Unlike some blogs, EVERY thread is an open thread! We welcome "off-topic" comments if they add to the general network of knowledge about what's going on in our "democracy" and the world!
It’s way past my bedtime and after a very busy weekend tending to my mother, just home from the hospital, I ran out of gas when it came to doing a post for today.
However, I’m still up and wired since I got off the phone with Wells Fargo Bank.
It all started when my mother and I set up a joint checking account, a sort of “just in case” account so I could pay bills, shop, etc. if she couldn’t get out on her own.
First paper statement comes, no problem.
I go online tonight to check this little account, as well as another account that is for an A-B trust we have. WELL……………I see that when I sign in to the checking account, there’s the info from the A-B Trust. Then I try my mother’s separate account and the little joint checking account is there, too. Well, that’s OK, but what’s freaky is that I don’t have the totals for each account separately. I get the info on the A-B trust, HER account (a living trust), each combined with the the info from the joint checking account (money which is outside the trusts) into one total.
In other words, each trust account doesn’t have its total separate…the totals both include the joint checking account. Not good!
So I call Wells Fargo. Around and around we go on the phone…it all has to do with Social Security numbers and since I’m a trustee of the A-B trust, well, that little checking account is joined to that. Same thing with my mother, whose SS on the joint checking account screws up her trust and the A-B trust. And I get linked to my mother’s trust, too! We’re all thrown in together. And I’m finally told that the checking account can be de-linked, but if I do that, I won’t be able to see the trust account I need to access online. WTF??? I’m supposed to straighten it out at the branch, but they are the ones who set it up to begin with…
I can sign onto an account at Schwab and find two accounts there, mine and a trust…but when I click on the one, I get that ONE account, not the money mixed together! At TDAmeritrade, I have a separate sign-in each for my account and the trust. NOTHING gets co-mingled there, either.
But not at Wells Fargo. The last question the guy on the phone asked me was, “Why would you not want them linked?” “Shit,” I thought… but said:
“Well, it’s useless to sign on to get a total on an account and instead get a number that combines another account in with it!! “
I finished with a flourish, telling the guy that now I understood how Wells Fargo could make a dumb deal and buy Wachovia and their mortgage mess. The same jackasses who did that deal created this nightmare with accounts being glombed together.
Now, they MAY be able to fix all this, but we’ve decided to close the little checking account and take it elsewhere if we can find a place that won’t freak over two accounts and combine them! I mean, a trust is treated as a separate individual and money outside of the trust, stays out of it!
I know this sounds boring but these people are taking our tax money to get “bailed out” and they can’t even set up a bunch of accounts correctly and according to the damned IRS rules.
I won’t bore you with this any longer. To reward you for your patience, I’m posting a few pictures. The banks are closed since it’s President’s Day so I can’t do anything to straighten out this mess…so I’ll enjoy the pictures and hope you do, too.
Slick in Stylish Off-the-Shoulder PJs
Tico with His Mealtime Dinner Bell Squeaker Toy
Tico squeaks toys when he wants to eat! This is his favorite…
Toro Trying on Some Threads, Which Went Back to the Store for Obvious Reasons
Awhile back, someone requested more pictures of sunsets, but I thought I’d go with a SUNRISE picture instead…
SUNRISE 1/23/09
Well, hope you enjoy your day today!
And my condolences to Lincoln and Washington who now have to share one lousy day. Washington who??
Yesterday, it really looked like we had a “Fighting Dem” as Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-NY went after the SEC over its failure to uncover the Madoff Ponzi scheme, didn’t it? Ackerman is known for having a gift for making acerbic comments…but how much fight is really there?
First a bit of history on Ackerman. He was a supporter of Hillary Clinton during the primaries last year, endorsing her in late January 2008. On June 5, just a couple of days before Clinton suspended her campaign early on June 7, he endorsed Obama. (There were others who waited another day, by the way. Full list of who did what, when here.)
He showed real signs of life during the Caroline Kennedy/NY Senate saga. He was the first to question her qualifications with comments like these:
Rep. Gary Ackerman of Queens, a 25-year veteran of Congress, declared in a radio interview: “I don’t know what Caroline Kennedy‘s qualifications are.”
“Except that she has name recognition, but so does J.Lo,” Ackerman continued on Steve Malzberg’s radio show on WOR. “I wouldn’t make J.Lo the senator unless she proved she had great qualifications, but we haven’t seen them yet.”
