home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:15:28 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Shockingly, I am with David Broder on something.

This is an Open Thread.

< Extracting More Concessions From Obama | Good Politics On The Stimulus Means Good Policy >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    POTUS signing Lilliy Ledbetter Act now!! (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    and Hillary is there too, KEWLIN!!

    awww (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    Lilly is so moved she is about to cry!

    Hillary looks FABULOUS!!!

    Parent

    It's about time too (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:00:08 AM EST
    I can't BELIEVE this one failed to pass the first time.  Better late then never, but it was too late for Lily.  Hopefully she is happy knowing her struggle made it a little easier for the rest of us.

    I have to say, there is no shortage of role models these days for women.

    Parent

    Apparently.. (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:06:00 AM EST
    Nancy didn't get the memo that she was supposed to wear red today...  :)

    Parent
    Stimulus a good idea (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:38:11 AM EST
    This "stimulus" however is a mistake.  

    Wasn't the rush to war one of the biggest complaints against Bush?

    This is a rush to a stimulus.   If things are so dire why is most of the spending not until after 2010?  If this is so dire why one hour of debate on the floor and a bill full of pork that was shoved down the throats of congress by Pelosi?  Why so little money for infastructure?  Why? Why? Why?  

    Just because congress should do something doesn't mean we should allow them to do anything.  

    Obama has the right idea but in all honesty this will define his first term.   I hope he has something bigger in mind and is counting on the Seante to turn a pork burdened House bill into an actual Stimulus that will help this economy.   Gibbs says this is just the first step "thrid inning".

    Lets hope Obama is as smart as some think he is.

    2010 is just a year away (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:17:03 AM EST
    we will need jobs just as much next year and the year after as this year. I have no problem with providing for them now.

    I agree there should be a lot more money for infrastructure. If I thought spending more time debating the bill would get that, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately it seems like the more time they talk about the bill the worse it gets.

    Parent

    An idea for stimulus.... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:50:01 AM EST
    I know our government doesn't normally work this way, but with so many Americans suffering so many power outages, some for quite a long time, how about this...a simple bill calling for the government to hire a couple hundred thousand workers, the necessary trucks, cable, etc...and upgrade the grid nationwide.  Put nothing else in the bill that will cause the usual log-jam of infighting.  Short and sweet and simple.

    Then we can do one bill for transportation upgrades only, one bill for national park upgrades, etc, etc, etc.

    Again I know that is "not how it works", but why can't it?  Seems the major problem with the current bill is it is all over the place...one bill at a time seems easier and subject to less objections to me.  We can even do a tax-cut bill for the Americans who believe that is the better way to go...everybody wins.  But one bill covering one problem/issue at a time.  Focus the process like we need to focus our economy.

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:00:20 AM EST
    speaking of power outages Line Men are so in demand right now and for a long time to come it's ludicrous but no one wants to do this work.

    Unfortunately we have this situation where people think employers should be falling all over themselves to hire them, effectively becoming their parents for 5 -10 years while they make sure they receive all the required experience without crimping their social life.

    Parent

    I hear ya... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:08:41 AM EST
    It is kinda funny how people seem to think a job is a right endowed by their creator...it ain't.

    Ya gotta go and carve out an existence for yourself, carve out a living...you want something in this world you gotta take it, no one will give it to you...way it is and the way it always will be.  

    Parent

    I like that idea more and more also (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:07:23 AM EST
    But I'm afraid congresspeople like the fog of legislation too much for it to happen.

    Parent
    The fog.... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09:18 AM EST
    is their license to defraud.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:10:07 AM EST


    Parent
    talking about infrastructure fixes last night (none / 0) (#33)
    by DFLer on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    on the TeeVee, and in particular the power grid, as you say. One expert's estimated cost for that job alone: almost a trillion.
    -re Rachael Maddow show.

    Parent
    Wouldn't surprise me... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:03:37 PM EST
    the trillion number, it has been negelected far too long as we built weapons and prisons instead of doing the necessary maintenance of our nation.

    Parent
    I Heard Her Too (none / 0) (#42)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:11:34 PM EST
    but on the Radio, and I think the figure she quoted was for an upgrade to all the nations infrastructure (ie. roads, bridges, power, all utilities...).

    Parent
    new home sales out... (none / 0) (#1)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:19:36 AM EST
    and it is awful, the downturn is accelerating...

    post here

    some hilights:
    New Home Sales PLUNGED 14.7% in December compared to a drop of 4.4% in November...a record low

    Inventory-14.7 months supply, up from 12 months supply in November..

