Texas Governor Rick Perry has finally entered the race as the Republican Party’s nominee for president of the United States, after months of speculation by political pundits. The one thing which can be said about Mr. Perry is his rather non-apologetic entry into the national spotlight and take-no-prisoners attitude. The one thing that may eventually turn off some of the electorate is the swagger of this gun-totin’ shoot-from-the-hip Chief Executive of the great State of Texas is that southern bravado and blunt talk, which he does with great abandon. Perhaps this should be expected from Governor because he is just following in the footsteps of other Texans who have had quite a few notable quotes of their own. Former Houston Mayor Louie Welch was once asked the question by a reporter in 1987, “What are you going to do about the gays?” He said, “I don’t know, I guess take them out somewhere and shoot them.” In 1990, Texas oilman Clayton Williams in his gubernatorial bid was once quoted as saying, “What can you do about the weather, it just like being raped; it’s inevitable [there’s nothing you can do about it] so you might as well just sit back and enjoy it.”
Now Rick Perry has added his quotes to the political lexicon with statements like Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernacke should be tried for treason and if he were in Texas the people there would really do a job on him; you know, “Don’t Mess with Texas.” In the common vernacular, ‘they would treat him like a stepchild that stole something.’ And who can’t forget the now famous Perry ‘dis’ to a reporter: “Adios MoFo.” The only person who probably has more of those down home Texas sayings is former CBS News anchor Dan Rather; although Sam Donaldson, of ABC News, another Texan, doubtless has some witty repartee also. Don't be too surprised if NBC’s “SNL” has an upcoming skit in the works but this is not a laughing matter, with America’s economic future and way of life at stake. It is not known when the Texas Governor will either shoot himself in the foot or insert his foot into his mouth to end his presidential bid, but it will come; and it just may very well be when the political dust settles that Michelle Bachmann will be the “Last Man Standing.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 18, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Friday, August 19, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Spanking as a form of discipline had its merit
There is an old African proverb which goes something like this: “It takes a village to raise a child” and it is so true. One of the things that probably contributes the most to juvenile delinquency is a lack of discipline; starting in the home. This is the environment where a child is first introduced to the values and conduct which will make him a productive and law-abiding member of society. If a child was seen doing anything wrong ‘back in the day’ then any adult, especially a neighbor or friend of the family would grab their belt and call the child over to them and give them a whipping [spanking]. Not only that, but word would get back to the parents who would beat the child; and maybe the aunt, uncle, or even the grandparents, might choose to administer their dose of discipline, too. There was no such thing as the child cussing out anyone, threatening them or even fighting back because nearly everyone [in the Black community, especially] has heard, “I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it, as well.” And just about every boy has feared his dad growing up, who was usually meaner-looking and a lot bigger and someone that you didn’t want to get on his bad side.
The one cardinal family or house rule that was almost sacred was “respect for your elders” or any adult person; regardless as to whether you knew or even liked them or not. This attitude was especially important in the schools when it came to interaction with teachers. Just like Reading, Writing and Arithmetic, discipline in the form of swatting an unruly student’s butt was school policy, and the long walk down the hall to the principal’s office was a much dreaded affair and effective deterrent in most cases. This method of enforcement seemed to keep at a minimum schoolyard violence, expulsions and delinquency. Then one day a few Social Scientists and Mental Health Professionals in addition to a growing number of White parents began to allege that this treatment traumatizes the students [their children] and it was deemed as “abusive.” Since it later became “Law” that a teacher could no longer discipline a child in this manner, afterwards, this law was extended to include the home, also. Now with all the legal protections in place a child could virtually do what he or she wanted with impunity because after-all, no one could lay a hand on them; at least, no one except the police.
