Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1345.8 | 1.1 | 0.08% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2528.9 | 14.8 | 0.59% |
| Oil (WTI) | 99.67 | 1.3 | 1.28% |
| LIBOR | 0.5133 | -0.007 | -1.30% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 78.443 | -0.110 | -0.14% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.99% | 0.02% |
Markets are flattish this morning as talks continue between Greece and its creditors. The WSJ is reporting that the ECB has agreed to exchange bonds it bought at a discount in the secondary market at a price less than par. Greek 10 year yields are down a percentage point to 33.14%
The WSJ has a story this morning discussing how the energy boom is driving the economy. The story points out that the multiplier effect from this is huge – for every new worker employed in the oil and gas industry, another 4 jobs are created in support. Obama will have to walk a fine line between mollifying his environmental base which hates fracking and the fact that the energy sector is one of the few bright spots in the economy overall.
One housing story that has not been getting a lot of play has been the perilous state of FHA’s reserves. FHA’s cash reserves are below the 2% statutory limit and a bailout may be necessary if housing deteriorates further. How will it affect housing? My gut says that the government will quietly tell FHA to start unloading foreclosed homes in order to raise cash. This will undoubtedly complicate the government’s efforts to support the housing market.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
The instruction to FHA might be quiet, but the result would make noise.
LikeLike
If FHA starts offering more pools, I will undoubtedly see them. They had been dripping out non-performing loans and REO, but have been quiet lately. In fairness, so have the banks. The market expects to see a lot more flow in the coming months.
LikeLike
Since I was early to the party on recovery so to speak, I hope you will excuse me for being early to leave.
The more research I do, the more convinced I am that the Israelis are going to attack Iran, either because they think they NEED to do it, as many believe, OR because they want to interfere with the re-election of Obama as I believe.
If you currently have no exposure to non-Middle Eastern oil, you might look into the appropriateness of that for any subsequent investment decisions you are making.
LikeLike
Yesterday, because of more dopey commentary in a blog, I did an update on my previous auto bailout column. I’ll throw it in again and hope that I’m not boring too many of you with the subject
– total US employment by Chrysler at the time of the bailout about 45,000. Total number of Chrysler franchisees dissolved as part of the bailout 789, average number of employees in a car dealership according to the NADA 53, resulting estimated employment loss: 42,000 directly, perhaps 2-3 times that in total.
– amount of Federal loan to Chrysler forgiven at time of the bailout and never paid back 1.9 billion. Amount of loans forgiven to Chrysler parts suppliers about 1.5 billion.
– in the spring 2011when talk of an IPO for Chrysler was floating around the estimated market value of the company was 15-25 billion dollars. Taking the low end of that figure, Fiat now owns 58 percent of Chrysler, at a value of roughly 9 billion for which it has paid roughly 2 billion and the tech know-how to build the Fiat 500, (which in the most recent sales figures comprised about 2-3% of Chrysler sales). Investment increase to Fiat, minimally 8 times in 3 years at the low end, 10-12 times at the high end
– amount of money that just one state pension fund, Indiana, lost in the Chrysler bailout 17 million dollars
– Why is Chrysler making a profit now? By creating balloon payments to it’s pension fund that will trigger AFTER the IPO.
“For an even simpler understanding of Detroit’s pension problem, we must look to GM and Chrysler’s estimates of future contributions required to maintain minimum funding levels for its pension plans, as required under law. Both bailed-out automakers are currently above minimum levels, however starting in 2013, large contributions are expected to be needed. . . .
Chrysler, meanwhile faces smaller payments over the short term, of $400m in 2010 and $40m in 2012, but payments to maintain minimum funding levels will increase to $930m in 2013 and $1.25b in 2014.”
– How did Chrysler pay off 5.9 billion in bailout loans from the government? Partially with 3.5 billion in new loans from the DOE
http://www.toledoblade.com/Automotive/2011/06/22/Chrysler-to-receive-Energy-Dept-loans.html
-where is Chrysler looking to expand it’s manufacturing?
“Chrysler to build more vehicles in Chinese factories”
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2011-06/25/c…
– current US Chrysler factory employment about 27,000
– current US employment of non-bailed out and also foreign owned Toyota, also about 27,000
Just a bit more about GM
– How has GM been making a profit:
Amount of the pension under funding at GM : either 10 billion or 30 billion depending on how you account for things
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-01/no-gm-buy…
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/with-liab…
– Amount GM stock has fallen since the IPO: about 25%
– Amount of GM still owned by the government, about 32%
– What was the major problem of the auto industry circa 2008:
“Many of the excesses of the past — overproduction, bloated vehicle lineups, expensive rebates — are gone.”
