.

The guy either has the work ethic, or he doesn’t.

This guy doesn’t.

Worse than his laziness are his disinterest and his disconnectedness. Which showed during the March 24th press conference, as he got restless and his answers became more and more mechanical, and it was clear he wanted to be anywhere but there because the reporters’ questions bored him. It’s hard, make that impossible, to work hard at anything if you don’t care.

The guy either has the passion, or he doesn’t.

Most certainly, they cannot be feigned. Every sentient American has the sniff and scratch ability to detect a FRAUD.

P.S. Unless they wear rose-colored glasses, but those people don’t count because they’re hopelessly clueless, and rational dialogue is impossible until they rehabilitate themselves and rediscover their critical thinking capabilities.

Please join us this evening from 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. ET on No Quarter Radio for LD’s Dollars and Sense. These are truly historic times in the global economy. Let’s “navigate the economic landscape” without the pandering or nonsense found elsewhere!

We have two very interesting guests joining us. Lynn Marshall has one of the most unique backgrounds in the world of finance today. How does one develop a background that includes senior level experience in investment banking, agriculture, and community banking? Think Lynn has some amazing perspectives on the economy and markets? Don’t miss him.

Additionally, in light of the developments at Stanford Financial, we are very happy to have John Moynihan return to our show to discuss the dynamics in the world of offshore banking. Find out more than you could ever imagine by talking to these enlightened experts on LD’s Dollars and Sense, starting at 8 p.m. ET.

What are your questions and comments for me? Please share your questions and thoughts by calling in to (347) 677-0792, and also join our live chat room, which I’ll start up about 10 minutes before the show begins!

Let’s not forget that we live in a global economy. What developed overseas this week and how does it impact us here in the United States?

What is on your mind? What would you like to address? So much to talk about as we “navigate the economic landscape!!”

LD’s Dollars and Sense on NQ Radio at 8:00 p.m. ET. This show, as well as all prior shows and every show on NQ radio, is archived and can be downloaded on iTunes (see our instructions in the right column).

Look forward to hearing from you!!

LD

We’ll be departing from “LD’s Central Station” on Saturday at 9:00 am EST until 12 noon to attempt to put some clarity into this madness!!

We thought the month of January was challenging but it seems we were just getting going. With the turns on the track getting ever more challenging, we will do our best to keep you informed and ahead of the curve.

Our train was packed last week so we will make sure to keep those extra cars. Make sure you board promptly, get settled, grab a coffee, and settle down for an engaging online Q/A chat as we “navigate the economic landscape.” Bring a friend along as well.

For our newer riders, your conductor is not a professional financial planner but merely a Wall Street veteran who welcomes sharing his instincts and experience.

While we board, let me preannounce that we will have a very special show Sunday evening on LD’s Dollars and Sense on No Quarter Radio from 8-9pm.

We have two very interesting guests joining us. Lynn Marshall has one of the most unique backgrounds in the world of finance today. How does one develop a background that includes senior level experience in investment banking, agriculture, and community banking? Think Lynn has some amazing perspectives on the economy and markets? Don’t miss him.

Additionally in light of the developments at Stanford Financial, we are very happy to have John Moynihan return to our show to discuss the dynamics in the world of offshore banking. Find out more than you could ever imagine by talking to these enlightened experts on LD’s Dollars and Sense on No Quarter Radio this Sunday evening from 8-9pm.

Aaaaaaaaaaaall Aboard!!

Via one of my favorite new Web sites, for the new PBS world news show, WorldFocus, which is now airing on many PBS stations instead of BBC World News. The WorldFocus site features bloggers’ reports and videos from around the world through its “Blogwatch” so that — besides the usual top experts on the news program — we also get to hear from “real people” just like you and me on what’s happening in their countries with the recession.

HERE’s one thing that strikes me every time I visit this site, or view videos of people fighting the recession in other countries! What WE DO IN THIS COUNTRY will have an enormous effect on the lives of people in all of these other countries! Instead of dithering about condoms, our Congress needs a tight, fit, robust stimulus package that will inject a rush of adrenalin into our economic system, because of the ripple effect around the world. We are no longer just U.S. citizens. We are also citizens of the world.