So, what is the legacy today from people like Dr. Benjamin Spock and other proponents of letting the child sit on “time out” or take away some of their privileges [like watching television and other favorites] or, if they want something then just let them have it? Well, there are more school dropouts and students failing to graduate, increases in teenage alcohol and drug use, pregnancy, gang affiliation and criminality leading to incarceration in jail or prison. Obviously, there are other socio-economic factors at work here and the blame cannot be placed entirely upon the shoulders of a few medical experts, lawmakers, and parents [many of them single-parents] and it just may be too late to reverse course because the genie is already out of the bottle. It does make one wonder, however, if there wasn’t something right and good about “spare the rod and spoil the child?”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 15, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
The one cardinal family or house rule that was almost sacred was “respect for your elders” or any adult person; regardless as to whether you knew or even liked them or not. This attitude was especially important in the schools when it came to interaction with teachers. Just like Reading, Writing and Arithmetic, discipline in the form of swatting an unruly student’s butt was school policy, and the long walk down the hall to the principal’s office was a much dreaded affair and effective deterrent in most cases. This method of enforcement seemed to keep at a minimum schoolyard violence, expulsions and delinquency. Then one day a few Social Scientists and Mental Health Professionals in addition to a growing number of White parents began to allege that this treatment traumatizes the students [their children] and it was deemed as “abusive.” Since it later became “Law” that a teacher could no longer discipline a child in this manner, afterwards, this law was extended to include the home, also. Now with all the legal protections in place a child could virtually do what he or she wanted with impunity because after-all, no one could lay a hand on them; at least, no one except the police.
So, what is the legacy today from people like Dr. Benjamin Spock and other proponents of letting the child sit on “time out” or take away some of their privileges [like watching television and other favorites] or, if they want something then just let them have it? Well, there are more school dropouts and students failing to graduate, increases in teenage alcohol and drug use, pregnancy, gang affiliation and criminality leading to incarceration in jail or prison. Obviously, there are other socio-economic factors at work here and the blame cannot be placed entirely upon the shoulders of a few medical experts, lawmakers, and parents [many of them single-parents] and it just may be too late to reverse course because the genie is already out of the bottle. It does make one wonder, however, if there wasn’t something right and good about “spare the rod and spoil the child?”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 15, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The Mortgage crisis is an evolution of collective greed
It is sad to see empty driveways, streets littered with trash and debris and abandoned houses in a neighborhood resembling a “ghost town” but this is also the “new” norm in America. The question can be asked as to what has happened to that golden ‘American Dream’ of owning your own home? Well, the answer is a lot simpler than most people think and it can be answered in one word, “greed”? You see, there was a time long ago in this country when one of the main goals in life was to purchase a home and live in it to raise your family; which usually meant until your children graduated from college, got married and had the grandchildren come visit until their teen years, or so.
It wasn’t too unusual for three generations to have lived in the same house at some point in time. A home was thought of as a kind of a permanent symbol so you won’t be a forgotten memory and you can bequeath a lasting legacy for future generations. In a way it is like the Native Americans connection to the ‘land’, it is your own sacred place on the earth. Generally, the times when a house was sold occurred when an occupant died or an elderly or infirm occupant was relocated to a Nursing Home, or as property settlement in a divorce proceeding. Mortgages were usually held on the property for twenty years but sometime during the late 1970’s there was a strategy being circulated where you could pay off your house sooner. Instead of the standard twelve monthly installments per annum [year] the homeowner could remit three extra payments to be applied toward the principal amount of the loan and not have it sent into the escrow account. This usually resulted in mortgages being paid off in thirteen years or so. It may not have a big deal if only a few homeowners did this but when thousands of people began using this technique, then obviously the holder of the note began to be a little concerned.
After this practice went on for some time, penalties were assessed for paying off the loan early and in some instances, loans were not granted unless the applicant agreed to make payments for the duration of the loan. The Banks and S&L’s who financed mortgages for twenty years made most of their money off the interest payments in those first seven years or more and then the homeowner started to chip away at the principal amount. When it was all said and done the homeowner usually ended up paying at least twice the original loan amount over the two decades. Next what came on the real estate market radar were those adorable and appealing ARM’s (Adjustable Rate Mortgages), whereby you can move into a home and make affordable payments and then a few years later your mortgage payments will increase gradually. The thinking was that if a person was still employed then they would probably be getting a raise during the time and should be able to afford the note. Even with a merit and COLA (Cost-of-Living-Adjustment) increase, it was not enough to pay that balloon payment which increased the payments by 50% and sometimes double what the premiums were previously.
