Journaling on estrip is easy and free. sign up here

Dcoffee's Journal

dcoffee
My Podcast Link

02/06/2009 14:53 #47661

Quick Politics
Category: politics
The economic recovery bill.

critics are claiming that the bill won't effect the economy for two years. Because government projects take a while to start. The state and local governments have to request proposals, and approve things before they get the project started.

OK we live in Buffalo, things tend to drag on for a while. But many of the projects in Buffalo are just waiting for money, and now that the state has budget problems, even more of those projects have been thrown into limbo. I can think of street projects in South Buffalo, the inner harbor project, and the Rath building just off the top of my head. These projects have already been approved and, the contractors have been approved too. We have projects here that are immediate. Plus even if it takes 6 months to approve a contractor for the other 100 plans in Buffalo, once the contractor gets that project, they can count on that money. Since they have money on the way, they can spend what they have in the bank on some new equipment, or they'll be more likely to get a loan based on their projected income. And Buffalo is just one city, there are thousands like us in the US that have been neglected for years. We've got the projects, $billions of them.

and as for the price tag, if the banks get $700 billion, so should the middle class.


The CEO Pay cap at $500,000

Critics call this government intervention in private business. I call it terms of the loan. The point is this, if these companies went to a private bank for a loan, they wouldn't get it. If they did get a loan it would have strict rules, and an extremely high interest rate. These companies thought that since the loan was coming from the government it was easy money, free money, why not apply for it (that was M&T's take on it). But the government decided not to be their bitch, they decided to look out for the taxpayer and not reward failure.

$500,000 salary cap, big deal, we're loaning you the money and those are our terms. Take it or leave it. So today Goldman Saks decides maybe they don't want the loan after all. GOOD, saves us money. That's the point, this is an exceptionally good loan for those who have no credit, it's a service of the government, because no private business is going to do it. But there are conditions, it's not free money, and if you don't NEED it, don't take it. Why should we give money to banks that don't need it.



dcoffee - 02/08/09 17:09
Here's a link to backup my statement that Buffalo infrastructure projects are just waiting for money, and the state needs help with funding. I want the funding to come with strict transparency requirements and open bidding processes.

From the Buffalo News
:::link:::
heidi - 02/08/09 14:55
I'm glad you liked the links!

Here are multiple charts of how much tax is paid by each segment of taxpayers

:::link:::

Make sure to read the notes at the bottom - they clarify some of the conceptual issues involved.


dcoffee - 02/08/09 13:58
Sweet Heidi, Links!!!! that's what I'm talking about. I usually try to find sources when I'm talking about historical trends and such, because you can make any kind of statement, or blurt out statistics, but there are tons of ways to compare data, and I like to know what the varriables are behind that statistic. Politicians and political parties tend to twist statistics to fit their needs.
I would like to know what percentage of taxes are paid by say the top 5%, i know it has changed, and they pay less than what they used to, and I know they make a lot more money too, plus there are a lot more loopholes to be exploited. there are so many variables in 'the economy', and actually that quote you posted originally listed tax policy as one of 3 big factors, and I think that's absolutely true. I don't know what the percentages are now for taxes, but the rich have mad more money every year since the 1970's, and the poor have to send mom and dad off to work to barely make ends meet.
heidi - 02/07/09 21:33
Okay, I'm really out of practice making economic arguments, but (e:Joshua)'s opinions have incorrect factual bases and it's really irritating to have to keep reading.

1. Joshua says this is a lie: "there has been a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich"

:::link:::

:::link:::

It is well documented that the % of wealth that the top 1% owns has grown over the past ~35 years. Tax policy is a massive reason for this. An excellent example is the suspension of the estate tax which allows continued wealth to continue to concentrate and increases inequality.

2. Joshua says this is a lie: "our tax policies have put us in the place we are in right now"

There's a lot of vagueness in that statement but the between the decision to turn the US into a service & financial-based economy away from the manufacturing economy and the regressive changes in tax policy, that's exactly what happened - tax policy has put us in the place we are now. Let's define "the place we are now" - we could look at the deindustrialization of Buffalo's city core, we could look at the bursting of the housing bubble, we could look at the massive increase in unemployment claims (and critique the offical measure of "unemployement" at the same time)... there are many ways to operationalize the statement. Suffice it to say, the Reagan -> Bush II era (Clinton is just a mild detour on some policies)has been disastrous for anyone who isn't rich, in terms of our political power, our constitutional rights, our ability to create and hold wealth. Tax policy is probably the most important determinant of these crises (well, okay, probably not the constitutional issues except in how federal judges appointed to interpret the law in favor of big business also interpret the constitution in anti-democratic ways).
This guy directly addresses your assertion (in sort of a simplistic way): :::link::: (PDF)

Here's a much more authoritative analysis from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
:::link:::

And one from factcheck.org, one of the most highly respected nonpartisan fact checking organizations
:::link:::



joshua - 02/07/09 11:06
I'm tired of people repeating a flat out lie - that there has been a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich, due to our tax policies. Only the economically illiterate (or partisan) would say such a thing and open themselves up to ridicule. The rich (and corporations) supply the vast, vast quantity of our tax revenue, and the poor and the middle class do not. The statistics aren't even close - I wish people would learn to read a spreadsheet, or at minimum at least learn how to be honest.

Another lie repeatedly told by the economically illiterate or partisan - that our tax policies have put us in the place we are in right now. I don't even know where to start with this one. The GOP is not wrong when they say that tax cuts always result in increased tax revenue to the government and economic growth, and post 9/11 we had 52 straight months of job growth, which was the solitary thing GWB was right about, after the surge. Our current mess was caused by ineffective regulation, foolish lending policies, irresponsibility on Wall St. and corruption within our own government. To say otherwise is merely liberal pablum, and flat out liemongering.

CEO Salary Cap - we agree on this stuff, although I should mention that a few banks were "forcibly compelled" by the government to take the money. (How that works, I have no idea, but Wells Fargo is an example). I'm uncomfortable with the government compelling a company to take money from TARP when they never handled any toxic debt, and then applying salary restrictions on its employees. Sooner or later, it's going to be illegal to be successful in this country.

"and as for the price tag, if the banks get $700 billion, so should the middle class."

(e:d) you are falling into the same trap, whereby you assume that the banks are actually keeping most of this $700 billion for good and that it is somehow a giveaway free-for-all, when that is demonstrably untrue. Most of this money is going towards purchasing of corporate stock, and now finally, bad assets. (By the way, the Treasury has already received almost $280m in dividend payments). This money was also used to stabilize companies that, had they collapsed, would have thrown us into a depression, not recession, three months ago.

People fail to recognize what the ramifications on "the little people" would be if these companies failed. Our financial system very well may have collapsed, with a particular worry being bank runs (especially after WaMu). Controversial as it may have been (and let's be honest, we're all critics of how this money was being watched by the gov't) it was right to stabilize our financial system. It is interesting to me how liberals and conservatives both never liked the bank bailout, when the facts show that with the possiblity of it having been done too hastily, that ultimately it was the right thing to do.
dcoffee - 02/07/09 10:07
Good point Heidi. Today's "pork barrel projects" are really schools libraries and bridges that help communities. In some cases these are projects that could completely turn a neighborhood around. And cities have been neglected, probably evidence of leaving the poor and middle class behind, while favoring new roads and sewers out in the boonies for rich sub-developments. I always wonder what would have happened in Buffalo if we had put a little more effort into preserving the East Side back when the decline started. If we did some government investment instead of watching the magic market run out to the country and plant McMansions on our farmland.

I'm going to have to read that whole article, looks fascinating.
heidi - 02/06/09 19:56
I hate to just reference stories elsewhere, but I really want to share these...

Slide show of what "American Socialism" brought us.

:::link:::

I don't know what all in Buffalo got built but I'm sure there's lots. As a part of the Civilian Conservation Corps, my grandfather worked on a hiking trail called the Turkey Path to the floor of the Pennsylvania Grand Canyon, a major tourist draw/economic boon to Tioga County.

