Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Yep.

There are people trying to figure out an effective, enforceable way to split the existing notes, lien stripping the 1A down to the current value of the house and holding 1B as a balloon-type mortgage, due on sale for an amount greater than the 1A loan amount (basically betting on inflation), with some split to the HO. The intent would be to buy a portfolio of non-performing loans for, say 40 cents, and get them back to performing on the first 45-50 cents (which is about what the collateral is worth). Problem is, you need to *know* that you have no enforcement risk, minimal bankruptcy risk, and you can't deal with 50 jurisdictions-->you need a federal law that messes with a genuine state law issue. But, if that could get working, we'd clear a lot of the f/c backlog.

Pennymac's been doing something like this for a while. Not as complicated. They're just buying portfolios and negotiating as much they can squeeze monthly from the borrower. It's still much less than the borrower had been paying pre-default, so everybody's happy. I haven't figured out why this hasn't caught on, but I suspect, again, its the sellers' reluctance to show the loss when they auction the loans.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

do you recall when Thurgreed and I questioned the players' and coaches' decisions in the world Cup? you and the other soccer fans refused to engage us because our basic lack of knowledge was so widespread that you could hardly be expected to explain what the participants had intended, I bleive a quote was "since you don't know what they are trying to do how can you expect to intelligently question how they are trying to achieve it?"

Back then i was offended, but now i understand your point.

you should give it a week then reread what penske and i have tried to tell you the last few days.

Did I mention I had more Green last night (folks had a bottle in the cabinet and my brother in law and I got into it).

It is terribly overrated. Too peppery.

And let this be a lesson to you, Ty. Hank told me not to buy it. Told me not to bother seeking it out. He was right.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You would think that GM shareholders would have been responsibly minding the job that GM's management was doing, but we all know how that turned out.

Shareholders? It was the bondholders getting fucked that made that deal kick up everyone's gag reflex.

Nobody gives a fuck about a shareholder. Caveat emptor.

(I have little sympathy for anyone buying GM debt, but cornholing those folks while protecting the unions does smell something mighty awful.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Not quite:



http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...debt-first-100

Sorry, club, didn't see this post until now.

What I posted says that the new House Republicans are going to take House rules followed in the last Congress -- which you fault as profligate -- and are going to make them much worse, from a fiscal perspective. Your response is, that last crowd was pretty bad.

We can (and will) talk until the cows come home about whether the current budget problems are the result of Bush-era tax cuts (a Republican priority), wars in Iran and Afghanistan (ditto), TARP (started under Bush), the recession (something it would be foolish to blame on either party), stimulus (a Democratic priority), the recent budget-busting tax deal (a bipartisan affair), HCR (budget-neutral so far), etc. When I or other people have posted stuff showing that the current budget problems are almost entirely the result of Bush-era policies or their continuation, you've been silent.

Be that as it may, what the House Republicans have just done will make things even worse. They could have left the rules the same, but they made them worse.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Did I mention I had more Green last night (folks had a bottle in the cabinet and my brother in law and I got into it).

It is terribly overrated. Too peppery.

And let this be a lesson to you, Ty. Hank told me not to buy it. Told me not to bother seeking it out. He was right.

I know he is an expert in many things. He's said so many times. It's just too bad that he's so reluctant to share his vast knowledge.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Shareholders? It was the bondholders getting fucked that made that deal kick up everyone's gag reflex.

Nobody gives a fuck about a shareholder. Caveat emptor.

(I have little sympathy for anyone buying GM debt, but cornholing those folks while protecting the unions does smell something mighty awful.)

I'm talking about the shareholders when the deals were cut with the unions years ago. Management was making ruinous deals with unions, with massive future costs, and the shareholders let them do it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you should give it a week then reread what penske and i have tried to tell you the last few days.

Why wait a week? Things are slow here with the holiday tomorrow but I can't leave yet. OK, you asked, yesterday:

is there a way you can get more money for schools while saving the taxpayers?

Perhaps your question was tongue-in-cheek, but it suggested that you weren’t actually familiar with what Michelle Rhee had been trying to do in Washington, D.C. So I said,

Yes. Michelle Rhee raised money from outside (private) sources so that she could offer more comp to teachers who chose to give up some of the seniority protections. Win-win, except that that the union fought her on it.

This led to an exchange between Cletus and myself about the union’s position, in which I suggested that it was defending the union’s institutional interests instead of the interests of its members as such – what economists call an agency problem:

It seemed to me that they [the union] were working against their own interests, if by that you mean the aggregate interests of individual teachers, but that they perceived that they were protecting the institutional interests of the union, and that they may have perceived that this was essential to protect the long-term interests of individual teachers.