    December Median New Home Sale Price $206,500 DOWN 9.3% FROM $227,000 A YEAR EARLIER!!!!! see the drop-off is escalating ...WE NEED HOLC!!

    You are right (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:28:11 AM EST
    Unless home values stabilize, the most basic investment families make is going down the drain. We need foreclosure moratoriums, refinancing, and JOBS!

    We refinanced our home in November, even though everybody said there was no money. Wells Fargo wanted 3% more and an adjustable rate to boot, over the company we went with. We were able to refinance even though one of us was unemployed. But we weren't leveraged to the hilt, and had been paying down debt for two years.

    So jedimom is right. Will the Congress please listen to her?

    Parent

    Is it an investment or a home? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:17:31 AM EST
    I think they are two different things.  If you bought your house to have a home, and can afford to make your payments...it has the same value it always did...4 walls and a roof to rest your head under. If you bought your house as an investment to re-sell at a profit, you gambled and lost...that happens when you gamble.

    I'm all for helping from being kicked to the curb because they can't make payments...who cares what the book value is?  The value is in having a home.

    Parent

    Both (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:24:13 AM EST
    Say you spend all your money on a home, so you can have a roof over your head.  You can afford to make payments, but not much else.  Eventually, you pay off the home and own it.  Now, it's time to send your kids to college, maybe replace that broken down car, etc...  All of your money is tied into your home.  So you take out a loan against the value of the home to pay for other things, necessities.  That doesn't make it any less of a roof.  But if your home loses value, maybe you can't send your kids to college.

    Parent
    I see... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:28:49 AM EST
    as an asset to borrow against...got it.

    As a non-borrower, that kinda stuff often flies right over my head.  Thanks CST...btw, things are brighter in your life today I hope?

    Parent

    Thanks for asking (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:15:51 AM EST
    I'm hanging in there.  If I make it through today with no disasters, it'll be the best day I've had all week.  So far so good :)

    Parent
    The kind of thinking that gets you into trouble... (none / 0) (#32)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:58:11 AM EST
    Say you spend all your money on a home, so you can have a roof over your head.  You can afford to make payments, but not much else.

    Having a home is great but it is a privilege not a right. If it is using up all your income, you need to rent. An apartment also provides a roof over your head.

    Parent

    Rent takes up most of the income too (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by DFLer on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:05:32 AM EST
    then 5 years later, $40,000 later (say, @ $650.00 a month), no equity for that $40,000...at least that's the argument for ownership over renting.

    In the meantime, renters pay utilities too.

    Costs avoided by renting are: property taxes and repairs. Most landlords add those costs to the rent anyway.

    Housing in general, whether rented or owned, a privilege or a right?

    Parent

    Good question... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:09:32 PM EST
    I lean towards neither, housding is simply a necessity of life, imo.  The only right you have is the right to find a place to live...though it does get dicey when there is owned, yet unused, property.  Squatter's rights can cover that though I guess.

    I'd say you have no right to expect the state to house, and on the flip, the state should have no right to stop you from building a log cabin on unoccupied land.

    One thing I'm curous about with the housing crisis...will it be a boom market for squatters?  

    Parent

    London Squatters With Style Just Evicted (none / 0) (#49)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 01:35:08 PM EST
    A group of squatters variously called the Da! Collective and the Temporary School of Thought had been occupying some 'derelict mansions'.

    "...they invited members of the public in to learn new skills: there were free classes on everything from Hungarian folk singing to treehouse building."

    Apparently, they were found out when the owners saw a Christmas tree in a window...

    Parent

    But more, I Think, To Your Point (none / 0) (#50)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 01:40:10 PM EST
    We have this story from Miami.

    Your question piqued my interest. I've long had a fascination with the potential of squatting in places where hundreds or even thousands of useful properties long stand vacant.

    Parent

    Great link Grace... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 02:18:44 PM EST
    and I've long shared that fascination...and a great admiration for squatters.

    Those "Take back the Land" folks have made my week, if not my year...I wish them nothing but luck and success.

    The often-quoted words of Joe Strummer and The Clash...."Bankrobber".

    Some is rich, and some is poor
    Thats the way the world is
    But I dont believe in lying back
    Sayin' how bad your luck is

    I don't believe in lying back either...if you're evicted and homeless, and there is a house up the street with boards on the windows, or a government building vacant around the way...squat that sh*t.

