Maybe I'll comment more on this later, but reading this article makes things clear for me. Working class Republicans, or more specifically whites, have allowed themselves to be duped into voting against their own economic interests. I mean, come on! They're still planning tax-day protests against an administration and Congress that cut their taxes.
My only qualm is that Dean Baker says the healthcare bill that recently passed will eventually become unaffordable - though not because of government action. But the CBO estimates have the reform bill lowering the deficit over the next 10 years. So I'm confused about that. And, I guess I should also mention that I think he could've come up with a better example than "medical treatment on the world free market." But I definitely do agree with his point. So here goes Dean Baker ~ No1State:
Ending the Myth of ‘Market Fundamentalism’
Dean Baker
Dissent, Spring 2010
Showing posts with label the economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the economy. Show all posts
Monday, April 12, 2010
Monday, December 14, 2009
Most People Would Die for a Screening
Literally. And opponents say we can't have a public option because it would lead to healthcare rationing. Here's what you need to know. ~ No1KState
Poor Being Turned Away From Cancer Screenings
ALBANY, N.Y. (Dec. 13) -- As the economy falters and more people go without health insurance, low-income women in at least 20 states are being turned away or put on long waiting lists for free cancer screenings, according to the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network.
In the unofficial survey of programs for July 2008 through April 2009, the organization found that state budget strains are forcing some programs to reject people who would otherwise qualify for free mammograms and Pap smears. Just how many are turned away isn't known; in some cases, the women are screened through other programs or referred to different providers.
. . .
The Cancer Society doesn't have an estimate for what percentage of breast cancer diagnoses come from mammogram screenings, but says women have a 98 percent survival rate when breast cancer is caught early, during stage I. That shrinks to about 84 percent during stages II and III, and just 27 percent at stage IV - when cancer has reached its most advanced point.
"I already know there are women who are dying whose lives we could have saved with mammography and other detections," said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer for the society.
In New York, the Cancer Society says providers in Manhattan, Brooklyn and western Queens, and in Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties project they'll perform nearly 15,000 fewer free mammograms for the fiscal year ending April 2010, compared with the previous year.
The Cancer Society has no way to count how many women are being turned away, and many providers don't keep track of how many are denied screening, or whether those women find another alternative. The cost of screening varies, but the average mammogram is about $100, while a Pap screen can range between $75 and $200, according to the society.
Project Renewal Van Scan, which gives mammograms around New York City, usually targets 6,000 women a year but has cut back to 3,100 this year, director Mary Solomon said.
Each state handles free screenings differently. Some use state funds to supplement federal funding, while others get private assistance from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation and other groups.
At least 14 states cut budgets for free cancer screenings this year: Colorado, Montana, Illinois, Alabama, Minnesota, Connecticut, South Carolina, Utah, Missouri, Washington, Ohio, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Arkansas.
Some states that have cut their budgets have found ways to maintain services; some states that haven't reduced their budgets still find themselves having to turn women away because they don't have enough funding.
"This is rationing of health care by offering (screenings) only in the first half of the fiscal year, or by cutting back on those programs," Brawley said. "It's rationing that is leading to people dying."
New York, which has fought for two years with deficits in the billions, used to screen women of all ages for breast cancer, but after $3.5 million in budget cuts this year, women under 50 - like LaBarge - are no longer eligible unless they have the breast cancer gene or a serious family cancer history. Despite [one patient]'s family history, she was denied screening because of her age and a lack of funding.
. . .
In 2009, the Cancer Society estimates, 34,600 women between 40 and 49 will be found to have breast cancer nationwide; in that age group, 4,300 breast cancer deaths are projected this year.
. . .
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that since 1991, the free screening program has provided more than 8 million exams to more than 3.4 million women, detecting more than 39,000 breast cancers, 2,400 invasive cervical cancers and 126,000 pre-malignant cervical lesions.
Poor Being Turned Away From Cancer Screenings
ALBANY, N.Y. (Dec. 13) -- As the economy falters and more people go without health insurance, low-income women in at least 20 states are being turned away or put on long waiting lists for free cancer screenings, according to the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network.
In the unofficial survey of programs for July 2008 through April 2009, the organization found that state budget strains are forcing some programs to reject people who would otherwise qualify for free mammograms and Pap smears. Just how many are turned away isn't known; in some cases, the women are screened through other programs or referred to different providers.
. . .
The Cancer Society doesn't have an estimate for what percentage of breast cancer diagnoses come from mammogram screenings, but says women have a 98 percent survival rate when breast cancer is caught early, during stage I. That shrinks to about 84 percent during stages II and III, and just 27 percent at stage IV - when cancer has reached its most advanced point.
"I already know there are women who are dying whose lives we could have saved with mammography and other detections," said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer for the society.
In New York, the Cancer Society says providers in Manhattan, Brooklyn and western Queens, and in Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties project they'll perform nearly 15,000 fewer free mammograms for the fiscal year ending April 2010, compared with the previous year.
The Cancer Society has no way to count how many women are being turned away, and many providers don't keep track of how many are denied screening, or whether those women find another alternative. The cost of screening varies, but the average mammogram is about $100, while a Pap screen can range between $75 and $200, according to the society.
Project Renewal Van Scan, which gives mammograms around New York City, usually targets 6,000 women a year but has cut back to 3,100 this year, director Mary Solomon said.
Each state handles free screenings differently. Some use state funds to supplement federal funding, while others get private assistance from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation and other groups.
At least 14 states cut budgets for free cancer screenings this year: Colorado, Montana, Illinois, Alabama, Minnesota, Connecticut, South Carolina, Utah, Missouri, Washington, Ohio, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Arkansas.
Some states that have cut their budgets have found ways to maintain services; some states that haven't reduced their budgets still find themselves having to turn women away because they don't have enough funding.
"This is rationing of health care by offering (screenings) only in the first half of the fiscal year, or by cutting back on those programs," Brawley said. "It's rationing that is leading to people dying."
New York, which has fought for two years with deficits in the billions, used to screen women of all ages for breast cancer, but after $3.5 million in budget cuts this year, women under 50 - like LaBarge - are no longer eligible unless they have the breast cancer gene or a serious family cancer history. Despite [one patient]'s family history, she was denied screening because of her age and a lack of funding.
. . .
In 2009, the Cancer Society estimates, 34,600 women between 40 and 49 will be found to have breast cancer nationwide; in that age group, 4,300 breast cancer deaths are projected this year.
. . .
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that since 1991, the free screening program has provided more than 8 million exams to more than 3.4 million women, detecting more than 39,000 breast cancers, 2,400 invasive cervical cancers and 126,000 pre-malignant cervical lesions.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Last of the Dumasses
I'm sure you know the saying: those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it.
And quite possibly, you're aware of how ridiculously stupid/ignorant/unlearned Americans are. And I mean dumb as a box of rocks . . . apologies to all boxes of rocks.
I mean really. Do you really think that people from half way around the world "hate us for our freedom" enough to kill us? -> Which reminds me. I'm so glad these townhalls are over! If I had to hear another white person go all Cinque from Amistad, "Give us us free!" I was gonna pop! I mean seriously. Can you be more dumb and insensitive?
Again, dumb as a box of rocks . . . apologies to all boxes of rocks.
The lesson that should've been learned is that the US did not get out of the Great Depression until WWII forced us to the federal government to spend money like a scorned woman with her husband's credit card. Or, to be more gender neutral, like a cheating husband with his mistress.
Instead of cowaring to 'Pubs, congressional Democrats and the Obama administration need to put more people to work. If 'Pub governors like Jindal or Perry wish to keep their states in recession, so be it. Do the right thing, homies!!
The Truth About Jobs That No One Wants to Tell
If the feds don't spend money to put people back
to work, the economy won't recover and politics
will get uglier
By Robert Reich
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/02/unemployment/
Oct. 2, 2009
Unemployment will almost certainly be in double-digits next year -- and may remain there for some time. And for every person who shows up as unemployed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' household survey, you can bet there's another either too discouraged to look for work or working part time who'd rather have a full-time job or else taking home less pay than before (I'm in the last category, now that the University of California has instituted pay cuts). And there's yet another person who's more fearful that he or she will be next to lose a job.
In other words, 10 percent unemployment really means 20 percent underemployment or anxious employment. All of which translates directly into late payments on mortgages, credit cards, auto and student loans, and loss of health insurance. It also means sleeplessness for tens of millions of Americans. And, of course, fewer purchases (more on this in a moment).
Unemployment of this magnitude and duration also translates into ugly politics, because fear and anxiety are fertile grounds for demagogues wielding the politics of resentment against immigrants, blacks, the poor, government leaders, business leaders, Jews and other easy targets. It's already started. Next year is a mid-term election. Be prepared for worse.
So why is unemployment and underemployment so high, and why is it likely to remain high for some time? Because, as noted, people who are worried about their jobs or have no jobs, and who are also trying to get out from under a pile of debt, are not going to do a lot of shopping. And businesses that don't have customers aren't going to do a lot of new investing. And foreign nations also suffering high unemployment aren't going to buy a lot of our goods and services.
And without customers, companies won't hire. They'll cut payrolls instead.
Which brings us to the obvious question: Who's going to buy the stuff we make or the services we provide, and therefore bring jobs back? There's only one buyer left: The government.
Let me say this as clearly and forcefully as I can: The federal government should be spending even more than it already is on roads and bridges and schools and parks and everything else we need. It should make up for cutbacks at the state level, and then some. This is the only way to put Americans back to work. We did it during the Depression. It was called the WPA.
Yes, I know. Our government is already deep in debt. But let me tell you something: When one out of six Americans is unemployed or underemployed, this is no time to worry about the debt.
When I was a small boy my father told me that I and my kids and my grand-kids would be paying down the debt created by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Depression and World War II. I didn't even know what a debt was, but it kept me up at night.
My father was right about a lot of things, but he was wrong about this. America paid down FDR's debt in the 1950s, when Americans went back to work, when the economy was growing again, and when our incomes grew, too. We paid taxes, and in a few years that FDR debt had shrunk to almost nothing.