You kinda echoed what I said, but told me that I don’t understand how unions work:

unless by "interest of individual teachers," you mean the "interest of union board members" you don't get how unions work.

the people who run a union have their phony baloney jobs secure with the way things are; why let someone start playing around with seniority?

It is odd that you should tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about even as you repeat my point, but, fine, we both agreed that unions often serve the interests of union officials instead of the workers.
However, that just begs the question: Why did the DC teachers unions see Rhee’s proposals as a threat to the union, when it preserved the seniority protections of any teacher who wanted them?
Your next post, a response to one by Cletus, reminded us all of how smart you are (with a subtle allusion to a Canadian chanteuse – I got it, Hank!):

is it ironic in a conversation about education failure, that those few of us who do understand stuff constantly try, like in the above, to teach any common sense to the lesser who post here, but clearly get no where?

Now, since you obviously have a vast knowledge of union matters, presumably you were alluding to something specific when you suggested that the DC teachers unions didn’t want to “let someone [Rhee?] start playing around with seniority.” As I’d already said, no teacher was going to be forced to give anything up. But perhaps you know something I didn’t. So I repeated what I’d said before:

Rhee wasn't "playing around with seniority." She was offering to let some union members abandon some protections that come with seniority in exchange for the upside of additional merit pay. Her proposals weren't requiring anyone to give anything up.

In light of your unappreciated and futile efforts to “teach” something to the rest of use who do not “understand stuff,” this was your chance to explain what it was about Rhee’s proposals the unions objected to. In your next post, you alluded to the many things you know about the situation, but did not share them:

numbskull, that wasn't how the union leadership would see it. what is the upside for them to let any change go?

I asked again (and have asked multiple times since then) for you to explain the union’s position:

I, like anyone else who paid attention for even a second, understand full well that the union opposed Rhee. I never saw them explain it. I can conjure up several different explanations as to why they didn't like it. If you think you understand why they did what they did, either because you saw something I didn't or because of your superior grasp of unions/bargaining/politics/Washington D.C./the world, why don't you just say what it is in the sort of tone you'd use with people you like or are pretending to like?

(I have edited my posts in the interests of brevity and avoiding the use of language that Penske regretted, but all of your posts appear intact, lest I omit some bon mot.)

Here is your every post since (and to be helpful, I have bolded and italicized everywhere that you’ve made any effort to say something about the DC teachers union):

I said I didn't think you understand what drives a union, then I offered my opinion of what drives a union. you countered with "Kiss my ass."

if the question is "who can be meaner in an insult fight," I'll win every time.

if the question is "who starts the insult fights?" well, I say you win most times.

I admit my contribution to the downward spiral

you're right. i'm sorry. try this:

you know everything about how unions work. I bet you actually spent time in a union and in some leadership position. I'm sure the naivete that your prior post implies was a clerical error.

John Conyers. A communist, sure, but a decent human.

I thought i was an asshole?

just because JC was fucking someone who went to jail for cheating the city doesn't mean he is crooked. If you met my wife would you blame her for Penske's hillary photoshops?

Hey. What the f?

no one is trying to show you up, but a corollary of your suggestion would be to not tell us we're trolls when we disagree with you on topics that we know better than you.

if you'd like, email me your posts in draft when they touch on a subject not in your wheelhouse and I'll correct as necessary.

even though I joked about it, I took this as an insult too.

have you ever heard of "critical legal studies?" it's a leftist movement that recognized graduating ls and becoming activist lawyers was pretty impotent. instead they took jobs in big law then broke computers or copiers or deleted important sections of briefs, all on the eve of important filings that sought to protect polluters or other things they found vile.


I learned of the movement in law school. later, when I was a legal rep and union rep in a major government employee union I thought of tanking grievance hearings or briefs, to do what was right for the country, that is causing my union to lose.

I stood above those instincts, ultimately, but I was torn, since i could see what harm the paid union officials were doing to the rank and file membership, not to mention the country.

Ty, not to be insulting, but isn't there competitive bidding on defense contracts, and can't companies change their health care provider?

see, this is the exact weakness I was thinking about when i offered to read your posts, pre-posting

I am a stupid troll, i admit that. but months ago I posted that the banks were fucked in this foreclosure mess becuase many loans will not be fixable. there will be gaps in the chain of title they cannot fix and thus the deadbeats will be left in their homes.