Based almost entirely on bloggers’ stories and videos, this report, “Competing global forums tackle the economy,” focuses on the two world forums going on, each with different agendas:

As several nations gather in Davos, Switzerland, for the 2009 World Economic Forum, others are meeting in Brazil for the World Social Forum.

Both forums will focus on the global economy, though the Davos conference centers around policy and the Brazil meeting looks at social need.

At the World Social Forum, Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa blamed the Davos attendees for the financial crisis, saying, “They are the ones responsible for the crisis. They are not the ones to give us lessons.” Other leaders called for an overhaul of global capitalism.

(I’m not indenting the rest of “Competing global forums tackle the economy,” for ease of reading.”)

THE VIDEOS BELOW ARE QUITE INTERESTING:

The “Musings” blog writes the World Social Forum in Brazil, and argues that people who strictly oppose market-based policies are being “disingenuous.”

“The Mormon Worker” blog also reports on the forum from Brazil, discussing talks on deforestation.

Blogger “Jim Stormes” describes the opening festivities, including an energetic and diverse march.

Watch a video from YouTube user OskarPCastro featuring presentations and gatherings at the World Social Forum:

Ian Bremmer writes in Harvard’s “Davos Diary” about the gloomy mood at Davos, while Jeff Jarvis at “BuzzMachine” writes, “The snow here is much thicker than the discussion.”

Blogger “Ángel Cabrera” writes that the conference in Davos could be an effective way to examine the financial crisis from multiple lenses.

The “Scobleizer” blog writes that the Davos conference could bring about change, but that discussions have not focused enough on small businesses.

Watch a video from the Davos conference’s YouTube page featuring world citizens’ responses to a question about the world’s economic future in 2009.

As Lilly Ledbetter approached her retirement after working as a Goodyear plant supervisor for many years, someone slipped her a disturbing fact. Her male colleagues had been making far more than she was. She sued.

A jury found Goodyear guilty, but the Supreme Court threw out the case. Why? The reason will astound and disturb anyone who works for a private company.

According to enough Bush Supreme Court appointees to reach a 5-4 decision, Ledbetter should have filed her suit within 6 months after the first discriminatory paycheck was issued.

Huh? How’s that again? Exactly how would Lilly have known that fact way back then, given that private companies are still under no obligation to supply salary information to their employees?

President Obama spoke of Lilly Ledbetter’s plight during his campaign, and today he put his pen where his mouth was. (We at No Quarter are watching for what he actually does and give credit when credit is due.) The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has been signed into law.

Amy Goldstein deftly puts the bill in its proper perspective:

The legislation …essentially rewrites the rules that specify the time within which workers may sue under a part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlaws discrimination based on gender, race, national origin or religion. Under the bill, workers may bring a lawsuit for up to six months after they receive ANY [emphasis added] paycheck that they allege is discriminatory.

The high court had held that such cases could be brought only within six months of the discrimination’s beginning, rejecting a long-held interpretation by lower courts and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that each paycheck represented a fresh act of discrimination.

Republicans and others have said this is simply a victory for litigators. Perhaps it is one more income source for trial attorneys because a new law can now be broken. But as Congresswoman Barbara Mikulski (D-RI) put it, “If you don’t want to be sued, don’t discriminate!”

So, in the end did Lilly Ledbetter become rich as well as famous? Well, no. Now 70 and recently widowed, she will not receive restitution and her case cannot be retired. As Gail Collins puts it, “She’s now part of a long line of working women who went to court and changed a little bit of the world in fights that often brought them minimal personal benefit.”

A friend sent along a quote by Mary Ann Radmacher that well characterizes the Lilly Ledbetters of the world.

Courage does not always roar.
Sometimes courage is the quiet voice
at the end of the day saying,
“I will try again tomorrow.”

It was only a matter of time before the losses embedded in our banking system caught up and surpassed the capital injected. As such, our politicians and bankers are now forced to be somewhat honest with the public at large.