In theory, the ARM’s were supposedly adjusted to interest rates, the yield on T-Bills, the rate of inflation or long-term corporate bonds. It seems rather, that this was more like those companies that offer interest-free financing for five years, which is great, but if you are late or miss making one payment, you are charged all the accumulated interest for those five years. This was really the handwriting on the wall because people started defaulting on their mortgage loan payments because of the ARM’s but despite the alarm bells and red flashing lights, financial institutions were heavily leveraged in residential mortgage securities and loans, with backing and approval by the federal government.
Now here is where it really gets interesting: During this time also there were books written by multi-millionaires who acquired their wealth in real estate and seminars sprang up in cities throughout America teaching people on ‘Main Street’ how to make money like the fat cats on ‘Wall Street’ and that is through a technique known as “flipping.” What is was basically is someone buys a house [not for the purpose of a homestead] and hold onto it for a short while and then puts it up for sale when the value of it appreciates beyond what his loan obligation is; usually to the tune of several thousands of dollars. This is, in my opinion, what sounded the death knell in the Real Estate market; and for this simple reason: A house or residential property appreciates in value over time based upon equity and escrow balance. Of course, the federal government through the IRS fed this frenzy through its tax law which stipulated that proceeds resulting from the sale of a primary domicile [residence] was not taxed as ordinary income.
In a typical mortgage payment there is PITI [principal, insurance, taxes {escrow} and interest] and all of this is tied into what is called the “Time value of money.” If a home loan is renegotiated after a couple of years due to the county tax assessors property appraisal there is no real increase in appreciable ‘equity’ or value in the house as well as very little escrow beyond what is sufficient to pay property taxes and prevent the mortgage payment from increasing. The thousands of homeowners who did this over the decades ‘”only” exacerbated an already growing problem [mortgage foreclosures and bankruptcies] along with complicity from: banks, S&L’s, credit unions, and the federal government, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginny Mae.
So, what can be done about it? Perhaps the first thing is to start depositing money back into savings accounts instead of allocating most or all of our discretionary income [cash minus bills] into a 401-k plan or an IRA for retirement. One of the two main reasons that banks don’t like to loan money is because the average American has a zero balance in their savings account and banks loan money based upon a ration of deposits [cash and cash equivalents] that they have on hand. Although the housing market for residential real estate is in a slump, commercial property investiture has been steadily rising year after year. The reason that banks are more apt to fund a merchant account is because the particular business has deposited money into its account or offered some form of collateral that can be converted into cash that the bank uses to make a profit.
If the average commercial account was like the average individual depositor with a zero balance and nothing of monetary value as collateral, then no business loans would be made. The other thing is major credit cards belong to a bank and when someone is delinquent on their payment obligations and files bankruptcy, then guess who has to absorb that loss-the same bank that you go to and apply for a mortgage loan. Thousands of Americans can’t just conveniently treat credit cards like its “free money” and then turn around and just wash your hands of any further financial responsibility just because you can’t afford to pay on your account anymore, because one thing affects another and the crisis we are in is just “the chickens coming home to roost.”
Lastly, before even considering buying a house, take inventory of your personal motivation for buying a house in the first place-is it as a ‘homestead’ or are you in it for “profit?” The next thing, which is probably the most important, is for the federal government to get out of the mortgage business by insuring or guaranteeing residential loans. The government is not a business or company that manufactures, produces, or sells goods and services, but rather all it has the authority to do is tax and print money.
