home

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:01:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm swamped. Nothing from me today.

Open Thread.

< Democrats Release "Fast and Furious" Report | PA AG Seeks Exclusion of Centre County Jurors for Sandusky >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Morning Open Thread | 119 comments (119 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    RIP Don Cornelius (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:16:51 AM EST
    The real pioneer of urban music, friggin' American Bandstand couldn't hold a candle to Soul Train.

    That's sad... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    Well said Dadler, Soul Train was where it was at, and I couldn't imagine any other host than he of the velvet voice and general super-coolness, Mr. Don Cornelius.

    Parent
    In his honor (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:42:42 PM EST
    The Soul Train Line dances to Jungle Boogie (LINK)

    Get down, y'all!  Dona woulda wanted ya 2!

    Parent

    While all eyes are on (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    the crazy Republican primary, our own stealth Republican administration is working on a proposed trade agreement that is likely to be even more devastating to the middle class than NAFTA and our other free trade agreements.

    Here's what our speechmaker-in-chief last suckered us with last month:

    "We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules."

    Actions speak louder than words. The Obama administration's U.S. Trade Representative is secretly meeting to negotiate with Pacific Rim nations on the newest 1% bonanza called the Trans Pacific Free Trade Agreement (TPP). The advisors to this surreptitious project include hundreds of corporate lobbyists from global banks, drug companies, agribusiness corporations and the world's biggest job-killing corporations. Instead of an open, transparent process, the text is completely secret to the public. (Oh, wait, didn't Obama promise transparency in his administration in order to win our votes last time around...?)

    TPP could create a whole new set of international trade rules that favor the wealthy 1% of corporate interests. The pact's labor provisions could undermine American workers by encouraging even more off-shoring of manufacturing and service sector jobs, reducing our tax base and creating downward pressure on American wages and benefits in the jobs that are left because of a failure to protect the rights of workers in the agreement. Banksters want to use the Trans-Pacific FTA to roll back new safeguards many nations have passed to increase financial stability by regulating banks and securities firms. They propose locking in the extreme deregulation that led to the current devastating financial crisis. Corporations are attempting to restrict information freedom, making it an "aiding or abetting" crime for internet service providers to allow the posting or transfer of copyright infringing material and actually requiring governments to establish "legal incentives" to internet service providers to force them to police the internet. Our very own US Trade Representative rewarded Big Pharma's support of Obama by proposing the most radical expansion of patents ever included in a trade deal. It would increase what can be patented, make patents last longer, and even outlaw the process that lets the public challenge patents they know to be phony before they're granted.

    The most dangerous provision the U.S. negotiators are pushing is the "investor-state" enforcement system that would let corporations sue governments for the loss of potential future profits if those governments have environmental regulations, worker safety laws or human rights protections that limit their profits.

    The 1% own our government, but the rest of us still have a chance to demand our speaker-in-chief do more than just talk the talk. This is a classic Obama strategy: tell us what we want to hear to ensure our votes, then do the exact opposite while we're not paying attention. Let's not get so distracted by the Republican Primary Roadshow that we forget our current republican president is busy working against the interests of those who elected him. The 1% has all the money, but we still have our votes.

    The other housing initive to be announced (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:26:52 PM EST
    In addition to the refi idea announced today, there is a second housing program the administration will be announcing.  The bulk sale to investment groups of repossessed houses controlled by the govt via Fannie, Freddie and FHA to be converted to rentals.

    The outline is that these will be large lot sales of many properties bundled together.  

    Guess what type of investors will be in the position to make these types of purchases - private equity and investment funds.  The same 1% being demonized in the current discourse.  

    There are a host of unintended consequences lying in wait for such a program.  Some upsides, but some significant problems across the spectrum.

    Unlike the refi idea, this doesn't require Congressional action.

    Bundled properties (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    to ensure the common American can't benefit by investing in these properties.

    One more step in the deliberate destruction of America's middle class.

    Parent

    A model for the world? (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    Just 10 years ago, Ecuador was more or less a basket case, a quintessential "banana republic" [...] characterised by political instability, inequality, a poorly-performing economy, and the ever-looming impact of the US on its domestic politics.
    [snip]
    A major turning point came with the election of the economist Rafael Correa as president. After taking over in January 2007, his government ushered in a series of changes, based on a new constitution (the country's 20th, approved in 2008) that was itself mandated by a popular referendum. A hallmark of the changes that have occurred since then is that major policies have first been put through the referendum process. This has given the government the political ability to take on major vested interests and powerful lobbies.
    [snip]
    Consider just some economic changes brought about in the past four years, beginning with the renegotiation of oil contracts with multinational companies. Ecuador is an oil exporter, but had benefited relatively little from this because of the high shares of oil sales that went to foreign oil companies. A new law in July 2010 dramatically changed the terms, increasing the government's share from 13% to 87% of gross oil revenues.

    Seven of the 16 foreign oil companies decided to pull out, and their fields were taken over by state-run companies.
    [snip]
    There are numerous other measures: expanding direct public employment; increasing minimum wages and legally enforcing social security provision for all workers; diversifying the economy to reduce dependence on oil exports, and diversifying trading partners to reduce dependence on the US

    Read the whole thing...
    Could Ecuador Be the Most Radical and Exciting Place on Earth?
    AlterNet, Jan. 30/2012

    Sometimes (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 04:47:34 PM EST
    I get jealous of countries like China that are building high speed rail lines - or investing heavily in renewable energy sources - solar power - wind power...

    while we build different bombs and smart ways to drop them.

    Parent

    Well, if those countries had any brains (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 05:29:39 PM EST
    they could have Romney for president. Or Obama. :-/

    Parent
    Reactions to Komen Foundation's (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 08:58:13 PM EST
    decision to stop giving Planned Parenthood grant money to provide breast cancer screenings have been very negative here. And I gather from watching the national news that Komen is getting quite a bit of blowback for putting politics ahead of women's health.

    The local Komen chapter, worried that a city that hosts one of the biggest Race for the Cure events in the country is reacting so negatively to the Planned Parenthood decision, is asking people not to judge the local by the actions of the national Komen office. Good luck with that.

    I have no sympathy for Komen. They chose to side with a political witch hunt. Cliff Stearns, a whacko Republican congressman from Florida, has launched this investigation. What else has Stearns done? According to Charlie Pierce

    Stearns is the guy who added to the Zadroga bill, which provided for federal relief to the first responders who worked on the pile at Ground Zero in New York, the ludicrous requirement that the names of all applicants for such relief first be checked against all terrorist watch-list. He also once attacked PBS because the South African version of Sesame Street introduced a character who was HIV-positive.

    Komen's recently hired vice-prsident for public policy, anti-abortion zealot Karen Handel, also seems to have played a part in this decision.

    Komen will never see another penny of my money. Enough with sacrificing women's health care on the altar of politics.

    Dude (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:19:01 AM EST
    Obama is on the tube talking about a real refinance plan for all homeowners who are underwater, to refi at what he calls a historically low interest rate.  But you have to be on time with your payments.  So no relief for some.

    He says no more red tape though and no more runaround by the banks.  If only Congress will pass it.

