Search Results for 'cU'

[JoB]

Snotty..

Except.. big business and tbe very wealthy got not only tax cuts but tax incentives for moving all those jobs overseas .. which they Did with a vengeance.

Seems go me that I remember your bragging about your company downsizing … wall street doublespeak for profitability.

Trickle down is nothing more than a sales job. If it had been a viable plan it would have worked by now.

[Smitty]

“smitty, it was federal spending that saved jobs, not tax cuts.”

What I meant to say was replace “federal spending” with “tax cuts” and use the same line.

I could easily say that without tax cuts we would have lost MORE jobs – just like the Left likes to say about the stimulous.

[Sue]

When we lost power during that same storm for 5 days, we used a butane burner for cooking, like the ones the caterers often use indoors. We got ours at Costco for less than $20 (maybe $40 with extra butane canisters) and had it just in case we ever needed it. It was so wonderful to have a cup of hot tea or a bowl of oatmeal when you’re freezing. Our home was at 42 degrees or so for the 5 days. We had a fireplace, but I also wore many, many layers, including hats and scarves. I was very grateful for a warm workplace to go to (and hot shower at the gym).

If you sense that a storm is coming that may have you lose power, and you have a fireplace, make sure you have some firewood stored. We did not have very much (since we used it more for ambiance than heat usually), and when the storm hit, we could not find firewood at any price, anywhere. We ended up finding out from someone about some wooden pallets that were left out for firewood in Sodo and were scavenging for them, not particularly caring if the wood was toxic at that point to burn. :)

One thing we learned the hard way was that tempurpedic beds, which adjust to body heat, are as hard and cold as an ice block when it is that cold in your house; lying on it was the most uncomfortable thing on earth. By morning I was nice and toasty warm from body heat, but I’d say the first 2 hours were tossing and turning torture. The sofa might’ve been a better alternative.

[redblack]

smitty, it was federal spending that saved jobs, not tax cuts.

if you’re going to put words in our mouths, make them the right ones.

i notice that there are whole lot of anti-stimulus-spending republicans out there with their hands out, too.

[redblack]

rich, the new player in town is the counter-revolution. teabaggers are trying to preserve the status quo for the rich. sorry to have to inform you that supply-side economics is every bit the b.s. we told you it was 30 years ago.

when are you going to admit that? no, instead you want to dust off the memory of reagan and try to make it dance again, with tea bags pinned to its hat brim.

so if i’m mistaken about your 10% number, what percentage of tax receipts do you believe the top 10% should be paying? and if they, as a sector, or doing better than the bottom 90%, don’t you think they should help their fellow countrymen by shouldering a tax increase?

—

if w’s spending was bad… where the hell were you “fiscal conservatives” when he doubled to national debt in 5 or 6 years? yeah, you admit it now, but why were you silent then? you didn’t use the opportunity to “vote the bums out” every 2 years back then, did you? and i’ll tell you why: like frank luntz and rush limbaugh, et al, you were rejoicing that – finally! – they were truly destroying the federal government and democracy-for-all with it. w’s spending was all on bombs and tax cuts.

why is obama’s spending better? because his stated plans involve long-term improvement for the country – not just the “supply” side – kind of like the new deal or WPA, only wimpier because of republican obstructionism. if he’s not exactly saying the right words or following through on every campaign promise, at least he’s speaking the right language to the working class and the poor.

and, no, i don’t believe the federal government is out of control. it’s the only thing protecting us from full-blown plutonomy and foreign business takeover right now, and it has been largely responsible for keeping debt-strapped states solvent during what has amounted to a depression for tens of millions.

[HMC Rich]

Hi kids, and socialists.

Progressives need capitalism so that they can redistribute the wealth as they see fit. Where would Progressives be if someone didn’t make wealth? Government usually doesn’t. You had better thank big and small business for that.

JanS, thanks for the link. Where is Pork Appropriations Committee chair Mrs. Murray’s list of donors? She must be in trouble if the Prez and Vice Prez are trying to help her in a land dominated by lefties.

And she cut 14 Billion……after passing what amounts to trillions. Bringing home the bacon. I’m all for recycling but her tennis shoes must be worn out. How about a nice new pair of Rossi shoes?

Redblack. You assume too much. I want everyone to pay a portion of the pie. Not 10%. Where did you come up with that nonsense? Do not infer anything please, because you will be wrong but you sound so good in your delivery. Bravo. You know, you may be right about a few things, (nobody can be wrong about everything) but would you ever admit a positive from the Republicans? I defend opportunity. Those fatcats want me or others to use their product. Some I can’t because it caters only to the rich. So what. That is not my problem. What is my problem is unethical people manipulating the system. I want government to help. Some day we might even get it right.

