Daily news sites

A filibuster is a lengthy speech used in the U.S. Senate to delay or block legislative action, a mechanism with a long history.

The U.S. Senate Website explains that, “In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.”

Senate rules have permitted a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

The filibuster, thought by some to be an unconstitutional, unfair, historical relic, is thought by others to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. And only eight years ago prominent Democrats loudly defended the filibuster and lambasted the Republican majority for suggesting an end to it.

In 2005, then-Senator and now-President of the United States Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said, “What [the American people] don't expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.”

During the same debate then-Minority Leader and current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said, “Mr. President, yesterday morning I spoke here about a statement the Majority Leader issued calling the filibuster a ‘procedural gimmick.’ … No Mr. President, the filibuster is not a scheme. And it is not new. The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history. … It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail. … And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government. Separation of Power. Checks and Balances. Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check.”

Other notable Democrats also supported the filibuster, which is known as "The Soul of the Senate." Joe Biden, then-Senator and now Vice President of the United States, former Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Senator Diane Feinstein were part of the opposition. In the end, the idea of changing the rules was abandoned.

But that was then. Last week the Senate Democrat majority changed the very rule it so strongly defended in 2005.

In their assault on this well respected legislative device they strongly defended in 2005, when the majority shoe was on the other foot, the majority party changed it for presidential appointments, which now require only a simple majority. Their excuse: Republicans did not agree with the president’s nominations for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and administrative agency appointments.

The National Center for Policy Analysis opines that in addition to judicial positions “the change will almost certainly result in more confirmations of presidential nominees – for example, the 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board tasked with controlling health care spending.” Which is interesting, given the potential for this issue to have been brought forth to distract the nation’s attention from the Obamacare debacle.

In 1975 the Democrat majority of the Senate reduced the majority vote needed to end a filibuster from two-thirds of the Senate (67 votes) to three-fifths (60 votes). Now it’s just 51 votes.

Senate Democrats decided that if they can’t get their way playing by decades-old rules, they could just change them. Yes we can!

It is important for the Senate to debate appointments so that people who are not qualified or whose agenda is narrow and ideological can be identified and defeated. That is precisely why the filibuster exists: to prevent the presidency from becoming a monarchy. Given the performance of the IRS, the NSA, the State Department’s gross failure in Benghazi, and the destructive actions of the EPA, there is more than enough evidence to warrant closely examining and perhaps blocking some of this president’s appointments.

Democrats like this new arrangement with a Democrat in the White House but, God willing, that won’t always be the case. The ability of a president to put questionable and even unqualified people on the federal bench and at the head of federal agencies just became much easier.

The Founders saw the dangers of a tyrannical majority party and built in safeguards to insure that Congress’ activities would be slow and difficult. Senate Democrats substantially gutted those safeguards a second time.

Cassandra E. LaFave

The following chart shows the producer price index for intermediate foods and feeds divided by the index of the average hourly earnings of private production and nonsupervisory employees. The low point was achieved in May of 2002 (represented as 1.0 on the chart).


Click to enlarge.

Stick a fork in it. The old trend's over. Welcome to the new trend. Who doesn't like higher asset prices?

Not all of these price increases are making it down to the consumer of course. Value is "added" by heavily processing the food, placing it in cheap boxes and cans, slapping a well known brand name in colorful print on the outside, and then marking up the price. We may not have infinite global food supplies well into the distant future, but at least we have an ample supply of presentation!

September 20, 2013
Our Chat With Jeremy Grantham


November 13, 2013
Experts: world's soil is at risk


What would Carl Spackler say though?
And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

Not everything is inflating of course. Take Redux for example. Some miracle drugs are not all they are cracked up to be apparently.

Redux: The Miracle Weight-Loss Drug

I'm not trying to imply that the Fed's miracle drug won't work over the long run. No, sir. ZIRP is all but guaranteed to restore all lost prosperity and then some! Common knowledge! Everyone knows it! Trapped in ZIRP like the Japanese isn't a long-term curse, it's a long-term blessing! Genius!