    On time with your payments (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:30:52 AM EST
    How many deserving people do you think this disqualifies?  A lot of people HAD to stop making payments, and many in order to qualify for relief of some sort.  When prices were so fraudulently inflated and outta whack, how can you penalize people who stopped paying because it WAS the right thing to do, for their own survival?

    Glad he's yapping more progressively, but I'll wait for solid actions without huge qualifiers.

    Parent

    Many people will be disqualified (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:42:19 AM EST
    We will in the end end up dealing with their dilemma in different ways.  They will be a new market to sell homes to.  There are too many of them to be able to punish them long term for being "bad" people.

    A Homeowner's Bill of Rights would be awesome though, and having those selling mortgages to not be able to have conflicts of interest.  I wish he would "teach" on this, and hopefully that is the plan.  Because most people who don't have time to study what has happened, the people trying to feed their families, they don't understand how Goldman Sachs and now even Freddie Mac sell us one thing that they know is hopeless and then place bets that we will crash and burn.  And they get paid on both ends.

    Parent

    More information, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:23:15 AM EST
    via David Dayen:

    This is a stimulus policy, which could be effective depending on the scale. But refis do not save people's homes, and certainly not underwater homes. That's especially true because this is a program for current borrowers:

    The plan aims to help borrowers who are current on their mortgages refinance into lower-interest federally insured loans. Borrowers would qualify even if they owe more than their homes are worth or if they have trouble securing a new mortgage from a private lender.

    The proposal, which the president mentioned in his recent State of the Union address, is likely to spur debate over how aggressively the government should intervene in the flagginghousing market. Also at issue: how to fund the effort's estimated $5 billion to $10 billion price tag. The White House is proposing a tax on large banks--something Republicans have said they oppose.

    [snip]

    I do want to stress that this is an economic policy and not a housing policy. You have to have been current for six months on your payments to qualify, with no more than one delinquency in the previous six months. It's an effort to get lower interest rates to the majority of the housing market, with the idea that the money they don't spend on mortgage payments can get cycled into the economy. I think that's a decent enough idea from an economic standpoint, though there would be losses for bondholders that would partially offset the gains from homeowners (I'd say the gains outweigh the losses from a multiplier standpoint). It will allow for more deleveraging of households. But it won't save anybody's home, and I'd argue that's the bigger crisis.

    The other point is that this wouldn't help all that many homeowners. The real benefit would be to refi everyone in an almost mandatory fashion. Most current borrowers can already refi into new loans. By opening this up to current borrowers who don't already qualify, you're talking about maybe 3 million refis. And that's eligibility, it doesn't mean all 3 million will actually refi. And that could be less, if Congress puts a ceiling - say 140% - on how underwater borrowers can be and still qualify.

    This is about the "responsible" borrowers - if you remember, Obama specifically referenced the "responsibility" aspect of all of this, as if those who have been or are being foreclosed on were not responsible and wouldn't have deserved any help - even though many of these borrowers didn't get to the positions they were in out of failure to be responsible, but because of all the reasons we're already familiar with.

    Those people - the deadbeats Obama truly seems to disdain - are the very people who are going to be closed out of any significant relief via either the grossly inadequate settlement that is still being pushed - and pushed hard (the deadline for the state AG's to sign on is either Feb 3 or 4) or the "investigation" component that may go nowhere and may take a long time to work through to any conclusion that includes relief for homeowners.

    As Dayen says, as stimulus, it's not a bad idea - but this isn't a housing initiative; I hate to say it, but this is mostly PR - and seriously, after the horrors of HAMP, how many people do you think will be willing to take that plunge?

    If it helps someone, great, but I think there is much less here than meets the eye.

    Parent

    If this happens for me (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:43:07 AM EST
    It isn't just PR.  This program would put this family on more solid footing, if someone gets lower interest and is affording their current payments then more of their payment goes toward loan principal.  This means that we will end up paying less for our houses but securitization of the loan principal is sound.  That is a larger economic lynchpin.

    I don't think President Obama has disdain for deadbeats.  I don't think that at all.  He doesn't get up in the morning and frown into the mirror thinking about those G*d D*mned deadbeats.  He can't politically get away with write downs for McMansion purchasers.  Nobody could do that.....NOBODY.  And it destroys incentive for people who did buy carefully what we could afford.  It rewards good spending habits and healthy behaviors.  That is one of the things that a fully functioning free market has always rewarded until Wall Street got a hold of us.

    A Homeowners Bill of Rights would be incredible too. I WANT ONE!  And you can't make me not want one :)

    Parent

    I didn't say it wouldn't help anyone, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    Tracy - it will.  But it's not going to do anything for people who have either already been through the meat grinder of foreclosure, or who are already on the conveyor belt and headed toward the blades.

    There are plenty of "those" people who also bought carefully - but who lost their jobs and weren't able to find another, and couldn't sell their homes to get out from under.  

    And, I'm sorry, Tracy, but while I also don't think Obama wakes up every morning ticked off about the deadbeats, he is always - always - careful to discuss these kinds of programs in terms of responsible people who deserve help.  We've discussed that here in the past - that Obama seemed to prefer doing nothing lest some program help one of the undeserving, or doing something crafted so tightly that it would filter out anyone who didn't "deserve" help.

    This hideous settlement that is still on the table, would - at most - give $1,800 to each borrower who has been wronged by the entire mortgage/servicer/foreclosure debacle.  Now, you tell me: does that seem like just compensation for someone who, just like you, bought carefully, but who, unlike you, fell victim to a deep recession and was unable to hang on for years waiting for help?

    Those who are current on their mortgages aren't in danger of losing their homes - those still barely hanging on, already behind on their payments, are not only in danger of losing their homes, but there is no one riding to any kind of rescue even though they may be just as deserving as you are, but not as fortunate in how life has treated them in the last three years or so.

    I'm happy that this will help you and your family, and as PR goes, it will do a bang-up job if people like you are dancing in the streets as a result of the help you get.  It's too bad that similarly touted programs to help homeowners - HAMP and HARP and whatever other acronymic programs sprouted when the natives got restless - have been horrible and shameful failures, putting "deserving" homeowners in worse shape than they were before they got involved.

    A lot of good people got chewed up, spit out and left behind because of the so-called "help" this administration has concocted, so you will just have to pardon me if I'm not all giddy with joy over this latest version of "help."

    Parent

    No, I don't think making the deal with AGs (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:39:36 PM EST
    is something that should be done.  Due process should not be disturbed.  He isn't even disturbing "due process" with his New Deal.  Isn't it a separate issue though?  And he said that the task force is in the process of wrapping its investigations up.  I will wait to see what transpires....  Well no, that's not me at all is it?  If I get a scent in the wind that he's going to phuck people who were royally phucked....THEN I will call this morning a shameful horrid distraction and he will enter a new level of hell in my levels of hell.  It's his choice though.  He can choose to phuck people, he CAN do that today.  We all know that the chances of Congress giving us a Homeowners Bill of Rights are practically zero.  So if he marches this out to make himself look like a hero while behind closed doors he guts everyone.  Well, we all know what someone is who does that.

    If he marched this out this morning though in order to be able to shaft everyone in the afternoon, that's called a piece of $hit in the world I live in :)

    Parent

    I think the larger problem.. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:19:31 PM EST
    ...is home ownership makes no real financial sense anymore for very many average people.  Why on earth would you struggle to buy a house in an economy where wages for the average worker have been flat for almost half a century?  It does not make any rational sense to believe such a system is capable of providing a rewarding house-buying market over time for these folks, myself included right now.  The same instinct in me that knew when prices were skyrocketing that no average person had to money to afford it, is the same instinct now that tells me the housing situation is still in deck-chairs on the Titanic mode.  Until we decide that employing the mass of our population at generous wages is a good thing, to ensure a prosperous and secure society over time, I just feel like we're engaged in something delusional.  Just my op.

    I hope you get helped tho.  

    Parent

    We talk about this all the time in this house (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:48:21 PM EST
    I'm like ready, I'm ready to walk :)  I won't play rigged rat in a wheel.  I really am cool with a yurt.  I haven't got to do a yurt yet, so many possibilities.  I'm scary that way.  I think it is because my father was a builder and I lived in so many houses.  I lived in new houses with the new house smell, I lived in houses that he remodeled that had "character".  I'm not a military brat in that I can make the best out of any new community...but I guess I'm a house brat.  I am not my house, whatever that may be.  It is only here to shelter me, warm and protect me, and sometimes entertain me.

    Parent
    Buying a house can make complete sense (none / 0) (#71)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 03:01:15 PM EST
    for almost anyone.

    The question is, as always, price.  If a house is cheap enough, it could make sense for even the most unlikely homeowner to buy.

    The lesson of the boom wasn't that certain people shouldn't buy.  It was that certain people should not buy houses above a certain price threshold.

    Parent

    What happened to cogent? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 06:16:03 PM EST
    We learned from the great depression that putting people through this kind of hell changes incentives and cultural beliefs about spending and investing for at least a generation.  There are long term consequences for destroying the people's trust.  And those consequences have been documented at least once in this nations history.  House of Lies has a name for your analysis, its called WAGs for wild ass guesses.

    Parent
    The Soccer World (none / 0) (#100)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 07:11:15 PM EST
    would take issue with your acronym.

    Parent
    I don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    Love is over 50% wild ass guess too :)

    Parent
    Well Played MT (none / 0) (#122)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 03:53:06 PM EST


    Parent
    A refi of the same underwater loan amount (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:46:00 PM EST
    is something, but not going to address the real problem. I would not say no to a lower interest rate, but the real problem is that the market value of my house is half of the loan amount. Paying it off faster would be beneficial, though, as MT says.

    Parent
    Yes - I think the' teaching moment' and (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:47:56 PM EST
    political value of this at least give the rest of us a benefit, even if the program itself does not help us.

    Parent
    And a Homeowners Bill of Rights (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:20:24 AM EST


    Parent
    If it is anything like... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:45:17 PM EST
    the patients bill of rights, or the airline passenger bill of rights, sh*t the bill of rights...well then I'm afraid it ain't worth the paper it is printed on.  You've only got the rights you can defend.

    Not to mention that, technically, until the house is paid in full, the "homeowner" is the bank...the resident who thinks they're a homeowner is just a glorified renter.  And the banksters got enough "rights"! ;)

    Parent

    Can't stop myself.....It's a New Deal :) (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:21:04 AM EST


    Parent
    they (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:21:04 AM EST
    won't pass it.

    Not through this house.

    Parent

    He's offering it though (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:33:44 AM EST
    He's gone FDR, hopefully not momentarily.  He can "teach" this to the country, and then let the phuckers screw us all in public.  We will take the Senate and the House.

    Parent
    I agree it's good politics (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:37:04 AM EST
    and I hope it helps us win back congress.

    I just wish it would actually become a bill because this country needs it.

    Parent

    It could (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:44:48 AM EST
    The only way that can happen is if it is proposed.  Man, give Oakland OWS something to focus on and fight for :)  They can shut down a port, they might really mess someone up shooting down their New Deal and setting it on fire :)

    Parent
    yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 06:51:27 PM EST
    i joined a picket line at Kaiser Oakland where mental health workers & opticians staged a 24-hour strike - they were joined by registered nurses, who staged a risky 24-hour walkout in solidarity

    & where was Occupy Oakland?

    #Crickets

    #CircleJerk

    Parent

    Show pony (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:54:29 AM EST
    Campaign season gets them all in their racing silks.  

    Sure he's saying it, he says a lot of sh*t.  

    I'm too skeptical right now.  Got that bully tormenting my kid at school (yesterday my eleven year-old learned what a f*cking f*ggot is, after being called that by thugboy -- who is not supposed to say a thing to my son, and whom I am THIS close to really going after in a serious way.  One more incident and, I swear girlie, the kid is going to find out what being stomped on (metaphorically of course) really feels like.  Or his parents will.  Or both.  Phucking idiots.

    Peace out.  Ahem.

    Parent

    I'm excited though Dadler (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:11:15 AM EST
    I'm excited and I've been screwed before so I'm a very very suspicious excited....I'm literally twice as dangerous right now to screw over. If I see anything reminiscent of how healthcare reform went it is going to be really hard to get out of bed to vote at this point.  I'm probably thrice as dangerous to screw with like that and I doubt I'm alone.  Show ponies don't do so well with the American people these days.

    Parent
    I want to believe (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    I really do.

    We shall see...

    Parent

    If OWS wants to fight for this (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:12:53 PM EST
    I will send money.  With all these Super PACs, what candidate really needs my bull$hit money anymore anyhow :)?

    Dear God, all I want for Christmas is for the Republican base to fully grasp that everything they allowed themselves to be sold snake oil about, and supported because it was petty and was supposed to phuck up the people they hated, and voted for because we all must pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, has now made them all powerless and voiceless.  Please allow them to understand that they knocked themselves out with their own bitter inhumane punches :)

    Parent

    May I say that I hope (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:11:45 AM EST
    that you don't wait for one more serious incident.

    Voice of experience here.  Go.  But don't count on the school district to do the right thing, unless you keep at them.  That's one reason, that it can take so long to get action, to start now.

    It can work at times to deal with the parents, too -- but often, as you say, dealing with both can work best.  Whichever:  You may be hearing about only the worst stuff.  And bullies rarely have only one target, and your son may be the lucky one with a parent willing to fight on others' behalf, as well.

    Parent

    I have had a varied experience with this (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:31:20 AM EST
    In Colorado there was zero tolerance at the Junior High that our daughter attended and they got to the bottom of things.  My daughter brought one of her more awkward peers home one afternoon saying that other kids at school were trying to beat her up.  We kept her until her dad got home from work.  I was so proud of my daughter.  Then I got a phone call that I was requested to discuss the incident at the Junior High.  I showed up all smiles.  The principal asked me what I understood about what had taken place and I told her that my daughter brought her peer home so that others could not harm her.  I then discovered that what had happened was that my daughter was teasing the girl first, other girls decided to join the fun, a very large girl decided to up the ante and pound the girl to a pulp and that was when my daughter realized that she had started something that was really going to get someone hurt so she started backpedaling.  So, I have had the bully under my roof and her school dealt with her deftly and well as well as her family.

