Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
02/16/2009 16:12 #47763
Ideological BlockageCategory: politics
It's obvious at this point, the Republican Party is in permanent campaign mode, still. Their primary concern is regaining power and making the Democrats look bad. They are most concerned about elections, about their own political future, not about doing what they honestly think is best for the country.
Case in Point, Arlen Specter, Republican Senator who listened to his conscience and actually voted for the bill. Arlen believes that some of his Republican colleges are glad the bill passed "without their fingerprints on it". From an interview after the vote, "My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary....'" (translation, he might offend the Limbaugh's of the world, and they'll try to smear him in the Primary election) you can listen to the actual audio there too. (Another Example: Dancing about obstruction. ) there's plenty of examples.
I think we can take it as a fact, the top concern of at least SOME Republicans is reelection, and their internal calculations told them voting against the bill would work out better for them. (others may just have nonsensical thought patterns :) which allowed them to believe their convoluted arguments against it, like spending doesn't stimulate the economy, and the New Deal didn't work. Sorry, but you have to wonder) anyway
If your top concern is reelection, or the survival of your party... Governing, and serving your constituents, becomes your second priority, along with everything else.
How can Obama beat the math and bring the change to Washington that he promised?
First you get the public on your side, then the politicians follow. Work from the bottom up, outside of Washington. If Congress is worried about reelection, go straight to the people who elect them.
I think Obama's press conference, and his town hall meetings were very effective. And the underlying reason is that he looks like he is fighting for the public, meanwhile congress looked like it was fighting amongst itself.
The reason for Obama's 70%-80% approval rating is his working class hero image, and his promise to bring the public into the government.
Obama left Washington, and met with people at his town hall events. He heard our concerns, and he basically promised solutions. Manwhile back in Washington, the Democrats followed his lead, to make sure those promises were kept.
I watched Obama on TV, and I called my Congressman. I wanted more School funding and state aid, but with a pre-condition of strict oversight, because I know state governments are corrupt too. I wanted the housing tax credit provision eliminated, or focused on less expensive homes so it would be useful to my neighbors who don't make $150,000 per year, and whose homes sell for $70,000. Not sure if my voice mad it to negations (Higgins was there) but my concerns were addressed.
The point is, People hear Obama speak, and they agree, then they call their congressman. That's how you get the job done. Bring the heat from the street.
The Irony, Obama is kind of a Washington outsider with a bold list of changes. As president, he is the leader in Washington. But Washington has stubborn traditions, that don't die easily. He seems to do well when he's fighting from the outside.
Symptom: Ideological Blockage
Solution: Leave Washington
02/08/2009 15:01 #47681
A few more house photosCategory: life
For Janelle :) Some of the woodwork in the house is painted. And there's paneling in the side hallway. the bathroom door frame and window are both painted too.
You can see they actually removed the frames in the kitchen, but luckily we have the original wood in the garage, or the attic. Most of the original stuff is still in the house somewhere. even the old bathtub :)
the walls are probably pretty bad under the paneling, the walls of the stairway are a little cracked in general. We are almost ready to paint the hallway to upstairs, and it took a some work getting the walls ready.
For james, more built in stuff, but not attached. I think this stuff was in the kitchen, cause I can't find any marks on the floors in the other rooms. But it doesn't fit anywhere in the kitchen now, I don't know where it was, the cupboards were all redone in the 80's or something.
That's the main project, it's going in the dining-room I think.
2 other pieces. the big one fits on top of the hutch I'm stripping, but it won't fit up the stairs. It's got to go outside through the trap door I think. After the snow melts :)
Detail of the door, this is one of my favorite things. The glass in the middle is the one I fixed.
I like the inlay in the floors too. It's throughout the downstairs. and 2 rooms upstairs.