At long last the “news” is out: there’s another expected $1 trillion in embedded losses in our banking system. I have tried to judiciously, but clearly, highlight that very fact here at NQ over the last three months. In today’s WSJ:

Goldman Sachs economists estimate that financial institutions and investors world-wide will ultimately realize $2 trillion in losses on U.S. loans, but have recognized only half those losses so far. That scares investors who might otherwise give banks needed capital, and makes banks reluctant to make new loans. Regulators say they worry that the only remaining source of capital for banks is the government.

While I know a few readers here at NQ, blogs are generally anonymous communities. Given the nature of my writings, a month or so ago I realized it would be more effective and compelling if I opened myself to public criticism if warranted. For that reason, I went from identifying myself as LD to Larry Doyle. For those who know me, I think they would say that I am a very competitive, honest, and humble individual. I’d like to think that I am. That said, I have plenty of shortcomings. As we look to grow our audience and community, I beg your indulgence as I retrace the posts since I started writing in mid-October in which we wrote about these massive unrealized but embedded losses. We’re all about sharing here, so please pass this along to your friends. We’ll try to stay ahead of the curve for you. ~LD

Without further adieu . . .

The Economy – What Lies Ahead (October 14, 2008)

This injection of capital will not necessarily fully flow through to the economy. The banking system here in the U.S. likely has $1 trillion in embedded losses. This plan is trying to buy time for the system to recognize those losses. The recognition of those losses will curtail future growth for the banking system and the economy as a whole.

Economic/Market Highlights 10/16 (October 16, 2008)

Remember the overall banking system has upwards of $1 trillion in losses that need to be recognized. Both Citi and Merrill know this and have pre-announced that they do not expect to show a profitable quarter in the near future.

McCain/Palin’s Economic Stimulus Plan (October 23, 2008)

. . . what these steps have done is buy time so that the banking system can generate revenues over the next few years to both write down and realize losses that are currently on their books, but which if were currently acknowledged would have rendered certain banks as already bankrupt.

Markets Selloff 10% Overnight (October 24, 2008)

In the midst of all this though, please remember that as I have tried to highlight, that there are likely $1 trillion in embedded losses in the banking system. That bill must be paid.

The Wall St. Model is Broken … and Won’t Soon be Fixed!! (November 12, 2008)

The losses in the banking system alone are upwards of $1 trillion. From there let’s move into insurance companies, hedge funds et al. Paulson, Sheila Baer, Bernanke and others know that any money that goes into the system is purely going to help the banks recapitalize themselves in the face of these losses.

When Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama complain that they need to make sure that credit lines open and remain open, they are not addressing the fact that the banks have an overwhelming amount of non-performing assets already and that those assets are likely going to grow in the face of an unemployment rate headed up by 2% to 4%!!

Economic/Market Highlights 11/12 (November 13, 2008)

Transparency
I had an exchange with a reader as to why the government is not revealing which banks have been participating in certain specific programs launched over the last few months. I made the case that the government is trying to protect the participating banks and in turn the taxpayers by not revealing the names.

The reader responded as to why and how could he ever invest in a bank. That is a very good point, investing in banks now is a much higher risk proposition because one does not know just how deep losses are in individual banks. Who does know?? Hank Paulson knows and he does not want to reveal those figures because they would further spook the markets.

“The Greatest Generation”…… (November 14, 2008)

The TARP bailout/rescue plan proposed to date has not inspired confidence nor generated any real impact for three reasons:

1. the banks have such sizable embedded losses that the funds already injected are being and will be used to recapitalize the balance sheets …

Economic/Market Highlights 11/17 (November 17, 2008)

Markets read this as a further indication that losses are so deeply embedded in the system that only time and “private money” can truly bring needed change. But how does “private money” receive incentive to enter the market?

Economic/Market Highlights 11/19…The Pain Increases!! (November 20, 2008)

Neither Paulson nor Congress nor anybody in Washington or Wall St. will tell you that the system has trillions in embedded losses but they do and our markets know it and are showing it by their prices.

“IT’S EASY TO FIND FAULT…especially if you’re clueless!! (December 11, 2008)

It keeps getting back, though, to the fact that the current situation as well as our future situation under any reasonable economic scenarios highlight the fact that the Wall St. banks are sitting on enormous embedded losses and expected future losses (continued increasing defaults on residential mortgages, credit cards, commercial loans, corporate loans). The money is not flowing through because:
banks need to replenish capital against these losses.

“Where’s The Money??….!!” (December 29, 2008)

In large measure, our mainstream media has done an exceedingly poor job as to highlighting the dynamics at work in the banking system. I will utilize a tape from a high profile financial show to reveal how the media is largely pandering to the public on this topic. Prior to doing that, though, let me get very detailed in answering the question as to “where’s the money?”

The business of banks is to lend money and in so doing they provide the liquidity to keep our economy moving. The banks lend money in a number of sectors but they can be summarized as follows: credit cards, residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, corporate loans. In addition to their lending role, most banks maintain a separate investment portfolio to further augment their revenue.

We have maintained that as a result of these investment activities, banks retained a wide array of what are now qualified as “toxic mortgage assets”. Globally, while banks and investment banks have taken $1 trillion in write-downs on these assets, by my estimation, confirmed by independent research and analytics, there are likely at least another $750 billion in write-downs yet to take on these assets.

Larry Doyle’s (LD’s) Dollars and Sense “Central Station” (January 10, 2009)

Comment by LD | 2009-01-10 10:45:43

Citi will inevitably sell other units at discounted prices.

In summary, it is not outside the realm of possibilities that this institution ends up being nationalized much like has occurred with some banks in the UK.

Against this backdrop, do not expect access to credit to improve anytime soon.

“Market Musings on a Monday . . . “ (January 12, 2009)

We have highlighted extensively why the embedded losses in the banking system would inhibit credit from flowing.

“Where’s The Money?” on December 29th specifically addressed the extent of losses and expected chargeoffs in our banking system. Why do the mainstream media and politicians continue to pander to the public on this topic?

“When Big Ben Speaks . . .” (January 14, 2009)

What does this mean? The banks need more money along with government guarantees against further losses from their deteriorating portfolios. To wit, Citigroup is selling divisions to raise capital. How will those government guarantees be structured? Potentially the nationalization of a banking institution, like Citi, or the splitting of Citi and perhaps other banks into “good banks” and “bad banks”. The “good banks” will house the day to day operations, while the “bad banks” will house the toxic and deteriorating assets and will be capitalized by, you guessed it, “Uncle Sam!”

Of course, the former Romney spokesman wasn’t much better, but he did not go off like Carville did about how this is a non-issue, people are stupid if they think it is (paraphrasing just a tad) and Favreau is SO talented. What a freaking jackass. Major H/T to SFIndiePuma (via Riverdaughter) for providing this video link


As if I had not already lost respect for Carville over his actions during the Primary/Election. Why is someone like him still speaking for the Democrats?? As long as they have people like HIM speaking for them, especially on WOMEN’S issues, I won’t touch ‘em with a ten foot pole. Jagoff.

Believe it or not, I wasn’t even planning on writing about this today – I was GOING to talk about how Governor Blagojevich of IL was just thrown into the Federal slammer. Oh, and how the governor is trying to pressure Bank of America to give into the Republic Window and Door company in Chicago that shut its doors without paying the employees their severance pay (Bank of America is the one that provided a LOAN to the company that shut down). That had been my plan. But then I saw the video of that assholic Carville, and just had to share.

Holy crap. No wonder things suck for women in this country when you have people like that on national television downplaying it as a non-issue and BERATING those of us who want this sexist pig held accountable. The Old Boys Club is not just alive and well, it is taking in new members. Disgusting. And I am disgusted at what this party has become. It has lost its way. It has lost, no, it sold, its soul this year. And women are paying the price for it.

As for Blagojevich being arrested for , though, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving man. Too bad it didn’t happen sooner, but hey – there’s still time, right? Not that Teflon Man’s minions aren’t already explaining this one away. Whatever. But somewhere, way deep down inside, they know that where there is smoke, there is fire. And Obama’s associates have been burning for a while now – they just refuse to, or cannot, admit it. Eventually, it will sink in. At least I hope so.

The markets are down 5-6% on the month. Given the stream of negative news, one might think that the market could be even lower. The fact that markets aren’t even lower is testament to the trillions of dollars that have been put to work by governments around the world.