    If anyone here hurts or teases Josh they are really on them here.  And the grade school really has a handle on it.  But the Junior High does not address bullying consistently or well and certain kinds of bullying are okay, like the kind of bullying that causes boys to all want to keep their hair short.
     

    Parent

    Junior High sucks (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:02:29 PM EST
    I love how we always expect kids to just deal with situations that adults would never tolerate themselves, and for which adults have many more legal remedies.  

    Parent
    bullies (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by womanwarrior on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:34:22 AM EST
    Hey, it takes time and perseverance to end the bullies. I kept going back to the school and getting bs, until I found one teacher with experience who managed it and made it stop.  Supposedly, the schools are better at it today.  Hope you find that is true.  

    In the mean time, the most important thing is that your kid knows how much you love and believe him/her.  You just keep giving your kid activities that build self confidence and self esteem, and you do things together.

    Much as you want to resort to violence, that models the wrong thing for your kid and ends up with you charged with crime.  Bullies are notorious whiners and snitches.  You gotta be tougher than them.  Good luck!

    Parent

    I don't want to resort to violence (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    I just wish the school, no sexism intended, had a male and female VP for discipline.  When I worked at an inner-city elementary school, the VP was a very large guy who, though very sweet as a person, knew exactly how to keep the rougher boys in line -- basically by being there as a male role model with high expectations for their behavior.  The VP for discipline at my son's school is a nice and caring woman, but she's a tad soft, as the whole school is (thankfully they have almost no bullying at all compared to most schools), and I just don't think she's gonna do a thing to change this kid's behavior.  He has no fear of any consequences, and certainly not of her.  

    Parent
    I don't think it is sexist at all (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    to notice that when young men begin hitting the testosterone, they often only seem to be able to hear older testosterone.

    Another spouse I had in an FRG had three sons all hitting it and Dad was in Iraq.  The two oldest got in a fight one night and the only thing she could do was screech for them to go outside before they destroyed the house.  She did at least get them outside.  They beat the hell out of each other, they were both really hurting the next day and they were mad at her for not breaking it up :)  She couldn't believe that they were blaming her.

    Parent

    Don't I know it (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:59:48 AM EST
    We're on top of it as much as we can be so far, I've already dealt with the school, talked to them again yesterday.  The parents are getting divorced, and they have another son in who's in juvie.  So the kid has nothing at home, obviously.  But I will not have my child harassed and made to fear every day.  Whole thing is making me sick.  But it will come to an end and soon, however it has to happen.

    Parent
    If it Were Me... (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    I'd find a bigger bully. Which for me would be one of my cousins kids, nothing violent, just a little reminder that he's not beatdown proof.

    Obviously you should go though the right channels, I only mention it because you have to know, if you do something to the kid, there is no way you won't get in serious trouble and that isn't going to help your son one bit.  You can't touch the kid.

    Parent

    This is the very last thing I would ever do (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    in this situation

    Parent
    Serious suggestion (none / 0) (#109)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 09:54:51 PM EST
    take a look at the book "And Words Can Hurt Forever" -- written by 2 psychologists who have helped school districts implement successful anti-bullying programs.  Full of practical suggestions following research-based analysis of issues.

    Parent
    I develops the "Do Nothing Congress" (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:36:03 AM EST
     electoral theme, or the obstructionist House argument.

    Parent
    Doing the math on Obama's deficits (none / 0) (#16)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:15:03 AM EST
    Ezra is presenting some extreme examples of "word math problems" here.  His solution to "one train departs the station heading east at 40 mph..." would be a classic.

    A combination of:  New math + Bush's fault + $4.7T - $983B = Pretzel logic.  Coming to a campaign talking point near you soon.

    How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

    There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.

    When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it's about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama's opponents: $4.7 trillion.

    But ask yourself: Which of Obama's policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

    There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

    Link

    One hopes (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:19:41 AM EST
    That you don't do your own investing and that you hired it out :)

    Parent
    I hope you don't (none / 0) (#22)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:34:54 AM EST
    use Ezra's math skills in balancing your checkbook.  ;-)

    Parent
    Sigh..... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:46:04 AM EST
    Please notice though that my house isn't worth what it was 5 years ago.  I used to have $100,000 in equity alone in the house.......and now I have?  I probably have nothing in equity now.  So no, it isn't checkbook math....but asset/liability math also exists in households BTAL.  It is real math, it's real cyphering.

    Parent
    Don't be so negative (none / 0) (#25)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    Just use Ezra Math and that negative/lost $100,000 disappears and all is good.   In fact, using his ratios, you now have somewhere in the $800,000 equity range.

    See, its just that easy with Ezra Math.

    Parent

    Like I said (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:59:57 AM EST
    I hope you hired out :)

    Parent
    What a contrast (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:18:00 AM EST
    I'm excited about the Obama New Deal.  We have to leave our house in about a year.  Instead of trying to sell we assumed we would just rent.  The market is horrible right now, and we live in a great neighborhood.  An officer feeling stuck at Fort Rucker for two years, just needing to keep up appearances and then escape quickly would rent our house.  If our payments are a couple of hundred dollars less though, I have a larger pool of renters to choose from.  I would rent this place for hundreds less to someone that would simply care for it respectfully.

    And then CNN puts Mitt Romney on telling everyone that Newt never calls.  I had to sit down to laugh.

    Same Boat, Somewhat (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:29:58 PM EST
    I have been tossing around the same idea for a while, renting verses selling and like you I don't think I would be making anything, and with taxes and insurance I could be losing some, but not much.

    For me renting doesn't make sense.  One, no homestead exemption, which is substantial in Texas and property taxes are already high.  The house would probably appreciate by the additional expense, so out of pocket cost would be equal to the additional equity.

    This will differ for you because you would have to compared two markets, for me just one.

    Anyways, the equity I will lose by selling is additional equity into another more valuable property.  Versus what I will get without the equity.  The appreciation of that equity is the same, regardless if it sits in property A or B, except it would be more leveraged, on the new property, depending on how pimp I go.

    But I would be upgrading, and just estimating the housing market is roughly 75% of value here, meaning I would lose 25% on my place, but and here where I think the real value is, I would get the newer more valuable property at the same discount, add in the equity, and for me at least that is more sensible, my bottom line even after selling the original house when the market recovers would be better to sell.

    Plus of course, I don't know any renters so I would have to hire a service and have the costs associated with it, plus those random unexpected cost.  But then again, and I just thought of this, those expense are deductible.  Anyways, still kicking around the idea.

    Basically, I would be selling a lower cost asset as a discount, and buying a higher priced one at the same discount.

    All of this of course is based on the assumption that in the near future, say 4-6 years the market will recover. If not, or gets worse, I will have leveraged a depreciating asset.

    Parent

    Willard (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    Tells us how he really feels.

    "I'm in this race because I care about Americans.  I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.

    I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I'll continue to take that message across the nation."

    "The challenge right now - we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and - and there's no question, it's not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor.

    But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign - you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus."

    Someone should tell Mitt Romney that middle income Americans are also broke.  I'm also glad we have a safety net, I shudder to think how he's gonna "fix it".  This guy is completely clueless.  Nice follow-up on the link:

    "according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the largest benefits of Romney's tax plan go to the wealthy, not the middle class"

    Did he say anything that is not true? (none / 0) (#41)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:53:19 PM EST
    The wealthy are surviving as expected.

    The truly truly poor do have a safety net that he is not proposing to change.

    The real challenge is getting the middle class back on their feet.

    Parent

    what he said that isn't true (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    "I'm not concerned about the very rich"

    Yes he is, as evidenced by his economic plan.

    What's missing here is a lack of understanding that a significant portion of what use to be the middle class is now in the truly poor section of the population.  It's not just about getting the middle class back on their feet, it's getting the truly poor back into the middle class.

    Parent

    Per the Census Bureau (none / 0) (#46)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    Poverty by Age chart and timeline 1959 - 2009.

    Parent
    your timeline (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    is short by about 3 years, and it's doing an "up" motion at the end of it.

    Other than that I'm not really sure what your point is.  The number of people living in poverty is increasing.  That's a problem to me, one that I think a potential president should spend some worrying about.

    Parent

    Find some more recent and viable (none / 0) (#48)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    data.

    Yes, there is an up trend but nothing more than expected due to the recession.  Unfortunate, but not the sky is falling picture you paint.  

    As Romney stated, the focus needs to be on the 90%-95% middle class.  The 2%-4% change in poverty level will automatically correct itself when the middle class starts to heal.

    Parent

    yes it's to be expected (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    due to the recession.

    Which is also why it needs to be addressed.

    Here is more recent data.

    "the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it."

    "The report said the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line last year, 15.1 percent, was the highest level since 1993."

    15.1% of people is not pocket change.

    Parent

    It is the same level as 1993 (none / 0) (#56)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    (per your link) and the previous recession was far worse than the one a few years prior to that.  Even during the "good times" the level only bottoms out ~11% to 12% range.  

    Again, it is unfortunate but the current safety net is helping those individuals as designed, no better or worse help than in the past.  

    If anything, one should be cautious to highlight the last three years' increase in relation to the upcoming election.  YMMV

    Parent

    1993 (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CST on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:39:48 PM EST
    is not an acceptable level.  YMMV

    Yes it's unfortunate.  It's especially unfortunate when you have a candidate who wants to cut that current safety net (fix my @ss) and give more tax benefits to the super wealthy.

    But he's not worried about it so why should the rest of us be.

    Parent

    He specifically stated (none / 0) (#73)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 03:05:12 PM EST
    per your posted quote/article he wasn't going to deal with the safety net.  

    Until he specifically lists any exact changes to the safety net - not your interpretation - it is a strawman.  The same applies to Obama, who uses the EXACT same lingo regarding "entitlement" reform.  Considering one is POTUS with its requisite power and bully pulpit, your focus might be better focused there if protecting the safety net is the primary concern.

    Parent

    actually no (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by CST on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 03:30:31 PM EST
    he said he would "fix it" if it needs repair.

    And all of his proposals to date on "fixing it" = "cutting it"

    So no, he didn't say anything about leaving it alone.

    He also specifically stated he didn't care about the super wealthy.  But he's still trying to give them more tax breaks.

    Parent

    Get back to us when (none / 0) (#80)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 03:47:44 PM EST
    he said he would "fix it" IF it needs repair.

    that IF happens or he states categorically he IS going to and how he will change the safety net.  Until then it is supposition.

    Parent

    not for me (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by CST on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 04:17:34 PM EST
    he was my gov. for a while.

    I know how he tries to fix the safety net.  He cuts it.

    And before we get into the whole Romneycare thing, the most I can say about him there is he didn't get in the way of the MA legislature that was gonna do it with or without him.  And many of the good parts of the bill happened without him.

    Parent

    I think the point is - if the focus (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:04:15 PM EST
    should be on the 95%, why is he worrying about giving the upper 3% another tax cut

    Parent
    As I understand it, Romney will (none / 0) (#54)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:55:14 PM EST
    "fix" things by, what else? cutting the safety net programs that "protect" the poor that aren't his focus!

    From Slate:

    [...] if you read Romney's policy agenda what he appears to think about the social safety net for the poor is that it should be drastically curtailed. He proposes the following five points:

    Immediately cut nonsecurity discretionary spending by 5 percent.
    Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states.
    Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates.
    Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition.
    Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services.

    In other words he wants to cut the safety net, cut the health care part of the safety net, muck around with the federal workforce, and then cut the non-health care part of the safety net.

    Romney:

    "We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it, but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers. We have programs to help the poor, but the middle-income Americans there are the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get the economy going for them."

    I get the distinct feeling that Romney doesn't have a clue, or any ideas where to find one, about what life is life for people who depend on these safety net programs - it's almost as if he believes that life is good in the safety net - so good that if there's going to be any transfer of resources, they sure as hell aren't going to be coming from the wealthy.

    Yes, the middle class needs help, but not at the expense of the poor; I don't know - that seems like basic knowledge/common sense kind of stuff to me, but maybe this was less a message to the middle class as it was to the wealthy who want to know that their interests are inviolable with Romney in charge.

    Parent

    The left needs to acknowledge (none / 0) (#63)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    that our "safety net" is dysfunctional. Until we do, the right wing will continue to hit us over the head with things like intergenerational welfare and deliberate impoverishment (which is often just plain fraud). I'm not saying people don't need help, just that we don't manage our programs correctly. As long as a large number of recipients of public support have plenty of money for alcohol, drugs and cigarettes, our progressive programs will be failures and we'll lose the moderates' votes. Think Reagan, Nixon, Bush & Bush. Will Romney be the next beneficiary of working America's disgust with give-away liberal policies?

    Romney is speaking to people who work for a living but who personally know many others who choose to scarf off the system even though they're capable taking responsibility for themselves and their children. Nobody likes to be taken advantage of. This isn't just stuff that people hear on Faux News, it's reality in America. When you have relatives and neighbors who are capable of working and choose not to, you have an intimate insight into why handouts don't work. Sure, the job market sucks right now, but I'm talking about a pattern over the past fifty years. We've created intergeneration welfare by not demanding responsibility. Deadbeat dads and crack moms can continue to have babies they won't ever pay for because we let them. It doesn't matter that life isn't good for those who truly need the safety net. What matters is that so many people abuse our programs that they've become a joke. Paying someone's rent for thirty years is not a hand up, it's a program that encourages many, many others to "qualify" for Section 8. Maybe a dorm room with a work requirement would be a better "safety net" than many years of free rent and HEAP utility payments.

    If liberals are too naïve to analyze and improve our own programs, and I don't mean just throwing more money at them, we'll continue to see the right wing win elections.

    Parent

    Oy (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by sj on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:48:30 PM EST
    So much propaganda and ignorant bias here that I'm sticking with "Oy".

    Parent
    second that "oy" (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CST on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:51:12 PM EST
    with a follow up of:

    Immediately cut nonsecurity discretionary spending by 5 percent.
    Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states.
    Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates.
    Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition.
    Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services.