It's starting to sink in, that we own a house. crazy.
peace
You can see they actually removed the frames in the kitchen, but luckily we have the original wood in the garage, or the attic. Most of the original stuff is still in the house somewhere. even the old bathtub :)
the walls are probably pretty bad under the paneling, the walls of the stairway are a little cracked in general. We are almost ready to paint the hallway to upstairs, and it took a some work getting the walls ready.
For james, more built in stuff, but not attached. I think this stuff was in the kitchen, cause I can't find any marks on the floors in the other rooms. But it doesn't fit anywhere in the kitchen now, I don't know where it was, the cupboards were all redone in the 80's or something.
That's the main project, it's going in the dining-room I think.
2 other pieces. the big one fits on top of the hutch I'm stripping, but it won't fit up the stairs. It's got to go outside through the trap door I think. After the snow melts :)
Detail of the door, this is one of my favorite things. The glass in the middle is the one I fixed.
I like the inlay in the floors too. It's throughout the downstairs. and 2 rooms upstairs.
It's starting to sink in, that we own a house. crazy.
peace
dcoffee - 02/09/09 14:11
I think I should start posting links to homes for sale in South Buffalo as a public service. I've been browsing and it looks like there are still a bunch good bargains for sale.
I think I should start posting links to homes for sale in South Buffalo as a public service. I've been browsing and it looks like there are still a bunch good bargains for sale.
ladycroft - 02/09/09 12:49
your cats are cute, i love the ladder pic!
looks like super fun projects, enjoy - lovely house :)
your cats are cute, i love the ladder pic!
looks like super fun projects, enjoy - lovely house :)
leetee - 02/09/09 09:01
Congratulations once again. I am thrilled for you both. Thanks for sharing the pictures of your beautiful new home. :)
Congratulations once again. I am thrilled for you both. Thanks for sharing the pictures of your beautiful new home. :)
02/07/2009 10:29 #47666
Pictures from the HomeCategory: life
OK, finally some new pictures from AFTER we moved in. It's been a while I know. I have a bunch of stuff but they're mostly snapshots. Here's a few random views.
The livingroom. We got the vent-free gas logs for the fireplace. It's totally awesome. And efficient too. Not sure how much gas we saved, but it uses about a quarter of what the furnace does.
Kitchen stuff
Fixing the cut glass in the door. I love the front door, the glass was intact but a little wobbly, my father in law had the tools, but I ended up having the patience to solder it together.
One day i got the energy to go ahead and build a skateboard ramp in my basement. I had all the materials lying around. To my surprise I didn't forget my tricks, but I do seem to bruise a little easier.
They do this all the time. So cute.
a few more
The Foyer. Big pocket door on the left. I like the style of my house. The doors, it's kind of arts and crafts, Roycroft style.
Upstairs
This is a snapshot but it shows the front door, and the two kitties on the mat guarding the place.
The livingroom. We got the vent-free gas logs for the fireplace. It's totally awesome. And efficient too. Not sure how much gas we saved, but it uses about a quarter of what the furnace does.
Kitchen stuff
Fixing the cut glass in the door. I love the front door, the glass was intact but a little wobbly, my father in law had the tools, but I ended up having the patience to solder it together.
One day i got the energy to go ahead and build a skateboard ramp in my basement. I had all the materials lying around. To my surprise I didn't forget my tricks, but I do seem to bruise a little easier.
They do this all the time. So cute.
a few more
The Foyer. Big pocket door on the left. I like the style of my house. The doors, it's kind of arts and crafts, Roycroft style.
Upstairs
This is a snapshot but it shows the front door, and the two kitties on the mat guarding the place.
libertad - 02/09/09 13:42
I am so jealous of your house. Really I am just happy for your guys but definitely jealous about the gas logs. Those WERE supposed to be in my house but they are not and my house is freezing and I have a high gas bill. I love all the wood work especially the floors and your door. Maybe if I start saving now I could put a downpayment down on a house in like 10 years or so?