Let’s review the major stories of November 10, 2008:

1. China implemented a $563bln economic stimulus plan primarily to further develop infrastructure in the country. That figure represents 1/5th of their total GDP. I was surprised to hear that, but it also indicates to me how much growth potential that country possesses. This package had an immediate impact on our equity markets this morning when our markets were up 3%. This package also supported commodities, especially copper which bounced about 5% on the day. Aside from infrastructure, China directed this stimulus package to an area that was badly damaged in a recent earthquake. Last but not least, China offered “tax deductions” on the purchase of certain hard assets. (Are you listening, Barack??)

This stimulus package though indicates to me that it is not likely that many of our domestic companies will likely be receiving capital injections from sovereign wealth funds. With oil at $60, oil producing countries (such as Dubai) may need to support the real estate developers and exporters in their own countries.

2. Fannie Mae reported a loss of $29bln (I’m not going to say earnings when companies lose money) which equates to $12.96 a share vs an expected loss of $1.40 a share. (How can Wall St. analysts maintain credibility when they miss a call by almost 1000%?).

It is amazing how Fannie can rack up losses like this when their own incentive bonuses are not on the line and when collectively Uncle Sam owns them. Aside from this loss, Fannie did announce that they expect losses to continue and to increase into 2009. This to me means they see foreclosures increasing over the next 6 months. More than likely Fannie will have a negative net worth by the end of 2008 requiring an increased capital injection by the U.S. taxpayer. Where does it end!!

Again, this model is broken. The American consumer who is able to get a mortgage is being subsidized at the expense of the taxpayers. Let the private market set the mortgage rates and if the housing market re-prices, so be it. Enough socialized housing finance.

3. AIG has already been covered on a separate thread so we do not need to repeat that pain here. Suffice it to say, though, that if they effectively burned through $100bln dollars, give or take, in the course of 6 months, the price tag for this entity could possibly be upwards of $300-500 bln dollars with pressure on a wide array of assets owned by other entities in the process.

4. How about the auto analyst at Deutsche Bank coming out with a sell rating on GM? The stock is down 90% on the year and now he tells us to sell … in any event, the stock was down 23% on the day to close at 3.25. The Deutsche analyst is bold enough to say the stock is going to “0″ !! Look for heavy political posturing between BO/Dems vs the Bush administration as to added bailout funds, terms, timing for the auto industry.

In today’s WSJ editorial section, they write, “[I]f our politicians can’t avoid throwing taxpayer cash at Detroit, then they should at least do so in a way that really protects taxpayers. That means handing a receiver the power to replace current management, zero out current shareholders, and especially to rewrite labor and other contracts. Anything less is merely a payoff to Michigan politicians and their union allies. ”

High time somebody stands up for capitalism!! … Gentlemen … (one of the great movies ever made…)

5. Recession plays in the form of General Mills, Campbell’s Soup, McDonalds, and Wal-Mart continue to out-perform.

6. Google trades down sharply today on anticipation of slowing in internet advertising.

7. Goldman Sachs (the boy wonders of Wall St.) also trade down sharply (down 8% on the day, 70% on the year and down a full 40% from just 6 weeks ago when Warren Buffett made a 5bln equity investment … a cool $2bln loss for Warren). Concerns about Goldman center on their private equity investments with their own capital.

8. Speaking of Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway announced earnings after Friday’s close and they were down 77%. Berkshire Hathaway is still only down app 23% on the year so as a stock it has handily outperformed the market.

9. The top-rated bank analyst on Wall St. is Meredith Whitney at Oppenheimer. She is beholden to nobody and truly tells it like it is. She was quoted recently as saying that she is particularly pessimistic about the U.S. government’s historic actions to bail out banks with massive capital injections. Such plans have little hope of improving core fundamentals.

Again, in the face of this massive flow of bad news, the market was only down 1-2% on the day. That said, the real economy is going to get worse before it gets better so be cautious about putting money to work in situations that are dependent on borrowed financing.

Heck, even my neighbor who runs a family business (guessing 3-5mm in annual earnings with significant real estate holdings) that has existed for 75 years and is an institution in our town, was turned down for a modest-sized loan by a money center bank to settle an estate.

That, to me, is the definition of a “credit crunch.”

Last but not least, I want to comment on a story that has been making the rounds about the “lack of transparency” in some of the government programs that have been put to work in the markets.

Specifically, the program in question focuses on the Fed backstopping the short-term lending markets. The Fed has provided $2 trillion in money/loans to a wide array of banks and has not provided info on just which banks have participated.

I can understand that the taxpayers want to know, but you have to understand that in the market if other players (dealers, hedge funds, et al) find out which entities are borrowing, then it is very likely that that info will be used against those borrowers. Their stocks and bonds trading in the market will likely get punished.

By not sharing this info, the Fed is actually protecting the banks and the taxpayers at the same time. Think of it from the standpoint of a card game. if you know what somebody else is holding, you can obviously change the way you play your own hand.

10. I almost forgot to post that Circuit City folded for Chapter 11 on Monday. Retail, especially any form of higher end retail, is going to be in for a very tough time. Shopping malls will lose some key tenants as well.

11. I also almost forgot to post that American Express filed to become a bank holding company (just like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs) in order to receive a cheaper source of funding. This indicates that they know their credit card delinquencies and defaults are getting ready to move higher very quickly!! Pay off your credit cards !!

In summary, it is truly amazing when I review these 11 highlighted stories. (Of those, each of the 10 would provide enough ammo for a full-blown front-page article all by itself.)

I hope that people can fully appreciate the gravity of the current situation. This turmoil will not turn around soon. Nothing is served by being alarmist but nothing is served by not treating this fiasco with the respect it deserves.

I wish you all the best.

LD

Join Dr. Lynette Long for her weekly call-in show, SINS OF OMISSION, where she unapologetically discusses sexism in our society. Dr. Long will use your examples to highlight both Sins of Commission (blatant sexist attacks) and Sins of Omission (the under-representation of women). In her direct no-holds-barred style, Dr. Long will offer listeners strategies to combat sexism in their lives and will solicit the help of the listening audience to eradicate sexism in our society. Get ready to roll up your sleeves and do some heavy lifting — something has got to give.

by Lynette Long

The current cabinet of the United States is attended by the President, fifteen Cabinet Members, and six cabinet level administrative offices that includes the Vice-President and the White House Chief of Staff for a total of 22 members. 

The Bush Cabinet has four women: Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, Elaine Chao as Secretary of Labor, Mary Peters as Secretary of Transportation, and Margaret Spellings as Secretary of Education. 

In addition Susan Schwab has Cabinet level rank as United States Trade Secretary.   

Out of the 22 people that attend cabinet meetings, The President, the Vice-President, the Cabinet, and the Cabinet level administrative offices, five are currently women, which is 23%. 

Will President-Elect Obama appoint more women to his cabinet than President Bush?   I am starting a cabinet watch. 

Help me.  I would like to see 50% of the female cabinet women.  I am starting a cabinet watch.  As the cabinet members become appointed I will color the titles blue or pink. 

Please lobby the Obama campaign for more women in the cabinet.  Call his office at 202-224-2854. Thanks. 

·         The President

·         Secretary of State

·         Secretary of the Treasury

·         Secretary of Defense

·         Attorney General

·         Secretary of the Interior

·         Secretary of Agriculture

·         Secretary of Commerce

·         Secretary of Labor

·         Secretary of Health and Human Services

·         Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

·         Secretary of Transportation

·         Secretary of Energy

·         Secretary of Education

·         Secretary of Veterans Affairs

·         Secretary of Homeland Security

Cabinet-level administration offices ·         Vice President of the United States
·         White House Chief of Staff
·        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
·         Director of the Office of Management and Budget
·         Director of the National Drug Control Policy
·         United States Trade Representative	·	·

]]> http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/09/parity-in-the-cabinet/feed/ 51 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/06/welcome-to-the-real-world/ http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/06/welcome-to-the-real-world/#comments Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:30:48 +0000 Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/06/welcome-to-the-real-world/ Yes, it seems that the chickens are starting to come home to roost for some Obama worshippers, uh, I mean, supporters. Those of us using the analytical portion of our brains knew that Obama’s hype was too good to be true, but apparently, these workers for Obama are learning a harsh reality – he used them (H/T to No Quarter reader, tzada, for this link). Yes, according to this article, Obama Campaign Workers Angry Over Unpaid Wages: Former Obama workers claim they were short-changed, Obama workers are experiencing emotions I bet they didn’t count on after pounding the pavement working for The One: Anger:

Lines were long and tempers flared Wednesday not to vote but to get paid for canvassing for Barack Obama. Several hundred people are still waiting to get their pay for last-minute campaigning. Police were called to the Obama campaign office on North Meridian Street downtown (Indianapolis) to control the crowd.