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopic…
– What has been making a comeback due to overproduction of vehicles:
“Stronger New Car Rebates and Incentives On The Way This Fall”
http://www.autobytel.com/auto-news/stronger-new-ca…
– How do Chrysler and GM pad their sales figures versus “foreign car makers:
Fleet sales which comprise between 20-30%
http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2011/10/chrys…
– how did GM become the sales leader again in 2011? by counting 1.2 million Chinese manufactured vehicles sold to the Chinese by a company in which it has minority financial interest
http://www.wbtv.com/story/16516685/volkswagen-to-b…
– Exactly how much corporate income taxes will GM and Chrysler be paying in the future? Zero
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/03/our-tax-compass-needs-recalibrating.html
– highest informed estimate of the number of jobs saved? 1.5 million
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/11/17/gm-ipo-auto-bailout-saved-more-than-1-million-jobs-study-says/
– total cost of the bailout? 62 billion
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/bush-tells-dealers-he-avoided-gamble-in-bailing-out-automakers.html
– cost of every job saved?
$41,300
– cost of 4 years of tuition at the University of Maryland? $40, 600
LikeLike
Interesting interview with Sam Zell on CNBC this morning:
“Government Bailout Actually Hurt Housing Recovery: Zell”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46308436
LikeLike
John
Why is Chrysler making a profit now? By creating balloon payments to it’s pension fund that will trigger AFTER the IPO.
Is that even legal? And is it common knowledge?
I’m working my way through your piece, that was just my first question…..lol
LikeLike
I know I can be a blog hog, but I’ve never actually killed one before today!
LikeLike
lms:
Answering your question in a round about way:
“American Airlines’ plan for pension bailout draws criticism”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/american-airlines-request-for-pension-bailout-draws-criticism/2012/02/03/gIQAu1m1nQ_story.html?hpid=z5
LikeLike
Working my way thorugh another very difficult point. You get varying information as to whether Chrysler has actually received the followup loan from DOE, or used the promise of it as sort of collateral (off the record) to fund the refi.
Here;s a viewpoint toward that:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/05/chrysler-debt-effort-stalls-goverment-loans-not-so-shyster-after-all/
LikeLike
I’ll guarantee the answer to all your questions is in here:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1513153/000119312511355983/d196831d424b3.htm
LikeLike
Brent:
Your turn, several thousand words from me is enough! LOL
LikeLike
Thanks banned, great stuff on the bailout!
Now, “OR because they want to interfere with the re-election of Obama as I believe.”
Really? Their going to risk horrendous amounts of retaliation to get Obama out? It’s not like their military aid from us has, or will dry up, regardless of who’s in the White House. If they attack, IMO, it’s because they sense an existential threat from Iran, one I think they’re justified in sensing.
LikeLike
John, I’ll check it out tonight after work. The statement of cash flows does not lie.
LikeLike
troll:
It’s all a calculated risk, is it not? Israel has something over 300 nuclear weapons according to most experts and with no contiguous border, Iran’s capability to retaliate specifically against them is limited to a possible non-nuclear missile exchange.
Most likely Iranian retaliation would take some form that would require a US military involvement, such as the Straits. So it’s a striclty win-win proposition for them as I see it.
Also this is not the first time they have contemplated this action because of Obama. In 2008, as it became more clear that he would win the Dem nomination and the GOP had no shot at the election, a series of high level off the record meetings were held in which the Israelis sought to pull in Bush for one final war as it were. Bush refused to green light the operation and the Israelis decided not to go alone.
LikeLike
brent:
that wasn’t a challenge you know! LOL
LikeLike
They don’t have the loan yet. In the “Risk Factors”
We may be unable to obtain federal funding for our advanced technology vehicle and component programs under Section 136 of the EISA.