The financial lending institutions should use “common sense” when it pertains to establishing guidelines for loan applicants. No person or family should be approved for a home loan if it exceeds twice their annual income and the down payment on a house should not exceed 5% of the loan amount. In the present climate of a depreciated real estate residential marketplace and weak economy this should spur more home-buying and free up money sitting idle in the bank vaults or at the Federal Reserve. The thinking here is that it is better to get a person into a house that they can afford with as little financial stress as possible, because they just might stay in it long enough without defaulting on their obligations for the holder of the lien or title to make their money back with interest during the first 7 to 10 years on a 20 year mortgage loan. The one stipulation though, is that the homeowner has to promise to stay [homestead] in it for the duration of the loan unless some unexpected circumstances intervene. In this way it would seem to be a “WIN-WIN” situation for everyone involved.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 3, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
It wasn’t too unusual for three generations to have lived in the same house at some point in time. A home was thought of as a kind of a permanent symbol so you won’t be a forgotten memory and you can bequeath a lasting legacy for future generations. In a way it is like the Native Americans connection to the ‘land’, it is your own sacred place on the earth. Generally, the times when a house was sold occurred when an occupant died or an elderly or infirm occupant was relocated to a Nursing Home, or as property settlement in a divorce proceeding. Mortgages were usually held on the property for twenty years but sometime during the late 1970’s there was a strategy being circulated where you could pay off your house sooner. Instead of the standard twelve monthly installments per annum [year] the homeowner could remit three extra payments to be applied toward the principal amount of the loan and not have it sent into the escrow account. This usually resulted in mortgages being paid off in thirteen years or so. It may not have a big deal if only a few homeowners did this but when thousands of people began using this technique, then obviously the holder of the note began to be a little concerned.
After this practice went on for some time, penalties were assessed for paying off the loan early and in some instances, loans were not granted unless the applicant agreed to make payments for the duration of the loan. The Banks and S&L’s who financed mortgages for twenty years made most of their money off the interest payments in those first seven years or more and then the homeowner started to chip away at the principal amount. When it was all said and done the homeowner usually ended up paying at least twice the original loan amount over the two decades. Next what came on the real estate market radar were those adorable and appealing ARM’s (Adjustable Rate Mortgages), whereby you can move into a home and make affordable payments and then a few years later your mortgage payments will increase gradually. The thinking was that if a person was still employed then they would probably be getting a raise during the time and should be able to afford the note. Even with a merit and COLA (Cost-of-Living-Adjustment) increase, it was not enough to pay that balloon payment which increased the payments by 50% and sometimes double what the premiums were previously.
In theory, the ARM’s were supposedly adjusted to interest rates, the yield on T-Bills, the rate of inflation or long-term corporate bonds. It seems rather, that this was more like those companies that offer interest-free financing for five years, which is great, but if you are late or miss making one payment, you are charged all the accumulated interest for those five years. This was really the handwriting on the wall because people started defaulting on their mortgage loan payments because of the ARM’s but despite the alarm bells and red flashing lights, financial institutions were heavily leveraged in residential mortgage securities and loans, with backing and approval by the federal government.
Now here is where it really gets interesting: During this time also there were books written by multi-millionaires who acquired their wealth in real estate and seminars sprang up in cities throughout America teaching people on ‘Main Street’ how to make money like the fat cats on ‘Wall Street’ and that is through a technique known as “flipping.” What is was basically is someone buys a house [not for the purpose of a homestead] and hold onto it for a short while and then puts it up for sale when the value of it appreciates beyond what his loan obligation is; usually to the tune of several thousands of dollars. This is, in my opinion, what sounded the death knell in the Real Estate market; and for this simple reason: A house or residential property appreciates in value over time based upon equity and escrow balance. Of course, the federal government through the IRS fed this frenzy through its tax law which stipulated that proceeds resulting from the sale of a primary domicile [residence] was not taxed as ordinary income.