I based this theory on this: Judges were telling banks to bring in their proof of ownership, and the lawyers didn't bring anything. I do not know anything about bank law (actually I know more than most posters here, but not enough to claim i know anything (hi GGG!)). I am however a lawyer. i know if a judge tells me to bring proof to his chmabers next tuesday, I will be there with 1) my evidence, if it exists, or 2) a new assignment to fix any gap, if such a new assignment could be obtained.

since lawyers were showing up w/o proof, I hypothesized that the entity that would have to sign the new document no longer existed and i saw no way for the deadbeat not to be left in the home.

the mob here called me ignorant, with the more polite assuring me there would be no problem.

Well, guess what, the deadbeats are being left. The bank that own the notes are not being challenged by anyone in the chain, the entity challenging ownership is the one that everyone must agree has no equity- the occupant.

I got a call from a family friend, the guy has a PhD, he was asking me how to prove a document is an original- he was in the middle of foreclosure as he had not paid a mortgage payment in a year. BUT the loan owner has a sloppy chain of title. the crazy thing is the friend thought the bank was evil and he was the good guy.

this has got to be a major hit that is still coming at the banks. unless congress somehow passes a "fuck the home occupant" law millions of people are going to suddenly own a home- no rent- they won't be able to sell it I suppose, but maybe can transfer their squatters rights?

the UAW had it made. they would strike 1 of the big 3. say it was Ford- ford is losing sales to GM and Chrysler while fighting not to pay silly salaries. eventually ford caves. then GM and Chrysler has to take the same. absent the big 3 joining into a strike fund they really had no chance.

In view of our new spirit, I won't call your post simplistic. I will remind you that the Rs tried to insist the UAW give concession as part of the bailout. The brave dems fought that so the concessions never happened- instead they will happen "at some point in the future." This will kill the big 3 someday soon.

Thanks dem party.

is this substance to you?

have you heard of the "golden rule?"

can someone tell me why I should try to engage in this mess?

would you please summarize your knowledge and experience with unions so I know how much background I will need to provide along with my explanation?

serious question: do you think this post is polite?

you should run for a judge position, because I can't imagine any other job your your idea of what "conversation" is would be sucessful.

Notwithstanding the superior knowledge you keep talking about, you haven’t said anything at all about Rhee’s propels (apart from the suggestion that she somehow was “messing with seniority”) or the positions taken by the unions. Why don’t you enlighten us all?

And don't tell me to read Penske's posts again, because they're equally devoid of anything on the point. If you do, I'll post all of them, and you can see.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why don’t you enlighten us all?

I was an elected union rep for a major gov union and handled grievances and appeals pretty much on my own as a law student, but only for 3 years or so, so I'm sure several of you have much greater knowledge than I.

I did participate in several votes where we elected to chase appeals and spend dues money that seemed ill-advised- I would characterize the reason for the green light as pure ego of the union officers, and also wanting to protect themselves and their cushy positions.

the worst was a situation where we won an arbitration on several clauses for our contract. the Gov appealed. the contract said the two sides would print the contract for the employees. The gov said if we print the appealled clauses they must be underlined. We said no, then printed it, along with the officlal dept seal on the cover, then we sued the gov for 50% of the cost of printing. the gov sued us for using its seal w/o permission.

about that time I visited the Japanese counterpart to my gov office. their employee union operated a grocery store in the basement. oranges cost $6 at a normal store but you could get them for $2 at the union co-op.

which model helped its employees more?

I know you'll not answer my question, so I will answer yours:

please look at the actions of the DC teachers' union ove rthe last five years and let me know it they are closer to the US model or the Japanese. once you understand that perhaps we can talk about your original question.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I was an elected union rep for a major gov union and handled grievances and appeals pretty much on my own as a law student, but only for 3 years or so, so I'm sure several of you have much greater knowledge than I.

I did participate in several votes where we elected to chase appeals and spend dues money that seemed ill-advised- I would characterize the reason for the green light as pure ego of the union officers, and also wanting to protect themselves and their cushy positions.

the worst was a situation where we won an arbitration on several clauses for our contract. the Gov appealed. the contract said the two sides would print the contract for the employees. The gov said if we print the appealled clauses they must be underlined. We said no, then printed it, along with the officlal dept seal on the cover, then we sued the gov for 50% of the cost of printing. the gov sued us for using its seal w/o permission.

about that time I visited the Japanese counterpart to my gov office. their employee union operated a grocery store in the basement. oranges cost $6 at a normal store but you could get them for $2 at the union co-op.

which model helped its employees more?

I know you'll not answer my question, so I will answer yours:

please look at the actions of the DC teachers' union ove rthe last five years and let me know it they are closer to the US model or the Japanese. once you understand that perhaps we can talk about your original question.

I'm not interesting in having a pissing context about who knows more about unions. (I don't rely think you are, either, or you and Penske would be going at it.) Suffice it to say my relevant experience > 0.