The U.S. Department of Energy, or DOE, is operating a program in which it may provide up to $25.0 billion in low cost loans to eligible applicants for the costs of re-equipping, expanding, and establishing manufacturing facilities in the U.S. to produce advanced technology vehicles and components for these vehicles. We have pending with the DOE a consolidated application for a loan under Section 136 of the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or the EISA, and have requested $3.5 billion in loans to support certain of our advanced technology vehicle and component programs. We are in discussions with the DOE regarding the terms of a potential loan and will need to reach agreement with respect to several matters with the DOE. There can be no assurance that Section 136 loans will continue to be available, that we will receive the amount we previously requested, or that we will be able to successfully negotiate terms acceptable to us, the DOE and our other lenders. If we do not receive Section 136 loans, our liquidity may be further constrained and we may be required to reduce our investment in new, advanced technology for our product development, which could make our vehicles less competitive in the future.
LikeLike
Note that Chrysler has to pay 8% for senior secured debt. Ouch!
10 year BBB- Industrial paper yields about 4.5%. Ford unsecured paper yields 6%.
That’s what happens when you roll over senior secured creditors, obama. They remember that shit.
Good luck competing with Toyota, Ford etc. with a cost of capital several percentage points over your rivals.
LikeLike
Banned,
I get that Israel can certainly outgun any opponent, but their concern, as I understand it, is that an Iranian nuke would actually be used against them, rather than be used as a deterrent. I guess I believe they believe it. My question to you is, do you think the Israeli’s actually believe that Iran would use a nuke against them, as in, first strike?
LikeLike
brent:
So the fact that it was accounted for is a smoking gun is it not that the refi was based on the idea of receiving these loans?
LikeLike
troll:
I consider the Iranian hierarchy to be like our own neocons, favorable toward war, but not to risking their own deaths in one. Israel has ballistic submarines, so the Iranians have no hope of a first strike roll of the dice.
LikeLike
banned,
So, do you think the Israeli’s do not believe that Iran would try to get a nuke on their soil and detonate it? What I’m trying to get at is what you think the Israeli’s believe, not what you believe.
LikeLike
troll;
How to answer this without a double negative?
I beiieve that the Arab/Persian world already possesses the ability to put a nuke on Israel in one manner or another, but is stopped by the MADD doctrine which Israel has hinted at on many occasions.
LikeLike
Banned,
I get that you’re sharing your belief, and I appreciate your clarity. What I’m trying to understand is what you think the Israeli’s themselves believe. Do the Israeli’s believe that Iran, if they develop a nuke, will use it on them ?
LikeLike
troll:
Ok THAT is beyond my area of expertise.
LikeLike
banned:
Ok THAT is beyond my area of expertise.
So does that mean that speculating about Israel going to war in order to influence our presidential election is not beyond your area of expertise? From whence derives this expertise?
LikeLike
Ok, fair enough. I’m just wanted to give my perspective that there is no scenario, under any Administration in which Israel loses any US support. Further, it is my opinion that the Israeli’s know this, so any “interference” in US elections actually loses them more than what they would gain. Finally, from the Israeli’s perspective, even a 1 in 100 chance of an Iranian nuke being detonated on or near their soil is too high and they will attack first to prevent it.
LikeLike
I would disgree only in that I think there is zero support for a military action against Iran under Obama, though of course we will always say that “everything” is on the table.
LikeLike
“Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on February 8, 2012 at 9:53 am said:
Ok, fair enough. I’m just wanted to give my perspective that there is no scenario, under any Administration in which Israel loses any US support.”
Ron Paul would be the exception to this, but he’s unlikely to get elected.
LikeLike
” . Do the Israeli’s believe that Iran, if they develop a nuke, will use it on them ?”
Some do. I think current Israeli leadership is particularly paranoid in this regard. Barak & netanyahu believe or want us to think they believe Iran would use a.nuke on Israel, or provide one to a group who would.
LikeLike
scott:
As you know, I seldom go anywhere unarmed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/eveningnews/main4206201.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2182070/Israel-will-attack-Iran-before-new-US-president-sworn-in-John-Bolton-predicts.html
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/13/267882/bolton-bush-israel-iran/
LikeLike
banned:
As you know, I seldom go anywhere unarmed:
Unfortunately, this seems to be one of those seldom times. Not one of those articles support the notion that Israel was seeking to bomb Iran in order to influence the 2008 election, much less that it is considering doing so now in order to influence the 2012 election. Indeed, the obvious inference one takes from these articles is that Israel was seeking Bush approval to attack Iran not in order to influence the election, but rather in order to get it done before the results of the election had a chance to influence US-Israeli relations. One of the articles actually spells this out quite explicitly:
“They’re also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there’s no telling what impact it could have on the election.” But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.