    In other words, cut healthcare for poor people (you know, since it's excessive today), cut wages for people who work for the gov't (not deadbeats, employed individuals), cut the workforce (not deadbeats, employed individuals), and "etc..."

    Sounds like a great plan to "address the safety net".

    Parent

    Funny how... (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    "gaming the system" only becomes a big issue when somebody on welfare gets their undeserving lazy hands on a pack of cigarettes.

    Nothing else to see in the "gaming the system" file...lol.

    Parent

    Point (none / 0) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 03:02:29 PM EST
    kdog

    Parent
    A pack? (none / 0) (#86)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    Ten bucks a day for a pack of cigarettes, $300 a month,$3600 per year. Alcohol and drugs cost a lot more. How about tats? If you can afford pot, booze, cigs and a couple of $300 tattoos, why is someone else paying your rent? Oh yeah, let's add $500,000 for your cancer treatment on Medicaid after living off the public for years. People seem to think it's their right to force others to pay for their poor choices in life. But hey, who are we as liberals to begrudge someone their right to smoke or take drugs while living off the rest of us? That's exactly the attitude that makes moderates decide to dump the Democratic Party and vote for someone who at least says they'll make a change to our welfare mentality (not that Republicans ever solve the problem either).

    No one is denying poor people one pack of smokes, kdog. The issue is preventing abuse and not creating incentive for intergenerational welfare. I know plenty of guys who work under the table while their baby mama and their kids live off the public. Why not at least give their neighbors a reward for turning them in if they're a deadbeat dad who's making plenty of money to raise his own kids? If you think I'm just spouting propaganda, then why is there such intense resistance to specific requirements for welfare recipients. Liberals won't even acknowledge that there IS a problem.

    I think people in general want to help others. They just don't want to be taken advantage of. We have created systems that do not demand or even EXPECT recipients to take personal responsibility, and programs that actively encourage deliberate (or fake) impoverishment. That's the issue. Until we change them, we're feeding the GOP.

    Parent

    The problem is that right-wing, (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 05:30:36 PM EST
    conservative politicians use the resentment to do little else but just cut programs - they do nothing to address the reasons why people are living in poverty - because if it's a choice between a dollar for the poor, and a dollar in their pockets, the poor lose every time.  And don't even get me started on those who object to sex education, birth control and other reproductive choices, claiming their devotion to life, but who don't want one penny of "their" money spent on handouts for the children who come into the world as a result.

    And, you have yet to present any argument for cuts in Social Security and Medicare - programs people who receive benefits have contributed to over many years of work.

    You must be the guy who's in line behind someone with food stamps, passing judgment on every item "your" tax dollars are buying.  And I'm sure you do it without benefit of having one single piece of information about that person or his or her circumstances.

    I have to say, that's some "Left" mind you have there...must be why I keep reading your handle as "My Lost Mind."

    Parent

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#91)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 05:52:26 PM EST
    ... right-wing conservative politicians use the resentment to do little else but just cut programs - they do nothing to address the reasons why people are living in poverty

    Of course the right wing has no intention of doing what's right. But we empower the Republicans by handing them millions of votes when we refuse to admit that we're making the problem worse. Liberals are not willing to take a hard stand against freeloaders, and that lack of vision is what's destroying our safety net. It's a joke.

    you have yet to present any argument for cuts in Social Security and Medicare - programs people who receive benefits have contributed to over many years of work.

    I don't believe in cuts to Social Security. My point is simply that WE can't do right by those who need our help when we allow so many to abuse our generosity.

    Parent

    The problems faced by our (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:11:24 PM EST
    nation in terms of limited public financial resources result in such small part from issues of welfare freeloaders and in much larger measure from major wars, no-bid contracts to support them, tax policy and so on.  

    29% of America's children now live at the poverty level -- in families of 4 with annual incomes of approximately $21,000 per year or less. 41% of our children live in actual poverty, i.e., in families of 4 with annual incomes of $42,000 (approx) or less.  The rate of poverty among America's children has increased substantially in the past 4 years.

    Let's keep our focus on what really matters.

    Parent

    You're missing my point. (none / 0) (#118)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    I agree with you on helping people. I just think the way we do it causes us three major problems:
    1. We encourage dependency without demanding any personal responsibility. We give a hand out versus a hand up.
    2. Our welfare mentality results in intergenerational welfare use. We make the problem bigger than it was.
    3. The effect of our blind support of ineffective programs cause moderates to vote Republican in disgust. Those voters aren't necessarily selfish people; they would likely support our programs if people weren't so OBVIOUSLY taking advantage of them.

    These problems I point out DO matter. We can't focus on helping those in need because our policies result in the election of more Republicans.

    Nothing's more frustrating than seeing your neighbors live off the public while working under the table and buying drugs, alcohol & cigarettes with their own money. Stereotype? Nope. Look around you. Use of the safety net by those who could take care of their own responsibilities is massively prevalent. If what I see is just a silly stereotype, why not agree to change the rules to prevent it? If you believe people on welfare are nothing like what I described, what would it matter if we made changes to prevent abuse?

    Parent

    so what do you propose? (none / 0) (#92)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 06:02:08 PM EST


    Parent
    The moderates you speak of... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:36:50 AM EST
    are missing the forest for the trees.

    I read the letters to the editor in the paper..."the person in line in front of me at the supermarket bought junk food with food stamps, the horror!".  It's kick the dog syndrome man...these "moderates" don't see the big-time gaming of the system by lobbyists, corporate boardrooms, tax accountants, etc...they see the slob on food stamps and kick that dog.  The guy on unemployment working off the books and kick that dog.  Is it wrong to scam?  Yeah.  But it's not the gaming of the system that should be first on the list to address...it's a drop in the bucket compared to how guys like Mitt Romney scam us.

    Nobody thinks institutionalizing a cycle of poverty is a good thing...it's just not whats killing us right now, instituionalized grift is what is killing us, and that scam is run by billionaires, not the residents of public housing.  

    If the "moderates" can't see that they deserve the government they vote for...a government by, of, and for people with more wealth than them, not less.  The "moderates" you speak of need to start paying attention to whats going on up the ladder instead of fixating on whats going on down the ladder.

    Parent

    what you are saying here (none / 0) (#87)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 05:26:59 PM EST
    seems out of tune with what i've understood, from reading your other comments, to be the rest of your political philosophy (not that i don't have anomalies of my own, such as my approval of the Obama/Sibelius Plan B decision in spite of my absolutist views on women's reproductive freedom, or my anger at Occupy Oakland despite my support of Occupy Wall Street)

    a few weeks ago another TL commenter, who seems otherwise very liberal, went off on her neighbor in terms similar to those in your comments on this topic - your criticisms seem so specific that i can't help wondering if there's a personal angle of some kind to your comments as well - is your vehemence the result of encounters with someone in particular?

    Parent

    Nothing personal at all. (none / 0) (#94)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 06:20:33 PM EST
    I grew up poor, and I've had some advantages as well as plenty of barriers in my life. I know thousands of people who access the "safety net" who would make very different choices if they had to. We've encouraged dependency.

