The bill that was passed unanimously was changing requirements on where papers had to be signed and notarized for foreclosures. I am not really sure my opinion on the bill. I was just commenting on the odd processes occurring in DC.
The bill allows electronically notarized documents and documents notarized in a different state than filing in the foreclosure process. Electronic signatures (and I had not heard of electronic notarizing, wonder if my uncle who is a notary and does not use a computer knows about it) raise questions to many people. I would have thought a duly notarized document in one state would be recognized in another state, i.e. interstate commerce. The concerns are that it will make it easier to and quicker to foreclose and whether documents were legitimate. Questions we need to consider but I still find it odd that the House had passed it twice before and then it made unanimously in the Senate this fall and had passed the House on a voice vote in the spring and no one had thought of concerns until Obama. There seems to be agreement that some type way needs to be found to accept notarized documents across state lines. Apparently you can use non-embossed from out of state in some states and others say it can only be embossed from anywhere and no agreement on that, much less using electronic notarizing. Hopefully they can find way where notarized documents are known to be done right and usable across state line but also that the documents really were signed by the person signing it. There is no way I can think of that we can really make people have really read before signing and know if info is really right they signed. That is what courts often have to decide whether the document is is truthful.
Further consideration of the bill is needed, but a real veto would have been more straight forward, not try to slip a pocket veto, and our representatives who are now saying it needs refining should have thought more before voting. It remains hard to believe though that it managed to go thru Senate unanimously, I am not really sure we could pass a bill unanimously there that the sun rose this morning.
Dwight
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Last Week’s Veto by Obama (Watt Thoughts)
Last Week’s Veto by Obama (Watt Thoughts)
The party of no combined with the Democrats to unanimously pass a bill and the guy up the street who says that the party of no is blocking anything from being done in DC vetoed it. Yes that is correct the House and Senate unanimously (meaning all Democrats, Republicans and Independents (and anyone else I missed) all voted for it) and the president vetoed it because they may not have thought about the ramifications. I have no question that some did not, but I doubt 533 of them did not and one man living up the street did.
This is the same White House that the Attorney General works for and the Attorney General blamed congress for being opposed to the president and not doing anything about immigration. He failed to apparently remember that he is a Democrat and the Democrats have large majorities in Congress and normally when you campaign against Congress you are campaigning against a Congress held by the opposite party or the opposite party is almost exactly same number, not when your party is fully in control since you were appointed Attorney General with the new president taking office. Odd that the Democratic attorney general would be advocating the American people elect a Republican Congress. This is much worse than Gibbs (White House press secretary) telling the press that it is likely the Democrats will lose a number of seats in Congress in a couple months when there was already general agreement that will occur.
Odd also that the controversy whether Obama can veto this bill about foreclosures the way he did. He announced he is using a pocket veto and that can only be used when Congress is in recess, and the Senate has pointed out they made sure they were not going in recess. Reason is to block recess appointments and that was an action agreed on by the Republicans and Democrats, a bipartisan maneuver to stop the presidential powers.
The Republicans may not be the party of no after all, it is beginning to look like Obama has finally achieved one of the items he said he was going to do and that was bipartisanship in Congress. We appear to be having it occurring but it is not what Obama had intended, but bipartisanship against the president.
Dwight
The party of no combined with the Democrats to unanimously pass a bill and the guy up the street who says that the party of no is blocking anything from being done in DC vetoed it. Yes that is correct the House and Senate unanimously (meaning all Democrats, Republicans and Independents (and anyone else I missed) all voted for it) and the president vetoed it because they may not have thought about the ramifications. I have no question that some did not, but I doubt 533 of them did not and one man living up the street did.
This is the same White House that the Attorney General works for and the Attorney General blamed congress for being opposed to the president and not doing anything about immigration. He failed to apparently remember that he is a Democrat and the Democrats have large majorities in Congress and normally when you campaign against Congress you are campaigning against a Congress held by the opposite party or the opposite party is almost exactly same number, not when your party is fully in control since you were appointed Attorney General with the new president taking office. Odd that the Democratic attorney general would be advocating the American people elect a Republican Congress. This is much worse than Gibbs (White House press secretary) telling the press that it is likely the Democrats will lose a number of seats in Congress in a couple months when there was already general agreement that will occur.
Odd also that the controversy whether Obama can veto this bill about foreclosures the way he did. He announced he is using a pocket veto and that can only be used when Congress is in recess, and the Senate has pointed out they made sure they were not going in recess. Reason is to block recess appointments and that was an action agreed on by the Republicans and Democrats, a bipartisan maneuver to stop the presidential powers.