The line was long and the crowd was angry at times.

“I want my money today! It’s my money. I want it right now!” yelled one former campaign worker.

A former spokesman for the Obama campaign said 375 people were hired as part of the Vote Corps program and said people signed up to work three-hour shifts at a time. Three hours of canvassing got workers a $30 pre-paid Visa card.

The workers showed up to get their cards Wednesday morning at 10:00 am.

“There was a note on the door saying 1:00 pm and then at 1:20 pm everybody was like why is nobody here. They just got here and they’re trying to get it organized,” said Heather Richards, a former campaign worker.

Well, golly gee willikers – what a surprise! People are having a hard time getting Obama to fulfill his obligations! You’d think with the gazillion dollars from illegal contributions he received, he would have plenty of green to spread among his people, maybe even some bonuses for jobs well done for the 375 workers who came to get paid. If you thought that, you’d be wrong!

Eventually people did start getting paid, but some said they were missing hours and told to fill in paperwork making their claim and that eventually they would get a check in the mail.

“Still that’s not right. I’m disappointed. I’m glad for the president, but I’m disappointed in this system,” said Diane Jefferson, temporary campaign worker.

“It should have been $480. It’s $230,” said Imani Sankofa.

“They gave us $10 an hour. So we added it. I added up all the hours so it was supposed to be at least $120. All I get is $90,” said Charles Martin.

“I worked nine hours a day for 4 days and got paid half of what I should have earned,” said Randall Waldon.

Some people weren’t satisfied with filling out a claim form for money they felt was still due to them.

“They say that they gonna call you or they going to mail it to you, but I don’t know. We’ll see what happens,” said Antron Grose.

“Talking about they’ll mail it to us. I ain’t worried about that, man. They’re not going to mail nothin’,” said Martin.

Seems Johnny Mac was right about the Redistributor in Chief – he wants to redistribute YOUR funds, not his! So, you just keep sitting by that mailbox and phone – I am SURE they will be rushing to get you the money for which you worked. Ahem. (And given this, I wonder how well the Obama camp is going to do issuing those 1099s in January?)

And if I was the woman in this video below (from No Quarter Election Thread), I sure wouldn’t be holding my breath:

If Obama is having, um, difficulties actually paying his employees wages earned, I’m not sure why this woman thinks Obama is going to do ANYTHING for her, much less pay her mortgage and her gas. Wow – it is just hard to fathom the gullibility of some people…

And in more news in the “Welcome To The Real World” round-up, the passing of Proposition 8 in CA and Amendment 2 in FL were a rude awakening to many. Here’s the thing – while all those Hollywood types (talking to YOU, Ellen) were singing Obama’s praises, they, like so many others, ignored that the bottom line of his pandering message was that HE IS AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE. He has said that time and time again including in his wishy-washy message that he doesn’t think Prop 8 should pass in CA, but that he is against same sex marriage all the same. So, guess what? It passed, because a lot of his constituents, especially African Americans and the evangelicals he courted, are against same sex marriage. Had any of those mindless people BOTHERED to actually look at his “words, just words,” they would have known that.

But no, Cher, and Ben Affleck, and Matt Damon, and Wanda Sykes, and all of those people wanted to go with the cool guy, so they, along with the REST of Democrats, turned a deaf ear and blind eye to the shenanigans Obama was using in caucus states and that the DNC used to take votes away from Hillary, both in FL and MI, as well as the COnvention. I don’t think the constituents SHE courted would have voted FOR Proposition 8. Oh well – the GLBT community, and women, have all been thrown under the bus for the ascension of THE ONE. Hope you’re happy now because you helped to make it happen!