    After talking to people I know who "use" the system, and reading a lot from both sides of the argument, I think it's time to reassess our welfare mentality and find better ways to help people be successful and productive. The problem is that progressives freak out whenever someone suggests that our programs are actually part of the problem.


    Parent

    OK, thanks for your response (none / 0) (#96)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 06:43:35 PM EST
    my question, though sincere, ran the risk of seeming to dismiss your own sincere concerns - i'm glad it wasn't taken that way but would have understood if it had been

    i think you & Anne & others here have raised good questions & made some excellent points

    Parent

    enourage.. (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:49:11 PM EST
    we "encourage" alot of things: rampant materialism, moronic "impulse buying", superficial analysis-thinking, a pack mentality that only vents on the next one down in the pack hierarchy..

    If it's such a beatific existence that welfare scammers experience, why does no one want to trade palces with them?

    Parent

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:57:59 PM EST
    I sure got no love for cube-life...if public assistance was all Patron, Sour Diesel & Marlboro Reds I'd be all over that sh*t;)

    The one time I asked the public for assistance I got shot down...broke but not broke enough for medicaid.  I got the message and never asked again.

    Parent

    You should save some (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:54:35 PM EST
    for the people who brought down the whole economy and then paid out multi-million dollar bonuses to indivuals with YOUR money..

    Now that's a welfare scam for the ages..

    You're railing about small potatoes.

    Parent

    I never said that (none / 0) (#123)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 05:02:07 PM EST
    living on welfare was a beatific existence. I said we're making the problems worse. And I often rail on corporate welfare.

    Reread my posts, especially #118

    Many Republican presidents getting elected over the past thirty years is NOT small potatoes.


    Parent

    Deroguatory stereotype? (none / 0) (#117)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:08:30 PM EST
    Use of the safety net by those who could take care of their own responsibilities is massively prevalent. If what I see is just a silly stereotype, why not agree to change the rules to prevent it? That's shouldn't hurt anyone since you seem to believe people on welfare are nothing like what I described.

    Upper class professional liberals have the hardest time understanding how easy it is for people to take advantage of the system. Or perhaps you just want to make sure your underpaid maid can get the help she needs to afford her rent while making peanuts for cleaning your bathroom.

    Parent

    Its only because it is something (none / 0) (#114)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 06:47:24 AM EST
    your average taxpaying citizen sees when standing in some store line everyday.  

    Parent
    and add a "vey" (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by DFLer on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 05:36:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Re cutting govt wages (none / 0) (#74)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    CBO released data this week that puts federal govt wages and benefits at 16% above the private sector for comparable positions.   16% in today's economy is a significant difference.

    The remainder of your list (except Medicaid) has nothing to do with the safety net.

    Parent

    Yes, we should just (none / 0) (#82)
    by sj on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 04:32:15 PM EST
    continue the race to the bottom by cutting govt wages.  /snark

    What we should be doing is raising private sector wages which have been stagnant for so long.

    Parent

    that study (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 04:53:04 PM EST
    Put SOME positions in the federal government at or above orivate sector jobs.  And certainly not for lawyers, doctors, scientists, and upper managers.

    However the BLS shows the opposite.

    Parent

    I didn't say Romney was right, (none / 0) (#76)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 03:15:58 PM EST
    I said he could get elected just as other Republicans have by proposing the changes you cite above. You can Oy me all you want, but the reality is that when millions of people who could work choose not to simply because we've made it easy not to, we've created a system that limits what we can give to those people who truly need it. Sure, we could use just a small portion of what we pay for corporate welfare and to war profiteers to help those in need, but the reason our country's expenditures are misaligned with our values is because of attitudes like yours. You're not even willing to CONSIDER the possibility that our programs create more problems. As long as we don't demand any responsibility from welfare recipients, as long as we continue to give away the house so easily, we'll lose elections.

    Reagan rode to power on the disgust of moderates toward naïve liberal welfare programs. Your inability to acknowledge the failures of intergenerational welfare programs is exactly why half the country is fed up with people like you. When progressives become honest about our "safety net" programs, maybe we'll be able to actually give people a help up instead of a hand out. Until then, don't expect to have much political clout as a progressive in America.


    Parent

    I will consider it this far (none / 0) (#83)
    by sj on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 04:35:16 PM EST
    Our government program often DO create more problems, but that's often done by hamstringing the recipients of those services.  I'd have to look up the link (which I'm not going to do due to time and gag reflex constraints), but withholding aid until one is COMPLETELY destitute doesn't help anybody.

    It does, however, allow you to buy into the GOP propaganda.

    Parent

    Nothing is perfect, and never will be; (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 03:15:49 PM EST
    could we do a better job of administering programs?  Sure - there's always room for improvement.

    But it seems to me that when you buy into the meme that the problem with our safety net programs is that they allow able-bodied people to live lives of leisure, you just hand the right-wing  - who want to believe that anyone and everyone taking government "handouts" doesn't "deserve" them - permission to have their way with - or make serious inroads into killing off -  the little bit that does keep people from falling into an economic abyss.

    Let's try to remember that those collecting Social Security and those enrolled in Medicare have, in the vast majority of cases, spent years paying into these programs through their employment; when you talk about cutting benefits, raising eligibility ages, or putting income ceilings in, or changing the formulas by which they are calculated, you are taking benefits out of the pockets of people who contributed hard-earned wages to the system.

    Do I think people who can't afford children should have them?  No, I don't.  But I don't think the children who are born into poverty or near-poverty, through no fault or their own, or because their mothers were denied or couldn't afford birth control or abortion services, should have to go hungry, or live in a homeless shelter or be abandoned.  Maybe you think that's the way to discourage women from having children, but I think that's just wrong.

    Maybe it's the liberal in me, but when I see people living in poverty, jobless, homeless, sometimes addicted, or committing crimes, or in the revolving door of the criminal justice system, I see the products of a society that has not adequately addressed the basics: education, employment, shelter, health and nutrition.  We cut and we cut and we cut from programs that could help break the cycle of poverty, and then we blame those trying to get by on less for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

    Yes, sometimes the choices people make affect where they end up on the spectrum - but if you're a child born into the wrong end of the spectrum, what are your choices?  Who teaches you the skills to be able to break out of that?  Who are your role models?  

    As a country, we like to think we're so generous with the poor, but we may be one of the few developed nations that accepts as normal that some people have no home, go to bed hungry, have no access to health care until they end up in the ER.

    When I read comments like yours, my blood comes to a boil; perhaps you and Mitt Romney have a lot in common, at least in your attitudes about the poor.  Sadly, I'm not all that sure that Barack Obama doesn't share some of your judgmental disdain for them as well.

    As for me, you can call me naive - be my guest; I'll take "naive liberal" any day of the week over whatever it is that you seem to represent, and which I can't be more specific about without breaking the site rules.

    Parent

    John Boehner says NO! to the New Deal (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    And he says, "How many times have we done this?  This is like the fourth government program to help struggling homeowners and none of them have worked.  The only thing they are doing is slowing down the market from clearing."