You see? The most important thing right now is getting the jobs back, and getting the economy growing again.
People who now obsess about government debt have it backwards. The problem isn't the debt. The problem is just the opposite. It's that at a time like this, when consumers and businesses and exports can't do it, government has to spend more to get Americans back to work and recharge the economy. Then - after people are working and the economy is growing -- we can pay down that debt.
But if government doesn't spend more right now and get Americans back to work, we could be out of work for years. And the debt will be with us even longer. And politics could get much uglier.
Update: This morning's job numbers are bad enough -- 263,000 more jobs lost in September, and unemployment now at 9.8 percent -- but look behind them and the news is even grimmer. The only reason the numbers don't look worse is that 571,000 workers dropped out of the labor force. Remember, too, that the economy needs about 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with a growing population. So we're even further behind.
The numbers would be even worse but for the stimulus package. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, the stimulus is saving or creating between 200,000 and 250,000 jobs a month. Without it, job losses in September would have been nearly twice what they actually were.
State governments, meanwhile, continue to shed employees. Here's one of the most depressing statistics I've seen (if you need any additional ones): Some 15,600 teachers didn't return to work in September. They were laid off. So our classrooms are bigger, we have fewer teachers, and our students are presumably learning less -- at the very time when they need to be learning more than ever.
And quite possibly, you're aware of how ridiculously stupid/ignorant/unlearned Americans are. And I mean dumb as a box of rocks . . . apologies to all boxes of rocks.
I mean really. Do you really think that people from half way around the world "hate us for our freedom" enough to kill us? -> Which reminds me. I'm so glad these townhalls are over! If I had to hear another white person go all Cinque from Amistad, "Give us us free!" I was gonna pop! I mean seriously. Can you be more dumb and insensitive?
Again, dumb as a box of rocks . . . apologies to all boxes of rocks.
The lesson that should've been learned is that the US did not get out of the Great Depression until WWII forced us to the federal government to spend money like a scorned woman with her husband's credit card. Or, to be more gender neutral, like a cheating husband with his mistress.
Instead of cowaring to 'Pubs, congressional Democrats and the Obama administration need to put more people to work. If 'Pub governors like Jindal or Perry wish to keep their states in recession, so be it. Do the right thing, homies!!
The Truth About Jobs That No One Wants to Tell
If the feds don't spend money to put people back
to work, the economy won't recover and politics
will get uglier
By Robert Reich
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/02/unemployment/
Oct. 2, 2009
Unemployment will almost certainly be in double-digits next year -- and may remain there for some time. And for every person who shows up as unemployed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' household survey, you can bet there's another either too discouraged to look for work or working part time who'd rather have a full-time job or else taking home less pay than before (I'm in the last category, now that the University of California has instituted pay cuts). And there's yet another person who's more fearful that he or she will be next to lose a job.
In other words, 10 percent unemployment really means 20 percent underemployment or anxious employment. All of which translates directly into late payments on mortgages, credit cards, auto and student loans, and loss of health insurance. It also means sleeplessness for tens of millions of Americans. And, of course, fewer purchases (more on this in a moment).
Unemployment of this magnitude and duration also translates into ugly politics, because fear and anxiety are fertile grounds for demagogues wielding the politics of resentment against immigrants, blacks, the poor, government leaders, business leaders, Jews and other easy targets. It's already started. Next year is a mid-term election. Be prepared for worse.
So why is unemployment and underemployment so high, and why is it likely to remain high for some time? Because, as noted, people who are worried about their jobs or have no jobs, and who are also trying to get out from under a pile of debt, are not going to do a lot of shopping. And businesses that don't have customers aren't going to do a lot of new investing. And foreign nations also suffering high unemployment aren't going to buy a lot of our goods and services.
And without customers, companies won't hire. They'll cut payrolls instead.
Which brings us to the obvious question: Who's going to buy the stuff we make or the services we provide, and therefore bring jobs back? There's only one buyer left: The government.
Let me say this as clearly and forcefully as I can: The federal government should be spending even more than it already is on roads and bridges and schools and parks and everything else we need. It should make up for cutbacks at the state level, and then some. This is the only way to put Americans back to work. We did it during the Depression. It was called the WPA.
Yes, I know. Our government is already deep in debt. But let me tell you something: When one out of six Americans is unemployed or underemployed, this is no time to worry about the debt.
When I was a small boy my father told me that I and my kids and my grand-kids would be paying down the debt created by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Depression and World War II. I didn't even know what a debt was, but it kept me up at night.
My father was right about a lot of things, but he was wrong about this. America paid down FDR's debt in the 1950s, when Americans went back to work, when the economy was growing again, and when our incomes grew, too. We paid taxes, and in a few years that FDR debt had shrunk to almost nothing.
You see? The most important thing right now is getting the jobs back, and getting the economy growing again.
People who now obsess about government debt have it backwards. The problem isn't the debt. The problem is just the opposite. It's that at a time like this, when consumers and businesses and exports can't do it, government has to spend more to get Americans back to work and recharge the economy. Then - after people are working and the economy is growing -- we can pay down that debt.
But if government doesn't spend more right now and get Americans back to work, we could be out of work for years. And the debt will be with us even longer. And politics could get much uglier.
Update: This morning's job numbers are bad enough -- 263,000 more jobs lost in September, and unemployment now at 9.8 percent -- but look behind them and the news is even grimmer. The only reason the numbers don't look worse is that 571,000 workers dropped out of the labor force. Remember, too, that the economy needs about 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with a growing population. So we're even further behind.
The numbers would be even worse but for the stimulus package. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, the stimulus is saving or creating between 200,000 and 250,000 jobs a month. Without it, job losses in September would have been nearly twice what they actually were.
State governments, meanwhile, continue to shed employees. Here's one of the most depressing statistics I've seen (if you need any additional ones): Some 15,600 teachers didn't return to work in September. They were laid off. So our classrooms are bigger, we have fewer teachers, and our students are presumably learning less -- at the very time when they need to be learning more than ever.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Completely Unacceptable
Reading this op-ed by Bob Herbert, I knew I had to go ahead and create a new post.
h/t Prometheus6
Here's just part of Herbert's "Far from Over":
h/t Prometheus6
Here's just part of Herbert's "Far from Over":
I'm kinda tired now so just leave your thoughts and I'll respond later.For black children, you don’t want to know. But I’ll tell you anyway. The poverty rate for black kids was 34.5 percent in 2007. If the national unemployment rate rises, as expected, to the vicinity of 10 percent next year, the poverty rate for black children would rise to 50 percent or higher, analysts at the institute believe.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Apparently, They Can, Too
Um, yeah. Nine Republican representatives from Florida and joining 9 Democrat reps in asking for stimulus cash. Even though they voted against it, remember? What is this? The Twilight Zone?
Nine Fla. Republicans want stim cash
They voted no, but they want the dough.
We're getting into broken record territory here on Republicans clamoring for stimulus money.
Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash.
“This critical funding is vital to protecting our schools from budget cuts and teacher layoffs. Because Florida has been hit especially hard by a rise in foreclosures, unemployment, and recent natural disasters, we are experiencing a crippling budget crisis. Now more than ever, we must invest in our state’s future,” said the letter.
The Republican co-signers: Adam Putnam, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Tom Rooney, Mario Diaz-Balart, Ginny Brown-Waite, Cliff Stearns, John Mica and Bill Posey.
The Dems: Suzanne Kosmas, Ron Klein, Alcee Hastings, Robert Wexler, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Kathy Castor, Kendrick Meek, Alan Grayson and Corrine Brown.
Nine Fla. Republicans want stim cash
They voted no, but they want the dough.
We're getting into broken record territory here on Republicans clamoring for stimulus money.
Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash.
“This critical funding is vital to protecting our schools from budget cuts and teacher layoffs. Because Florida has been hit especially hard by a rise in foreclosures, unemployment, and recent natural disasters, we are experiencing a crippling budget crisis. Now more than ever, we must invest in our state’s future,” said the letter.
The Republican co-signers: Adam Putnam, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Tom Rooney, Mario Diaz-Balart, Ginny Brown-Waite, Cliff Stearns, John Mica and Bill Posey.
The Dems: Suzanne Kosmas, Ron Klein, Alcee Hastings, Robert Wexler, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Kathy Castor, Kendrick Meek, Alan Grayson and Corrine Brown.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Money, Money, Money and Race (Updated) (Again)
Update (2/15): It occurs to me that the tax cuts, while massive, are targeted to the working/middle class. So, it's no wonder the Republicans voted against it, and I am not being ironic.
Update: h/t to lamh32, Jack and Jill commenter:
Right now, I'm absolutely enthralled by this economic crisis. Now, of course, I can talk about race in this context. How people of color were more likely to received sub-prime loans, even if they qualified for prime or didn't qualify for anything at all. How people of color will end up being the hardest hit. How we have our first African American president, and if he doesn't do this right, the lily-white Republican party, and I'm including Michael Steele in the lily-white description, is going to hang this on his head. They'll do a worse job than he's doing and the crisis will last that much longer.
But, I'm enthralled by the politics and economics of the situation. I'm even reading Paul Krugman's book The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008; and after his unreasonable bashing of President Obama during the primary and the general elections, I really wasn't a big fan.
But, the general economic argument is that the recovery plan was not nearly enough. Nowhere close. Being that I didn't even take econ 101 in college, I didn't really wanna step on the toes of conservative economists. But when even someone from the stupidly conservative American Enterprise Institute is saying, “I think they know how big it is, but they don’t want to say how big it is. It’s so big they can’t acknowledge it. The lesson from Japan in the 1990s was that they should have stepped up and nationalized the banks,” you know the proverbial sky is falling.
Now I'm convinced that this most recent attempt to stimulate the economy won't turn things around. The (re)calcitrant congressional Republicans will try to argue that the package was too big and had too much spending. And some people, because they're not seeing the big results they expected, may buy into the conservatives' arguments.
However, the reason things won't turn as much as people hope is that we're not spending enough money.
What convinced me? It wasn't this op-ed by Paul Krugman, which you should read; it was this article by Hiroko Tabuchi titled, "In Japan’s Stagnant Decade, Cautionary Tales for America."
So. Understand. The package isn't enough and everyone's afraid to do what needs to be done. Kinda like with an addict - sometimes we wait too long for the intervention.
And now that I've given you the economic side of the situation, let me rant about the politics. Even though it's clear that congressional Republicans are just playing pure politics; they don't care anything about the economy or American citizens; and, they only care about regaining the power they've lost; they still weld too much influence on our economic policy. Part of the reason the Obama administration isn't doing enough is because they don't wanna lose fiscal conservatives, both Republican and Democrat. But the fiscal conservatives will land the entire country in the poor house if we listen to them!
Even Republican governors, with perhaps the exception of Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, both of whom are prospective candidates for the 2012 presidential elections, are on board. I mean, you did say Florida's governor Charlie Crist hugging up on Pres Obama at the town hall in Ft. Myers, Fl? The states are suffering budget deficits. They need federal money and lots of it to balance their budgets. Money that'll save the jobs of teachers, bus drivers, police and firemen. Money that'll keep people from getting sick or becoming sicker. You can look at state and local balance sheets and see that the $800 billion ain't enough. Even for state and local Republicans. But the Republicans in Congress wanna act like they can't add.
But the past 25+ years have convinced me that really can't add.
And the odd thing is that we have history to guide us, right? Japan's lost decade and our own Great Depression. But conservatives in general and Republicans in particular have decided to re-write history. They have tried to blame the Great Depression on FDR. Even though the unemployment numbers show what FDR was doing was helping and things were turning around until FDR started doing what fiscal conservatives wanted, they blame him for continuing the Depression. And they're arguing the Japan's attempts to stimulate its economy were wastes of money even while numbers bear out that Japan lost a decade because they didn't do enough soon enough! So now, in order to do something without incurring a public backlash, the Obama administration can't do enough. And the thing is, now is the time when he can do what needs to be done. Politically, he can force the senate Republicans to filibuster and push through a plan of the size and scope that will accomplish what the country needs. The Democrats have the numbers. And the time. The next election isn't for almost 2 years. That's enough time for the voters to see the positive effects of what's happening and keep the Democrats in power. Economically, waiting will only make things worse. So, I don't get why the Obama administration is being so timid.
I got it! Think of the situation as taking antibiotics for a bacterial infection. Bronchitis or sinusitis or something. You've had some sort of bacterial infection in your life, right? The doctor gave you antibiotics and told you to take the whole prescription as it's prescribed even if you start feeling better, right? The prescription is for about a month. But if you don't take all that medicine within that month, you end up having take even more medicine later. I know from my own 2 or 4 or more sinus infections. The economy is the same way. Spend all the money you need at the beginning, cause if you don't, you end up spending more money later. I mean, check out this article predicting the Bush tax cut stimulus attempt wouldn't be enough and we'd have to spend more money later, which we're doing now.
For goodness sakes congressional Republicans, read something other than townhall.com and listen to somebody besides a fat, racist, insensitive, ig'nant drug addict!
One issue making Pres. Obama so timid in face of the crisis is that he has way too many people connected to corporate America, former bankers and lobbyists for banks, in his administration. And the bankers wanna keep the power and money they have. So essentially, part of the reason we can't manage to do what we need to is the selfishness of the big bankers and CEOs and the mean-spirited greed for power and the Republicans. The irony is it's precisely the selfishness of the big bankers, CEOs and the Republicans that we're in this mess. The bankers screwed around with people's money and lives. The Republicans gave major tax cuts to people who didn't need them and turned a record budget surplus into a record budget deficit.
But here's the most ironic thing of all. And it has to do with race. During the Great Depression, the South was solidly Democratic. Remember, due to racism, voters in the South were 99.9% white. They had run out socially liberal Republicans who were for politically empowering blacks during the Counter-Reconstruction after the Civil War. By the time of the Great Depression, the national Republican party was lily white and full of robber barons. People who wanted low taxes and no regulation - things that got us in our present mess, remember. But now, since the Democratic party has become socially liberal and all the civil rights victories of the 60s and 70s are attributed to Democrats, whites in the South have turned to the Republicans.
To make it clear, what I'm pointing out that if it weren't for their anti-anybody else feelings, Southern whites would overwhelmingly be supporting the Democratic party. Now, it is widely known that the South is anti-union, anti-labor. Which is odd given the poverty in the South that effects whites and blacks alike. But I digress. The reason the South is anti-union isn't that they actually believe the only way to create and preserve jobs is to empower business people to the detriment of workers. Remember, while poor whites had the benefits of their white skin in relation to blacks, wealthy whites were screwing over everybody. The majority of whites in the South would not side with business men when it came to the economy. However, they would side with whites against blacks when it came to any issue. So, the reason the South is anti-union is because white workers didn't want to band with black workers even for their own economic improvement.
Now, we have whites in the South voting against their own economic interests under the banner of "legitimate social issues," or rather, latent racism. They are the ones giving political power to a party they wouldn't have supported during the Great Depression.
Did you follow that? If voting habits were the same today as during the 20s and 30s, Republicans wouldn't have the little bit of power they have today. And the reason voting patterns changed wasn't a ideological conversion; it was racism, pure and simple. Don't get me wrong, white Southern Republicans may have convinced themselves that fiscal conservatism is the way to go, but it's only to justify their racist voting. Remember I said in a previous post that wealthy whites would screw over poor whites if it meant more money for them. And they get away with it by blaming people of color. Take Rush Limbaugh for example. Get it?
Okay. So. If the voting habits were the same today as they were during the Great Depression, and the people had an incentive to actually learn from history instead of re-writing it, we would actually spend the $2.3 trillion we need. But instead, the Republican bases which is increasingly white, male, and Southern, have an incentive to act stupid because they're still voting against the Democrats who they blame for supporting civil rights. Their racism is the main cause behind their "socially conservative" votes that empower people who don't care about them. They so concerned about race, they're voting for people who're more concerned about money. And not their money.
Update: h/t to lamh32, Jack and Jill commenter:
According to [Republican Senator David] Vitter, the GOP is basically betting the farm that the stimulus package is going to fail, and the party wants Democrats to go down with it. "Our next goal is to make President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress own it completely," he said. Instead of coming up with serious measures to save the economy, the party intends to devote its time to an "we told you so" agenda that will include GOP-only hearings on the bill's impact in the coming months to highlight the bill's purportedly wasteful elements and shortcomings.Update: h/t to djchefron, a commenter on Jack and Jill Politics for this The Washington Monthly article pointing out that the Republicans just voted for the Biggest. Tax cut. Ever. This article just shows that congressional Republicans are only interested in being obstructionists. They're not standing on principles at all.
Right now, I'm absolutely enthralled by this economic crisis. Now, of course, I can talk about race in this context. How people of color were more likely to received sub-prime loans, even if they qualified for prime or didn't qualify for anything at all. How people of color will end up being the hardest hit. How we have our first African American president, and if he doesn't do this right, the lily-white Republican party, and I'm including Michael Steele in the lily-white description, is going to hang this on his head. They'll do a worse job than he's doing and the crisis will last that much longer.
But, I'm enthralled by the politics and economics of the situation. I'm even reading Paul Krugman's book The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008; and after his unreasonable bashing of President Obama during the primary and the general elections, I really wasn't a big fan.
But, the general economic argument is that the recovery plan was not nearly enough. Nowhere close. Being that I didn't even take econ 101 in college, I didn't really wanna step on the toes of conservative economists. But when even someone from the stupidly conservative American Enterprise Institute is saying, “I think they know how big it is, but they don’t want to say how big it is. It’s so big they can’t acknowledge it. The lesson from Japan in the 1990s was that they should have stepped up and nationalized the banks,” you know the proverbial sky is falling.
Now I'm convinced that this most recent attempt to stimulate the economy won't turn things around. The (re)calcitrant congressional Republicans will try to argue that the package was too big and had too much spending. And some people, because they're not seeing the big results they expected, may buy into the conservatives' arguments.
However, the reason things won't turn as much as people hope is that we're not spending enough money.
What convinced me? It wasn't this op-ed by Paul Krugman, which you should read; it was this article by Hiroko Tabuchi titled, "In Japan’s Stagnant Decade, Cautionary Tales for America."
So. Understand. The package isn't enough and everyone's afraid to do what needs to be done. Kinda like with an addict - sometimes we wait too long for the intervention.
And now that I've given you the economic side of the situation, let me rant about the politics. Even though it's clear that congressional Republicans are just playing pure politics; they don't care anything about the economy or American citizens; and, they only care about regaining the power they've lost; they still weld too much influence on our economic policy. Part of the reason the Obama administration isn't doing enough is because they don't wanna lose fiscal conservatives, both Republican and Democrat. But the fiscal conservatives will land the entire country in the poor house if we listen to them!
Even Republican governors, with perhaps the exception of Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, both of whom are prospective candidates for the 2012 presidential elections, are on board. I mean, you did say Florida's governor Charlie Crist hugging up on Pres Obama at the town hall in Ft. Myers, Fl? The states are suffering budget deficits. They need federal money and lots of it to balance their budgets. Money that'll save the jobs of teachers, bus drivers, police and firemen. Money that'll keep people from getting sick or becoming sicker. You can look at state and local balance sheets and see that the $800 billion ain't enough. Even for state and local Republicans. But the Republicans in Congress wanna act like they can't add.
But the past 25+ years have convinced me that really can't add.
And the odd thing is that we have history to guide us, right? Japan's lost decade and our own Great Depression. But conservatives in general and Republicans in particular have decided to re-write history. They have tried to blame the Great Depression on FDR. Even though the unemployment numbers show what FDR was doing was helping and things were turning around until FDR started doing what fiscal conservatives wanted, they blame him for continuing the Depression. And they're arguing the Japan's attempts to stimulate its economy were wastes of money even while numbers bear out that Japan lost a decade because they didn't do enough soon enough! So now, in order to do something without incurring a public backlash, the Obama administration can't do enough. And the thing is, now is the time when he can do what needs to be done. Politically, he can force the senate Republicans to filibuster and push through a plan of the size and scope that will accomplish what the country needs. The Democrats have the numbers. And the time. The next election isn't for almost 2 years. That's enough time for the voters to see the positive effects of what's happening and keep the Democrats in power. Economically, waiting will only make things worse. So, I don't get why the Obama administration is being so timid.
I got it! Think of the situation as taking antibiotics for a bacterial infection. Bronchitis or sinusitis or something. You've had some sort of bacterial infection in your life, right? The doctor gave you antibiotics and told you to take the whole prescription as it's prescribed even if you start feeling better, right? The prescription is for about a month. But if you don't take all that medicine within that month, you end up having take even more medicine later. I know from my own 2 or 4 or more sinus infections. The economy is the same way. Spend all the money you need at the beginning, cause if you don't, you end up spending more money later. I mean, check out this article predicting the Bush tax cut stimulus attempt wouldn't be enough and we'd have to spend more money later, which we're doing now.
For goodness sakes congressional Republicans, read something other than townhall.com and listen to somebody besides a fat, racist, insensitive, ig'nant drug addict!
One issue making Pres. Obama so timid in face of the crisis is that he has way too many people connected to corporate America, former bankers and lobbyists for banks, in his administration. And the bankers wanna keep the power and money they have. So essentially, part of the reason we can't manage to do what we need to is the selfishness of the big bankers and CEOs and the mean-spirited greed for power and the Republicans. The irony is it's precisely the selfishness of the big bankers, CEOs and the Republicans that we're in this mess. The bankers screwed around with people's money and lives. The Republicans gave major tax cuts to people who didn't need them and turned a record budget surplus into a record budget deficit.
But here's the most ironic thing of all. And it has to do with race. During the Great Depression, the South was solidly Democratic. Remember, due to racism, voters in the South were 99.9% white. They had run out socially liberal Republicans who were for politically empowering blacks during the Counter-Reconstruction after the Civil War. By the time of the Great Depression, the national Republican party was lily white and full of robber barons. People who wanted low taxes and no regulation - things that got us in our present mess, remember. But now, since the Democratic party has become socially liberal and all the civil rights victories of the 60s and 70s are attributed to Democrats, whites in the South have turned to the Republicans.
To make it clear, what I'm pointing out that if it weren't for their anti-anybody else feelings, Southern whites would overwhelmingly be supporting the Democratic party. Now, it is widely known that the South is anti-union, anti-labor. Which is odd given the poverty in the South that effects whites and blacks alike. But I digress. The reason the South is anti-union isn't that they actually believe the only way to create and preserve jobs is to empower business people to the detriment of workers. Remember, while poor whites had the benefits of their white skin in relation to blacks, wealthy whites were screwing over everybody. The majority of whites in the South would not side with business men when it came to the economy. However, they would side with whites against blacks when it came to any issue. So, the reason the South is anti-union is because white workers didn't want to band with black workers even for their own economic improvement.
Now, we have whites in the South voting against their own economic interests under the banner of "legitimate social issues," or rather, latent racism. They are the ones giving political power to a party they wouldn't have supported during the Great Depression.
Did you follow that? If voting habits were the same today as during the 20s and 30s, Republicans wouldn't have the little bit of power they have today. And the reason voting patterns changed wasn't a ideological conversion; it was racism, pure and simple. Don't get me wrong, white Southern Republicans may have convinced themselves that fiscal conservatism is the way to go, but it's only to justify their racist voting. Remember I said in a previous post that wealthy whites would screw over poor whites if it meant more money for them. And they get away with it by blaming people of color. Take Rush Limbaugh for example. Get it?
Okay. So. If the voting habits were the same today as they were during the Great Depression, and the people had an incentive to actually learn from history instead of re-writing it, we would actually spend the $2.3 trillion we need. But instead, the Republican bases which is increasingly white, male, and Southern, have an incentive to act stupid because they're still voting against the Democrats who they blame for supporting civil rights. Their racism is the main cause behind their "socially conservative" votes that empower people who don't care about them. They so concerned about race, they're voting for people who're more concerned about money. And not their money.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Lord, the Lies! - CBO Report & Other News
I was reading through the comments session of a blog in The Nation by John Nichols, "Obama: 'Send Me A Bill That Creates or Saves 4 Million Jobs'," when I came across this comment:
I can't let it go. A number of things are wrong. First, the reason Japan lost a decade is because they never did enough. All their tries at a stimulus plan were too small. Or, at least I think that's what the president or the economic advisor to the vice president said. Something like that.
Okay, so anyway, I read the most recent CBO report, an "analysis is based on an average of the effects of two versions of H.R. 1—as passed by the House and as passed by the Senate. (The economic effects of those two bills are broadly similar.)" (pdf). The closest thing it says that resembles what Republicans are apparently saying about it is this:
You should read the rest of the CBO report for yourself. To my understanding, the stimulus plans would have a positive short-term impact. In the long run, the economy will even out. They expect no negative growth, just a decline in wages. I'm not happy about the potential for a decline in wages, but anything we can do right now to boost the economy might be worth it. I'm not an economist or anything, but a decline in wages seems reasonable if we have more people working, you know?
Now, to other news. It was Smart Pants's birthday today, so I called her. As soon as I said, "Hey!" she told me it was her birthday. She had cake and pizza. I asked if it was fun. Answer, "Yes." Lauren and Jamie already bought her tricycle - I may have spilled the beans about that before my aunt and uncle actually gave Smart Pants the tricycle, though. And Lauren ordered the cake from overseas. As she explained to me, she couldn't help it.
Things are okay for Lauren and Dee for now. She told me it was like her regular training, but that other people on the bases were warning that things would get worse as soon as the weather got warmer. Which seems about right if I remember correctly from past summers. I can't lie. Right now, I'm kinda scared for my cousin. Sadly enough, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Pres. Obama had a genius plan for getting us out of Afghanistan.
I can't imagine how other military families deal with this. This is just my cousin who's been living in the Northeast for the past 4 or 5 years. She's only been here to visit every year or so, and there were some visits when I didn't get a chance to see her. And yet, the next 11 months can't go by fast enough.
Even "more better"...ask BO how all their massive government spending helped end Japan's 1990s recession...(hint: it's a trick question)
And then ask why he continues to promote this massive spending when his own CBO believes we'll be out of this recession by the 2nd half of 2009 if we do NOTHING...and ths bill will make our economy WORSE in the long run...
I can't let it go. A number of things are wrong. First, the reason Japan lost a decade is because they never did enough. All their tries at a stimulus plan were too small. Or, at least I think that's what the president or the economic advisor to the vice president said. Something like that.
Okay, so anyway, I read the most recent CBO report, an "analysis is based on an average of the effects of two versions of H.R. 1—as passed by the House and as passed by the Senate. (The economic effects of those two bills are broadly similar.)" (pdf). The closest thing it says that resembles what Republicans are apparently saying about it is this:
In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals. The principal channel for this effect is that the legislation would result in an increase in government debt.Yeah. Slightly. And correct me if I'm wrong, but won't a plan full of tax cuts do the same? And the report does not say that we'll be better of doing nothing. In fact, if I'm reading correctly, and I'd like to think that I am, in every year, the worst expectations of the plan is better than doing nothing.
You should read the rest of the CBO report for yourself. To my understanding, the stimulus plans would have a positive short-term impact. In the long run, the economy will even out. They expect no negative growth, just a decline in wages. I'm not happy about the potential for a decline in wages, but anything we can do right now to boost the economy might be worth it. I'm not an economist or anything, but a decline in wages seems reasonable if we have more people working, you know?
Now, to other news. It was Smart Pants's birthday today, so I called her. As soon as I said, "Hey!" she told me it was her birthday. She had cake and pizza. I asked if it was fun. Answer, "Yes." Lauren and Jamie already bought her tricycle - I may have spilled the beans about that before my aunt and uncle actually gave Smart Pants the tricycle, though. And Lauren ordered the cake from overseas. As she explained to me, she couldn't help it.
Things are okay for Lauren and Dee for now. She told me it was like her regular training, but that other people on the bases were warning that things would get worse as soon as the weather got warmer. Which seems about right if I remember correctly from past summers. I can't lie. Right now, I'm kinda scared for my cousin. Sadly enough, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Pres. Obama had a genius plan for getting us out of Afghanistan.
I can't imagine how other military families deal with this. This is just my cousin who's been living in the Northeast for the past 4 or 5 years. She's only been here to visit every year or so, and there were some visits when I didn't get a chance to see her. And yet, the next 11 months can't go by fast enough.
Stimulus "Deal"
An agreement was reached. I don't think the $789 billion is nearly enough. I may have more thoughts later.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
President Barack Obama News Conference on the Recovery Plan (aka Stimulus Package)
I think he did a great job. What did you think?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Oh, Wow! Please, Read and Discuss
I can across this article in my inbox via Portside. It's practically a gift-wrapped blog post for me! It discusses the economic stimulus and its racial implications.
But, before I paste it, I would like to mention another issue attached to the stimulus: the future. Watching CNN, a saw a few comments concerning the stimulus plan. (You know, CNN twitters now.) A couple of them were by guys in their mid20s complaining of the tax implications for them in the future. One surmised we'd be experiencing another recession 20 years from now due to the spending in today's package.
Now, I thought of a couple of responses to these assertions. First off was how incredibly selfish these two and anyone like them are to whine and complain about their future taxes when people are hurting right now. The second one is more for those who profess to be Christians. I wanted to remind them Jesus teaches us not to worry about tomorrow as today has enough problems of its own. But then, as I was writing this, it suddenly occured to me how illogical the arguments were. Are the mistakes of one generation paid by their children? Yes. But a recession due to taxes? I'm not sure that's ever happened so I really doubt it ever will.
But, yes, tomorrow's generation will pay for what we do or don't do today. I think it's best if we do something. Don't you? Cause seriously. If we don't get a handle on the situation, those of us in our mid20s may not have incomes to pay taxes on 20 years from now.
Selfish bastards.
So anyway, here an article by Dean Baker.
_________
Spending Versus Tax Cuts: Who Pays the Cost of Political
Compromise?
BY DEAN BAKER
Center for Economic and Policy Research
January 2009
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/2009-01-Spending-Vs-Tax-Cuts.pdf
President Obama and the Democratic leadership will
undoubtedly have to make some political compromises in
order to get a stimulus package through Congress.
However, it is important to keep in mind that there will
be real costs associated with these compromises insofar
as they result in a less effective stimulus package. A
less effective package will mean less economic growth,
which will, in turn, mean that fewer people will have
jobs.
This paper calculates how the costs of a less effective
stimulus package will be borne. Relying on estimates of
the multipliers from various spending and tax measures
from Moody's Economy.com, this paper projects the impact
on overall job growth and employment, as well as on job
growth and employment for African Americans and
Hispanics, of political compromises that lead to less
effective stimulus.
Table 1 below [moderator: please go to original article
to view tables] compares the projected impact of
spending increases to a temporary rebate of the payroll
tax or to a cut in corporate taxes. The assumed
multiplier for spending increases is 1.5, which is
approximately the average multiplier for the various
types of spending from Moody's Economy.com. The
multiplier for a payroll tax holiday was estimated as
1.29. The multiplier for cuts in corporate tax cuts used
in the table is 0.3. This is the estimated multiplier
for a cut in corporate income tax rates. This figure
might be a reasonable approximation for some of the
corporate tax cuts that the administration is reportedly
considering, however, it almost certainly overstates the
multiplier for one tax cut supposedly under
consideration.
According to several reports, President Obama is
considering a measure that will allow firms to write off
losses in 2008 and 2009 against five years of past
profits, instead of the two years allowed under current
law. This change in the tax code would only help a
relatively small number of firms, disproportionately
banks and builders, who have very large losses. Unlike a
cut in the corporate income tax, which changes firm's
incentives going forward, this tax cut simply hands
firms money, without changing their incentives going
forward.
Therefore, there is little reason to believe that this
particular tax cut would lead to any noticeable increase
in investment. For this reason, a multiplier of 0.3
likely overstates the impact of this proposed tax cuts.
The table shows that $100 billion of additional
government spending will lead to an increase in GDP of
approximately $150 billion (about 1 percent of GDP at
current levels). Following the analysis presented by
President-elect Obama's staff, the table assumes that an
increase in GDP of 1 percent leads to an increase in
employment of 1 million workers. This means that $100
billion of additional spending will lead to 1 million
additional jobs, while a temporary cut in payroll taxes
will generate 860,000 jobs. By contrast, a $100 billion
cut in corporate taxes will lead to just 200,000 new
jobs.
Using the assumption that a 2.0 percent increase in GDP
leads to a 1.0 percentage point drop in the unemployment
rate (Okun's Law), we can project that a $100 billion
increase in spending will cause the overall unemployment
rate to drop by 0.5 percentage points. A reduction in
the payroll tax of the same size will lead to a 0.4
percentage point drop in the unemployment rate, while
the same cut in corporate taxes will cause the
unemployment rate to fall by just 0.1 percent.
African Americans and Hispanics feel the effects of a
downturn (and upturn) disproportionately. Assuming that
unemployment for these groups tracks the overall
unemployment in the same way as it did in the last two
downturns,3 the $100 billion increase in spending can be
expected to reduce unemployment among African Americans
by 0.71 percentage points and among Hispanics by 0.67
percentage points. The payroll tax rebate lowers the
unemployment rate amongst these groups by 0.57
percentage points and 0.53 percentage points,
respectively. By contrast, the corporate tax cut will
lead to drops of just 0.14 percentage points and 0.13
percentage points, respectively.
Finally, the same comparisons can be made with
employment. The $100 billion increase in spending leads
to a 0.7 percentage point increase in total employment.
The payroll tax rebate increases employment by 0.6
percentage points, while the corporate tax cut leads to
an increase in employment of just 0.14 percentage
points. The effects of the employment of both African
Americans and Hispanics are 1.5 times as large.
This means that a $100 billion increase in spending will
lead to 1.05 percentage point increase in employment for
African Americans and Hispanics, while a corporate tax
cut of the same size will increase employment for these
groups by just 0.21 percentage points.
These projections indicate that insofar as tax cuts are
substituted for government spending, there will be fewer
jobs created by the stimulus and that African Americans
and Hispanics will feel this effect disproportionately.
Insofar as corporate tax cuts are substituted for
spending, the impact of a given amount of stimulus will
be only one-fifth as great. This sort of substitution
could lead to considerably higher rates of unemployment
for African Americans and Hispanics.
But, before I paste it, I would like to mention another issue attached to the stimulus: the future. Watching CNN, a saw a few comments concerning the stimulus plan. (You know, CNN twitters now.) A couple of them were by guys in their mid20s complaining of the tax implications for them in the future. One surmised we'd be experiencing another recession 20 years from now due to the spending in today's package.
Now, I thought of a couple of responses to these assertions. First off was how incredibly selfish these two and anyone like them are to whine and complain about their future taxes when people are hurting right now. The second one is more for those who profess to be Christians. I wanted to remind them Jesus teaches us not to worry about tomorrow as today has enough problems of its own. But then, as I was writing this, it suddenly occured to me how illogical the arguments were. Are the mistakes of one generation paid by their children? Yes. But a recession due to taxes? I'm not sure that's ever happened so I really doubt it ever will.
But, yes, tomorrow's generation will pay for what we do or don't do today. I think it's best if we do something. Don't you? Cause seriously. If we don't get a handle on the situation, those of us in our mid20s may not have incomes to pay taxes on 20 years from now.
Selfish bastards.
So anyway, here an article by Dean Baker.
_________
Spending Versus Tax Cuts: Who Pays the Cost of Political
Compromise?
BY DEAN BAKER
Center for Economic and Policy Research
January 2009
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/2009-01-Spending-Vs-Tax-Cuts.pdf
President Obama and the Democratic leadership will
undoubtedly have to make some political compromises in
order to get a stimulus package through Congress.
However, it is important to keep in mind that there will
be real costs associated with these compromises insofar
as they result in a less effective stimulus package. A
less effective package will mean less economic growth,
which will, in turn, mean that fewer people will have
jobs.
This paper calculates how the costs of a less effective
stimulus package will be borne. Relying on estimates of
the multipliers from various spending and tax measures
from Moody's Economy.com, this paper projects the impact
on overall job growth and employment, as well as on job
growth and employment for African Americans and
Hispanics, of political compromises that lead to less
effective stimulus.
Table 1 below [moderator: please go to original article
to view tables] compares the projected impact of
spending increases to a temporary rebate of the payroll
tax or to a cut in corporate taxes. The assumed
multiplier for spending increases is 1.5, which is
approximately the average multiplier for the various
types of spending from Moody's Economy.com. The
multiplier for a payroll tax holiday was estimated as
1.29. The multiplier for cuts in corporate tax cuts used
in the table is 0.3. This is the estimated multiplier
for a cut in corporate income tax rates. This figure
might be a reasonable approximation for some of the
corporate tax cuts that the administration is reportedly
considering, however, it almost certainly overstates the
multiplier for one tax cut supposedly under
consideration.
According to several reports, President Obama is
considering a measure that will allow firms to write off
losses in 2008 and 2009 against five years of past
profits, instead of the two years allowed under current
law. This change in the tax code would only help a
relatively small number of firms, disproportionately
banks and builders, who have very large losses. Unlike a
cut in the corporate income tax, which changes firm's
incentives going forward, this tax cut simply hands
firms money, without changing their incentives going
forward.
Therefore, there is little reason to believe that this
particular tax cut would lead to any noticeable increase
in investment. For this reason, a multiplier of 0.3
likely overstates the impact of this proposed tax cuts.
The table shows that $100 billion of additional
government spending will lead to an increase in GDP of
approximately $150 billion (about 1 percent of GDP at
current levels). Following the analysis presented by
President-elect Obama's staff, the table assumes that an
increase in GDP of 1 percent leads to an increase in
employment of 1 million workers. This means that $100
billion of additional spending will lead to 1 million
additional jobs, while a temporary cut in payroll taxes
will generate 860,000 jobs. By contrast, a $100 billion
cut in corporate taxes will lead to just 200,000 new
jobs.
Using the assumption that a 2.0 percent increase in GDP
leads to a 1.0 percentage point drop in the unemployment
rate (Okun's Law), we can project that a $100 billion
increase in spending will cause the overall unemployment
rate to drop by 0.5 percentage points. A reduction in
the payroll tax of the same size will lead to a 0.4
percentage point drop in the unemployment rate, while
the same cut in corporate taxes will cause the
unemployment rate to fall by just 0.1 percent.
African Americans and Hispanics feel the effects of a
downturn (and upturn) disproportionately. Assuming that
unemployment for these groups tracks the overall
unemployment in the same way as it did in the last two
downturns,3 the $100 billion increase in spending can be
expected to reduce unemployment among African Americans
by 0.71 percentage points and among Hispanics by 0.67
percentage points. The payroll tax rebate lowers the
unemployment rate amongst these groups by 0.57
percentage points and 0.53 percentage points,
respectively. By contrast, the corporate tax cut will
lead to drops of just 0.14 percentage points and 0.13
percentage points, respectively.
Finally, the same comparisons can be made with
employment. The $100 billion increase in spending leads
to a 0.7 percentage point increase in total employment.
The payroll tax rebate increases employment by 0.6
percentage points, while the corporate tax cut leads to
an increase in employment of just 0.14 percentage
points. The effects of the employment of both African
Americans and Hispanics are 1.5 times as large.
This means that a $100 billion increase in spending will
lead to 1.05 percentage point increase in employment for
African Americans and Hispanics, while a corporate tax
cut of the same size will increase employment for these
groups by just 0.21 percentage points.
These projections indicate that insofar as tax cuts are
substituted for government spending, there will be fewer
jobs created by the stimulus and that African Americans
and Hispanics will feel this effect disproportionately.
Insofar as corporate tax cuts are substituted for
spending, the impact of a given amount of stimulus will
be only one-fifth as great. This sort of substitution
could lead to considerably higher rates of unemployment
for African Americans and Hispanics.
I Forgot to Mention . . .
The House version of the stimulus bill wasn't going to help states balance their budgets. It would help cover just 45% of the budget shortfull between what states need and what states have. The Senate version, where Republicans managed to get 48% of the package turned into tax cuts, would not even help that much.
Hat tip to Slate.com.
Make no mistake about it, the longer this goes on, the more convinced I become that congressional Republicans are either heartless or sheer idiots or both - sheer heartless idiots. Even Republican governors support Pres. Obama's stimulus plans. The good news is that it seems like Americans are starting to wake up a little. The Republican base is shrinking. Maybe, hopefully, come 2010, the Republicans will lose even more seats. I'll be ecstatic to vote for the Democratic challenger, whomever he or she may be, for the Senate seat currently held by a Republican.
Now, to my new readers - welcome to my blog! I should warn you though, this current pace of postings is unusual. I have chronic fatigue syndrome, which sometimes causes me to miss up to a month of blogging. But, you have my word that as much as I can, I'm going to give you the best I got.
Hat tip to Slate.com.
Make no mistake about it, the longer this goes on, the more convinced I become that congressional Republicans are either heartless or sheer idiots or both - sheer heartless idiots. Even Republican governors support Pres. Obama's stimulus plans. The good news is that it seems like Americans are starting to wake up a little. The Republican base is shrinking. Maybe, hopefully, come 2010, the Republicans will lose even more seats. I'll be ecstatic to vote for the Democratic challenger, whomever he or she may be, for the Senate seat currently held by a Republican.
Now, to my new readers - welcome to my blog! I should warn you though, this current pace of postings is unusual. I have chronic fatigue syndrome, which sometimes causes me to miss up to a month of blogging. But, you have my word that as much as I can, I'm going to give you the best I got.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Pork in the Stimulus Package?
Update (2/8 3:28p): more Michael Steele inanity.
One of the things Republicans have been complaining about is the money supposedly earmarked for ACORN. Some of the angst is due to their false allegations last fall that ACORN was involved in voter fraud. Well. Not only was ACORN not involved in voter fraud, there is not money earmarked for ACORN.
Now, I bring this up for a few reasons, the most important of which I'll lay out last.
But first, in the weekly Republican address, Michael Steele question if power had gone to the Democrats head. His complaints are that congressional Democrats fashioned the stimulus bill without Republican ideas and that the bill is full of spending. Well. The past 8 years, if not 2 decades, has proven that Republicans ideas are bankrupt, both figuratively and literally. And as Pres. Obama has recently made clear, as far as spending, "that's the point!" Most economists across the political spectrum agree that their should be more spending in the package than tax cuts. But still, or rather, Steele, the Republicans insist on opposing the package? Even John McCain found the gall to talk smack after having his behind gift-wrapped to him this past November.
Let me remind Republicans, "bi-partisanship" does not mean you get your way.
Then we have former Vice President Dick Cheney getting chesty about the war on terror. I mean, with the mess we've created in the Middle East, Gitmo being used as recruitment material for terror groups, you'd think he'd go somewhere and hide. But no. So. If you didn't already think little to nothing of Cheney, let me inform you that KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton where Cheney was CEO until 2000, has been charged with bribing the Nigerian government for defence contracts.
But now, for the coup de grace. I opened this post with ACORN and the stimulus bill for the particular purpose of distributing information I've just received that tells a story of ACORN helping a family buy property they had been renting that had been foreclosed on. Yeah. The Republicans are despicable.
Enjoy.
A Startling Statistic & an Appeal from ACORN
(1)
Fifteen percent of all houses and apartments in the
United States stood empty at the end of 2008 - a record
19 million homes - according to data released this week
by the U.S. Census Bureau. Vacant housing units in the
fourth quarter increased nearly 7 percent compared with
the same period in 2007, largely because of bank
foreclosures and owners who abandoned their
properties.'
San Francisco Chronicle
February 5, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/d8msev
(2)
ACORN: Starting the Recovery - Ending Foreclosures
ACORN February 6, 2009
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2749/t/3071/signUp.jsp?key=2134
Dear friends,
I have an amazing story to share with you - a story of
a community coming together and, through collective
action and civil disobedience, saving the home of a
family of renters in Oakland caught up in the
foreclosure crisis. And not just save the home, but
help them buy it from their foreclosed landlord!
The reason I'm sharing this with you is because we are
going to be doing this exact same thing in cities
around the country and I wanted to invite you to join
in the fight to end the financial crisis and save the
homes of individuals caught in the storm.
But first, here's the story of Eddie and Martha Daniels
of Oakland, California.:
http://tinyurl.com/df4e6x
At 6:00 am on Wednesday, February 4, more than 30
members of ACORN gathered at the home of Eddie and
Martha Daniels in West Oakland, armed with prayers,
cell phones, and the hope that Wednesday would not be a
day in which yet another family who had done no wrong
was claimed as a victim of the raging foreclosure
crisis.
Since 2006, the Daniels had paid their rent each month
to their landlord, who had not told them that he was
not, in turn, paying the mortgage on time. The
landlord's lender had foreclosed on the property and
terminated the lease, and on Wednesday the sheriff was
scheduled to come to their home and evict the Daniels,
a family on the verge becoming another statistic in the
national economic catastrophe.
ACORN members rallied their neighbors, spoke with local
media, including one radio station that broadcast live
from the home, and flooded the sheriff's office with
calls urging compassion and forbearance of the
scheduled eviction. At the same time, ACORN Housing
Corporation was working furiously behind the scenes
with the lender to negotiate a stay on the eviction,
which successfully came through.
This alone would have saved their home, but what
happened next was uniq ue: ACORN Housing Corporation
was able to counsel the Daniels and help them apply for
a VA loan that would enable them to purchase the very
property from which they were almost evicted earlier
that day!
Maud Hurd, ACORN's President, said, "This shows the
power of communities coming together to fight back
against the foreclosures that are taking our homes and
ruining our neighborhoods."
Amen. And that's why I wanted to write to you. Today
ACORN is launching a national effort modeled on what
happened yesterday in Oakland: the ACORN Home
Defenders. The Home Defenders gives everyone an
opportunity to stand in solidarity with families like
the Daniels as they face the economic maelstrom
engulfing our country. It is designed to help keep
families in their homes and put pressure on our elected
officials to address this root cause of the economic
collapse.
The Home Defenders program links members of local
communities with families who have taken the bold step
of refusing to cooperate with the foreclosure process.
It responds to the desperate calls for help found in
the grim foreclosure statistics (2.3 million families
faced foreclosure in 2008) and echoes the sentiments of
leaders like Toledo,=2 0Ohio-area Congresswoman Marcy
Kaptur who recently said, "Stay in your homes. If the
American people, anybody out there is being foreclosed,
don't leave."
The urgency of this crisis demands immediate action. So
the Home Defenders program is rolling out in two
stages. The first stage will include eight "Tier 1"
metro areas: Baltimore, MD; Contra Costa County, CA;
Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Oakland,
CA; Orlando, FL and Tucson, AZ. Initial trainings for
people located in these metro areas will take place
during the second week in February, with kick-off
events scheduled to occur during the 3rd week of the
month.
The second stage will include 16 "Tier 2" metro areas:
Albany, NY; Boston, MA; Bridgeport, CT; Broward County,
FL; Cincinnati, OH; Cleveland, OH; Dallas, TX; Denver,
CO; Detroit, MI; Durham, NC; Flint, MI; Minneapolis,
MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Raleigh, NC; San Mateo County, CA;
and Wilmington, DE. Trainings and kick-off events will
occur a few weeks after those in the Tier 1 cities.
New cities are continuing to join this campaign, so if
you do not live near any of the metro areas listed
above, you can still participate in actions to save the
homes of families in your community as they come on-
board. For people who live in areas that will not have
local organizers helping drive this program, ACORN is
creating Home Defender Tool-Kits that help you fight=2
0back against the crisis in your neighborhood.
I urge you to take this step in helping local families
fight back against the crisis caused by reckless
financiers who made billions in bonuses in equity-
stripping schemes designed to set homebuyers up for
failure.
By showing that communities are refusing to participate
in their own decimation, we will force elected
officials to finally shift their emphasis from bailing
out Wall Street to bailing out Main Street.
Join with me.
In strength and solidarity,
Bertha Lewis ACORN CEO and Chief Organizer
One of the things Republicans have been complaining about is the money supposedly earmarked for ACORN. Some of the angst is due to their false allegations last fall that ACORN was involved in voter fraud. Well. Not only was ACORN not involved in voter fraud, there is not money earmarked for ACORN.
Now, I bring this up for a few reasons, the most important of which I'll lay out last.
But first, in the weekly Republican address, Michael Steele question if power had gone to the Democrats head. His complaints are that congressional Democrats fashioned the stimulus bill without Republican ideas and that the bill is full of spending. Well. The past 8 years, if not 2 decades, has proven that Republicans ideas are bankrupt, both figuratively and literally. And as Pres. Obama has recently made clear, as far as spending, "that's the point!" Most economists across the political spectrum agree that their should be more spending in the package than tax cuts. But still, or rather, Steele, the Republicans insist on opposing the package? Even John McCain found the gall to talk smack after having his behind gift-wrapped to him this past November.
Let me remind Republicans, "bi-partisanship" does not mean you get your way.
Then we have former Vice President Dick Cheney getting chesty about the war on terror. I mean, with the mess we've created in the Middle East, Gitmo being used as recruitment material for terror groups, you'd think he'd go somewhere and hide. But no. So. If you didn't already think little to nothing of Cheney, let me inform you that KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton where Cheney was CEO until 2000, has been charged with bribing the Nigerian government for defence contracts.
But now, for the coup de grace. I opened this post with ACORN and the stimulus bill for the particular purpose of distributing information I've just received that tells a story of ACORN helping a family buy property they had been renting that had been foreclosed on. Yeah. The Republicans are despicable.
Enjoy.
A Startling Statistic & an Appeal from ACORN
(1)
Fifteen percent of all houses and apartments in the
United States stood empty at the end of 2008 - a record
19 million homes - according to data released this week
by the U.S. Census Bureau. Vacant housing units in the
fourth quarter increased nearly 7 percent compared with
the same period in 2007, largely because of bank
foreclosures and owners who abandoned their
properties.'
San Francisco Chronicle
February 5, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/d8msev
(2)
ACORN: Starting the Recovery - Ending Foreclosures
ACORN February 6, 2009
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2749/t/3071/signUp.jsp?key=2134
Dear friends,
I have an amazing story to share with you - a story of
a community coming together and, through collective
action and civil disobedience, saving the home of a
family of renters in Oakland caught up in the
foreclosure crisis. And not just save the home, but
help them buy it from their foreclosed landlord!
The reason I'm sharing this with you is because we are
going to be doing this exact same thing in cities
around the country and I wanted to invite you to join
in the fight to end the financial crisis and save the
homes of individuals caught in the storm.
But first, here's the story of Eddie and Martha Daniels
of Oakland, California.:
http://tinyurl.com/df4e6x
At 6:00 am on Wednesday, February 4, more than 30
members of ACORN gathered at the home of Eddie and
Martha Daniels in West Oakland, armed with prayers,
cell phones, and the hope that Wednesday would not be a
day in which yet another family who had done no wrong
was claimed as a victim of the raging foreclosure
crisis.
Since 2006, the Daniels had paid their rent each month
to their landlord, who had not told them that he was
not, in turn, paying the mortgage on time. The
landlord's lender had foreclosed on the property and
terminated the lease, and on Wednesday the sheriff was
scheduled to come to their home and evict the Daniels,
a family on the verge becoming another statistic in the
national economic catastrophe.
ACORN members rallied their neighbors, spoke with local
media, including one radio station that broadcast live
from the home, and flooded the sheriff's office with
calls urging compassion and forbearance of the
scheduled eviction. At the same time, ACORN Housing
Corporation was working furiously behind the scenes
with the lender to negotiate a stay on the eviction,
which successfully came through.
This alone would have saved their home, but what
happened next was uniq ue: ACORN Housing Corporation
was able to counsel the Daniels and help them apply for
a VA loan that would enable them to purchase the very
property from which they were almost evicted earlier
that day!
Maud Hurd, ACORN's President, said, "This shows the
power of communities coming together to fight back
against the foreclosures that are taking our homes and
ruining our neighborhoods."
Amen. And that's why I wanted to write to you. Today
ACORN is launching a national effort modeled on what
happened yesterday in Oakland: the ACORN Home
Defenders. The Home Defenders gives everyone an
opportunity to stand in solidarity with families like
the Daniels as they face the economic maelstrom
engulfing our country. It is designed to help keep
families in their homes and put pressure on our elected
officials to address this root cause of the economic
collapse.
The Home Defenders program links members of local
communities with families who have taken the bold step
of refusing to cooperate with the foreclosure process.
It responds to the desperate calls for help found in
the grim foreclosure statistics (2.3 million families
faced foreclosure in 2008) and echoes the sentiments of
leaders like Toledo,=2 0Ohio-area Congresswoman Marcy
Kaptur who recently said, "Stay in your homes. If the
American people, anybody out there is being foreclosed,
don't leave."
The urgency of this crisis demands immediate action. So
the Home Defenders program is rolling out in two
stages. The first stage will include eight "Tier 1"
metro areas: Baltimore, MD; Contra Costa County, CA;
Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Oakland,
CA; Orlando, FL and Tucson, AZ. Initial trainings for
people located in these metro areas will take place
during the second week in February, with kick-off
events scheduled to occur during the 3rd week of the
month.
The second stage will include 16 "Tier 2" metro areas:
Albany, NY; Boston, MA; Bridgeport, CT; Broward County,
FL; Cincinnati, OH; Cleveland, OH; Dallas, TX; Denver,
CO; Detroit, MI; Durham, NC; Flint, MI; Minneapolis,
MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Raleigh, NC; San Mateo County, CA;
and Wilmington, DE. Trainings and kick-off events will
occur a few weeks after those in the Tier 1 cities.
New cities are continuing to join this campaign, so if
you do not live near any of the metro areas listed
above, you can still participate in actions to save the
homes of families in your community as they come on-
board. For people who live in areas that will not have
local organizers helping drive this program, ACORN is
creating Home Defender Tool-Kits that help you fight=2
0back against the crisis in your neighborhood.
I urge you to take this step in helping local families
fight back against the crisis caused by reckless
financiers who made billions in bonuses in equity-
stripping schemes designed to set homebuyers up for
failure.
By showing that communities are refusing to participate
in their own decimation, we will force elected
officials to finally shift their emphasis from bailing
out Wall Street to bailing out Main Street.
Join with me.
In strength and solidarity,
Bertha Lewis ACORN CEO and Chief Organizer
Urgent Message from President Obama
After you watch the video, watch Gov. Tim Kaine answer questions from ordinary citizens about the plan and share your story about the economic crisis.
WWJD
Yes, that's for, "What would Jesus do?"
Now, I know there is a wall separating the Church and State. But you can't separate personal faith from active politics. Personal faith drove the abolition movement, women's rights, civil rights, etc. Don't get me wrong, I know people of faith were the ones supporting slavery, women's subordination, segregation, etc. But these people weren't acting in faith, they were acting in fear and greed.
So my point is this. The Republicans have made a big deal the past few decades over their moral virtue. It was moral virtue that excused their impeachment of Bill Clinton. It's their moral virtue that informs their "pro-life" stance. It's their moral virtue that has funded their abstinence-only sex education.
And where is their moral virtue now? Jesus instructed his followers to look out for the poor, the orphaned, the widow. They were trained in healing the sick, giving sight, giving hearing, giving speech, ect and so on. They were told not to trust wealth. "How hard it is for the rich to enter into the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23 NIV). "I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you Pharisees! Frauds! You keep meticulous account books, tithing on every nickel and dime you get, but manage to find loopholes for getting around basic matters of justice and God's love" (Luke 11:42 Message).
So, where's your moral virtue, Jon Kyl? Mitch McConnell? What do you think Jesus would do if he were designing this stimulus bill? Do you think he'd block a good plan just to put a black eye on Caesar? Do you think he'd look out for the Herods of the day . . . or the carpenters?
Now, I know there is a wall separating the Church and State. But you can't separate personal faith from active politics. Personal faith drove the abolition movement, women's rights, civil rights, etc. Don't get me wrong, I know people of faith were the ones supporting slavery, women's subordination, segregation, etc. But these people weren't acting in faith, they were acting in fear and greed.
So my point is this. The Republicans have made a big deal the past few decades over their moral virtue. It was moral virtue that excused their impeachment of Bill Clinton. It's their moral virtue that informs their "pro-life" stance. It's their moral virtue that has funded their abstinence-only sex education.
And where is their moral virtue now? Jesus instructed his followers to look out for the poor, the orphaned, the widow. They were trained in healing the sick, giving sight, giving hearing, giving speech, ect and so on. They were told not to trust wealth. "How hard it is for the rich to enter into the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23 NIV). "I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you Pharisees! Frauds! You keep meticulous account books, tithing on every nickel and dime you get, but manage to find loopholes for getting around basic matters of justice and God's love" (Luke 11:42 Message).
So, where's your moral virtue, Jon Kyl? Mitch McConnell? What do you think Jesus would do if he were designing this stimulus bill? Do you think he'd block a good plan just to put a black eye on Caesar? Do you think he'd look out for the Herods of the day . . . or the carpenters?
Senate Negotiators Agree to Cut Education
I found this CNN article via Huffington Post
Essentially, billions of money marked for school construction was cut from the stimulus plan. I guess because building and improving schools doesn't provide jobs. But I could be wrong. About why the money was cut.
I am very disappointed in the Republicans for having played politics with children's education. I consider myself fairly informed about the current state of public schools in America, and I wonder what Republicans senators like Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are going to say to parents and students of white poor, rural schools. I mean, yes, there're black poor, urban schools, but these parents and children voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. But if it's one thing I've always figured about well-to-do whites, it's that they'll screw poor whites over if it means keeping an extra buck for themselves, then pull a Rush Limbaugh move and encourage poor whites to blame their problems on people of color.
Anyway, this whole thing sucks. I just wanted to give you the latest info since I was up and am feeling okay. Hopefully tomorrow, I'll be back to ignoring politics and on to subjects I find not as depressing.
Essentially, billions of money marked for school construction was cut from the stimulus plan. I guess because building and improving schools doesn't provide jobs. But I could be wrong. About why the money was cut.
I am very disappointed in the Republicans for having played politics with children's education. I consider myself fairly informed about the current state of public schools in America, and I wonder what Republicans senators like Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are going to say to parents and students of white poor, rural schools. I mean, yes, there're black poor, urban schools, but these parents and children voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. But if it's one thing I've always figured about well-to-do whites, it's that they'll screw poor whites over if it means keeping an extra buck for themselves, then pull a Rush Limbaugh move and encourage poor whites to blame their problems on people of color.
Anyway, this whole thing sucks. I just wanted to give you the latest info since I was up and am feeling okay. Hopefully tomorrow, I'll be back to ignoring politics and on to subjects I find not as depressing.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Tax Cuts?! Tax Cuts?!
I am fed up with the Republicans. They have to be the stupidest bunch in politics around the world. And to make matters worse, they have a healthy dose a pure evil, too.
After all this time and whining and complaining, they finally get something they should be happy with. Something they should be thrilled with in my opinion. A Senate stimulus plan that is 58% spending and 42% of the same tax cuts that got us in the mess in the first place. And David Vitter, who won his seat after castigating Bill Clinton for dishonoring the Oval then turned around a slept with a couple of prostitutes at least, is leading the Republican delegation who is asking for "time" to look things over. They wanna read exactly what's in the 42% of tax cuts.
Now, on one hand, you can't blame them. They don't want "tax cuts" that are targeted to workers. They especially don't want "tax cuts" that really aren't "tax cuts" at all that are targeted to the working poor, those who work but don't make enough to pay income tax. No. Even though these are the people who're really hurting, the people who haven't caused this whole mess, god forbid they get some help.
Not to mention, the unemployed, whose numbers keep growing by the day, don't pay taxes and therefore can't receive any tax relief.
Really. The Republicans are just putting on this whole show just to make sure President Obama fails. This isn't about the stimulus. This isn't about doing what's "right" for America. Economists across the ideological spectrum all agree Washington is gone have to turn the spigots wide open. So it's not the economics of the bill. Not the tax cuts, not the amount of spending, none of that. They just want Pres. Obama to fail, pure and simple.
The past 8 years have demonstrated that Republicans neither care nor know what's best for American citizens. Yet, they have the gall, the unmitigated audacity to get self-righteous over this?
You, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and all the other Congressional conservatives should be mortality ashamed of yourselves. Really.
You know what I hope? I hope Pres. Obama burns them Monday, and the final bill has everything the House Democrats wanted in the first place. The family planning spending, the National Mall grass, and everything. And if the Republicans want to filibuster, for once, make them stand and talk and explain to everybody why they want this recession to become worse.
After all this time and whining and complaining, they finally get something they should be happy with. Something they should be thrilled with in my opinion. A Senate stimulus plan that is 58% spending and 42% of the same tax cuts that got us in the mess in the first place. And David Vitter, who won his seat after castigating Bill Clinton for dishonoring the Oval then turned around a slept with a couple of prostitutes at least, is leading the Republican delegation who is asking for "time" to look things over. They wanna read exactly what's in the 42% of tax cuts.
Now, on one hand, you can't blame them. They don't want "tax cuts" that are targeted to workers. They especially don't want "tax cuts" that really aren't "tax cuts" at all that are targeted to the working poor, those who work but don't make enough to pay income tax. No. Even though these are the people who're really hurting, the people who haven't caused this whole mess, god forbid they get some help.
Not to mention, the unemployed, whose numbers keep growing by the day, don't pay taxes and therefore can't receive any tax relief.
Really. The Republicans are just putting on this whole show just to make sure President Obama fails. This isn't about the stimulus. This isn't about doing what's "right" for America. Economists across the ideological spectrum all agree Washington is gone have to turn the spigots wide open. So it's not the economics of the bill. Not the tax cuts, not the amount of spending, none of that. They just want Pres. Obama to fail, pure and simple.
The past 8 years have demonstrated that Republicans neither care nor know what's best for American citizens. Yet, they have the gall, the unmitigated audacity to get self-righteous over this?
You, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and all the other Congressional conservatives should be mortality ashamed of yourselves. Really.
You know what I hope? I hope Pres. Obama burns them Monday, and the final bill has everything the House Democrats wanted in the first place. The family planning spending, the National Mall grass, and everything. And if the Republicans want to filibuster, for once, make them stand and talk and explain to everybody why they want this recession to become worse.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Republican Stupidity and also, Bono and Israel
They make inane arguments, such as the one Ken Blackwell makes about the stimulus creating jobs being a bad thing for two reasons: it would create more Democratic voters in Virginia and use taxpayer money to provide jobs without putting it back in the economy.
First of all, the point is jobs not votes. And if Republicans don't like the fact that most government workers vote Democratic, they should articulate a vision that doesn't require those thick, nerb-bird glasses. Second of all, these people with these government jobs . . . don't they eat and live and drive? And don't they pay taxes on the money they make?
-I checked out the article after hearing Keith Olbermann mention Blackwell in his "3 Worst People in the World" segment. I can't believe such sheer stupidity passes as critical thought for anybody.
Oh! BTW - Did you catch Bono's shout-out to Palestine! Yeah! Israel, if you do right by Palestine, you won't have to worry about rockets coming into Israel. Now, the train has left the station when it comes to actually giving them their land back; though, if that's possible, I'm for it. But you could treat them like, oh I don't know, human beings!
First of all, the point is jobs not votes. And if Republicans don't like the fact that most government workers vote Democratic, they should articulate a vision that doesn't require those thick, nerb-bird glasses. Second of all, these people with these government jobs . . . don't they eat and live and drive? And don't they pay taxes on the money they make?
-I checked out the article after hearing Keith Olbermann mention Blackwell in his "3 Worst People in the World" segment. I can't believe such sheer stupidity passes as critical thought for anybody.
Oh! BTW - Did you catch Bono's shout-out to Palestine! Yeah! Israel, if you do right by Palestine, you won't have to worry about rockets coming into Israel. Now, the train has left the station when it comes to actually giving them their land back; though, if that's possible, I'm for it. But you could treat them like, oh I don't know, human beings!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Update: Colin Powell Endorses Obama for President
Update: These videos speak for themselves.
The video speak for itself. Secretary Power answers every question concerning his motivation.
The video speak for itself. Secretary Power answers every question concerning his motivation.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Since Everybody Else Is Talking about It, Let Me
Here's what I basically feel about it. Money does not trickle down. Urine trickles down. Vomit trickles down. And that's the basic problem with conservative economics that include low taxes, especially for the rich, and dereguation - the other 95% of us get pissed on.
Here's the thing. Money flows up. That's how the rich get rich. And with conservative economic plans they get even richer, in fact, the past 8 years has seen the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich since the Golden Age.
Had they bailed out the homeowners in the beginning, the banks would've had the money to keep from going under. But now, the banks will for the most part stay afloat on the taxpayers' tab, (Which is why I'm for progressive taxes, when you mess up, you should be the one to pay to clean it up.), and people are still losing their homes. Genius, huh? Or does it make you wanna vomit?
This is what James Rucker of Color of Change has to say about it:
The Bush administration is finally paying attention to the disastrous state of our economy. They didn't act as many of us lost jobs, health insurance, and even our homes--with historic levels of middle-class Black wealth being devastated in the process.1 Now that Wall Street is wobbling, they're ready to come to the rescue, at our expense--to the tune of $700 billion.2
Bold steps are clearly needed, but the Bush plan is plain wrong:
It prioritizes protecting the corporations that got us into this mess, their executives and shareholders--while doing nothing to protect everyday Americans who've been overwhelmed with debt, which is the root of the problem.
It provides no accountability--giving the Treasury Secretary unlimited power to spend our money with no oversight from Congress.
There's a good chance it won't actually work. And when it doesn't, they'll be back looking for more money from taxpayers.
There are alternatives to Bush's plan, but he's pushing it through like it's the only choice. Democrats control Congress, which means they, not the Bush administration, can set the terms for this bailout. At this point, stopping the plan might come down to the Senate. Your senators need to know that we're paying attention, that we're not buying Bush's scare tactics, and that they shouldn't either. There was so info about contacting your Senator, but they were my senators and you need to contact your own. - No1KState
References
1. The Subprime Swindle, The Nation, June 26, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=1756-227036&cat=bailout&link=1
2. "Administration Is Seeking $700 Billion for Wall Street," The New York Times, September 20, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=1756-227036&cat=bailout&link=2
3. "Bridge Loan to Nowhere," The Nation, September 20, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=1756-227036&cat=bailout&link=3
4. See reference 1.
5. "What Wall Street Should Be Required to Do, to Get A Blank Check From Taxpayers," Blog post by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, September 21, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=1756-227036&cat=bailout&link=4
6. "Lawmakers Left On the Sidelines As Fed, Treasury Take Swift Action," The Washington Post, September 18, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=1756-227036&cat=bailout&link=5
7. "Democrats eye bailout--and more," Politico, September 19, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=1756-227036&cat=bailout&link=6
Here's the thing. Money flows up. That's how the rich get rich. And with conservative economic plans they get even richer, in fact, the past 8 years has seen the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich since the Golden Age.
Had they bailed out the homeowners in the beginning, the banks would've had the money to keep from going under. But now, the banks will for the most part stay afloat on the taxpayers' tab, (Which is why I'm for progressive taxes, when you mess up, you should be the one to pay to clean it up.), and people are still losing their homes. Genius, huh? Or does it make you wanna vomit?
This is what James Rucker of Color of Change has to say about it:
The Bush administration is finally paying attention to the disastrous state of our economy. They didn't act as many of us lost jobs, health insurance, and even our homes--with historic levels of middle-class Black wealth being devastated in the process.1 Now that Wall Street is wobbling, they're ready to come to the rescue, at our expense--to the tune of $700 billion.2
Bold steps are clearly needed, but the Bush plan is plain wrong:
It prioritizes protecting the corporations that got us into this mess, their executives and shareholders--while doing nothing to protect everyday Americans who've been overwhelmed with debt, which is the root of the problem.
It provides no accountability--giving the Treasury Secretary unlimited power to spend our money with no oversight from Congress.
There's a good chance it won't actually work. And when it doesn't, they'll be back looking for more money from taxpayers.
There are alternatives to Bush's plan, but he's pushing it through like it's the only choice. Democrats control Congress, which means they, not the Bush administration, can set the terms for this bailout. At this point, stopping the plan might come down to the Senate. Your senators need to know that we're paying attention, that we're not buying Bush's scare tactics, and that they shouldn't either. There was so info about contacting your Senator, but they were my senators and you need to contact your own. - No1KState
References
1. The Subprime Swindle, The Nation, June 26, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=1756-227036&cat=bailout&link=1
2. "Administration Is Seeking $700 Billion for Wall Street," The New York Times, September 20, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=1756-227036&cat=bailout&link=2
3. "Bridge Loan to Nowhere," The Nation, September 20, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=1756-227036&cat=bailout&link=3
4. See reference 1.
5. "What Wall Street Should Be Required to Do, to Get A Blank Check From Taxpayers," Blog post by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, September 21, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=1756-227036&cat=bailout&link=4
6. "Lawmakers Left On the Sidelines As Fed, Treasury Take Swift Action," The Washington Post, September 18, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=1756-227036&cat=bailout&link=5
7. "Democrats eye bailout--and more," Politico, September 19, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/link/?id=1756-227036&cat=bailout&link=6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Share This Article
But Don't Jack My Genuis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.