So why is Obama attacking the Chamber Of Commerce? Transparency? Yeah, right, just more politics plus more class warfare thrown in. Hey OBama, where did those donations from credit cards during your campaign come from? Even Hillary was miffed about that. There is a reason progressives and fabian socialists use a turtle as a symbol. The true Democrat is becoming extinct. I miss some of those guys. You are being sold a bill of goods.

DHG and Dobro, I am glad your taxes went down. What caused that? Was it local, state, or federal? I don’t know. Please tell us. Will they go up if the Bush tax cuts expire and the capital gains and other tax hikes Mr. Obama proposes are raised? I am truly curious and not trying to pick a fight. Hey, if something works AND revenues increase while taxes go down, would not most of us be for that? I like some partisan bickering but I do care about you guys and gals.

DHG, you hit the nail on the head about Republicans and fiscal responsibility. They failed, hence the move to Democrats in 2006 and 2008. Unfortunately the term Fiscal Responsibility for the Democrats usually only applies when 1) Republicans are in power and the debt rises and 2) whenever a Democratic Senator or Congressman comes home for re-election. The Rockefeller Republicans and their big tent are starting to get the boot. There’s a new player in town and are many million strong, who are starting to say, Stop Wasteful Government Spending. Yes, the Republicans blew and the party is changing.

But I have to point out again, if spending for W was bad why is O’s spending better?

I would have been for infrastructure spending by the Federal Government. But I was against most of the “successful” Obama initiatives which are costing us or are going to cost us bigtime.

Look, some of you know that the Federal Government is out of control. Some of you are vehemently against the War in Afghanistan and other Military actions. We all want a good economy. We and our politicians have to be honest with us. With Washington and somewhat Olympia so indebted to different lobbying interests, it is difficult to know who to trust.

I and others are saying vote whom you believe will be accountable. I favor the right and I am a much smaller voice in Seattle than my left leaning friends. So be it. See you at the Post Office when submitting your ballot(s).

Oh, Dobro, I was referring to a recent poll that had Obama a point above Mr. Bush. Yes, W’s final polls were dismal. Catlbob last year was touting Obama’s high poll numbers. Hasn’t been doing so much of that lately, has he? It’s the Independents who are switching not the Republicans. At least be honest when comparing numbers.

Oh Bob, what should the minimum wage be? I am all for a higher minimum wage if taxes on business are lowered. I have run a deep fat fryer, have you?

[hopey]

Just had a similar discussion not too long ago: https://westseattleblog.com/forum/topic/halloween-door-to-door-house-list

Topography and number of steps to your house seem to have a lot to do with how many kids you get.

[Smitty]

Hey JanS,

Maybe Republicans should start using the same line that Democrats do regarding jobs?

Tax cuts have “created or saved millions of jobs!”. Hard to quantify, no?

[sarelly]

DP:

I hear you on the complete evaporation of public involvement after Obama won the election. One reason may have been that people were so relieved after Bush was gone, they just collapsed in exhaustion. No excuse now, of course. People used to say they were burned out and felt, during the Bush years, a soul-crushing sense of futility. But you’re right – Obama’s election was supposed to provide enough breathing room to build momentum.

To be honest, I’m not sure demonstrations gain anything, what with fenced off “free speech zones” and whatnot. Nobody’s listening, demonstrators are regarded as aging hippies deluded by pie-in-the-sky idealism, and if you don’t have real masses of people, there is not enough visibility to make it productive. (When I protested the war with a sign that said Torture is Immoral, I got flipped off.) Then there is the phenomenon of FBI infiltration into peace groups, and police attacks against peaceful protestors, and gerrymandering voting districts, etc. What worked forty years ago may not be viable now. But you might be right in thinking SUSTAINED demonstrations would be more effective. Some people thought the Internet was a good way to raise awareness and find like-minded people, but even that option seems to be on the verge of evaporating with a corporate takeover of the internet.

So, we find ourselves trapped between defeatism and complacency. My feeling is that the usual channels don’t work – voting doesn’t work – or if does, it can only be on the smallest of local levels – little changes in our own communities are about all we can hope to control. I don’t think it’s possible to build a national movement, at least not until everyone is unemployed and suddenly realizes they’re living in the new third world.

What is possible is to live according to our values, practice what we preach, and be very careful about where we put our money. Avoid the big banks, go to the credit unions, buy locally produced, sweatshop-free, free-trade, environmentally safe, etc., and if in a position to, build off the grid. I’m a big advocate of rainwater harvesting because privatization of water is a real threat. But beyond voting with our wallets, I’m stumped as to what is truly effective at this point.

[waterworld]

Sarelly: I don’t know what all the reasons are for caving in on some of these issues. I’m more attuned to the Guantanamo issues than some of the others, so I’ll comment on that.