The Republicans may not be the party of no after all, it is beginning to look like Obama has finally achieved one of the items he said he was going to do and that was bipartisanship in Congress. We appear to be having it occurring but it is not what Obama had intended, but bipartisanship against the president.
Dwight
Friday, October 1, 2010
Oil
For the past 2 weeks the price of oil has risen significantly. No reasons have been given. It is not the beginning of driving season (reason given every spring/early summer, although gas usage is just a part of oil usage), no hurricanes threatening gulf, no war in mid-east (peace talks occurring although dispute on building freeze end in certain territories), reports are inventories have been at highest levels fro several months compared over many years and other usual stuff.
The only reason I have best figured is the US government has been claiming the economy is improving and the group that decides recessions has declared we are out of recession (a year ago). Oil over $80 a barrel by my my watching and analysis just knocks the economy back down and today we have passed that number again. Less money for people to spend on other stuff than gas, less money for businesses to build and expand as the money is going to oil products.
Although we had the BP disaster in the gulf this summer, expectations are currently at many places that we are no where near peak oil (meaning that the amount we will find and drill is in decline). Since the 1973 in the first oil crisis we have heard continuously that we have reached peak oil and will be out of oil in 30 or less years. We have discovered massive amounts of oil in last few years and although it is not all easily accessible I believe we are probably years from peak spot. Since the 70s we have also become much more energy efficient in the US and the world. Our cars today get much higher MPG than back then. WE have developed and are developing a number of alternatives including recycling and using green sources. Electric cars are not necessarily a way to reduce oil usage and carbon footprint depending on how that electricity is produced.
The rising of oil prices leads me to think that the economy will continue in its doldrums for a long time. People controlling the oil market can cause the economy to rise or fall. Either that or we have another balloon and it is oil and by November/December we will see the effect of oil prices too high and them fall in the $40-50 range which is probably unrealistically low. $60-70 strikes me as a realistic range that both is low enough for good economy and high enough to encourage being more efficient.
Definition of recession by the authorities is not when economy is still bad but whether it is getting worse. Basically if you fall out a 3 story window the time while you are falling to ground is a recession after you hit and people come over to help you are no longer in recession as you are no longer falling but you are major hurting now with broken bones and body but you are recovering and not in recession. For the general public we would define recession when things are not as good as they should be (unemployment above 5-6%, growth of the economy less than 2% and most of the decision based on employment).
Remember when they tell you we can cut oil dependency by just raising the price of gas $1 a gallon we did that in 2005 and have stayed pretty consistent with it and they are still claiming that is what we need to do.
Dwight
The only reason I have best figured is the US government has been claiming the economy is improving and the group that decides recessions has declared we are out of recession (a year ago). Oil over $80 a barrel by my my watching and analysis just knocks the economy back down and today we have passed that number again. Less money for people to spend on other stuff than gas, less money for businesses to build and expand as the money is going to oil products.
Although we had the BP disaster in the gulf this summer, expectations are currently at many places that we are no where near peak oil (meaning that the amount we will find and drill is in decline). Since the 1973 in the first oil crisis we have heard continuously that we have reached peak oil and will be out of oil in 30 or less years. We have discovered massive amounts of oil in last few years and although it is not all easily accessible I believe we are probably years from peak spot. Since the 70s we have also become much more energy efficient in the US and the world. Our cars today get much higher MPG than back then. WE have developed and are developing a number of alternatives including recycling and using green sources. Electric cars are not necessarily a way to reduce oil usage and carbon footprint depending on how that electricity is produced.
The rising of oil prices leads me to think that the economy will continue in its doldrums for a long time. People controlling the oil market can cause the economy to rise or fall. Either that or we have another balloon and it is oil and by November/December we will see the effect of oil prices too high and them fall in the $40-50 range which is probably unrealistically low. $60-70 strikes me as a realistic range that both is low enough for good economy and high enough to encourage being more efficient.
Definition of recession by the authorities is not when economy is still bad but whether it is getting worse. Basically if you fall out a 3 story window the time while you are falling to ground is a recession after you hit and people come over to help you are no longer in recession as you are no longer falling but you are major hurting now with broken bones and body but you are recovering and not in recession. For the general public we would define recession when things are not as good as they should be (unemployment above 5-6%, growth of the economy less than 2% and most of the decision based on employment).
Remember when they tell you we can cut oil dependency by just raising the price of gas $1 a gallon we did that in 2005 and have stayed pretty consistent with it and they are still claiming that is what we need to do.
Dwight
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