    Parent

    DFler, I am not debating the merits of (none / 0) (#45)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:20:53 PM EST
    renting vs owning. I was referring to CST's post about spending all your income on a house. The same rules apply towards renting. It makes no sense to spend all your income on housing.

    In the meantime, renters pay utilities too.

    The last time I checked home owners paid for utilities too... :-)

    The problem is most people see their homes as an investment and so they justify overextending themselves financially. The most basic rule of investing is to not put all your money into one particular investment no matter how safe you might believe that investment to be. If all your money is tied up in one asset (and I am not talking CD's,etc here) and you suddenly need the money, you take the risk of cashing out at the worst possible moment.


    Parent

    It doesn't make sense (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:53:46 PM EST
    But we don't all have the liberty of making that choice.

    Also, it was a hypothetical.  Even if you haven't spent ALL your money on a house, chances are, if you are trying to send someone to college, or buy a car, you are gonna need to borrow against it.  Most people don't have that kind of cash lying around.

    Parent

    Business loans (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    Another point is that many small business people (Ma and Pa operations) are required to put their houses up as collateral on their business loans. Now they're being squeezed at both ends.

    Parent
    So, so true (none / 0) (#27)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    and, sadly, the dramatic escalation in home prices was driven by all those investors who were buying and selling as though homes were a branch of Wall Street.

    The investors should lose the homes they can't afford to pay for, and the homeowners who bought a place to live and raise their children deserve to have some form of reprive even if they aren't in arrears.

    I thought there was a helping hand for homeowners added to the bill, though.


    Parent

    2009 (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:46:24 AM EST
    is going to be a lot worse than you're being told on the MSM which was once again yesterday explaining how at last 'the bottom is in'.

     

    Parent

    MSM is sick of this story (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09:30 AM EST
    and is ready to move on to the happy ending. But the foreclosure crisis is nowhere near over.

    Parent
    Yeh (none / 0) (#44)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:14:55 PM EST
    I heard from an economist that so far only the "first wave" has hit us but that the "second wave" is about to arrive.
    I would like to think he's wrong but he's pretty much called it play by play since late 2006, so I don't see why he'd be wrong now.

    Parent
    Note that's new home sales (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:37:46 AM EST
    not existing home sales.  Not good news, of course, but new homes languishing on the market isn't the same thing as existing homes.


    Parent
    The worst is yet to come (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    If you talk to investment firms the bottom is forcasted to hit mid 2009 to late 2009.   That's the best case scenario.   This is based on some slight recovery so demand will go up a little and housign will stop falling.

    The way we are shedding jobs and companies are pulling back we could actually see in increase in homes on the market etc... which means the bottom of the housing market won't really hit until 2010.

    That is when the economy will start to come back.  No matter how much money the government tries to pump into it.   If you don't have a home and can't pay your mortgage why would you use $1500 from the government to buy a new TV?  Housing is dragging down demand and consumer spending.  Americans have too much money tied up in their homes which continue to loose value.  Americans who can afford their homes no longer have any incentive to move up the ladder, on and on...

    The government created this problem by pushing home ownership on us and we where all too ready to buy in (myself included owning a home @ 23 when I should have been renting) creating this bubble that has burst.  

    More borrowed money from the government is just throwing more bad money after bad.  

    Parent

    Existing home prices down 18% (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:28:59 AM EST
    last I saw, last week.  It's awful all over.

    The thing about new home construction is that it is construction -- i.e., jobs.  My stepsons are in the trades, which means they're laid off soon.

    Along with the layoffs of others in peripheral industries: my daughter's fiance, who is in manufacturing -- or construction components for industry; we're in a major manufacturing state.

    And my laid-off daughter in an industry peripheral to the number-one industry in my state, tourism . . . and just wait 'til we see the stats on how badly that is dropping, with all the layoffs.

    I guess I ought to be glad that the other family member, my son, isn't laid off -- only because he is finishing school.  Then he won't find work from which to be laid off.  

    Parent

    For sure (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 06:37:31 PM EST
    My understanding is new home building has essentially stopped, which has all kinds of peripheral effects in addition to terrific unemployment in the construction trades (which new infrastructure spending will help a lot with).

    One that's interesting to me is that the source of firewood and manufactured wood pellets is drying up in a lot of places because the logging business is also at a standstill.  Which means the cost of both of those sources of heat has risen a lot and will continue to rise.