I will answer your question: Unless the Japanese union found some way to acquire and distribute oranges more efficiently than Japanese grocery stores, which seems possible (since the Japanese retail sector is not a model of efficiency) but unlikely, it's hard to see from what you've said what the Japanese union accomplished. Likewise, it's hard to see (from what you've said) what your union accomplished. However, I would suspect that the most important activities of the respective unions were in collective bargaining, and you haven't said anything about what either accomplished there, nor anything about the baseline scenario that you are implicitly comparing things to -- a world without unions? with Japanese-style unions? better unions?. So I don't know which model helped employees more. If you share who won the suits and whether the Japanese union members liked oranges, we would be two small steps closer to the truth.

So there's an answer to your question. But -- of course -- you said you would answer mine, and then you didn't. You ducked the question again. One begins to suspect that when you waded into the conversation and told me that I didn't know anything about it, you were engaged in what psychiatrists call projection. Even so, I will call your bluff again. Over the past five years, I am unaware of the DC teachers union buying oranges in bulk and then selling them to union members below cost, nor am I aware of their having done this with any other citrus, fruit, foodstuff, good, or service. But they have acted adversarially towards their counterparties in negotiations.

Now, your best answer to my repeated question, please. Show how smart and worldly you are.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not interesting in having a pissing context about who knows more about unions. (I don't rely think you are, either, or you and Penske would be going at it.) Suffice it to say my relevant experience > 0.

I will answer your question: Unless the Japanese union found some way to acquire and distribute oranges more efficiently than Japanese grocery stores, which seems possible (since the Japanese retail sector is not a model of efficiency) but unlikely, it's hard to see from what you've said what the Japanese union accomplished. Likewise, it's hard to see (from what you've said) what your union accomplished. However, I would suspect that the most important activities of the respective unions were in collective bargaining, and you haven't said anything about what either accomplished there, nor anything about the baseline scenario that you are implicitly comparing things to -- a world without unions? with Japanese-style unions? better unions?. So I don't know which model helped employees more. If you share who won the suits and whether the Japanese union members liked oranges, we would be two small steps closer to the truth.

So there's an answer to your question. But -- of course -- you said you would answer mine, and then you didn't. You ducked the question again. One begins to suspect that when you waded into the conversation and told me that I didn't know anything about it, you were engaged in what psychiatrists call projection. Even so, I will call your bluff again. Over the past five years, I am unaware of the DC teachers union buying oranges in bulk and then selling them to union members below cost, nor am I aware of their having done this with any other citrus, fruit, foodstuff, good, or service. But they have acted adversarially towards their counterparties in negotiations.

Now, your best answer to my repeated question, please. Show how smart and worldly you are.

what was your question?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

what was your question?

What parts of Rhee's proposals did the DC teachers unions oppose, and why?

Since you've said you have such a wealth of experience in this area, my hopes are high that you'll really have a lot to say about this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What parts of Rhee's proposals did the DC teachers unions oppose,

you want me to link to interviews with Parker?

and why?

Since you've said you have such a wealth of experience in this area, my hopes are high that you'll really have a lot to say about this.

it's because that's how unions work- they strive to protect their officer's positions first.
if you have union experience you'll know saying anything more is masturbatory.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you want me to link to interviews with Parker?

If you don't know, just say you don't know. I know it's a little embarrassing for you, since you repeated what I said and told me I didn't know what I was talking about.

it's because that's how unions work- they strive to protect their officer's positions first.

No shit, Sherlock. I said that yesterday and that was where you came in. The question is, what was it about what Rhee was proposing that they saw as a threat to their officer's positions? It seemed to me that Rhee perceived that potential obstacle, and designed her plan to avoid that problem. So where did she go wrong?

Obviously, you don't know. C'mon, use that fantastical experience you have with unions to say something useful.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you don't know, just say you don't know. I know it's a little embarrassing for you, since you repeated what I said and told me I didn't know what I was talking about.



No shit, Sherlock. I said that yesterday and that was where you came in. The question is, what was it about what Rhee was proposing that they saw as a threat to their officer's positions? It seemed to me that Rhee perceived that potential obstacle, and designed her plan to avoid that problem. So where did she go wrong?

Obviously, you don't know. C'mon, use that fantastical experience you have with unions to say something useful.

are the union officers employees of the union or of the school district?

and by the way, I know where the union and rhee differed, but simply that is linking to interviews- unless you get an erection treating this place like a current event test-

and I also know where the officers' paychecks come from, but again, you need to understand this to see what dynamics were at play

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

are the union officers employees of the union or of the school district?

You told me I didn't know anything about this stuff. You tell me. C'mon, you're the expert. Why do you think it matters?