Sorry banned, but based on this evidence your suspicion that Israeli is preparing to attack in order to influence our elections is just rank speculation, not a reasoned judgement based on any “expertise”. Which is fine, I suppose, but then of course rank speculation would suffice as an answer to McWing’s question, too. No “expertise” needed.
LikeLike
scott:
As they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results . . . it’s usually just a massive coincidence!
LikeLike
brent:
So the fact that it was accounted for is a smoking gun is it not that the refi was based on the idea of receiving these loans?
I don’t think they are accounting for them… just disclosing that they applied for a loan.
LikeLike
Banned, I’m with Scott, how do you speculate that Israel wants to interfere in US elections because the fear Obama, but not want to speculate if Israel fears Iran nuking them?
LikeLike
scott and troll:
You ended the quote too soon:
“An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy,” said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush’s ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.”
If they were afraid of Obama’s effect on their foreign policy in 2008, do you think they are looking at 4 more years of it with glee? The cumulative evidence of all those links is that the Israelis were desperate to take action against Iran before Obama became president, and were ONLY stopped from doing so by Bush himself.
As to my conclusion, as well you know, at the opposite end of every sell order is a buyer with presumed access to the same information.
For me, the past is not necessarily prolougue, but that’s the way to bet.
LikeLike
banned:
If they were afraid of Obama’s effect on their foreign policy in 2008, do you think they are looking at 4 more years of it with glee?
No, and if your claim was that the Israelis probably don’t want to see Obama elected again, I might agree. But your claim was that it was contemplating war as a means of influencing the election, just as it allegedly did in 2008. However, the links you provide make it pretty clear that they were not attempting to influence the election in 2008, but rather the presumed outcome of the election was influencing their decisions. And, wholly apart from that, it is not at all clear or predictable to me that a pre-election Israeli attack on Iran would necessarily redound to Obama’s detriment. Indeed, based on your thinking, if I could convince you that a war in Iran would actually help Obama, I suppose you would be forced to conclude that Israel is refraining from attacking Iran in order to influence our elections!
LikeLike
From Jennifer Rubin’s column (and by extension Fred Hiatt)
“An Iranian official closely tied to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has released a detailed plan to attack Israel, according to a Middle East media monitoring site”
This follows a Richard Cohen column yesterday beating the drums for war. This is 2003 all over again with an organized disinformation campaign designed to produce a specific result.
Israel is also conducting “false flag operations” designed to pretend that WE are the ones conducting an active campaign against Iran:
“Israel used “false flag” operation to recruit anti-Iran militants, report alleges”
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/israel-used-false-flag-operation-recruit-anti-iran-223815985.html
It’s a win-win situation for them, no matter what. We get sucked in to a new war, and at worst they have our military support, and at best oil sky rockets and Obama loses too!
LikeLike
OT: Amusing piece by Matt Taibbi:
“Why Wall Street Should Stop Whining
POSTED: February 8, 11:02 AM ET”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-wall-street-should-stop-whining-20120208
The New York Magazine article he references:
“The End of Wall Street As They Knew It
After surprisingly successful financial reform, public vilification, and politics that have turned against them, the Masters of the Universe are masters no longer.
By Gabriel Sherman
Published Feb 5, 2012”
http://nymag.com/news/features/wall-street-2012-2/
I tend to agree with Taibbi that external economic factors, not Dodd-Frank, are responsible for the lower bonuses.
LikeLike
scott:
Just reread your last to me. We have a misunderstanding I think. I wasn’t implying that they tried to influence the LAST election. I was pointing out how great their fear/ hate of Obama is and how they view him as a detriment to thier foreign policy. That’s how I justify my implication that they will bomb to influence this up coming election.
LikeLike
banned:
I wasn’t implying that they tried to influence the LAST election. I was pointing out how great their fear/ hate of Obama is and how they view him as a detriment to thier foreign policy.
Ah, I see.
How does war with Iran work to unelect Obama?
LikeLike
scott;
See what oil prices did to the recovery last year. Then ponder.
LikeLike
banned:
See what oil prices did to the recovery last year.
Well, that’s a point. But it is hardly certainty that it would put him away. And a strategy obviously fraught with all kinds of complications.
Occam’s razor points to McWing’s motivation….they really are feeling an existential threat.
LikeLike
scott:
I think another stall in the recovery or a dowturn would simply be an end for Obama unless maybe Santorum was the opposing candidate. Like I said, win/win. If they think they are dealing with a genuine threat, AND the blowback is that they lose the one man whom they view as a serious threat to their foreign policy freedom . . . why wouldn’t they take that gamble?
LikeLike
banned:
Well, they might. But the primary assumption is that they are dealing with a genuine threat.
LikeLike
Banned, are you arguing that Israel wants to attack Iran (to further their foreign policy) so that Obama loses re-election because he is preventing them from executing their foreign policy (to bomb Iran)?
LikeLike
troll;
No, they want MUCH more than just the attack itself. Iran will undoubtedly retaliate and most likely in a large way that will involve us miitarily as I said above but at the very least will drive oil prices to a point that kills the recovery and his chances of re-election. t
The key is the damage that an attack will have on the American economy, not that Obama will lose votes over Israel.
Was I clearer this time? I must be being too obscure somehow.
LikeLike
banned:
Was I clearer this time?
It sounds like you are saying this:
Israel is going to attack Iran so that the US economy will tank, which in turn will cause Obama to lose the election, which will in turn allow Israel a freer hand in executing its foreign policy.
But by attacking Iran, isn’t that simply proof that it already has a free hand in FP, uninhibited by the presence of Obama? You say they want “much more” than just the attack. What is it they want, which Obama’s de-election will give them?
LikeLike
But how does Obama inhibit their FP if they end up attacking Iran? Unless your arguing that the attack itself would be done, not in their defense but to merely prevent the election of a US president who won’t change the US/Israeli relationship regardless of who is in office?
LikeLike
Sorry if I’m sounding obtuse, I’m not trying to be.
LikeLike
An attack against Iran would not be an isolated thing. It would be the begining of a much longer struggle in the Middle East, most likely including the toppling of several governments. Israel most likely does not want Obama around for a prolonged struggle of that sort. An attack in late spring or early summer would give them some short term pain in that regard, but insure longer term success with the next President whoever.
Put another way, if the Israelis really believe they HAVE to do it at all, then it makes much more sense to do it now, while it might hurt Obama’s chances of re-election, than it would AFTER he is president for four more years. They already believe him to be the enemy in some sense so they are no worse off helping to oust him than they would be otherwise.
I don’t think that they are going to strike Iran specifically to hurt Obama without any other rreason for doing so. I think that the timing of the strike from their viewpoint will be a happy accident vis a vis the election.
LikeLike
This is very interesting, but doesn’t anybody want to talk about the bailout? LOL
LikeLike
Brent and I were talking about the Straits of Hormuz the other day. He was serving the last time we sent the USN to keep them open, which was more than 20 years ago. We thought only keeping the Straits open would involve NATO and then Mike pointed out that China has gunboats nearby also for the purpose of keeping the Straits open. The Chinese presence, as Iran’s sponsor, may keep us out of harm’s way, John.
I do not believe any Iranian response to Israel that does not close the Straits or bomb Saudi oil fields would bring us into the conflict. I think Israel may overplay its hand, but its hand is not strong.
LikeLike
Banned, in what way has any of the now toppled Arab dictatorships improved things for Israel? Isn’t it more likely that they would not want to change the status quo?
LikeLike
Seems to me that if Israel is trying to influence our elections it is likely through a more traditional avenue like AIPAC. Triggering a war & potential economic calamity seems a bit more fantastic. Not to mention risky.
LikeLike
mark:
Whether or not the Straits are actually closed is believe it or not, not important. The market preception of the uncertainty of oil delivery in the most crucial waterway in the world for oil will drive the price sky high. Brent is proably overpriced by at least $10 right now, just because we are talking about it.
LikeLike
LikeLike
U.S. Naval Update Map Feb. 8, 2012
February 8, 2012
Analysis
The Naval Update Map shows an approximation of the current locations of U.S. Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), based on available open-source information. No classified or operationally sensitive information is included in this weekly update. CSGs and ARGs are the keys to U.S. dominance of the world’s oceans. A CSG is centered on an aircraft carrier, which projects U.S. naval and air power and supports a carrier air wing (CVW). The CSG includes significant offensive strike capability. An ARG is centered on three amphibious warfare ships, with a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) embarked. An MEU is built around a heavily reinforced and mobile battalion of Marines.
Carrier Strike Groups
The USS Abraham Lincoln CSG with CVW 2 embarked is under way in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility (AOR) conducting missions supporting Operation Enduring Freedom, maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts.
The USS Carl Vinson CSG with CVW 17 embarked is under way in the U.S. 5th Fleet AOR conducting missions supporting Operation Enduring Freedom, maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts.
The USS John C. Stennis CSG with CVW 9 embarked is under way in the U.S. 7th Fleet AOR returning to its home port of Bremerton, Wash.
The USS Enterprise is under way in the Atlantic Ocean participating in Bold Alligator 2012, the largest joint and multinational amphibious assault exercise in the past ten years.
The USS George H. W. Bush is under way in the Atlantic Ocean conducting Carrier Qualifications for Naval Air Training Command (TRACOM).
Amphibious Ready Groups/Marine Expeditionary Units
The USS Makin Island ARG with the 11th MEU embarked is under way in the U.S. 5th Fleet AOR supporting maritime security operations and conducting theater security cooperation efforts.
The USS Wasp is under way in the Atlantic Ocean participating in Bold Alligator 2012.
The USS Kearsarge is under way in the Atlantic Ocean participating in Bold Alligator 2012.
The USS Iwo Jima is under way in the Atlantic Ocean participating in Bold Alligator 2012.
The USS Peleliu is under way in the Pacific Ocean conducting flight deck certifications.
LikeLike
John, I do not believe that Israel has the air force to penetrate Iranian air defenses and I do not believe their half dozen or so submarines, stationed in the Med, can move undetected into the Persian Gulf. Assuming one sub is stationed in Eilat, which is too small to service more than one, Israel would be faced with launching intermediate range missiles 800 mi. across Saudi Arabia, across the Persian Gulf, from that sub. To get more subs into the Gulf of Aqaba, Israel would have to move them through the Suez Canal, which they are permitted to do, but that would telegraph the whole deal. Israel’s Jericho III ICBMs are nuclear tipped and can reach Iran from Israel. Second strike, total war stuff, not surgical.
The more I read Jane’s and Stratfor, the more I think Israel is either panicking or blustering to get us to do something they cannot, or both, rather than trying to affect the presidential election.
Remains a serious potential problem, not simply for this Admin, but for all of us.
LikeLike
John, see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-the-pentagon-and-in-israel-plans-show-the-difficulties-of-an-iran-strike/2012/02/07/gIQAWQs5zQ_print.html
LikeLike
Banned, you are being summoned by E.J. Dionne… WaPo editorial page. Chrysler Bailout, code blue.
LikeLike
bsimon:
I may not have been clear enough overall, which is my fault.
I wasn’t making the point that this was the ONLY reason to attack Iran but that if they believe they need to do it ANYWAY, as the stories I linked clearly indicate that they do, then the best possible time to do so is soon when it will ALSO have the negative effect of hurting Obama.
LikeLike
brent
thanks but I won’t go there for the same reason that I don’t call when radio stations are looking for the 100th caller to win a prize!
LikeLike
sorry to all for being a blog hog today
LikeLike
@Banned,
I am sick of explaining what the difference is between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11. I had been predicting that the bailout wasn’t free – that the automakers would face higher borrowing costs as a result of obama’s meddling in the bankruptcy process. The Chrysler prospectus shows I was correct – 8% rate for senior secured debt is usurious, unless investors believe the indenture isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.
LikeLike
brent;
As all of us here have found out, columns and blogs are places for true believers OR true opposers. If you’re not with us, then you’re against, us and why are you bringing facts in anyway? LOL
I have been on my best behavior but I blew up last night when one poster told me that there was no inflation and I told him it was actually 3.2% according to the governmnet statistics and the 3.6% SS COLA. I was then told that the reason for the COLA was just that they hadn’t gotten any in the three previous years (kiind of like, “oh yeah SS people, where did we put them?)
I proceeded to violate discussion policy in my next post.
LikeLike
regarding the cost of borrowing, if it’s replaced by DOE loans, the effect is rather short lived!
LikeLike
New topic; feathering the nest [bipartisanship at its worst]:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/capitol-assets-some-legislators-send-millions-to-groups-connected-to-their-relatives/2012/01/10/gIQAyrzdxQ_story.html
LikeLike