Oh, wait – those people in CA aren’t. But all those folks protesting there can just get over themselves – they have no one but themselves to blame for the passage of Proposition 8. Had any of the big wigs there stood up and cried foul over the RBC’s decision, or DEMANDED a fair, DEMOCRATIC Convention, I doubt Prop 8 would have passed. So, tough, all you Hollywood folks who oohed and ahed over The One in Denver and had no qualms with the DNP violating its own rules – you did it to yourselves. Hate it for ya, Ellen (and Portia),and the other 18,000 people affected by this, but hey – maybe you shouldn’t have been pushing Obama so much during your show. And maybe all you people should have actually done your freakin’ homework on what was happening in the election.

While I am at it, over 62% of Floridians voted FOR Amendment 2 voted FOR Amendment 2, to Constitutionalize discrimination in their state. In other words, a whole bunch of Democrats voted for that, too. Thanks so much, all you wonderful folks – in both states. What a healing uniter Obama is, isn’t he?? Hey, that’s what they keep claiming, so it HAS to be true – just not for women in general and GLBT people in particular. Whatever.

Anyway, who cares about social justice for GLBT and women now that we have the first biracial president-elect? Who cares about ACORN using TAXPAYING DOLLARS to commit massive amounts of voter fraud, and how they will surely get even more money from and ALL Democratic government (I mean, really – if they were already getting millions of dollars before, as well as new-mortgage kickbacks, and Chris Dodd wanting to give them BILLIONS of dollars from the bailout repayment, who the hell is going to stop them NOW?)? Who cares that their GOTV arms committed voter fraud for Obama and that his followers voted more than once? What’s the big deal, anyway?

Sadly, that is the real world we have now, where caucus fraud will be institutionalized, voter fraud will continue to be tolerated, even excused by people who should know better (that is, the people who, thanks to all of the “poor little ACORN” posts by the NY Times, think ACORN is being beset upon by Republicans and they aren’t doing anything wrong – even when Democrats admit they are. Bob Herbert is especially guilty of this tactic. Apparently, these readers have missed his *subtle* Obama bias…), and electronic voting machines will continue to flip ballots. That is our world today, because really – who is going to stand up against caucus fraud now? Not the Democrats, who KNEW it was occurring but said nothing, or the MSM, which ignored Clinton’s attempts to inform them about documented fraud. Who’s going to stand up against voter fraud? Not Democrats – that would cast aspersions on THE ONE. Who will stand up for us?

And who will stand up for women? Not the Democrats, that’s for sure. They made a sport of misogyny this election, and haven’t let up yet on Governor Palin, either. They not only stood by while Obama laid claim to Clinton’s ideas, but were in a wicked big hurry to shove her out of the race (once she created those policies, of course, because what would Obama have done if he had to create them on his own??). Oh, and they didn’t just shove her out, they treated her with contempt, as if she had no right to come to the party. They treated her in a way they have never treated ANY man, even one as inexperienced and unqualified as, well, Obama. No, they not only stood by, they engaged in, and encouraged, the misogyny we experienced this year (did anyone EVER hear Obama speak out against hanging Sarah Palin in effigy in West Hollywood? No. Ever hear him speak out against the misogyny directed at Clinton? No. No, he engaged in it, not fought against it.). I bet Obama wishes he had stolen Clinton’s economic proposal now that the Dow tanked the worst after his election of any time in history precisely because they DON’T know where he stands. That can’t be a good omen for things to come, and rubs a bit of the shine off of his “win.” I reckon he shouldn’t have been so dismissive when John McCain claimed her plan (and actually gave her credit, something Obama has NEVER done). Oh, well!

It’s going to be some four years here in the real world, with more rude awakenings, more expectations dashed, and more dreams broken. Heck, Obama’s workers are already experiencing that, as well as his anti-war supporters with the choice of Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff. Well, time to wake up, people, to what the rest of us have always known – Obama is a con man, and you fell for it. Don’t waste your time waiting by the phone or the mail-box for your wages, or hope of mortgages and gas paid (!!!). It ain’t gonna happen – but we could have told you that…Oh, wait – we did tell you that, and you didn’t believe us. How about now?? It hasn’t even been two days since the election, and look at the shine fade…