    He has a point.  The Obama administration should have done something aggressive years ago.  They did nothing, I'm certain that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner argued to do nothing.  We know that Geithner tried to hold up the banks from being responsible for anything.  It would hurt their confidence, but it was okay to destroy all of our lives and our confidence.  Oh well, I'm not sure I can fight with Boehner for this when he says what he said.....this is Obama's 4th helping homeowners plan and none of them worked so far.

    In that light it is only right that if Obama really means this, he's going to have to do something completely different and he's going to have to fight for it and fight for the people.

    That is exactly the problem with not (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    doing something bold and effective at the start.

    Parent
    Re: the four previous attempts (none / 0) (#49)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:37:11 PM EST
    How many HAMP participants who were told (and followed the advice) stopped making payments in their attempt for a modification are now doubly screwed because that advise just eliminated them from this program - if it is implemented?

    Parent
    Yeah, I may not agree with you (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:46:42 PM EST
    on some bookkeeping, but there is an element of fact to what Boehner is saying.  I think that the Obama administration is trying to shore up the securitization of all those mortgages, that is what the AG deal is about IMO.  And it is important because people's pensions are on the line.  But if you protect the securitization, the banks don't work with anyone, they just phuck with them forever.  First they drag you through hell, and then for seven years they drag you through a different hell.  They never have to meet anyone halfway and they don't ever have to treat any of us like people.

    As soon as you protect an area of the free market it becomes a predator.  Everything was always going to suck.  We are only arguing about who gets it when.

    Parent

    I am having trouble understanding how (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 06:28:13 PM EST
    Pres. Obama's proposal--let homeowners refinance to a lower mortgage rate even if they are "upside down" on the mortgage--will encourage the building of new houses.  How does that work?  

    Parent
    It doesn't (as you know) (none / 0) (#98)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 07:04:05 PM EST
    nor does the bundling and selling off large tranches of foreclosed houses for rental "farms".

    Parent
    It won't do that (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    but we over built during the bubble too.  Remember Greenspan's spoken to only friends solution to what ailed us?  Start burning houses.

    Parent
    Why is Pres. Obama claiming lowering (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:25:08 AM EST
    the interest rate for some current homeowners will improve new housing starts?  

    Parent
    Maybe the logic is found (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 04:06:25 AM EST
    in this now three year old paper by Harvard economist Fieldstein (who seems to follow certain economic practices that this administration constantly seems to wish were true)?  It claims that a sharp decline in housing prices leads to fewer housing starts.  I'm not tracking that particular logic like most of the "logic" that this White House becomes easily enamored with. With all of the foreclosures out there, but nobody able to buy them....housing prices must fall drastically again soon, and when those underwater walk away that WILL HAPPEN.  If they can talk us all into staying in our underwater houses we become a floor of martyrs (so that isn't going to happen on any kind of level to remedy the situation but nobody cares about that).

    The Federal Reserve therefore could not reverse the downturn by lowering interest rates. Although it reduced the federal funds rate substantially, mortgage rates and corporate bond rates remained high. Even if mortgage rates had come down, the continuing sharp decline in house prices would have prevented a rise in housing starts.


    Parent
    On second thought I think I do get it oculus (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:57:17 AM EST
    The price of construction can't decrease quickly. And people out there home shopping will buy the cheaper old construction because new construction would be through the roof.

    Trying to mess with all that is just more bubble making though, and if that is their goal they are preventing the market from clearing.

    For the forty years of my father being a builder, new construction was always a luxury item.  It wasn't until the bubble that suddenly, wildly, new construction was running neck and neck with existing pricewise.  The big big builders even made new construction cheaper by throwing in all sorts of strange deals and upgrades.

    We were employing a lot of construction workers and selling tons of building materials, but the whole thing was an artificial bubble.  It's crazy to make that a goal we are attempting to go back to.  That's just crazy.

    People always remodel their houses too, when they can afford to have one. And that employs people too and sells lots of materials but Wall Street doesn't get to play in that game.

    Parent

    Officials: Radiation 'Could Have' Escaped Plant (none / 0) (#53)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:47:54 PM EST
    Where?
    Japan?

    No: Southern California.

    But don't worry.

    Southern California Edison spokesman Gil Alexander told The Associated Press the amount would have been "extremely small".

    So why is his nose glowing?

    A Typo of a Peculiar Type (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:55:57 PM EST
    Part 1 of some short and, um, politely pornographic fiction by Dadler.  What can I say, if you don't like stories where sex is involved, don't read.  If you're a perv, obviously read.  If you're the mass of humanity in the middle, it's a coin flip.  Have no idea where I'm going with it really.  "Right to the trash can, you prurient freak," you may say.  So be it.  Any reads and comments are always appreciated.  Peace, y'all. (LINK)

    Far less perverted... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 03:25:54 PM EST
    than our political system my friend, fwiw;)

    You're killing me with the cliffhanger though...does the humble narrator fall in love and embark on a magical road trip?  wake up in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney?  Inquiring minds wanna know!

    Parent

    Huge endorsement for Ron Paul... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 02:39:18 PM EST
    looks like Snoop Dogg is on board.

    Five Republican lawmakers (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 07:08:13 PM EST
    have introduced legislation that condemns the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 for controversial measures regarding the detainment of terrorism suspects, according to the Tenth Amendment Center.

    And no, Barack Obama wasn't one of the five....

    That would be quite a trick (none / 0) (#101)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 07:13:22 PM EST
    since he's not a legislator from the State of Washington.

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 07:26:39 PM EST
    Is that what stopped him from opposing it instead of asking for the provision to be included in the NDAA so he could sign it into law, you figure?

    Parent
    Reactions to Komen Foundation's (none / 0) (#106)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 08:57:00 PM EST
    decision to stop giving Planned Parenthood grant money to provide breast cancer screenings have been very negative here. And I gather from watching the national news that Komen is getting quite a bit of blowback for putting politics ahead of women's health.

    The local Komen chapter, worried that a city that hosts one of the biggest Race for the Cure events in the country is reacting so negatively to the Planned Parenthood decision, is asking people not to judge the local by the actions of the national Komen office. Good luck with that.

    I have no sympathy for Komen. They chose to side with a political witch hunt. Cliff Stearns, a whacko Republican congressman from Florida, has launched this investigation. What else has Stearns done? According to Charlie Pierce

    Stearns is the guy who added to the Zadroga bill, which provided for federal relief to the first responders who worked on the pile at Ground Zero in New York, the ludicrous requirement that the names of all applicants for such relief first be checked against all terrorist watch-list. He also once attacked PBS because the South African version of Sesame Street introduced a character who was HIV-positive.

    Komen's recently hired vice-prsident for public policy, anti-abortion zealot Karen Handel, also seems to have played a part in this decision.

    Komen will never see another penny of my money. Enough with sacrificing women's health care on the altar of politics.

    Meritocracy in America (NOT) (none / 0) (#111)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:39:08 PM EST
    An essay about the myth of American meritocary.  

    The myths of meritocracy and exceptionalism are truly crippling, we could easily be labeled a nation of suckers.

    Wednesday Morning Open Thread | 119 comments (119 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment