All Things in Moderation

Morning Report 7/16/12

21 Responses

1. 

   Brent Nyitray, on July 16, 2012 at 7:53 am said:

   Wapo discusses the San Bernardino situation http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/cities-weigh-controversial-but-inventive-way-to-fix-mortgages-condemn-them/2012/07/16/gJQA92YwnW_story.html

   I love the justification for doing this: Everybody will be happy. “And even the investors whose mortgage investments are seized. Mortgage Resolution Partners figures they should be glad to unload a risky asset.”

   Yeah, turning a potential loss into a sure thing always makes me happy. Did the AP writer engage his / her brain before even mentioning this?

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   bannedagain5446, on July 16, 2012 at 8:32 am said:

   The International Monetary Fund on Monday cut its global growth forecast and warned that the outlook could dim further if policymakers in Europe do not act with enough force and speed to quell their region’s debt crisis.

   In a mid-year health check of the work economy, the IMF also cautioned the productive capacity in a number of emerging market economies, such as China, India and Brazil, may be lower than previously believed and future growth could disappoint. ”

   See what misplaced priorities these “internaiionalists” have?

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   bannedagain5446, on July 16, 2012 at 8:53 am said:

   scott

   thanks for your LIBOR piece btw

   EDIT: our 25000th accepted comment

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   bannedagain5446, on July 16, 2012 at 8:59 am said:

   “In a speech Monday, Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the Senate’s No. 4 Democrat and the leader of the caucus’s campaign arm, plans to make the clearest case yet for going over what some have called the “fiscal cliff.”

   “If we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013,” Murray plans to say, according to excerpts of the speech provided to The Washington Post.”

   Good thing we have Bain to distract us, eh?

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on July 16, 2012 at 9:46 am said:

   I’m curious about those that think Germany needs to step in and accept a “Euro Bond.” How long do they think investors will support a Euro in which Germany is responsible for ALL of european debt? That seems like the cure (Germany backstopping an ‘unpayable back’ amount) is worse than the disease (individual european countries owe an ‘unpayable back’ amount.)

   Europe, like the U.S., is past the Rubicon here. We and they cannot and will not pay back this debt. So why would the rest of the world’s investors want to bring down Europe’s economic engine? Strapping the German public with debt they did not initiate seems demotivating to me, if I were a German. Is there any logic to it, other than, say 5 to 10 year note holders holding out hope the get paid back in that time frame and not caring what happens after that?

   Ami I wrong? Is it rational to believe that either our debt, or europe’s debt cannot be paid back?

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   bannedagain5446, on July 16, 2012 at 10:03 am said:

   I think the euro bond idea is dead, though I did not kill it as jnc will no doubt claim. I think the current deus ex machina is a unitary banking agency.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on July 16, 2012 at 10:19 am said:

   Banned, you’re undoubtedly correct, but the questions still stand, how will a Unitary banking agency (Germany) pay back a debt that cannot be paid back? Why would an investor have confidance in a Germany that officially backstops a debt that cannot be paid back? Why would a German worker accept the entire debt of Europe (again, through a Unitary banking angency)?

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on July 16, 2012 at 10:22 am said:

   Why can’t SOS Clinton get any respect?

   http://ca.news.yahoo.com/monica-monica-chants-taunt-clinton-egypt-191217298.html

   At least their not throwing shoes, right?

   Oops, spoke to soon.

   http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/15/world/africa/egypt-clinton/index.html

   This is some sweet Arab spring.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   bannedagain5446, on July 16, 2012 at 11:17 am said:

   Where will the German worker work, if no one is buying?

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on July 16, 2012 at 11:28 am said:

    “Where will the German worker work, if no one is buying?”

    Well, by loaning money to your customers, money that will never be paid back, you’re already working for free, no? There isn’t a market now for German products. There might be, at some point in the future, if you’re potential customers default and rebuild, but either way, the market for German products outside of Germany (and the US) for the foreseeable future is gone.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    novahockey, on July 16, 2012 at 12:55 pm said:

    So, the number of state’s that might not expand Medicaid is about 30.

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on July 16, 2012 at 1:21 pm said:

    “So, the number of state’s that might not expand Medicaid is about 30.”

    I think there are only 29 Republican Governors, so at least one Democrat, no?

    Does this surprise you? Based on my reading, and the SCOTUS ruling, there seems to be a real fear of potential “free riders” that will not be covered at the 90% rate but under whatever rate the State is paying now.

    Is this a strategy to try and get the Feds to sweeten the pot? If so, I’m wondering how much license Obama can take in what the Federal Government can do without Congressional approval.

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    novahockey, on July 16, 2012 at 1:40 pm said:

    I got laughed at* in meeting b/c I pointed out the other issue here: the woodwork effect, which i think it was you’re talking about.

    Last week, it appears everyone noticed.

    Essentially — There a lot of people out there right now who qualify for Medicaid and for whatever reason are not enrolled. At the same time, states are cutting back b/c they’re can’t afford the caseloads they have. The concern is if a state expands Medicaid and conducts outreach to get the expansion population, people will come out of the woodwork to enroll, including those who will not be covered at the favorable FMAP of 90%. Could be a low at 50%. States fear this, cause they don’t have the $$$.

    And it’s not even just the expansion. You’re going to have situation were someone goes to the exchange and ends up in Medicaid. I saw the other day that upwards of 50% of Louisiana might qualify for some sort of Medicaid coverage. What state could afford that?

    *more accurately simply dismissed as not possible. the idea that enrollment is not currently at 100% of eligibility was somehow beyond the realm of possibility. which is idiotic.

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    novahockey, on July 16, 2012 at 1:43 pm said:

    ” I’m wondering how much license Obama can take in what the Federal Government can do without Congressional approval.”

    lots. HHS has pretty broad waiver authority re: Medicaid

    http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Waivers/Waivers.html

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on July 16, 2012 at 2:00 pm said:

    NoVa,

    Thanks, I was using the phrase Woodwork” last week and forgot.

    Just so I understand, HHS can arbitrarily increase the Federal contribution percentage to a state’s Medicaid allotment? Doesn’t Congress authorize, say, X dollars for Medicaid in total and the Executive branch doles it out to states based on their percentage contribution requirement. So, if they increase the percentage for Louisiana, they’d have to cut from another state. But, unless Congress authorizes a higher total, there isn’t more money in the Medicaid pie. So, to attract states into the exchanges they’d need to offer an increase in their percentage payment to the state’s Medicaid, say form 50% to 75%, but in doing that they’d need Congress to authorize more money or cut ii from, say, Washington’s Medicaid allotment.

    Or am I wrong?

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    novahockey, on July 16, 2012 at 2:32 pm said:

    “But, unless Congress authorizes a higher total, there isn’t more money in the Medicaid pie”

    There’s always more money for the Medicaid pie. it’s mandatory spending. you just bake and/or borrow a bigger pie. The Social Security Act permanently authorizes Congress to appropriate “a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes” of the Medicaid program. It’s more complicated, but essentially if the state spends the money on qualified Medicaid expenses, the feds chip in based on the FMAP. lack of federal funds does not factor into this.

    Now, congress might appropriate X amount for a fiscal year, but not without the magic “and such sums as necessary” above and beyond that amount

    the waivers allow the states to tinker with the who, what, and how, is covered. provided it’s budget neutral, meaning over 5 years the feds don’t spend more than that they would have without the waiver.

    Click to access Section%201115%20Waivers%20and%20Budget%20Neutrality%20-%20Using%20Medicaid%20Funds.pdf

    one of the things is “well expand coverage” and it will reduce DSH payments.*

    *same time, same channel for what those are. spoiler. they’re a BFD.

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    jnc4p, on July 16, 2012 at 5:28 pm said:

    “Steven Gluckstern, chairman of the newly formed San Francisco-based Mortgage Resolution Partners, says his main concern is to help the economy, which is being held back by the mortgage crisis.

    “This is not a bunch of Wall Street guys sitting around saying, ‘How do we make money?'” he said. “This was a bunch of Wall Street guys sitting around saying, ‘How do you solve this problem?'””

    I’m not buying it. I’m thinking it’s about making money.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on July 16, 2012 at 6:02 pm said:

      jnc:

      I’m not buying it. I’m thinking it’s about making money.

      Of course it is. It is possible that he actually thinks this is a good idea that will help the economy, but there is absolutely no doubt that it arose from a bunch of Wall Street guys sitting around trying to think of ways to make money.

      LikeLike

      Reply
18. 

    Michigoose, on July 16, 2012 at 6:42 pm said:

    I’m not buying it. I’m thinking it’s about making money.

    Good Lord, how stupid does he think we are? It’s always about making money.

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on July 16, 2012 at 6:54 pm said:

    “the waivers allow the states to tinker with the who, what, and how, is covered. provided it’s budget neutral, meaning over 5 years the feds don’t spend more than that they would have without the waiver. ”

    Ok, thanks Nova. Still, as per above, if they increase their percentage contribution to Louisiana up to, say 80, for people in Medicaid (or new joiners up to 100% of Federal poverty level (who are, as of now, not eligible for the 90% contribution rate, only those between 110% and 138%)) they either (the Executive branch) have to take it from another state or, at some defined point in the future, cut their contribution to Louisiana far enough below the 80% level as to make up for the loss to maintain budget neutrality, right? In fact, they’d have to cut it far below what they’re offering now (I think it’s 60%). Obviously, that wouldn’t be apealing to Louisiana. So, what could they offer as an incentive, that would be budget neurtral? I don’t think they can offer anything really, because they would need Congressional approval and are not going to get it right now. The only thing I think they could do is demagogue the issue, claim that they’re “offering” Louisiana 90% for all future Medicaid enrolee’s and then leave out the part, at least in the public statement, that in 2.5 years they’ll cut their contribution to Louisiana’s Medicaid recipients (that are up to 100% Federal poverty rate) to, say, 30% half of what they’re getting now, to keep their initial “generosity” budget neutral.

    If what I’ve written is true, any state that took the bait would be, it seems to me, criminally incompetent.

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on July 17, 2012 at 6:10 am said:

    Yesterday’s news, tomorrow.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/16/could-a-missing-word-take-down-obamacare/

    LikeLike

    Reply