Fuck its silent in here.......

[CBStew]

Birthers even too crazy for Jan Brewer.

"As a former Secretary of State, I do not support designating one person as a gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically-motivated decisions," the governor wrote in a letter addressed to the Arizona House speaker.

  I understand that the legislation would have accepted a certificate of circumcision as an alternative.  Female candidates for president were gearing up for an equal protection challenge to the legislation.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/74774683/pocket-guide-to-hells-haymarket-reenactment-0

To honor the 125th anniversary of the Haymarket Affair, a full-scale Reenactment will be staged on the original site, near the corner of Randolph and Desplaines. We will remember the 16 men and countless others, workers and police, who were present that day but whose identities will never be known. Organized by Paul Durica's Pocket Guide to Hell in partnership with the Illinois Labor History Society, Version Festival, and the Haymarket Pub and Brewery, the Haymarket Reenactment will draw groups from across the city to commemorate the past and to celebrate work being done in the present.

Like a Civil War reenactment, the Haymarket Reenactment will have period props, costumes, and people playing specific roles -- all right in the center of the city. Tim Samuelson (cultural historian) and Alma Washington (actress and activist) will help tell the story for the spectators, who will also play the people gathered around the speakers' wagon that night in May. Jon Langford will sing "Annie Laurie" as Albert Parsons did, the night before he was executed. Music will be provided by Environmental Encroachment, the magic circus marching band, and Haymarket Pub and Brewery will host the afterparty.

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=216565131692413
http://pocketguidetohell.tumblr.com/post/4461776418/paul-durica-of-pocket-guide-to-hell-tours-in

[R-V]

But if they're forced to shop at Goodwill, won't that just leave them with more money to buy t-bones and Cadillacs?

http://news.michiganradio.org/post/plan-would-require-foster-children-shop-clothing-thrift-stores

[R-V]

DPD, but I wanted to warn any Desipiot with a Casio F91W to get rid of it ASAP or you may end up at Gitmo with the other Casio Supervillains

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/04/wikileaks-the-uses-of-guantanamo.html#ixzz1KXmeYl6s

[Gilgamesh]

It's all about small government, people.  Small enough to fit into people's bedrooms.

[Gilgamesh]

The NLRB is coming after you, Pen (and South Dakota too).

[R-V]

Could someone explain to me why this is wrong?

In a new Feature** in the Yale Law Journal, Macey, along with James P. Holdcroft, Jr., argues that banks should be broken up into pieces no bigger than $3 billion. According to Macey and Holdcroft, the basic problem is that the government cannot credibly commit not to bail out too-big-to-fail banks in a crisis. Or, more precisely, the only way it can commit not to bail out TBTF banks is to break those banks up before the crisis hits. Their proposed limit is 5 percent of the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund, which itself is 1.15 percent of total insured deposits, so the limit would work out to $3 billion as of 2010. (Actually, that limit would apply to bank liabilities, so you could have a bank of any size you wanted, as long as the rest of its capital was equity.)

[Chuck to Chuck]

Could someone explain to me why this is wrong?

In a new Feature** in the Yale Law Journal, Macey, along with James P. Holdcroft, Jr., argues that banks should be broken up into pieces no bigger than $3 billion. According to Macey and Holdcroft, the basic problem is that the government cannot credibly commit not to bail out too-big-to-fail banks in a crisis. Or, more precisely, the only way it can commit not to bail out TBTF banks is to break those banks up before the crisis hits. Their proposed limit is 5 percent of the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund, which itself is 1.15 percent of total insured deposits, so the limit would work out to $3 billion as of 2010. (Actually, that limit would apply to bank liabilities, so you could have a bank of any size you wanted, as long as the rest of its capital was equity.)

Because banks would either have to be not for profit or charge 20% on loans to get a decent ROE.

[R-V]

Could someone explain to me why this is wrong?

In a new Feature** in the Yale Law Journal, Macey, along with James P. Holdcroft, Jr., argues that banks should be broken up into pieces no bigger than $3 billion. According to Macey and Holdcroft, the basic problem is that the government cannot credibly commit not to bail out too-big-to-fail banks in a crisis. Or, more precisely, the only way it can commit not to bail out TBTF banks is to break those banks up before the crisis hits. Their proposed limit is 5 percent of the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund, which itself is 1.15 percent of total insured deposits, so the limit would work out to $3 billion as of 2010. (Actually, that limit would apply to bank liabilities, so you could have a bank of any size you wanted, as long as the rest of its capital was equity.)

Because banks would either have to be not for profit or charge 20% on loans to get a decent ROE.

Just the answer I'd expect from someone in the pocket of Big Jew.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Another point:

Limiting banks to $3 million billion in assets would be akin to saying McDonalds is too big and that each restaurant has to be a separate company about the size of Hot Doug's.

[morpheus]

Keynan Muslim Atheist Socialist?  Well, yeah.  But he was born in the USA.  Now can we get on to the abundant avenues of legitimate criticism and away from all this conspiracy shit?

Spoiler: Probably not.

[R-V]

Another point:

Limiting banks to $3 million in assets would be akin to saying McDonalds is too big and that each restaurant has to be a separate company about the size of Hot Doug's.

It's $3 billion in liabilities, not $3 million in assets. And the point is that with the monolithic banks we have today, and the implicit permanent bailout they enjoy, their incentive is to take on more risk than the bank would without said implicit bailout. Is a hard limit like this the answer? I don't know. But something should be done to change the incentives.

[morpheus]

Another point:

Limiting banks to $3 million in assets would be akin to saying McDonalds is too big and that each restaurant has to be a separate company about the size of Hot Doug's.

It's $3 billion in liabilities, not $3 million in assets. And the point is that with the monolithic banks we have today, and the implicit permanent bailout they enjoy, their incentive is to take on more risk than the bank would without said implicit bailout. Is a hard limit like this the answer? I don't know. But something should be done to change the incentives.

Rather than imposing a hard limit, perhaps we should change the role of the FDIC and the government, and better align the incentives of the banks, by having them self-insure.  Here's one possible way to do it: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/ppb_83.pdf

This brief by Konstas outlines a plan to reduce the risk of government losses by replacing insured deposits with uninsured deposits and eliminating some of the costs of deposit insurance.His plan proposes a self-insured (SI) depositor system that places an intermediary between the lender (saver) and borrower (bank) in the credit-flow chain. The FDIC would guarantee saver loans and allow the intermediary to borrow at the risk-free interest rate if the intermediary's bank deposit is statutorily defined outside the realm of FDIC insurance. The risk is therefore transferred to depositors (intermediaries); thus creating incentives for depositors to earn a rate of return at least equal to the cost of borrowing plus a risk premium based on the risk profile of banks.

Konstas's plan uses the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) as a financial model but replaces the Office of Finance (OF) with a Self-Insured Depositors' Financing Office (SIDFO). His plan creates additional advantages, such as maximum funding efficiency (e.g., economies of scale), and there is virtually no risk of loss for the U.S. government. The shift of guarantees from bank debt to SIDFO debt would dramatically decrease the FDIC's odds of losses from bank failures.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Keynan Muslim Atheist Socialist?  Well, yeah.  But he was born in the USA.  Now can we get on to the abundant avenues of legitimate criticism and away from all this conspiracy shit?

Spoiler: Probably not.

Huey's favorite sensible moderate...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53802.html

Trump began his trip to New Hampshire with a victory lap over Obama's release of his birth certificate.

"I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish," he said. "I want to look at it, but I hope it's true so we can get onto much more important matters so the press can stop asking me questions."

He added, "I am really honored, frankly, to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully, getting rid of this issue."

"I'm taking great credit," he said, calling it "rather amazing" that it "suddenly materializes."

[Chuck to Chuck]

It's $3 billion in liabilities, not $3 million in assets.

I know.  Typo on my part.

And the point is that with the monolithic banks we have today, and the implicit permanent bailout they enjoy, their incentive is to take on more risk than the bank would without said implicit bailout. Is a hard limit like this the answer? I don't know. But something should be done to change the incentives.

Perhaps.  My point was that the $3 billion limit is far too low.