One of the administration’s plans is to transfer the remaining Guantanamo prisoners to a prison in Thomson, Illinois. But Congress has successfully blocked funding of that plan and also the plan to try the five 9/11 defendants in New York City.

Also, Obama may have simply changed his mind on indefinite detention. After he was inaugurated, Obama assembled a task force of people from several different departments, such as Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, and others, and gave them the assignment of evaluating the options for dealing with the prisoners. The task force concluded that some of the prisoners should be confined indefinitely, rather than tried or released. One of the primary reasons these prisoners supposedly cannot be brought to trial is that there’s not enough evidence against them to convict them. So the current plan is to simply hold these prisoners (there are 48 of them, if I recall correctly) indefinitely.

[charlabob]

I’m sorry, but this election in no way represents the lesser of two evils. The people who will take over the government if the current crop of R candidates is elected and becomes the majority are pure evil. Some of them are just dupes of the corporatists. Some of them are worse. I can’t imagine we’re still discussing this, as if it were a choice between rational people with slightly different philosophies. If the R’s take power in the house. Boehner will not be the speaker — he will be considered too moderate. Can you imagine Speaker Bachman? Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Am I trying to scare you? Damn right — and for good reason.

[sarelly]

What I want to know is how much influence or control any president has over what happens while he’s in office. Presidents come and go, but they are outlasted by who knows who in the intelligence agencies, and they are outlasted by people in the house and senate, and they are outlasted by the supreme court. WHY is Obama not doing what he said he would do? Why do any of them not do what they say they’ll do? Is it because circumstances suddenly change? Is it because their hands are tied? Is it because they were lying to begin with? Or is it because they are being paid not to? Or is it because they’re being threatened not to? Or is it just because it becomes more convenient for them? If a president caves to pressure, does he rationalize his new position, or does he know he’s caving to pressure? Just wondering.

[waterworld]

DP: I still support Obama, but I don’t think I’m being too harsh. The mess he inherited from the previous administration will be extraordinarily difficult to clean up. And I agree that he deserves to be cut some slack, particularly on the wars and the economy.

Where I can’t go, though, is down a road that takes us further away from some bedrock principles of the constitution and the bill of rights. Bush strayed far from the principles of protecting and respecting basic human rights, and I expected Obama, at a minimum, to address these human rights failures. I’m talking here about the things I mentioned in my post: indefinite detention without charge, failing to bring Guantanamo prisoners to trial, violation of orders from federal judges to release people who are wrongly held Guantanamo, continuing to allow unwarranted dismissals from the military based on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, and embracing the Bush-era policy of secretly eavesdropping on Americans here on American soil without warrants or a demonstration of probable cause.

I don’t see what the Deepwater Horizon disaster has to do with any of this. On the Guantanamo front, for example, the administration was moving forward on plans to close the prison and, among other things, try the 9/11 defendants in New York, long before the Deepwater Horizon accident. Obama just backed down in the face of pressure. Surely he knew before he was inaugerated that there would be blowback over anything related to Guantanamo.

This is the kind of thing I can’t see giving him a break about; he made very clear commitments to do certain things, and he just caved in to pressure when the time came to deliver. America is so focused on the economy that Obama can get away with failing to honor his promises to us. If he stayed true to his base — and you clearly recognize the importance of doing that — Obama would be following through.

[JanS]

but don’t you know? if we leave the tax cuts for the wealthy, the jobs will flow, according to the supporters! what? are you saying that hasn’t happened yet?

[DP]

waterworld, I can’t fault any of your specific criticisms of Obama. On balance, though, I think you’re being too harsh.

I would ask you to consider that when Obama took the reins, we were bogged down in two foreign quagmires and were beset by a profound economic crisis.

And then came the Deepwater Horizon disaster. . .

This is not to excuse any of Mr. Obama’s failures, but I do think we need to cut the guy a little slack at this point. After all, he’s young, it’s less than two years into his term, and he’s had to spend a lot of time and political capital dealing with problems he didn’t create or couldn’t have foreseen.

If the Republicans win big in the House next month, I hope Obama and other Dems take away the correct lesson from it, which is that they need to stay true to their base and deliver on more of their promises. Of course, it would also help if they kept people more involved in the political process, instead of trying to handle everything in backroom meetings with lobbyists and legislative committees.

But that’s for another discussion, coming soon to a Blog near you.

[dobro]

dhg- don’t try pointing out facts to a Rescumlican- it confuses them and throws them off their talking points- they’ll never believe there is a tax that went down when a Democrat is in office (BTW, my taxes went down last year too).

[redblack]

specious source there, smitty. they said the same thing about john kerry in 2004. he – and hillary clinton! – dropped into the 80’s range.