    The ripple effects of this stuff are grimly fascinating.

    Parent

    Blackwater... (none / 0) (#4)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:27:38 AM EST
    banned from Iraq.  We'll see, I guess, if its for real.

    other theatres (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:33:29 AM EST
    can we ban them from Afghanistan too? and every other place?? maybe they can go to Wyoming with Cheney?

    Parent
    A free-market guy like Cheney... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    should be willing to pay for his own security and keep subsidizing Blackwater while out of office, like he did when he was in office and spending our money.

    Money where your mouth is Dick...here's your chance to make a principled stand against pinko govt. subsidized personal security.  Just gotta find your principles...  

    Parent

    Move on (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:40:08 AM EST
    Cheney is a private citizen now who can line his pockets anyway he sees fit.

    Time to move onto the new group of crooks running the show.

    Parent

    Agreed... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:52:17 AM EST
    I just don't feel like paying for his security guards now that he no longer is on the job.  A)...he's loaded.  B) We provide for our own personal security...Dick and G-Dub and Clinton and Bush I and Carter can too...save a couple bucks.

    Parent
    VP Gets Lifelong Security?? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 08:09:34 PM EST
    Never heard that before.

    Parent
    No Biggie (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 01:25:19 PM EST
    Although quite symbolic:

    Khalaf said Blackwater employees who have not been implicated in the 2007 shooting have the right to work in Iraq but must find a different employer.

    loophole a mile wide.


    Parent

    Job cut avalanche (none / 0) (#7)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:35:23 AM EST
    Anyone hear that? A rumbling sound?

    Quote of Daze (none / 0) (#11)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:44:33 AM EST
    "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford. (Sr.)

    Henry overestimates us... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:45:43 AM EST
    maybe we had more gumption back in the day, but today?  We could know and understand every sordid detail of our banking system and we'll just accept it like we accept foreign occupations, a debt beyond belief, the drug war, and all the other bad news our government is party too.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:26:24 AM EST
    Here on Wall Street some of us have been saying for years "if only people understood how much of our economy is based on nothing more than intrinsically valueless pieces of paper changing hands..."

    But hey, now you all know what credit-default swaps are, isn't it fascinating?

    Parent

    What amazes me is that even though (none / 0) (#39)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:53:36 AM EST
    quite a few people here on Wall Street understood that and knew all about CDS, they still did not plan ahead for when the sh*t hit the fan.

    Parent
    It's common behavior among addicts... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    crack addicts often neglect to plan ahead...same for money addicts.

    Parent
    A Bush-like moment (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:55:30 AM EST
    Link

    One quibble with Broder on that one (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    Milbank has been an entertainment reporter for a long time. It should be no surprise he loves and encourages the Blago show.

    Anyone hear of the LaRouche PAC? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:24:53 PM EST
    They are standing outside the post office in my city passing out literature and asking for PAC donations to fight the stimulus bill.

    I asked if they were party affiliated and they said they are all Democrats as they used to be.


    LOL (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:38:20 PM EST
    Lyndon LaRouche this sums it up rather well..

    LaRouche's followers were taken with his "intellectual brilliance," one ex-member said. "He had this amazing capacity to synthesize bodies of knowledge drawn from so many areas, from Beethoven and cognitive psychology to the philosophy of Descartes."

    LaRouche was "eccentric and odd," a "mysterious character" who told a range of stories about his past and "stayed up for 24 hours at a stretch, talking nonstop," the ex-associate said.


     Quite a character.

    Then there is this..

    LaRouche was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. His defense attorney, Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. Attorney General, argued that the case represented an unprecedented abuse of power by the U.S. government in an effort to destroy the LaRouche organizations.

    wiki


    Parent

    Thanks, squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 08:12:33 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    You're right... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 06:15:12 PM EST
    he does seem to be an interesting cat.

    He lost me with his strict prohibitionist stance, but some interesting ideas too.  

    I'm gonna have to read up some more..never heard of him till now.  I love a good weirdo with ideas that the establishment can't stand.

    Parent

    More Con (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 06:30:25 PM EST
    Than pro, imo. But bro, not a schmo, wackodoodle...  100% USA

    Parent
    Probably right... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 07:02:04 PM EST
    the wiki breakdown of his political ideas did get scary at times...but I did like his D vs R, liberal vs conservative govt. framework being bullsh*t theory...and the economics stuff was food for thought at the least.

    Parent
    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment