Given that 30 out of the top 50 (60%) districts in trouble with foreclosures (34 out of the top 56 listed - 60.7%) are in Republican controlled turf, you might think Republicans would be working harder to save these homes in their own districts. But you would be wrong.   Read more…

I am not an economist, but I can do arithmetic.

Here, let me piss off some fans of our Leader. From the now Kristol-free Grey Lady:

The bankruptcy solution would not cost taxpayers money, as would mortgage modification programs that could become part of the government's huge economic bailout package. But it certainly would harm the bottom line for lenders and investors holding mortgages.

Ya got that, chicklets? A no-cost solution that could help keep millions in their homes instead of tossing them on the streets. Sounds great, it even has support, and people willing to attach it to the stimulus bill. But...wait for it...guess who's too chickenshit to let such a win-win provision get added?

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the chief Senate sponsor of the bill, said Obama persuaded him in a White House meeting Friday to remove the bankruptcy proposal from an economic recovery package -- to ensure it doesn't jeopardize the stimulus bill. But Obama pledged his support for the bankruptcy solution, Durbin said.

Obama said he would work with Durbin to attach the proposal to other ''must pass'' legislation -- with the hope that supporters of the overall bill would not vote against it because of the bankruptcy provisions.

because voter opinion is actually having an effect.

Members of congress are reporting a deluge of calls, emails and faxes condemning the Trillion Dollar Giveaway (I refuse to call it a “bailout” because it isn’t; it’s a giveaway). The result was defeat in the House on Monday, and the direct effect of those voter contacts can be traced to a specific cohort of House members.

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com helpfully pulled together the names of representatives who are in close races, people who are most acutely tuned to the will of the people. Relying on “lean” or “tossup” risk status assessments from Swing State Project, he cites a total of 38 vulnerable reps; 20 Republicans and 18 Democrats. Of those 38, 17 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted “Nay” while only 3 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted “Aye.” This 30 to 8 rejection compares to a near-even split, 197 Aye and 198 Nay, among members whose seats are considered “safe.”

I've been wondering why I haven't seen much about trying to alleviate the failing financial markets from the consumer end.

The Boston Globe had an article with a somewhat hopeful-sounding title today:

Fannie, Freddie Collapse Could Help Borrowers.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency "actively looking" at expanding loan modifications among the more than $5 trillion in loans that Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee, Bair said.

So someone put up a link to this graph and my jaw fucking dropped. I thought, OK- you're no economist. Ask one what this means. This is the email I just got:

It means the banking system is insolvent.

So I was right to take it seriously. SN has been on economic fire lately too, and this is another of his powerful posts about why high gas prices have to do with the fuckups in the banking/financial/Fed system as much as theiving, murderous, greedy oil men. Not to send you to the same place over and over, but Sean-Paul is also harping on some related things, and this sticks with me b/c I know it is true, despite the fact that a lot of us don't want to hear it:

that is the tax-burden of we GenXers--a very small age cohort in the grand scheme of things--is going to climb and climb and climb, being saddled as we are with massive amounts of soon-to-be retirees and war debt and 25 years of profligate government spending. And that's a huge tax increases to sustain a lower standard of living--or at least one that doesn't rise.

As Mish notes, one of two things is going to happen: boomers will get less than their promised benefits or we get the crap taxed out of us. I'm thinking it will be a combo of both, except most of the burden will come in taxes, the AARP being as strong as is. The piper, excuse the cliche, has to be paid. And he wants coin, not IOUs.

Does anyone else have an opposite conclusion? If so I'm happy to hear about it. But we're hosed. Plain and simple.
Oh, and oil hit $132 a barrel today. Feels good, yeah?

I want to hear hardcore, policy based responses from anyone who supports the remaining Dem candidates: what is your candidate's plan (not a speech, but a plan) and how does it address the utterly rotten (and at this point, also murderous) clusterfuck we call the financial world? Harvard (and Chicago, ya, ya) MBAs and prize-winning "economists" got us into this mess. From my reading (and I admit I could be wrong) both the Dem candidates, and obviously McCentury, have clustered about them very Mediocre Economic Minds. If that's true, I don't expect to see the kind of truly progressive, visionary economic policy in the next administration we desperately need. And I'm starting to get really pissed about it.

I already have sacrificed for the political and economic decisions of others, others whom I told over and over again, "It won't work and it'll end up costing us both more if you do it that way." Now, millions of people, not just my age but all of us, are being forced to accept similar burdens. And of course, no Rich People are worried right now. And why should they be? No one is expecting them to shoulder anything but this fall's pret-a-porter.

Lord Eschaton highlights this story from the Times, about a small town in Norway that lost millions--for which oldsters and children will end up paying, through service cuts--by getting involved with the greedheads and fraudsters who engineered the Bush administration's mortgage meltdown, and then scuttled away with their commissions. The story is interesting enough--could be your town, eh?--but I thought the lead was buried. Here it is: