Dcoffee's Journal

10/30/2008 10:55 #46424

We Bought a House!!!
Category: life

We've been looking for about 6 months. It's been a funny journey, we must have gone inside about 25-30 houses.

We started out in South Buffalo looking at single family homes. I grew up in South Buffalo, so I know the neighborhood is safe, the houses have character, and the people are friendly. I also know the housing prices are reasonable. But when we started looking we realized the prices were higher than I expected. We were looking for a good deal but nothing really got us excited.

Then we had this investment property brainstorm, we wanted to get a double in the Elmwood area, make money off rent, and get something more expensive. So we started looking at doubles around the West Side, and discovered the meaning of "structural problems" and "property taxes". We started going further and further west to try and find something under $100,000 that wasn't falling down. No luck, but we did bump into a friend of mine who had gotten a decent West Side house at the Buffalo tax auction for about $30,000. Sounded like a good plan, but we had to wait a month and a half before the auction. We liked some of the addresses on the auction list, but we couldn't get inside the houses without without breaking the law. One house on Cottage I went to inspect, took about 40 pictures, and the next week it was off the list, I guess the owner paid his taxes.

We slowly got tired of the auction idea, and the high prices on the West Side, so we started looking in South Buffalo again, with a more open mind this time. At first we were looking near Caz Park which is a great neighborhood, but houses up there are around $65 - $75,000, we wanted to see if we could get anything cheaper, and possibly avoid the mortgage thing entirely. We looked at all the houses between $30-$40,000, some were ok, but all of them needed updating. We aren't afraid to get our hands dirty, but we didn't want something that needed updates before we could move in. Then we looked at houses between $40-$55,000....... That's when we found it.

It's in South Buffalo Near Tifft and South Park, All Natural Woodwork that has never been painted, 4 bedroom, full attic and basement, Nice Yard 36' x 140' lot, driveway, garage, 2 fireplaces, 1.5 bathrooms, leaded glass, pocket doors that slide easily, front porch, good Roof, efficient Furnace, and Water heater, dry basement, well insulated. This place is a steal, we got it for $46,000.

We like the location a lot too, The house is on Altruria St. which is a very well kept street, all single family homes, mostly owner occupied, lots of gardens and pride of ownership. Plus you're in the center of everything, the Botanical Gardens, the Beach, Tifft Nature Preserve, Caz Park, the Buffalo River, all of it is within a 20min walk. We like canoeing, and parks, that's what we spend our summers doing, so this will be great for us, though we will miss the restaurants around Elmwood. But we think it's a good trade off.

Living Room & Fireplace

Upstairs Bedroom, Fireplace #2

Dining Room, with a Window Seat! I love that stuff.

Good sized kitchen, the style is a little funky, but we can fix that over time.

Upstairs, I really like how it's not a hallway, it's a square space with doors all around you leading to 4 bedrooms the bathroom and the attic. I like the cabinet thing too.

Big open attic, the floor is insulated too, keeps the place pretty warm.

The Front Porch, this is currently enclosed but the original stuff is all there and it won't be hard to pop out the windows next summer.

Driveway, fenced in yard, the exterior needs some paint, but it has the original wood shingles and stuff which I like.

Yard and Garage, Partly shaded yard, but we can still grow a lot of veggies, the garage needs a little help but no big problems.

From the back, you can see there is a little landing off of an upstairs bedroom, not much now, but we can make it interesting. There are also those funky bilko doors that lead straight to the basement. Good for storing the canoe.

paul - 10/30/08 21:35
Thats awesome. The woodwork looks amazing and what a great yard.

metalpeter - 10/30/08 20:31
The house looks very nice and so does all the woodwork.

heidi - 10/30/08 17:43
What a steal!!! Congrats!!!!

gardenmama - 10/30/08 17:22
Wow! Great woodwork, and how exciting for you. Congrats!!!

jason - 10/30/08 14:59
I'm really happy for you (e:DCoffee). Congrats!

tinypliny - 10/30/08 14:04
Congratulations!! That is such a beautiful house. I love those triple panel windows and those floors look amazing! :)

trisha - 10/30/08 13:52
congrats, it is aMAZing!

dcoffee - 10/30/08 13:08
I gotta show you guys the best house buying tool, Zillow :::link:::

You search for homes on a map, instead of by street name or price. You can also zoom in and see the assessed value of houses in the neighborhood. And, one of my favorite tools, Click on "Recently Sold" homes in the left hand column, that way you can see what the homes are _Actually_ going for, not just the current owners wishful thinking. Lots of houses come down in price over time cause they don't sell. I like being able to see the sale prices.

The information on homes for sale can be a few weeks old, so for the newest listings you should still go to Buffalo Niagara Homes :::link::: but Zillow is a great tool.

janelle - 10/30/08 12:36
Congratulations. Your new place looks excellent!

jbeatty - 10/30/08 12:23
Wow, the floors look like they are in really great shape. Congrats on the new dwelling.

matthew - 10/30/08 12:15
wow! How exciting! Congrats guys! I like south buffalo a lot. It looks like a great place. Enjoy!!

libertad - 10/30/08 12:09
Congrats to you both! It looks REALLY nice~

dcoffee - 10/30/08 11:54
South Buffalo is unbelievably cheap, what can I say. And there's realy nothing wrong with the neighborhood, friendly people, strong community pride, lots of kids, dogs, parks... I think it's the whole "City Schools" bogyman that decreases demand, But the elementary school is fine, plus they have catholic/charter schools right in town, and the Buffalo Vocational HS system is pretty good in my opinion (that's why I'm a photographer after all). I like that the taxes are low too, ours are $1,200 per year. We looked at a house on Richmond that was $3,600/yr! that's like rent! The best area in South Buffalo, right next to Caz Park, costs around $70-$90,000 for a house. You can look between South Park and Abbott for $55-$70,000. I'd encourage people to look, South Buffalo is like a big secret or something. Go walk around.

drew - 10/30/08 11:50
This is what I love about Buffalo. Great houses in cool neighborhoods at RIDICULOUSLY low prices. You make me want to buy another house.

mmtornow - 10/30/08 11:42
Yea, we are very excited about this house! We should be moving in a couple weeks! Looking forward to having more room, and a yard!
Jenks, that must have been me that you saw at ECMC! That's so cool. My name is Molly Tornow Coffee. Where did you see me?

joshua - 10/30/08 11:38
I've never been down to the Nature Preserve - that is something I'd like to do one day. Now that I see those pictures I'm in shock. 46k? That is a damn fine looking house but you definitely got a bargain!

terry - 10/30/08 11:26
congrats!
Welcome to the (mostly) wonderful world of home-ownership. Looks like a great place, and seriously, what a steal.

jenks - 10/30/08 11:23
and btw that house reminds me a LOT of mine... which I thought was a good deal when the new landlords bought it for 165K last year.

jenks - 10/30/08 11:21
ok, are you f*cking kidding me? You bought a 4br house (and a pretty fantastic looking one at that) for <50K??????? A lot of people spend more than that on their CAR! way to go!

Also... I've been meaning to ask this for months- does your wife (monica, right? all i can remember is mtornow!) have a sister named.... Molly, I think? I saw a woman working at ECMC one day who looks JUST like her. Well enough to know it's not HER, but has to be a sister. And I couldn't see the last name on her ID, but I think her first name was Molly. Megan? Something with an M. This was a couple months ago. i wanted to say hi, but then wasn't sure how that would go. "uh, hi... do you have a sister named monica? No? oh, sorry to bother you then... there's this girl on my blog site..." yeah, not so much.

mrmike - 10/30/08 11:19
Awesome, congrats. Got to love to be able to use the phrase "Upstairs Fireplace." Looks great

dcoffee - 10/30/08 11:15
there are actually 2.5 Olmsted parks in SB, 2 of them have golf courses. We really like the Nature Preserve and the Beach too though.

joshua - 10/30/08 11:11
Damn - the images didn't work!

Congrats man. My ex-girlfriend's sister had a house in the area and so I spent a lot of time down there. I like Cazenovia Park. For that matter I've been getting more and more into learning about the Olmstead Park System and the different parks, circles and parkways that he designed for our city. The more I learn the more heartbroken I get! Anyway, I digress - you're near a great park!

10/27/2008 16:35 #46369

Redistribution of wealth.
Category: political

Joe the Plumber jumped into the limelight because he provided a great talking point for the Republicans. "Obama wants to Share the Wealth". Which means, when you think of Obama, think of lazy people getting a free ride, Welfare, Communism, and big government.

Here's the problem. Conservatives love to share the wealth, they'll take as big of a share as they can get from us taxpayers. They want us to buy their bad debt, they want no bid contracts, they want subsidies for their oil companies.

We can share our wealth with the rich. But when it's time to build the economy from the bottom up, that's "punishing success" The middle class can go ahead and bail them out repeatedly, but don't expect anything in return.

Conservatives may tell you that Big Government, and big spending is the ultimate evil. But that doesn't stop them from advocating handouts for the rich. Watch them line up for a handout, while they call us socialist for wanting some healthcare.

jason - 10/31/08 10:50
Tiny, I just just saw this comment. I'll start a new post sometime to pick this up. I just haven't had a chance to read it yet. I know (e:DCoffee) had a comment as well.

tinypliny - 10/29/08 20:01
(e:Jason), since you wanted some statistics and opinion based on those statistics, here are 2 articles doing just that - analyzing statistics and pointing out the loopholes.

I would be very interested to hear what you have to say about different sources of income being taxed at different rates and the rich using this very loophole to the full extent to pay a NET lower % of taxes on their income than the average joe the plumber does. I think there are two reasons why the upward flow continues.
a) because the rich have a CHOICE of sources of income. They can take "risky" sources of income that are taxed lower.
b) The poor DO NOT have a choice in their source of income. And since they have no choice in this matter, their sources tend to be the traditional non-risky ones in the highest taxed bracket if you compared all the sources.

And where exactly is this "risky" source coming from - the investment that the poor make to save their non-risky higher taxed incomes and get some extraordinarily meagre interests. So in essence, the rich, while playing around with their sources can actually get so many tax breaks that their NET % of taxation is lower as compared to the poor.

We are talking about comparing the factory owner who has built the factory with his hard earned money and thus, definitely deserves more salary. We are talking about the choice that this factory owner has (because of his relatively secure financial standings) to bring DOWN his taxable income as well as sources taxed on a higher percentage. We are talking about the blank wall that the assembly line worker in this factory faces when he tries in vain to match the tax cuts that his employer receives because of his choices!

Oh yeah, these are the articles
1. :::link:::

2. :::link:::

jason - 10/29/08 18:40
Obviously, I disagree with pretty much every premise written since I last commented, and I can't quibble with every point here, but tax statistics are readily available, and so is information on who actually appropriates money.

Just a couple of things to chew on here:

In order to feel no guilt about forcibly taking something which you did not earn, you must accept the notion that a grunt line worker has the same role in revenue generation that the geezer that built the company from scratch has, as well as the same responsibilities to ensure the company's success, and as such he deserves similar rewards. I'll never agree. I think it's a hideous notion.

By definition, redistributing wealth means downward flow. The poor cannot buy the rich's property no matter how many are banded together. You can't pay the owner's salary. We have a progressive tax system. The war on poverty can't be won by using the same failed strategy. It's absurd. When you think that what you're taking is really yours, it doesn't become a moral issue anymore.

I don't understand why people aren't too proud to take something that isn't theirs, but they are definitely too proud when it comes to admitting to what they're doing. The excuses and justifications are just wrong, and they insult everyone's intelligence. If I'm a socialist, I make the case as to why society is better off if it's healthier and if lower income people get a chunk of someone else's money. I explain to the people paying the bills what their money is buying.

dcoffee - 10/28/08 10:19
Good point tiny. Wealth flows upwards in more ways than one. Credit Cards and loans are the most amazing example to me. It's like Families have had every dime squeezed out of them, so now we're promising our future earnings to wealthy money-pushers in the financial industry.

Interesting point carolinian, it'd be like a public loan corporation for small businesses. There are lots of ways for businesses to lower their taxable income. Most people can live on $250,000 whatever they earn beyond that they can invest back in the business, or give their employees a holiday bonus, etc.

Zobar, that is an awesome statistic, it shows the hypocrisy of the right. During election season they can make a persuasive argument, but they don't even practice what they preach. They like welfare, and spending, and deficits, they just want to give the money to the upper class instead of people like us.

libertad - 10/28/08 09:59
Good point Tiny, about the wealth flowing upwards. In Cuba (Socialist), the wealthiest are government officials. Wealth does flow upwards in capitalism as well. Here you can totally see that when lower income people are completely penalized by those above them. Look at how much more they pay in fees and how much more interest they are charged when borrowing money. Now they will no longer be able to purchase homes because the credit has frozen. Upward mobility now is almost becoming an illusion.

tinypliny - 10/28/08 00:05
Wealth always flows upward. That is why the rich always get richer. In a greedy human world, the ultimate scheme of things to take away everything from the people with no or little financial means. Because the rich make the laws - it doesn't matter whether they are democrats, republicans, communists or even socialists.

carolinian - 10/27/08 23:59
How about we raise taxes on the rich then give them the option (and only alternative) of investing in small local businesses, like joe, as a tax shelter? Allow the private sector to provide some of the soution, but at the same time not rely on trickle-down wishfull thinking.

jason - 10/27/08 22:20
The middle-upper, upper and beyond income Americans will be the ones shouldering the brunt of whatever we decide to spend. Wealth doesn't flow upward, never has.

But even if that is $1 for you, what do you expect to get from that money? I can't remember the last time results meant a damn to a Government.

zobar - 10/27/08 17:53
Fact! Since 1978, federal spending has increased 2.2% faster under Republicans than Democrats, while gross domestic product has increased 1.9% faster under Democrats.

And since 1978, federal debt has increased 32.2% (!) faster under Republicans.

I know because Wikipedia told me. :::link:::

- Z

james - 10/27/08 16:57
And conservative pundits have been telling this socialist tale for weeks now. Yawn. It has zero traction.

Christ, isn't the McCain campaign doing any freakin' polling to figure out what message works?

10/08/2008 09:49 #45990

Obama, Specifics: McCain, Trust me
Category: politics

McCain was vague on specifics last night. He insisted that he alone could fix our problems but he didn't tell us how. He tried to seem like he understood the trials of average Americans, but he seemed out of touch. He doesn't realize that when you have 7 houses and 14 cars you need to prove that you can identify the bottom 95% of America and the problems we face every day.

McCain has an empathy deficit when it comes to the middle class. Democrats give examples of the human cost, Factory workers losing their jobs, people who've gotten screwed by health insurance companies. When Democrats talk about people they've met, you can sense the empathy in their voice, you can feel that they care about the problems our families face. McCain talks about the worries we deal with around the kitchen table and it sounds like "all that stuff, of course we have to address it" But he doesn't give us specific plans that inspire confidence.

Obama was clear, specific, and direct. It was easy to follow his logic. He gave us details. He made it clear that his priority is the Middle Class. When average people do well, the entire country does well. We need to invest in Infrastructure and green technology to create jobs. We need to lower the cost of healthcare, gasoline, energy, and home heating to help people save money. We need to make education more affordable, and we need to make sure our retirement is safe. In order to attain these goals we will need to make sacrifices, we'll have to work together, and take responsibility for the health of our country.

McCain basically has no platform. The current economic problems have turned the usual Republican dogma into crap. We've tried their way, fixing the economy with tax cuts and deregulation, and we ended up in a depression. The "trickle down" economic world view has no credibility. We need a government that makes it easier for the middle class to pay their bills, we need specific plans, targeted at average Americans.

Americans are worried, and they have no confidence in the free market to save them. People saw the government spend a trillion dollars on Wall Street, now average people want to know when they are going to catch a break, when is the government going to invest more in its people, what is the plan, is it going to work? It's time for a new New Deal, that focuses on the majority of Americans, not just the rich elite.

dcoffee - 10/09/08 09:59
Great points Jason. you bring up a bunch of interesting stuff. Especially that "Monopoly and corruption are not limited to the private sector" So true. What makes that even more of a problem is that we only have 2 major parties, any less and we are in trouble. The corruption in government already runs deep. That's why i freak out when I see journalists being arrested, or 'free speech zones' for protesters, or the voting machine data being privatized, or misleading information being fed to the public, or the influence of money undermining our democracy. Americans need to be aware, and outraged, while we still can vote these people out of office.

I also agree that intelligence gathering should be the focus for counterterrorism. I view them as part of federal law enforcement despite the CIA's sometimes military role. That needs to be the focus. Investigation can lead to arrests, or targeted military action. It is better to publicly humiliate someone in a trial than to kill them covertly, but every situation is unique. Either way to have good intelligence we need international cooperation. We need to share information and endeavor to eliminate violence and terrorism for everyone. Other nations view us as selfish, we need our good name back. Wars are expensive on so many levels, it sickens me how casually people treat war.
I hope you're right about the military budget, and taxes too.

jason - 10/09/08 07:12
OH no Tiny! How "un-academic" of you! =)

tinypliny - 10/08/08 20:35
Oh man. I spelled pre-requisites wrong TWICE! :/

tinypliny - 10/08/08 20:33
Surprisingly, I agree with *all* of your points and have one additional comment on Jason's quip:

"If you want to focus on law enforcement, you (we) should be serious about the gathering of intelligence and pursuing people before they commit the crime. We have to be reasonable, not foolish. If we can't take that step, we simply can't be taken seriously when it comes to protecting the public."

Those are not just the prequisites of law enforcement. Those are the prequisites of military action as well. If military action is blind invasion or annihilation based on a tottering pyramid of lies, it's as ineffective at "protecting the public" as ill-informed law enforcement.

jason - 10/08/08 19:15
(e:DCoffee) - You've touched on a number of things here that I want to talk about.

First of all, I think that despite what any candidate tells you in a stump speech or debate, taxes will go up. Maybe not in the short term, but in the long term, barring an economic miracle, this will be the case. Nobody will say to the public they are going to raise taxes outside of possibly Kucinich or Bernie Sanders.

My sense of humor and general outlook on government dictates that I don't believe anything will change. You're right, this isn't a partisan thing. Whether it's the GSEs or the investment banks, the people in charge are and have been on the take, resulting in us having to wipe all of their asses and suffer in the process. I'm sorry, I don't believe those people are going to change one damned thing! The tar and feather treatment should be their reward.

The military budget is a sacred cow. If it were not the case certainly a liberal of Obama's stature would advocate such a thing. Ten bucks says it would be death to his candidacy, but if he does get elected I get the feeling that is where he will look.

I agree that the blood and treasure we've spent on the war has given us little in return. I'm not ready, however, to talk about arresting and processing people who blow themselves up. What are we going to do, reanimate them? Yeah, I think that if we spot a terrorist camp, and if our information is solid, we should martyr them immediately. The military do have a role to play, although I do agree that prevention encompasses much more than military strikes.

Policemen I've spoken with tell me that you can't ask for tough law enforcement and then complain when you get it. You can't demand weak law enforcement and then complain when someone gets away with a violent crime. You don't get it both ways because they aren't going to stick their necks out for a boss that is going to turn their backs on them.

If you want to focus on law enforcement, you (we) should be serious about the gathering of intelligence and pursuing people before they commit the crime. We have to be reasonable, not foolish. If we can't take that step, we simply can't be taken seriously when it comes to protecting the public.

Last bit here, I promise: Monopoly and corruption are not limited to the private sector, that much has been proven. We are experiencing a failure of government as well, which should make us even less confident than we are already. If the people we elect to look out for our interests refuse to do so, who do we look to for protection?

joshua - 10/08/08 16:12
Hey D - I'll answer when I get home. The official end of day scramble is on. I'm not covered, btw.

dcoffee - 10/08/08 15:21
PS, no comments are too long or too short for my journal :)

dcoffee - 10/08/08 15:20
wow, that's an amazing example Drew. I don't understand why more businesses aren't complaining about healthcare. Small business owners have to worry about their family's and their employee's health. So we shop around for health insurance and try to figure out the fine print. But what we really want is to go to the Doctor of our choice, and not have to worry so much about the cost. My former employer has a business of 3 full time people, and 4 part time event photographers. He agreed to 'help cover the cost' of private Healthy NY insurance, he gave me a raise of about $25 per week, the insurance was $200 per month. The burden of Health Insurance is crushing our economy.

drew - 10/08/08 14:41
I guess that shoulda been a post (or 3) and not a comment.

jason - 10/08/08 14:16
Jeez guys, I can't possibly respond to all of this right now even though I want to. Maybe later..

drew - 10/08/08 14:05
My father owns a small business (go to blumen.com if you want to see it) and this year was one of his best. Profits approached 250,000 this year, but he was not taxed on that amount, because a portion was re-invested in the business (once upon a time that portion was 50% or more, but things are in pretty good shape right now) and a large portion is returned to employees in the form of bonuses (and then are taxed as personal income, not business income).

Thus the effect on the tax is that more money ends up re-invested in the shop or in the hands of employees, both of which are good for the economy.

Of course, the most frustrating expense my Dad faces is health insurance. Our plan tended to change every year, because we had to constantly shop and even then,m rates went up. Also, my Dad had to pick his insurance carefully, as he did not want to leave any of his employees un-insured for their diabetes or heart condition, or whatever they had when he switched.

I know that a slight tax increase and an elimination of health care costs (and time!) would be a welcome change, but my parents are single issue republicans (abortion, thanks for asking).

Well, they were once single issue republicans. Now that politics are so polarized, it seems that one party can do no wrong, and the other can do no right. I don't think there is a single issue where my parents would agree with the Dems. My Mom, a Roman Catholic, is sometimes with her church (and therefore progressives) regarding war and the death penalty, but more and more they believe what's right (conservative) is right (correct).

dcoffee - 10/08/08 13:37
Democrats have failed too, I don't deny that. The economic problems started in the 70's when Carter started believing that the market could regulate itself. His administration originally privatized Fannie Mae and most of Freddie Mac. Bill Clinton's administration supported Phil Gramm's bill to deregulate investment banks. I don't put much faith in politicians, we have to constantly hold their feet to the fire, and we need a media that digs for the truth, so citizens keep Washington accountable. But I'm also not so cynical to think that nothing will ever change. I think Obama has the more realistic way forward.

If we can't raise taxes how can we balance the budget? Half of the federal budget goes to military spending. Even McCain has acknowledged waste and fraud there. Will Republicans let us cut the military budget? We could have our cake and eat it too if we had a more peaceful world, and some international law. Diplomacy is cheaper. Do we really think Islamo-fascists are going to take over the US and make us all wear burqa's? Instead of spending billions each month on war and occupation, we should treat terrorism as a crime, lawyers, and legal institutions are cheaper than war.

Small Businesses have a tough time. I'm a sole proprietor, the economy directly effects me. So do gas prices and insurance payments that take money out of my clients pockets. Josh, do you get healthcare? What if taxes on your employer went toward a national healthcare plan, and relieved them of the burden of healthcare expenses? That would help their bottom line. Or you can have McCain tax your healthcare like income, and pretend that some tax writeoffs will make it bearable.

I have more faith in the Obama plan. Where's the evidence that the Free Market has worked? Wages have decreased, and inequality has grown. People in the 1950's - 60's after the New Deal era, didn't need 2-3 jobs to raise a family. Deregulation increased, and the New Deal was dismantled, as that happened the middle class shrunk, and our trade deficit increased. I don't see great reasons to continue the conservative's economic agenda. I do believe in competition. The free market encourages monopoly and fraud, that's the dirty secret that Friedman and Adam Smith left out. The government should intervene in the markets to encourage competition.

PS jason, you have a point. I'm not viewing things through the McCain lens, he made some points, but he glossed over them without explaining much detail or backing up his assertions. I was left with a lot of promises on the McCain side, but little indication of how he would do it. Maybe he expects his logic to be obvious, but he has to start getting his ideas across to a non-republican audience too.

joshua - 10/08/08 12:26
The problem with the New Deal was that it ultimately prolonged the economic recovery of our country - the real savior of our nation was actually the economic production during WWII. The idea that the New Deal saved America was a falsehood.

Obama was about as engaging as he'll ever be to normal folks. The ONLY human element during the debate was the moment where McCain was speaking to the Navy vet.

"McCain has an empathy deficit when it comes to the middle class. Democrats give examples of the human cost, Factory workers losing their jobs, people who've gotten screwed by health insurance companies. When Democrats talk about people they've met, you can sense the empathy in their voice, you can feel that they care about the problems our families face."

That is ludicrous, Dave. Empathy deficit? You can sense the empathy in Democrat voices? That is romanticized BS. Not to mention that Democrats have failed regular people and have taken the middle class for granted for a very long time. If you think the Democratics are for the working man, there is 25+ years of Democrat AMBIVALENCE, not empathy, Dave, on the record to contend with.

This is the same Democrat Party that forced lenders, with the threat of legal action, to provide "affordable" (aka subprime)loans to low income people. Barney Frank was caught red-handed, on video, in addition to several other Democrats, attempting to brush aside concerns about these loans in 2004 when a whistleblower moved in to highlight this growing problem. Now look at us! Barney Frank should be wearing Federal property and his lashing out at Republicans is a laughing stock. Only a Democrat could have a viable political career after such a stunt. It is just one example of liberal dogma sneaking into legislation, while a parochial liberal cries foul while getting caught fanning the flames. I don't care about their intentions - that naive crap, in combination with terrible regulation in the financial markets (a Republican concern) is going to be our doom.

Oh, and by the way, Barack Obama got slaughtered on the economy last night although liberals haven't the foggiest idea that it occurred. Liberals never have, and never will, understand how to make sure the American economy is working properly. Barack Obama is going to solve the middle class problem by raising taxes on the rich and on corporations. His plan: raise the top income bracket to 39.6% (the rate prior to the Bush tax cut), raise payroll taxes from 37.4% to 52.2%, raise capital gains taxes from 15% to 39.6% and raise the estate tax from 0% to 55%. He wants to pursue this while increasing spending on the order of $900B, on top of what we are currently going through. If BO gets elected we aren't going to have Jimmy Carter on our hands - we are going have Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson rolled up into one. You think we are going to initiate health care for all Americans and expand government while all of this is going on? If he does it, he'll all but guarantee a deep depression, not "save" the middle class.

Bill O'Reilly, bless his arrogant heart, contends fervently that after speaking to Obama he felt that he was a pragmatic man that wouldn't be so foolish as to raise taxes during our economic calamity. I take him at his word and expect economic annihilation, exacerbated by liberal-propagated suicidal economic policy. Job losses will be rampant and anybody with a retirement plan should be concerned even more than they are already.

$250,000 in income for a small business is a joke - that kind of revenue for a small business is nothing. His contention that most small businesses make less than that is absolutely ludicrous. My small, piddly company brings in over $500,000 a year. We spend more than $250,000 just on operating expenses and believe me, we are a tiny company operating out of a small rental office in Williamsville. We have no more than 4 people in our office at any given time, in addition to no more than a dozen contracted employees worldwide. You'd be shocked how little I actually make and how thin the company's margins are.

Barack Obama is flat out dangerous when he's talking about taxing businesses. If BO gets elected, I may very well lose my fucking job Dave, even with my low salary! So are a lot of other people. Maybe I'll see you in the bread line?

Lets contend with this "95% of Americans are going to get a tax break" business. That is a demonstrably false concept, as 47% of Americans already pay ZERO income tax. What Barack Obama is about, first and foremost, is socialist economics. BO supports robbing from Peter to give to Paul, while simultaneously neutering the primary engine of our economic growth. If you want to celebrate that, feel free.

The concept of shared sacrifice - this is liberal doublespeak for tax increases as I've described already. Anyway, if elected Obama will get unintended shared sacrifice. Taxes will go up and the middle class will suffer because their employers won't be able to afford to keep them anymore during this economic climate. But to hell with it, Obama wants to give free healthcare to all, so who cares? Sooner or later, there won't be any successful people in America anymore. If I were rich, my money would be in Switzerland.

jason - 10/08/08 11:45
Well, if you go into a debate knowing that anything McCain says is going to sound like "blah blah blah" to you, then it isn't much of a surprise that you didn't hear anything he said.

james - 10/08/08 10:43
Let's co-opt my favorite Republican and call it The New Square Deal.

10/03/2008 10:05 #45915

Palin on Mute
Category: politics

Watching the VP debate, I thought Palin was hanging on for dear life. And Biden was excellent. Biden was clear and direct, I think he got through to people. I hope he gets some more media attention after this.

Sarah Palin... She didn't fall down, pass out, or puke, good for her. But her responses were absolutely awful!! After about an hour I couldn't stand her anymore. Message to Sarah, if you can't answer the question please stop talking!!!!! The longest rambling responses came when she avoided questions. I could not resist smothering my head with a pillow and leaving the room during her 3 minute nonsensical answers. Finally we couldn't help muting her 3-4 times. I was screaming at Gwen Eiffel to make her stop. We liked Sarah more with the sound off.

Biden on the other hand got about 10 hell-yea's from us. Creating jobs by investing in Infrastructure and greener technologies that we can export! Healthcare at the top of the list. Sincere diplomacy to restore our standing in the world, and achieve peace. 3 weeks in Iraq = the entire Afghanistan budget so far. Epic failures of letting the market "run wild" Restoring the Middle Class!

Biden gets an A+ he could even teach Obama some things about being more direct and unequivocal in his responses. Palin gets a D-, what American was comforted by her responses?

jason - 10/03/08 12:18
It is definitely believable that a significant portion of the people watching last night already knew what they would think after it was over. In this sense it was like a sporting event. This is sort of why I have been avoiding the topic. It is very easy for anyone to discover factual inaccuracies and misstatements during these debates and in speeches, but the fact of the matter is that nobody is interested in substance. That much has been made more than obvious over the past couple of months. So I say screw it, let the country burn. That's about where I'm at.

dcoffee - 10/03/08 11:05
Yea, if you think the country is close to a meltdown, and you want a new New Deal, you might have gained some faith in the Democratic Party. Not sure if the Republicans gained anything. Palin looked like some college Republicans president. With the sound off, she looked like a local news anchor.

joshua - 10/03/08 10:43
Well, if we are talking about applauding flat out liberal boilerplate, then I suppose there is something to be happy about. These people are making promises that won't come true. And lets be honest Dave - there is nothing that could have come out of Sarah Palin's mouth that would have made you happy. I predicted this journal entry would happen!

09/20/2008 14:18 #45738

Free Market = Faith Based Economy
Category: politics

Bush announces a $700 billion bailout plan. To put that in perspective, the Iraq War so far, over 6 years, has cost around $500 billion. Add the bailout to the $400-$500 billion spent so far on the financial sector, it's over a trillion dollars. The national debt is $9.5 trillion dollars. If all goes as planned, the debt will be over $11 trillion. That's big.

Remember how Bush wanted to privatize Social Security? Put our retirement in the stock market for 'safe keeping', imagine if that would have passed.

This deregulation nonsense has been going on for decades. The New Deal and consumer protections have slowly disappeared. Clinton, Bush, Regan, Nixon, Carter, LBJ, there's a lot of blame to go around. There have been plenty of warning signs too, Enron, the savings and loan crisis, housing bubbles, etc. But still the "Free Market" has been worshiped like some kind miracle that will fix all of our problems.

The Free Market is dead. Good Riddance.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government agencies created during the New Deal. Privatized under LBJ to balance the budget, deregulated in future years, now we're paying for what they screwed up.

Investment Banks and Commercial Banks used to be separate. This made our money more secure by keeping it away from risky business. Under Clinton, that changed. Now our banks are floating our money in the stock market. If we all wanted to get our money out of our bank, it wouldn't be there, the bank would go bankrupt.

Debt, that's a new trend too. If you wanted a mortgage you used to need to put 25% down, no matter what. Now all you need is the closing costs to 'buy' a house. Credit Cards were basically invented in the 50s and 60s. Now people don't save any money, really America has a negative savings rate. We just make payments, forever... it's the new serfdom, we're all indentured servants.

Railroads, Airlines, Energy, all deregulated, all in trouble. Taxpayers had to pay for Enron, we had to bail out airlines. And trains have been replaced by trucks that hog oil, wear down our roads, and clog our streets.

Why don't we just privatize the Water systems, schools, Social Security, and healthcare too? Leave it up to the invisible hand of the market.

This crap doesn't save us any money, or make us any better off in the long run.

If the government screws up, we vote them out, impeach them, or put them on trial. If the stock market eats our life savings, the companies fold, and we lose everything, maybe a couple people go to jail, but most of the executives get a fat check from a company that they helped bankrupt. And we don't get our money back, unless it's insured by FDIC, a government program from the New Deal.

So Who thinks reducing government regulation of the economy was a good thing? Don't you feel better off now?

The government is corrupt. Money is power, not People. Politicians went along with this crap because it was in their own self interest.

Government has been demonized for the wrong reasons. It's not the regulations and taxes that are the problem. It's the Corruption. It's the influence of money, and the disregard for the welfare of average people.

vincent - 09/22/08 23:09
The perfect example of where deregulation just made life miserable for everyone is the airline industry. We would be so much better off if routes were still regulated. Small cities would still have mandated service and the congestion that we see would not be as bad at certain airports. Yea, you can say that there would be higher prices, but in the end we still ended up paying higher prices even if you don't choose curbside check in and check that extra bag.

dcoffee - 09/21/08 15:32
Wow, (e:libertad) that story completely puts this crisis in perspective. Mortgage problems, Student Loans, declining benefits and wages.

Let me add another example to that list, my mother had to declare bankruptcy because of a medical bill. And she had her tax refund taken every year to pay off her student loans from UB.

Back in the 60s you could raise a family of 8 kids with just one parent working a job as a trucker. That's what happened in my mom's family. Now most people can't raise a family half that size working 2 or 3 jobs. It's because they have so many expenses. Healthcare, childcare, gas, food, insurance, school, retirement. The government does less, and my expenses are higher.

I don't see any evidence that the Free Market, and deregulation have done us any good. All I see is people working more and getting less for it. The government just got out of the way so that private companies can squeeze every last dime out of us. In fact they're even taking money we don't have, or haven't earned yet, through loans.

The interest rates on student Loans have only gone up since I was in college. What if your parents can't afford to pay your college? You start your working life with a huge amount of debt $25 - $70 thousand, even before the credit card and the mortgage. And why do we go to college? To get a decent job with a good starting salary. Even though anyone will tell you that it's more important to be happy doing what you like than making a lot of money. But you have to pay $300 on your loans every month. So why bother studying Political Science and trying to make a difference in the world, when you got bills to pay.

Inequality in this country is at the worst level since the great depression, where the bottom 90% of America only posses 20% of the wealth :::link:::

We need government intervention to fix this mess. Adam Smith was full of crap. And we need to do more than buy Wall Streets problems and mortgage our future.

libertad - 09/21/08 09:50
I have always hated Adam Smith and his "invisible hand". Sounds good in theory but as we can see in practice it really isn't working. It might work for some for a while but eventually government will have to step in to clean up the mess.

I'm really surprised that the bailout plan will supersede the cost of the Iraq war up to this point. I think you are right, it would have been better to help individuals in a program designed to help them save their homes and credit rather than just bail out the banks. My sister is one of the people who had her home foreclosed on. What happened was that after her divorce she couldn't afford the house she lived in so she tried to sell it but without anyone ever looking at it because of the housing crisis. Her only option was to let the banks foreclose. Now her credit is screwed and I worry that if she ever had to find an apartment that she would be denied. It really is not such a good situation for her or for anybody really.

I also feel like an indentured servant in a way. My student loans severely hinder my options and career path. Just recently, I decided to not apply to a job that would be perfect for me but it interfered with my ability to make even more money elsewhere at least in the short term. I work really hard to pay my bills and then there is little left over. I don't even have money to buy things like boots and a decent coat for the winter. The government hasn't bailed me out. My student loan interest rates are locked in forever. Bankruptcy is not an option on student loans, they will haunt you for the rest of your life. I borrowed the money and I will pay it back, but I just wish that I was better off for going to get an education rather than worse off. I worked the entire time I was in school but it wasn't enough so I had to take out the loans. I never used those loans for vacations or clothes or used it frivolously.

There is this idea that if you work really hard you can pull yourself up and achieve this so called American dream. I just don't really think that is true. People might say well you could have just gotten a degree in this or that and be fine but look at how much things have changed. My father and grandfather raised families of 5 and 7 respectively with high school diplomas and both did very well. Now my father went back to school with a degree in math and computers and is struggling to support just himself. I don't even know if he will ever be able to retire. He went from raising a family of five, living on Long Island with an in ground pool to not being able to retire. He has worked harder than anyone I have ever known and now he is stuck not because of his lack of a will but because that is the cards he was dealt.

dcoffee - 09/20/08 22:26
Here's a good way to put the Wall St bailout in perspective. $700 billion means $2,293 per person. Every man woman and child in America would pay that much. That is a lot of cash. How can we afford that? Sounds pretty extreme to me.

tinypliny - 09/20/08 21:25
I am not sure that a concept of pure democracy can ever co-exist with capitalism.