He took the obligatory hit at Sarah Palin on Face the Nation as things moved forward (December 22, 2008):
WASHINGTON – A Democratic congressman compared Caroline Kennedy to Sarah Palin, saying the would-be senator hasn’t proved she has the “guts and the gumption” to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton. Rep. Gary Ackerman of Roslyn Heights said on CBS‘ “Face the Nation” yesterday that the Kennedy legend and connections won’t be enough to make her a successful senator if Gov. David A. Paterson appoints her to the U.S. Senate.
So, the fireworks yesterday at the Madoff hearing seem to be pretty typical of Ackerman’s style. (The video at his website is a shorter version of this clip, without the reference to “dung”):
One thing to be aware of is the fact that a lot of the money that has disappeared once belonged to a lot of folks from Ackerman’s district, so Ackerman’s umbrage will certainly play well at home!
Published: Monday, January 05, 2009
Updated: Monday, January 5, 2009 6:28 PM EST
WASHINGTON — Republican and Democratic House members said Monday that the alleged $50 billion fraud involving Wall Street figure Bernard Madoff reflects deep, systemic problems at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
SNIP
The SIPC shortfall will only worsen the distrust of investors, already deepened by the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. His district encompasses the affluent north shore of Long Island, home to many of Madoff’s alleged victims
(Note the reference to the Great Depression, the party line these days as part of the “fear stimulus” being used to pass the pork-laden “stimulus” package.)
But beneath the brash, confrontational style that plays well on TV, we see a typical Democrat who’s sticking with the crowd:
Even Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., who was the first to raise the issue of corporate jets at the earlier hearing, seemed more open to helping the auto industry in his opening comment this go round.
“One does not always have a second chance to make a first impression. Welcome back,” Ackerman said. “The last time you didn’t get it. By coming up with this plan, maybe you do.”
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 11, 2007; 10:34 AM
Credit agencies, which graded billions of dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities as safe investments throughout the recent housing boom, are also feeling the heat.
Members of Congress are calling for hearings and oversight, saying the rating agencies are conflicted because they are paid by investment banks that issue the securities the agencies rate. Institutional investors accuse the rating firms of being slow to downgrade securities.
“Essentially, the originators and credit raters shoved enough pigs and laying hens in with the beef herd that investors expecting prime ribs on their silver platter and money in their pocket ended up with pork ribs on their paper plate and egg on their face,” Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.) said in an opening statement during a Financial Services Committee hearing last week.
Nice, but what was 13 term Congressman Ackerman doing when there were calls for “oversight” when Democrats took charge of Congress a couple of years ago? I don’t see any mention of a crusade for oversight in Ackerman’s bio and list of accomplishments at his website.I don’t have the time or inclination at this point to see how he voted when the whole business of pushing bad loans was originally put together way back when, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Ackerman went along with it all then…(See his new legislation introduced January 27, below.)
And he’s right in line with all the rest on other aspects of current economic issues (Also, seee voting pattern, below):
“We, the taxpayers, will get back our investment,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Roslyn Heights). “Any shortfall where we don’t get our money back is going to be paid for by Wall Street.”
Following his interview with the Great Neck Record, Congressman Ackerman was to head to Washington to vote on the “bailout.” With the financial crisis at the forefront, he was quick to note: “We have to correct the errors of the past.” He emphasized that the country must “restore confidence and put liquidity in the market” so that “people can pay for education, pay bills, pay mortgages, run businesses …”
With his background on financial service committees, the congressman emphasized that the country “must come up with solutions even before a crisis.”
Congressman Ackerman told how he had put in financial legislation even before this current financial crisis came to a head. His bill calls for credit agencies to be required to put like loans in a package, and prohibiting them from “rating what is not ratable.” And he emphasized that “We must hold credit agencies responsible for what they do.”
Congressman Ackerman termed this “common sense regulation.”
Blah, blah, blah…”correct the errors of the past”…Not without oversight, I’m afraid.
And in the run-up to the now “Bad Bank” which is in the works, we saw how Ackerman was already on board:
Other committee members grilled Paulson on his failure to use money in the $700 billion bailout package to reduce mortgage foreclosures. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the committee, put in the hearing record a letter from Rep. Dennis Kucinich in which the Cleveland Democrat urged Congress to withhold more TARP money from the Treasury Department because of its failure to act on foreclosures.
New York Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman called the Treasury Department’s decision to avoid buying troubled mortgages from banks, as it originally promised, “the second-largest bait-and-switch scheme that history has ever seen, second only to the reasons given us to vote for the invasion of Iraq.”
Paulson said that the money had to be used to prevent a collapse in the financial system and that the Treasury Department is still looking for ways to reduce foreclosures.