:::link:::

A quote:
Now, honestly, I'm not sure how President Obama makes this point, roughly hourly, for the next four (and I hope eight) years. But this point has to be made, as often as possible, by anyone with an audience. We've had a deliberate shift of resources from middle- and working-class Americans and the poor, to the very rich, supported by our tax codes, twisted political values and the "winner-take-all" ethic that's prevailed at the highest levels of business and government for the last 30 years. Now, unbelievably, Republicans are saying we need even more tax cuts. (What part of tax-cutter George W. Bush's economic catastrophe, and his 22 percent approval rating, do they not understand?) They also back measures to reinflate the housing bubble that let Americans ignore their stagnating wages, as long as they worked more hours as a family and could also use their homes as an ATM. Their plans to reinflate the housing bubble seem as delusional, frankly, as their backing tax cuts, and even more irresponsible. Tax cuts won't work, but reinflating the housing bubble might work -- to encourage more consumption and less savings, and roll this problem a few more years down the road.
</quote>
james - 02/06/09 17:29
The Congressional Budget Office crunched the numbers and 78% of the stimulus bill will hit within two years. All this chatter about pork and delayed effectiveness is the GOP talking points that journalists just choke down and spit back up.

:::link:::

01/27/2009 22:30 #47538

We'll see if washington is ready
Category: politics
I'm interested to see how this 'economic recovery package' works out.

There's a lot going on. I just hope our representatives put the country first, and get down to business. Are you loyal to your political party, your ideology? Or are you a patriot, who cares most about the well being of our citizens.

I hope we have enough patriots in Washington to get us out of this hole.

I'm sick of the he said she said crap that passes for political discourse. I'm sick of the perpetual campaign, where you're always trying to make 'my colleagues on the other side of the aisle' look evil. I'm sick of power struggles, political favors, and games. I'm sick of hidden agendas.

I don't care what party you're in, you were elected to represent the will of the people. We elected You, because we trust you to look out for us, NOT to look out for yourselves.

I don't want to be too hard on the Republicans, I'd really hate to be in their shoes. And I'm sure the Democrats aren't going to be easy on them. When the Republicans had power, they used that power to exclude and marginalize the Democrats. Payback has got to be appealing..

It's not going to be easy to put this bitch back together.

I gotta say though, this past weekend was a stunt. All the Republicans doing a full court press, all over TV, to tear down the stimulus package. Every one of them saying they'd vote against it. This was a game. A decision by the Republican party to begin the 2010 campaign now. Start attacking Obama, and drawing lines in the sand. I really don't think the country has patience for that shit.

Some fanatics out there must believe that the Democrats are evil, or something, because they'd rather see Obama fail. They'd rather see the next 2 years land us in a Great Depression so they can point fingers and say "see, I told you so, the democrat party was in power, and look what happened. You fools better elect some Republicans to fix their mess." Boy that would be great for the Republican party, the more Obama fails, and the more the country and the economy are destroyed, the better their chances in 2010, or 2012.

But I hope those are only the fanatics. Because the people in Washington have more important things to do than watch the country burn.

Every person I've talked to since the election says, "I hope Obama gets something done quick, we got some serious problems in this country, I hope he can deliver." It's not just democrats, everyone has a family member who isn't making both ends meet. Laid off, part time, pay cut, can't find work, turning off the cable and internet, getting rid of a cell phone or a car. Americans are not as divided as we were, we all have the same problems. I think we're also optimistic that we can solve those problems. We're a proud nation, we have faith in ourselves.

You know what the public wants, Fix it, get 'er done. Get to work, putting us back to work.

jason - 01/29/09 09:07
11 Democrats crossed over as well. Fuck them, too, right? This is exactly the type of "bipartisanship" that I foresaw, not to pat myself on the back or anything because it makes me sad. QQ

There are a number of very sensible objections to some of the spending items, and to the wisdom of umbrella-ing (?) everything under "stimulus" no matter how little sense it makes or when the money will be spent. You would have a bipartisan vote on this if those items were scratched and voted on separately at a later time. Pelosi had that deer in the headlights look on TV explaining her rationale on some of this stuff.

The Senate version is going to look much different. I agree with you (e:James) that there will be more crossover from the Republican side. I think people should just forget the idea of bipartisanship - those days are over - and anyway nobody is sincere about it.

I know (e:Josh) is going to have something to say on this stuff, especially as it applies to bipartisanship. I know he's not going to be able to let some of this go.
vincent - 01/29/09 08:40
Wow feel the wrath of the "party of hate!" Seriously you guys are just nuts, "Fuck 'Em?" WOW

It's Politics the Republicans have a DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT. So What if they don't vote along with you to plege more money for STD Prevention, ATV Trails, More Medicaid and to increase to national debt even more to get us closer to passing the GNP /Debt Ratio of 1. They have the votes to pass it, big deal. Who really cares about symbolism. Can you really blame them in offering an alternative that may put them in a position later on?
james - 01/28/09 21:28
The Senate Republicans wont be so unified, but seriously? Tax cuts aren't nearly as effective as infrastructure investment in stimulating the economy but I suspect the House GOP could care less.

I hope this bites them in the ass in two years.
dcoffee - 01/28/09 21:21
Fuck em. :::link:::

Not a single Republican in the house voted for the Economic Recovery Package

so, you know what, fuck em. Because the Issue of the year, is the economy. and the issue of the 2008 election was the economy. And you know why Democrats won everywhere? Because the public doesn't believe the republicans have a fucking clue what to do about the economy.

Go ahead and pass the most effective package possible, let the republicans follow, or get out of the way.
jason - 01/28/09 08:48
PS - Yes, the people who want Obama to fail are in the minority among Republicans. The 20% on each wing are clinical. Don't worry about that. One sad fact in politics is that the opposition party almost always has to hope for failure so they get the keys. Certainly that has been the case as long as I've been alive. I'm with you on that, I'm tired of it.
jason - 01/28/09 08:46
Oh, I hear you. But the divisiveness among the politicians will continue. The Republicans are being petulant (which, of course, is the status quo for the minority party these days) and the Democrats are exacerbating the situation. Congress is a mess. I think they're trying to set the country on fire.

01/20/2009 00:28 #47453

New Era
Category: politics
image

Cheers to the 131.2 million people who voted this year. that's 63% of eligible voters. Congratulations to The People's President.
drew - 01/20/09 08:39
I know 63% is higher than any time in recent history, but it is still dreadfully low.

01/29/2009 11:31 #47556

Limbaugh is in Charge
Category: politics
I'm pissed off at the Republicans. I hope the party goes extinct. Really. because I don't believe they have the best interests of the country at heart.

I hope that isn't true, for America's sake, I hope they actually are patriots, and I'm trying to understand why they act this way.

Why are they so divisive, why are they so misleading, why do they refuse to compromise?

In case you missed it, no Republicans in the house of Representatives voted for the economic recovery package. What's up with the herd of opposition?

If you are working on some legislation, you propose an idea or you advocate for some changes, and when those changes make it into the final bill you usually vote for it. The democrats took out a bunch of 'liberal' provisions and 'wasteful spending'. The Democrats compromised, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public trusts the ideas of Democrats when it comes to the economy.

The republicans got a lot of what they wanted, much more than they ever gave the Democrats. But not a single house republican voted for the economic recovery bill. You'll see the republicans all over the media criticizing the bill, and offering no suggestions for improving it, except tax cuts or reducing the price tag (both of which would make the bill less effective).

Why?

I have a few ideas.

Maybe it's the permanent campaign mentality. Your team must win, and the other team must lose. Therefore the other team can absolutely never have a good idea, unless they agree with you of course. And when they agree with you, you get to say I told you so and call them weak.

Maybe it's their conservative market philosophy of self-interest spilling over into everyday life. The 'invisible hand' of the market, where if everyone follows their own rational self-interest, we magically end up with the best collective solution too. So they are all looking out for their own self interest first and foremost. Which I guess means winning elections, hoarding power, making lots of money, and get lots of campaign contributions and political favors.

Maybe redistricting and gerrymandering plays a role too. House members represent little pieces of a state, so they put the democrats on democratic pieces and the republicans on republican pieces. So the voters in their district largely prefer to keep the same party every year. Their seats are in safe Republican territory, they don't have to fear running against a Democrat (there usually is none, the incumbent is unopposed anyway) So the only thing they have to worry about is another Republican challenging them in the primary. And they only way that could happen is if the incumbent pisses of his donors, and they fund the opposition instead.

hmmm, following the logic in that last one, I guess it's about the money?


well none of those are patriotic reasons, but they seem the most logical to me. I mean, we've tried tax cuts for 8 years, did George "the king of tax cuts" Bush miss that one essential tax cut that will fix all our problems?


Maybe the Senate won't be so confrontational. They each represent an entire state, which is more politically diverse than a house district. and they also have more time between elections. Maybe they'll act more like statesmen, then their brothers in the House who look like prep school punks.

I doubt the Senate would filibuster, this is a popular bill, and they can't afford to slow it down. Especially after Obama has shown them so much compromise and respect (especially compared to the last 20 years).

Let them vote against it, and watch in horror when it passes and actually puts people back to work. Then all the campaign commercials in 2010 will ominously say "he voted against Obama's recovery package. Wrong on the economy, wrong for America"

image
joshua - 01/29/09 22:30
Oh - I think a David Brooks type is just about as likely to become RNC chair as a Blue Dog is to become DNC chair! In all honesty, I think that it will be Michael Steele.
joshua - 01/29/09 22:27
No, I just haven't posted it yet - I've had a busy night and haven't had a chance to overlook it. Don't worry. :)

:::link:::
dcoffee - 01/29/09 15:51
Oh, and I can't find that post, your journal is a little busted, maybe because of the Youtube Video. How long ago should I look?
dcoffee - 01/29/09 15:50
Both interesting articles. Hope they get a good RNC chair, cause it seems like Limbaugh is filling the vacuum right now, and he loves it :). I'll be interested in who they choose for chair, maybe someone more like David Brooks, than Sarah Palin. I'd really like to see a more cooperation on both sides. Maybe the media culture just makes it look like bickering. Sure you can have different philosophies, but lets be practical, and lets base our decisions on evidence, instead of dogma. You can find common ground to stand on.
joshua - 01/29/09 15:26
Oops, not "that," although you should read it.

I meant THIS! :::link:::
joshua - 01/29/09 15:25
Hey Dave -

I have a correlating post already written re: this topic and you can check it out later, but for now I'll leave you with this, since you mentioned Limbaugh -

:::link:::
james - 01/29/09 13:15
I can sort of see where the House GOP is coming from. The Dems now control House, Senate, and the White House. The GOP needs to show that they wont simply be walked all over (even though Obama promised an end to partisanship and has shown himself to be a very pragmatic man). So, they jumped onto the first big media event legislation they could to show the world they are down but still united. Unfortunately, they happened to pick the stimulus package. If the economy was OK and Obama promised big gun law reform, fine GOP, do what you will as the bill has only marginal effects on the integrity of the country. But the stimulus package? That is something you don't pull this kind of shit on.

The GOP spokesman during the bill's debate, Jeff Flake, showed he did not have even a basic understanding of economics. For the GOP, the event was all about orthodoxy, and not practicality. That is the same shit that made them lose the House, lose the Senate, and now lose the White House. I am cautious of the majority and sympathetic to the minority, but the GOP gets zero respect for their performance on the floor.
dcoffee - 01/29/09 13:04
PS. I know that graphic is a bit rude, but it's sooo geek, I thought it would work. Also I'm not questioning anyone's patriotism, I just think that the best-interests of political parties are often bad for the country. We need vigorous public debate of the facts, but without the party games. If anything I'm anti-party, or multi-party, I'm just registered as a Democrat so I can vote more :)

Obama has come at this crisis like a research project, and the proposal is diverse, specific, and transparent. We can measure the success of the various components as we go. That's why the opposition doesn't make much sense to me.

01/20/2009 12:58 #47461

The people's president
Category: political


image

I feel unified.

This must be the most gracious and humble president we've ever had.

There is something about public ritual that inspires a certain awe. It seems an appropriate way to take pride in our country and our democracy. I've been in big cowds, It's a unifying thing, and to think of how many people are watching the same thing around the world. It's like half of humanity just took part in this moment, at the exact same time. And it's a time when we need to be unified, and determined to meet the challenges facing humanity.

It's nice to feel hopeful about the future. Maybe the world will feel like working together a little more. Feels like we all have a responsibility to help.

Barack Obama, the people's president.


jason - 01/20/09 18:35
I'm going to admit in part that you've been right about Barack Obama being a unifier. I still don't think he's having much effect to that end, but I know now he really means it. After all, who would willingly piss off a segment of their constituency during the inaugural?

Today I've seen some liberal behavior during the inaugural, of course with the accompanying conservative meltdowns, and thought there's no way anyone can unify us. We're more divided than ever. I'm not trying to harsh anyone's mellow but from where I sit we have a long way to go.

So today I've been gripping about that, but this afternoon realized other people's baggage doesn't have to effect me. Reaching for Obama's standard is a hell of a lot more honorable than reaching for the lowest common denominator. That's bullshit.

Neither of us will agree 100% with President Obama but it's nice to see that at least one person is considering what Obama is asking of us. This means eschewing some popular inquisitions in the left wing, by the way, if you ask me.