In a typical mortgage payment there is PITI [principal, insurance, taxes {escrow} and interest] and all of this is tied into what is called the “Time value of money.” If a home loan is renegotiated after a couple of years due to the county tax assessors property appraisal there is no real increase in appreciable ‘equity’ or value in the house as well as very little escrow beyond what is sufficient to pay property taxes and prevent the mortgage payment from increasing. The thousands of homeowners who did this over the decades ‘”only” exacerbated an already growing problem [mortgage foreclosures and bankruptcies] along with complicity from: banks, S&L’s, credit unions, and the federal government, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginny Mae.
So, what can be done about it? Perhaps the first thing is to start depositing money back into savings accounts instead of allocating most or all of our discretionary income [cash minus bills] into a 401-k plan or an IRA for retirement. One of the two main reasons that banks don’t like to loan money is because the average American has a zero balance in their savings account and banks loan money based upon a ration of deposits [cash and cash equivalents] that they have on hand. Although the housing market for residential real estate is in a slump, commercial property investiture has been steadily rising year after year. The reason that banks are more apt to fund a merchant account is because the particular business has deposited money into its account or offered some form of collateral that can be converted into cash that the bank uses to make a profit.
If the average commercial account was like the average individual depositor with a zero balance and nothing of monetary value as collateral, then no business loans would be made. The other thing is major credit cards belong to a bank and when someone is delinquent on their payment obligations and files bankruptcy, then guess who has to absorb that loss-the same bank that you go to and apply for a mortgage loan. Thousands of Americans can’t just conveniently treat credit cards like its “free money” and then turn around and just wash your hands of any further financial responsibility just because you can’t afford to pay on your account anymore, because one thing affects another and the crisis we are in is just “the chickens coming home to roost.”
Lastly, before even considering buying a house, take inventory of your personal motivation for buying a house in the first place-is it as a ‘homestead’ or are you in it for “profit?” The next thing, which is probably the most important, is for the federal government to get out of the mortgage business by insuring or guaranteeing residential loans. The government is not a business or company that manufactures, produces, or sells goods and services, but rather all it has the authority to do is tax and print money.
The financial lending institutions should use “common sense” when it pertains to establishing guidelines for loan applicants. No person or family should be approved for a home loan if it exceeds twice their annual income and the down payment on a house should not exceed 5% of the loan amount. In the present climate of a depreciated real estate residential marketplace and weak economy this should spur more home-buying and free up money sitting idle in the bank vaults or at the Federal Reserve. The thinking here is that it is better to get a person into a house that they can afford with as little financial stress as possible, because they just might stay in it long enough without defaulting on their obligations for the holder of the lien or title to make their money back with interest during the first 7 to 10 years on a 20 year mortgage loan. The one stipulation though, is that the homeowner has to promise to stay [homestead] in it for the duration of the loan unless some unexpected circumstances intervene. In this way it would seem to be a “WIN-WIN” situation for everyone involved.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 3, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
The Federal debt-limit compromise is a "deal to nowhere"
As former President George W. Bush would say, “sounds to me like fuzzy math” because as reported in The Tacoma News Tribune and Associated Press on Tuesday August 2, 2011, the agreement between President Barack Obama and Congress to avoid defaulting on its fiduciary obligations to pay on its debt, averted, at least for the moment, a government shutdown and sending America further into a steeper economic recession, as well as panicking financial markets worldwide. The thing is though, was this really good and responsible legislation or just another case of passing the buck or kicking the can down the road for the next administration?
The government “debt-reduction” Plan:
1. To raise the current $14.3 trillion ceiling by an additional $900 billion, then between $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion.
2. A special joint congressional committee is to come up with “new” deficit-reduction measures by Thanksgiving and Congress [The Senate] must vote on by year’s end. They are required to write a bill for reducing deficits [government spending] over the next ten years by another $1.5 trillion, but how does that make any sense when government spending exceeds $3.6 trillion every year [#4b]? The committee could change entitlement programs as Medicare, Social Security, and amend the existing tax code. If they did want to make such changes, that would seem to go against previous statements by the president to protect Social Security and Medicare.