Rep. Ackerman can display all the “righteous anger” that he wants for the TV cameras and the folks back home, but I have to ask–isn’t he really just part of “diversion” along with all the huffing and puffing about capping executive salaries? The Madoff issue is important, of course, but Ackerman’s brash style seems to be only style when it comes to many economic issues and, like others, late to the party with his protests.
Eleven Democrats in the House voted against the stimulus bill…you won’t find Ackerman’s name among them.
According to GovTrack.us, Ackerman is a “rank and file” Democrat; OpenCongress cites a 98% record of voting with party (Votes most often with Ellen Tauscher, D-CA)
Rep. Ackerman introduced this bill on January 27, 2009 Source: GovTrack.us
H. R. 710
To secure additional Tier I capital for the United States banking system from parties other than the Federal Government by providing authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to guaranty certain new preferred stock investments made by public pensions acting in a collective fashion, and for other purposes.
If you have a public pension, watch this bill:
(2) INSTITUTION ELIGIBLE FOR INVESTMENTS- Only an investment in preferred stock that meets the requirements of subsection (e) and has been issued by a financial institution which meets the definition of a qualifying financial institution under the TARP Capital Purchase Program established under the authority of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 may be treated as an eligible investment for purposes of this Act.
WASHINGTON (Jan. 7) – President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that reforming massive government entitlement programs — such as Social Security and Medicare — would be “a central part” of his effort to control federal spending.
(SNIP)
Noting that the Congressional Budget Office had just estimated he would inherit a $1.2 trillion federal deficit for fiscal 2009, Obama promised to cut unnecessary spending.
“We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part of those plans,” Obama said. “And I would expect that by February in line with the announcement of at least a rough budget outline we will have more to say about how we’re going to approach entitlement spending.”
My first response was, “Gee, instead of holding half of the money from the bailout funds until it’s time for Congress to run for re-election in 2010 and using the rest for pork barrel spending now (mainly to banks and little “gifts” to various groups he’ll need in 2012), wouldn’t it be great if the damned cash could be used to create a real healthcare system instead of looking at already strained programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to “reform”? Maybe look at a system which would save businesses money, maybe keep more jobs at home, etc. etc.???” Too simple, I know…the Wall Streeters and banks need to be at the feeding trough first and get their mitts deeper into these programs…
So, since we’re not going to get REAL healthcare improvements, we should wonder how Obama Administration will address THIS issue…
Now, Health Freedom Watch reports that a lawsuit has been filed to challenge the withholding of social security benefits from seniors who decline Medicare Part A. Kent Masterson Brown, an important constitutional attorney, believes that this Social Security policy is illegal because “forced participation in Medicare infringes on a citizen’s right to privacy and to make necessary choices about his or her own health care, and, accordingly, violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”
The three plaintiffs in the lawsuit say that forced participation in Medicare Part A interferes with their doctor-patient relationship and their choice of a hospital. While these plaintiffs have catastrophic health coverage insurance and savings to pay for their hospital care, one of the plaintiffs, Norman Rogers, stressed in a National Press Club news conference that the physicians who care for his parents, who are in a nursing home, face restrictions from Medicare in how they conduct their professional practice. Medicare is infamous for reams of regulations that dictate care, often in contradiction of the doctor’s professional opinion and the patient’s right to choose.
With every indication that there will be a push for government funded and administrated healthcare for all Americans, the limited healthcare freedom of choice faced by Medicare and Medicaid recipients is a lesson that consumers and practitioners alike should heed. Read the AAHF position paper regarding private contracting under Medicare Part B to educate yourself about healthcare freedom of choice under government-administered health insurance.
Will the Administration let people opt out? After all, Obama is the guy who isn’t for “universal healthcare” anyway. Or, will they fight the suit with the aim of perhaps further penalizing people, like we are now penalized in $$ if you don’t sign up for Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Coverage immediately (and Part D is a huge shuffling of money around for which we are paying through the nose)?? It would be a nice source of extra cash if they could levy huge “fees” on people who still wanted to opt out, no matter what the cost.
So, there’s another thing to be watching for especially if you’re on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. And there are rumblings about disability benefits as well. Wonder what Mr. Constitutional Lawyer Obama thinks about this suit, if he even know if it exists? (After all, he wasn’t even sure about that executive order involving Gitmo…) Where does all this fit in his plans for healthcare “reform”??
The question is not just about cutting spending…it’s about what is jeopardized in terms of care. Do you trust Obama, Tom Daschle or the Democrats in Congress with YOUR health?
InsightAnalytical -- Watching Our World 