See Also:
The Fed's Wealth Effect (Musical Tributes)

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Custom Chart

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

With many lawmakers wary over the Iran nuclear deal its looks like the right and the left may have rediscovered bipartisanship

Top lawmakers on both side of the aisle on Sunday voiced skepticism about the newly struck agreement with Iran, and vowed to keep up the pressure with sanctions.

Senior members in both chambers said that, at first glance, Iran got the better end of the deal with western powers, China and Russia – effectively exchanging looser sanctions for very little progress in impeding Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.

Some powerful lawmakers have said they’re willing to seek new sanctions now, but delay their implementation until after the six months covered by the current deal. But others weren’t even willing to go that far.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), the No. 3 Democrat in the chamber, called the deal disproportionately good for Iran, and that it was only strong sanctions that gave the United States and its allies any leverage over Tehran.

“This disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December,” Schumer said in a Sunday statement.

In fact, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office pointed out Sunday that the Virginia Republican and Schumer – rarely allies on any issue – had sounded similar concerns about the deal, and the impact sanctions have had on Iran.

President Obama and top members of his administration, like Secretary of State John Kerry, have stressed that the pressure has been successful – but that pressing ahead with further sanctions could “derail” the new deal.

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are among the lawmakers to say they’d be open to putting sanctions in place for six months down the line.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had vowed last week to move ahead with sanctions legislation, but has yet to comment on the agreement finalized this weekend in Geneva.

Menendez added Sunday that he expected any Senate deal on sanctions to allow the U.S. to immediately restart sanctions if Iran fails to live up to its part of the deal.

“Given Iran's history of duplicity, it will demand ongoing, on-the-ground verification,” Menendez said. “Until Iran has verifiably terminated its illicit nuclear program, we should vigorously enforce existing sanctions.”

“Given Iran's history of duplicity, it will demand ongoing, on-the-ground verification,” Menendez said. “Until Iran has verifiably terminated its illicit nuclear program, we should vigorously enforce existing sanctions.”

Under the deal announced Sunday, the U.S. and its allies will loosen temporarily loosen sanctions on Iran’s sale of crude oil, its automotive sector and other parts of the economy.

Iran, on the other hand, agreed to tougher outside inspections and to cap its nuclear stockpile. Tehran will also halt work at a heavy water reactor at its Arak site and suspend the installation of new centrifuges. The two sides disagree on whether the agreement allows Iran to enrich its uranium, and whether it takes any military action against the country off the table.

The initial agreement does not cover the construction of new centrifuges or the reversal of progress Iran has made in its nuclear program. {Read More}

I like the idea of developing additional sanctions now to be used only if Iran over the next six months fails to conduct itself in accordance with "the deal."

Via: Memeorandum

By H. Nelson Goodson
Ju Hong's undocumented story on video

The following scatter chart compares the real annual change in corporate profits (bottom scale) to the annual change in nonfarm payrolls (left scale).


Click to enlarge.

The Fed apparently believes that increasing corporate profits is the key to job creation. In sharp contrast, I happen to think the key is severely mangled and the lock is rusted over. But hey, maybe that's just me.

Although there appears to be zero correlation between real annual corporate profit growth and annual job creation (as seen in the trend line in blue), the data points in black do point to one trend though. If you stare at them long enough, you should see one of the flying saucers from Godzilla vs. Monster Zero.



King Ghidorah (Monster Zero)


Speaking of Japan's Monster Zero, the following chart shows the spread between USA's discount rate and Japan's discount rate.



Monster Zero Interest Rate Policy (MZIRP)! Our monster is now nearly every bit as powerful as theirs! Only one thing can stop us now!

November 5, 2013
Zillow Revenue Up Despite Weak Consumer Housing Appetite

Oh God, Zillow. Bernanke should have never said the word taper. Three-headed, two-tailed, armless flying beasts can sense fear.



Godzilla vs. Monster Zero: Quote

See Also:
Sarcasm Disclaimer

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Custom Scatter Chart
St. Louis Fed: Discount Rate Spread: USA vs. Japan

Today I'm over at my friend's 'house', Meet Me in Philadelphia, sharing what I am most thankful for this year. Go over and check it out!


And Ashley, thank you for not only being a great friend, but also for teaching me how to spell Philadelphia. xo

Iran Plays Obama, Kerry, Like A Violin
Stage Set For Nuclear Arms Race in Middle East
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet 
*****************

Thousands will pay with their lives as a result of the deal Obama made with Iran over the weekend. In fact, that number could easily grow to millions and among them will be the lives of US citizens.

The absolute idiocy of the Obama Administration is stunning.  Someone recently described them as two-year olds playing with a loaded gun. Unfortunately, this scribe would assign more responsibility to the children than to the entire stable of idiots working out of today's White House.

I had not wanted to believe that an American President could hate America so much that he would use his power to tear her down, to lay her breast open to her enemies just to have the satisfaction of seeing her crumble.  But after seeing the handiwork of Obama and Kerry over the weekend, any doubt I may have clung to, is long gone.

Look.  This kind of stupidity doesn't just happen.  It is the result of studied determination.  It was planned. 

Turns out the Obama Regime has been holding secret meetings with the Iranians for at least a year while lying publicly to cover up what they knew would be unpopular with the American public.  In other words, it's just more of the two-faced, lying, hijinks of the Communist-in-Chief, Obama.

This "deal" with Iran is about as one-sided as it could possible get.  It does absolutely NOTHING to weaken Iran's nuclear program ... NOTHING!

Iran got everything it wanted.  The world got screwed -- AGAIN -- by Obama.

Now US Secretary of State Kerry is going to try to sell the deal to Israel.  If I had one suggestion to make to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it would have been that he would refuse to meet with Kerry when he landed in Israel.  I hope he really lets Kerry, and through him, Obama, have an earful.

We are now closer to war in the Middle East, between Israel and Iran, than we have been to date.  Once that war begins it will spill over until the entire region is aflame ... and believe me, the US WILL be drawn into it.  There is no way to prevent that.   This is what happens when communist neophytes run the US government. 

We told you months ago this would happen.  I'm no "seer," no "clairvoyant."  It was clear from the earliest days of the Obama Administration that Obama intended to supervise the downfall of America.  He has made it plain as day in every way he could.

Between his reduction of our nuclear arsenal, the purging of our military of fighting Generals and Admirals, and the building up of America's enemies, there can be no other conclusion but that Obama is setting America up for a major military defeat.

Why am I so upset over another "blunder" by Obama?  Because this one sets up a nuclear war, THAT'S why.  It allows Iran the "right" to enrich uranium.  THAT, alone, dear reader, means that Iran is now a legitimate threshold nuclear state.  In other words -- Iran will remain just months away, maybe even less, from building a nuclear bomb with which they intend to bomb the heck out of Israel. Their second nuclear bomb 's intended target is -- the United States of America.

So what's changed?  Only that the Obama Administration now approves of Iran having the capability of building a nuclear bomb.  In fact, Obama even backed off on some of the sanctions that had, in fact, weakened Iran. After this agreement, Iran will be strong, not weak, AND  have nuclear capability.

ABJECT SURRENDER BY OBAMA

Consider this from the Weekly Standard:  "This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective.  Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement.  Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.”  This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States."  SOURCE:  http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/abject-surrender-united-states_768140.html 

 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reported to have said of the interim Iranian nuclear pact: "What was achieved last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, but a historic mistake.  Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.  Israel will not allow Iran to develop a military nuclear capability."    SOURCE:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-says-iran-deal-makes-world-more-dangerous/2013/11/24/e0e347de-54f9-11e3-bdbf-097ab2a3dc2b_story.html?clsrd

Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said: "It is clear that this deal acknowledges the right of Iran to enrich uranium. This very recognition brings us to a nuclear arming race. The Iranians were rewarded."

 Lieberman continued: "It will be very interesting to see how the Saudis and their pundits react. Not for nothing, yesterday (Saturday) a summit was held between Gulf states. This (enrichment) is the most problematic issue for us, as it is for Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt – no one will sit on the sidelines clapping and cheering."

Lieberman went on to issue this warning "All these countries will now join the (arms) race. There is no doubt that the Saudis, Egyptians and Turks will now begin speaking in the same terminology (used by Iran) – nuclear program for peaceful purposes, nuclear energy, but they will do exactly what Iran did." SOURCE:  http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4457041,00.html

Does Obama not understand that he has just set off an nuclear arms race in the Middle East --  probably the most volatile geography on earth?

The strange little man in the White House has made it clear that he intends to stand by the Muslims of the world over the Jews when the chips are down.  If that means allowing Iran to have a nuclear bomb with which to attack Israel and the United States -- then so be it.  It would seem our Mr. Obama is, after all, afflicted with the psychological syndrome known as a "true believer" -- only NOT in Israel, or his own country, the USA.  

One must wonder, as we digest all the pro-Muslim antics of Obama since arriving in the Oval Office, if he, too, is awaiting the arrival of the twelfth Imam following a worldwide catastrophe.  One must wonder if Obama feels compelled to assist the initiation of that terrible conflagration that is said to pave the way for, and hasten the arrival of, Islam's twelfth Imam.

No matter.  It cannot be denied, at least by SANE people, that the recent agreement with Iran will most certainly set the stage for a regional nuclear war.
Another Obama blunder?  No, I don't think so.  Unless, of course, blunders can be intentional.

© J. D. Longstreet

Split the difference between a regular winter outwear and this green cashmere coat. Yes, this is my latest vintage score! It is well known that I like things a little bit different but in a classic arrangement as today outfit!
When you find a green coat: Go for it!



                                                                            Coat: vintage/ Here, Here and Here
                                                                            Sweater: Liz Claiborne/ option Here and Here 
                                                                            Skirt: c/o Glassworks/ Here 
                                                                            Bag: Cynthia Rowley/ similar style Here and Here 
                                                                            Boots: Diesel/ option Here and Here
                                                                            Sunglasses: Prada/ Here

November 19, 2013
MSN Money: How to rescue your retirement at 55

Since this is a mainstream article one can probably assume that there are a lot of people interested in rescuing their retirement at age 55 or at the very least there are a great many people interested in how the retirement rescue advice might apply to them.

I have rearranged the order of the advice to maximize the dramatic effect.

1. Reduce your consumption

This works for everyone. If everyone does it, then we can expect the economy to crash again.

2. Don't plan for retirement; plan to keep working

This works for everyone. If everyone does it, then we can expect many of the younger among us to be stuck in low paying jobs and/or the unemployment lines. As an added bonus, since many are already straddled with student debt they won't be able to afford new homes. And without the ability to afford new homes, we can expect another housing crash.

3. Tap your house as an asset sooner rather than later

This works for everyone. If everyone does it, then we'd expect to see another housing crash. Selling your house and moving into a smaller less expensive one is net selling on average (by dollar amount). A crash is especially likely if everyone is consuming less and delaying retirement. See steps #1 and #2.

4. Stay in equities longer than you may think 'safe


Desperate people feel the need to do unsafe things. Increasing the chance implies that there is still a chance you could earn a lower return by staying in equities for longer and in greater proportion. This would make sense since stocks are considered "risk assets" and each one of the previous 3 steps in could be considered crash worthy on their own. Further, the wicked combination of all three steps at the same time could prove to be very crash worthy indeed.


This is opposed to the pre-World War II era, when interest rates did not rise after a long period of artificially low rates. That era was in the aftermath of the Great Depression. Some sort of housing bust was eventually followed by a world war but let's not go into that now. Desperate people should not be reminded of Great Depressions and world wars, especially world wars removing global industrial capacity to the USA's manufacturing and industrial benefit. That could be greatly depressing, especially if we have no intention of successfully removing excess global industrial capacity any time soon.


Wait until the last possible moment on the off chance that the long-term trend actually reverses and that very few will be buying bonds when you are age 70. How many other 55 year-olds are desperately attempting to rescue their retirement? Do what they do! Postpone and pray! It's not like we could be stuck with ZIRP for 20+ years like the Japanese were after their housing bust in the 1990s! Right? Stick with stocks like the Japanese did if you want to have a sporting chance!

October 24, 2013
BBC Sport: Gambling footballers take out payday loans - Sporting Chance


This is not gambling advice. You know this to be true because if it was gambling advice then I'd be mentioning record margin debt and I have no intention of bringing that up in polite conversation.

Tonight President Barack Hussein Obama and the leaders of Europe have told the Mullahs of Iran:  Kill the Jews.  The P5+1 leaders have caved in to all of Iran's demands and will lift the sanctions.  (Although they claim that they will reinstate them again.)

Representatives of Iran and Western powers reached an interim deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program early Sunday morning, after a weekend of intensive talks in Geneva.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, “Yes, we have a deal,” as he walked past reporters crowding the hotel lobby where marathon negotiations had taken place over the past five days. Asked if there was a deal, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said “Yes” and gave a thumbs up sign.

Diplomats refused to spell out details of the talks, but a senior Obama administration official said that the West had not conceded an Iranian right to produce nuclear fuel through uranium enrichment, a key sticking point in previous negotiations.

The official said the deal included an agreement that Iran would halt progress on its nuclear program, including a plutonium reactor at the Arak facility. The deal also calls on Iran to neutralize its 20-percent-enriched uranium stockpiles. Tehran has also agreed to intrusive inspections under the terms of the deal.

According to a Western diplomat quoted by Reuters, the deal would grant Iran access to $4.2 billion in foreign exchange.

In a statement Sunday morning, US President Barack Obama said the deal opened up a “real opportunity to achieve a peaceful settlement.”

“It won’t be easy,” he said, “and huge challenge remain ahead, but through strong and principled diplomacy, the United States will do our part” to deny Iran nuclear weapons. Obama acknowledged that the deal may be hard to stomach for some of Washington’s allies in the Middle East, saying, Israel and the Gulf countries, “have good reasons to be skeptical.”

The West has been seeking a six-month agreement to partially freeze Iran’s nuclear program while offering Iran incentives through limited sanctions relief. If the interim deal holds, the parties would negotiate final-stage deals to ensure Iran does not build nuclear weapons.

The agreement built on the momentum of the historic dialogue opened during September’s annual UN gathering, which included a 15-minute phone conversation between Obama and Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, after three decades of US-Iranian estrangement.

“The Iranian people’s vote for moderation and constructive engagement, plus tireless efforts by negotiating teams are to open new horizons,” Rouhani said in a statement Sunday morning.

“Agreement in Geneva: first step makes world safer. More work now,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said in a comment tweeted by the State Department Sunday morning. The statement was retweeted by Rouhani’s account.

Kerry and his counterparts from Russia, Britain, France, China and Germany headed for Geneva Friday after diplomats said Zarif and EU representative Catherine Ashton had made significant progress.

A previous round of talks between Iran and the six world powers ended November 10 with no deal, even after Kerry, Lavrov, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany and a Chinese deputy foreign minister flew in and attempted to bridge differences.

The United States and its negotiating partners had signaled they were ready to ease some sanctions in return for a first-step deal that starts to put limits on Iran’s nuclear program.

They wanted Iran to stop enriching to a level higher than its main stockpile and only a technical step away from weapons-grade uranium as part of such a deal. They also sought to limit overall enrichment, as well as a formulation that would reduce the proliferation danger from the Arak reactor, which, if completed, would produce enough plutonium for up to two weapons.

But they insist that the most severe penalties — on Tehran’s oil exports and banking sector — will remain until the two sides reach a comprehensive agreement to minimize Iran’s nuclear arms-making capacity.

No details on relief offered have been made public. And the US administration has not commented on reports from congressional officials that Obama’s team estimates Iran could get $6-10 billion in benefits over six months for rolling back its nuclear program.

Several US senators — both Democrat and Republican — have voiced displeasure with the parameters of the potential agreement, arguing that the US and its partners are offering too much for something short of a full freeze on uranium enrichment.

SOURCE

My sources tell me that Iran got everything they wanted.  The right to enrich uranium, their nuclear program intact, the relaxation of sanctions.  Israel on the other hand have been shafted up the ass.  Iran doesn't have a peaceful nuclear program.  They have made that clear over the last decade.

On September 30, 1938 then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain disembarked a plane from Germany, waved a piece of paper and stated clearly:

We have achieved peace in our time.

Click here if the video fails to load.

A year later Europe erupted in war.  For Chamberlain also believed that this was the first step and he could negotiate a lasting peace.

History is repeating itself in spades.

We haven't become safer by this treaty, but it is only a matter of time before a Regional War will break out.  A war that will become a World War.