.

and they list chuck hagel as being more conservative than dick lugar or max baucus? ha.

[JanS]

from the NYT…a fairly simple article, but points out how important this election is. And look see who Mr. Rossi calls on…Mitch McConnell m(ick!), and John Cornyn (double ick!!).

I did not watch the debate live, but have watched the video. I think many people wanted answers. They want to know what he’s going to do, since he has pledged to not bring any earmarks back to WA State. People want to know where he stands, they want specifics, and all he can tout is “I’m not Patty Murray”. He answered nothing that was asked of him. I still want to know how he is going to make up the money that will be needed if the tax cuts for the “rich” stay in place. I’m betting he doesn’t really have an answer to that :( It certainly ain’t gonna come from all the jobs that are supposedly going to be created. So far that hasn’t happened – as one commenter pointed out, the rich have turned out to be greedy, too, keeping their money very close to themselves.

[Diana]

We’re not landscape architects but we are landscape designers and would be pleased to meet with you to discuss your project. Please give us a call at 206-932-1850 and preview us at: http://www.northwestbotanicals.com.

[charlabob]

Turns out there was nothing sneaky going on with the 34LD nominating convention: Mike Heavey did not attend the convention and did not ask anyone to nominate him. Joe Fitzgibbon was nominated unanimously, so he’s our candidate.

As far as “experience”, I’m curious about what experience Heavey has over Fitzgibbon. Fitzgibbon worked for Sharon Nelson (the previous office-holder) and she said, “Joe is highly respected in Olympia, both by legislators and staff, and has forged strong relationships that make him uniquely suited to represent our district in the Legislature. Our successes in reforming payday lending, protection Maury Island and Puget Sound, and building an alliance of progressive legislators committed to working families and environmental protection owe a great deal to Joe’s policy knowledge and relationship building.”

Doesn’t sound naive, idealistic or inexperiencd to me. He does get things done. :-)

The thing that really worries me is people who vote by signage: Heavey is definitely heavy on the yard signs.

[Tess]

2 drawer lateral file cabinet with upper storage. You pick up; curbside. 206-763-3345

[JanS]

redblack…I quite understand about the flour thing. The other thing that I think is…why does a Twix bar have to have flour in it? Truly, it’s a candy bar, and do they add it just because of the taxes? Would it alter the product so much if it wasn’t in there?There are so many people with gluten problems, I can’t imagine how hard it is to control it. Oh, well, maybe I can. I have to really regulate my sodium, so know how difficult the hidden stuff can be :(

[redblack]

smitty, IIRC and if i can make an analogous statement, the last president’s spending numbers were masked by an even more faker [sic!] housing bubble.

during the tech bubble, folks were investing real money in savings, real estate, consumer goods, and the stock market; during the housing bubble, banks were extending lines of credit to anyone with a pulse – including bad credit risks – and consumers were going under water with credit cards and loans. great for the banks; not too good for main street, especially for more responsible consumers – who ultimately end up shouldering the bad credit risks when banks try to shed their liabilities and crunch numbers.

the impetus for the housing bubble (and what drove banks to aggressively sell mortgages and lines of credit) was wall street buying and bundling loans – including toxic ones – and selling them as “securities,” all so they could get their hands on the mortgagees’ 5-7% interest payments. it got to the point where wall street couldn’t sell enough bundled mortgages to satisfy investors, because the return on investment was better than anything going at the time.

edit: and that, of course, was made possible by a newly-deregulated banking industry.

until the mortgagees could no longer pay. people were buying houses at a time when employment numbers were worsening and wages were flattening, which is a recipe for disaster.

it was only a matter of time before that model collapsed, and those who saw what was happening were called “chicken little,” not-economists, and doomsayers by wall street.

[BBGuest]

There is a pretty stiff fine for the landlord. As difficult as documentation can be, you do have the right to quiet enjoyment.

I believe it is per occurrence (and more than $1,000.)per person in your household. Check out the noise ordinance, and the language you need to refer to when putting together your complaint. It is the LANDLORD that has to pay the fees.

The complaint process with financial cost should give you a vehicle to get the eviction in process. Most likely, unless the tenants are related to the landlord, they will be booted out.

I will go see if I am able to find the links to the city ordinances but there are community police that should be able to give you the tools that you need to help resolve this in a non violent way.

[redblack]

largely agreed, waterworld. but the thing that sticks in my craw is that, to the teabagging independent conservative republicans, he’s still too liberal.

given the torrent of cash and verbal diarrhea being thrown democrats’ and liberals’ way by the minority, i don’t have a lot of hope for the continued survival of the new deal. unless we get out the vote, they’re going to buy themselves more tax cuts and less regulation.