I am so jealous of your house. Really I am just happy for your guys but definitely jealous about the gas logs. Those WERE supposed to be in my house but they are not and my house is freezing and I have a high gas bill. I love all the wood work especially the floors and your door. Maybe if I start saving now I could put a downpayment down on a house in like 10 years or so?
dcoffee - 02/07/09 19:37
oh, and Paul, your house is totally amazing, by the way :) I know it took a lot of work though. The gas logs we put in the fireplace were also inspired by your gas heater :)
oh, and Paul, your house is totally amazing, by the way :) I know it took a lot of work though. The gas logs we put in the fireplace were also inspired by your gas heater :)
dcoffee - 02/07/09 19:32
Janelle, some of the woodwork is painted or removed in our house too, I'll have to post some pics of that. We saw some turquoise woodwork and all kinds of stuff while we were looking, at least yours is white :)
James there are a few more built-in pieces, but they are in the basement waiting to be refinished. They were in the kitchen though, we'll have to find a new spot.
Tiny, the kitchen does need a little help, but it's big, and it has the nook in the back with the window and a pantry. You should see the retro counter-top though. The door is beveled glass it has metal between the pieces which needed a little reinforcement.
Peter, yea, the cats keep us entertained, most of my pictures are of them :) glad you noted the ramp, it's fun, some of my friends do skate it. It's like my poor man's ski slope :)
Janelle, some of the woodwork is painted or removed in our house too, I'll have to post some pics of that. We saw some turquoise woodwork and all kinds of stuff while we were looking, at least yours is white :)
James there are a few more built-in pieces, but they are in the basement waiting to be refinished. They were in the kitchen though, we'll have to find a new spot.
Tiny, the kitchen does need a little help, but it's big, and it has the nook in the back with the window and a pantry. You should see the retro counter-top though. The door is beveled glass it has metal between the pieces which needed a little reinforcement.
Peter, yea, the cats keep us entertained, most of my pictures are of them :) glad you noted the ramp, it's fun, some of my friends do skate it. It's like my poor man's ski slope :)
paul - 02/07/09 19:03
Your house is amazing.
Your house is amazing.
metalpeter - 02/07/09 18:45
I forgot to mention it is awesome that you made a little skate ramp in the basement, I wonder if you will expand that some and invite people over to skate it.
I forgot to mention it is awesome that you made a little skate ramp in the basement, I wonder if you will expand that some and invite people over to skate it.
tinypliny - 02/07/09 18:21
Final comment but the kitchen is perfect! You have got this nice little corner in the kitchen for the breakfast table with the windows. Love it!
Final comment but the kitchen is perfect! You have got this nice little corner in the kitchen for the breakfast table with the windows. Love it!
tinypliny - 02/07/09 18:20
Oh and the arches! They are a cool little eccentric touch. The glass panel on the door is so pretty! Is it plated glass? How do you solder glass?
Oh and the arches! They are a cool little eccentric touch. The glass panel on the door is so pretty! Is it plated glass? How do you solder glass?
tinypliny - 02/07/09 18:18
The house is incredibly beautiful! Thanks for sharing the pictures! I love the woodwork as well. :)
The house is incredibly beautiful! Thanks for sharing the pictures! I love the woodwork as well. :)
metalpeter - 02/07/09 18:16
Wow lots of nice wood the place looks really great. Then your cats sure know how to pose. That one on the top of the chair is amazing and I love the one with them both on the ladder.
Wow lots of nice wood the place looks really great. Then your cats sure know how to pose. That one on the top of the chair is amazing and I love the one with them both on the ladder.
james - 02/07/09 13:59
I get so excited with built in furniture. Your home is beautiful. That living room is so cozy.
I get so excited with built in furniture. Your home is beautiful. That living room is so cozy.
janelle - 02/07/09 13:54
I just need to stop looking at pictures of your house because I am insanely jealous that the previous owners left the woodwork intact unlike the previous owners in our house who painted it white.
Beautiful, beautiful house. I hope you guys are very happy there!
I just need to stop looking at pictures of your house because I am insanely jealous that the previous owners left the woodwork intact unlike the previous owners in our house who painted it white.
Beautiful, beautiful house. I hope you guys are very happy there!
02/06/2009 14:53 #47661
Quick PoliticsCategory: 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.
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:::
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.
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.
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:::
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.
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.
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>
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:::
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:::
01/29/2009 11:31 #47556
Limbaugh is in ChargeCategory: 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"
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"
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.
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:::
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?
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.
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 15:25
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:::
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.
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.
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.
Vincent, I don't expect the market to get optimistic real soon. Actually, if the financial powers weren't feeling the pinch, I don't think we'd be changing anything. If those in power were insulated from the tragedy, they'd be free to do nothing.
Jason, you definitely help me improve my understanding. I love it. When I wrote, I did qualify my comments, by saying that SOME Republicans are most concerned about winning elections, and less concerned about doing what's best. And my resentment is focused at the Republican Party, not so much individual republicans. I know some have been fiscal conservatives all along, even through the big spending Bush years (though many voted with him). And I know that people can disagree, and still work together, IF! they don't have a hidden agenda. Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Libertarians, they can negotiate in good faith and agree. Happens all the time. Something about Washington makes that more difficult.
And I agree with you, Congress should have had at least 48 hours to look at the conference report, especially after it was unanimously agreed to in the house. I should have had 48 hours to look at it and bug my representatives. In fact I emailed Schumer and told him so at about 10:30 the day of the vote. I also want simpler bills in congress, less riders.
PS I voted for Chris Collins.
I have a question - what makes you think that only the Republicans that voted for the bill voted with their conscience? That means there is only one "conscionable" decision to make, which is for me the definition of ideological orthodoxy.
If I were them I'd have a little piss and vinegar in me too. I don't get to shape the bill, I don't get any hand in it whatsoever, I don't get to even read it, and yet I'm an asshole for raising a stink about things or voting against the dog shit bill? No! What they're being told is, Fuck You, vote for the bill anyway or you're being partisan. There is no logic in that whatsoever.
I'm not even against the Democrats strong arming a bill through. They earned that right, but what they want on top of that is to claim that, again, they aren't doing what they're actually doing. They want to act like hard asses and yet not be portrayed as hard asses, which is easy when you have fanboys like Frank Rich.
And NONE of this is Obama's fault, really, he's trying as much as he is capable, I know he is but he simply can't control the animals in Congress. I will give Obama credit that he did at least reach out a little bit. He comes out of this smelling like roses.
The thing that makes the Republicans look really bad, and you've touched on this already, is the perception that they are offering no alternative, the "party of no" like the Democrats used to be. But if your starting position in a negotiation (where there is actual give and take) is that you aren't going to listen to the person across from you, the negotiation is sort of a sham.
Lastly, here's the thing that really kills me - the idea that people who don't share values with, and would never vote for or support a Republican Party candidate expressing outrage that said Republicans didn't vote their way. I don't believe any Democrat when they smile and tell me Arlen Specter's a good man because that Democrat is going to turn right around and work as hard as they can to get a real liberal elected in his place, the instant they get the opportunity. I guess I don't see the outrage or the praise as authentic, but I could be wrong.
Well it looks like the markets are tanking on the very day that he is signing it into law. What does that say about the market's confidence???
Frank Rich Summs it up :::link::: "The G.O.P. doesn’t recognize that it emerged from the stimulus battle even worse off than when it started. That obliviousness gives the president the opening to win more ambitious policy victories than last week’s. Having checked the box on attempted bipartisanship, Obama can now move in for the kill... This G.O.P., a largely white Southern male party with talking points instead of ideas and talking heads instead of leaders, is not unlike those “zombie banks†that we’re being asked to bail out. It is in too much denial to acknowledge its own insolvency and toxic assets."