3. The combined [$14.3T + $2.4T] $16.7 trillion increase should be enough to fund government operations and pay its debt through the 2012 election without the President and Congress needing to go through this process again.
4. According to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] the $900 billion in cuts to federal agency budgets will be phased in over a ten year period, while for the next year alone the cuts would “only” amount to $21 billion, and how is that going to make a difference when government spending will exceed $3.6 trillion [FORMULA: $3.6T-$21.0B/$3.6T=5.84%]?
5. There were no “specifics” on which non-defense programs will be spared besides SSI, low income [HUD and others??] and Medicare.
6. The government is cutting funding in infrastructure projects [parks, roads, bridges, highways]; the very areas that President Obama said would generate thousands of jobs for Americans. There have also been cuts to educational programs [Pell Grants and loans], which again, President Obama guaranteed that every American student who wanted a college education and could not afford one would get one, as it would make us more competitive globally; especially funding areas in such courses as Science, Math and Engineering.
7. The one sticky point is President Obama wants to tax corporations and wealthy individuals while Republicans don’t want this to be part of any tax reform.
If one looks at the numbers it seems that this so-called “New Deal” is nothing more than an “old” cop-out and at least three things it is in reality tailored to do: (1) appease nervous [jittery] major foreign government investors not to start dumping trillions of dollars in T-Bills, (2) pass the buck to another ‘special’ congressional panel to come up with a ‘real’ solution because nobody else has or can, (3) and to postpone any significant legislation until after the 2012 Election, when possibly a new administration will have all of this mess to deal with that is leftover from “OBAMAMERICA.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 2, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
The government “debt-reduction” Plan:
1. To raise the current $14.3 trillion ceiling by an additional $900 billion, then between $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion.
2. A special joint congressional committee is to come up with “new” deficit-reduction measures by Thanksgiving and Congress [The Senate] must vote on by year’s end. They are required to write a bill for reducing deficits [government spending] over the next ten years by another $1.5 trillion, but how does that make any sense when government spending exceeds $3.6 trillion every year [#4b]? The committee could change entitlement programs as Medicare, Social Security, and amend the existing tax code. If they did want to make such changes, that would seem to go against previous statements by the president to protect Social Security and Medicare.
3. The combined [$14.3T + $2.4T] $16.7 trillion increase should be enough to fund government operations and pay its debt through the 2012 election without the President and Congress needing to go through this process again.
4. According to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] the $900 billion in cuts to federal agency budgets will be phased in over a ten year period, while for the next year alone the cuts would “only” amount to $21 billion, and how is that going to make a difference when government spending will exceed $3.6 trillion [FORMULA: $3.6T-$21.0B/$3.6T=5.84%]?
5. There were no “specifics” on which non-defense programs will be spared besides SSI, low income [HUD and others??] and Medicare.
6. The government is cutting funding in infrastructure projects [parks, roads, bridges, highways]; the very areas that President Obama said would generate thousands of jobs for Americans. There have also been cuts to educational programs [Pell Grants and loans], which again, President Obama guaranteed that every American student who wanted a college education and could not afford one would get one, as it would make us more competitive globally; especially funding areas in such courses as Science, Math and Engineering.
7. The one sticky point is President Obama wants to tax corporations and wealthy individuals while Republicans don’t want this to be part of any tax reform.
If one looks at the numbers it seems that this so-called “New Deal” is nothing more than an “old” cop-out and at least three things it is in reality tailored to do: (1) appease nervous [jittery] major foreign government investors not to start dumping trillions of dollars in T-Bills, (2) pass the buck to another ‘special’ congressional panel to come up with a ‘real’ solution because nobody else has or can, (3) and to postpone any significant legislation until after the 2012 Election, when possibly a new administration will have all of this mess to deal with that is leftover from “OBAMAMERICA.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 2, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)