home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

< Why The Mandates Must Be Tied To The Medicare Buy-In Option | Single Payer For The Village Wonks >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Hipsters vs. Hasids Update... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    Way back we talked about the Hasidic community in Brooklyn complaining about the addition of a bike lane to Bedford Ave., they didn't like all the scantily clad hipster girls riding their bikes and leading them into temptation or some such tyrannical superstitious nonsense.

    Anyways, the bike lanes were removed before the mayorial election, a source says in a bid by Bloomberg to curry favor with the Hasidic community.  Pretty shady, especially from the "green" mayor.

    Cool news is two cyclists went in the middle of the night to paint the bike lanes back in.  A Hasidic community watch group caught 'em and dropped a dime, but suprisingly no arrests.  I guess the police are with the cyclists on this one.

    Stay tuned...

    I saw that. (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 03:42:27 PM EST
    Pretty funny. I didn't notice it had disappeared. The lack of a bike lane will not stop the hipsters. They're all over the place here on their bikes. You should see the line of bikes at the subway here. They had to add a bunch more bike racks and they still don't have enough.

    I have to wonder if it really was Bloomie. I know some of the residents have issues with the paths (beyond the scant clothing!). Something about traffic flow etc. My hair stylist was explaining it to me and trying to get me to go to the community mtgs.

    Parent

    I've heard safety complaints... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 05:24:28 PM EST
    about the bike paths too, in general.  My take is its every man for themselves on the roads of NYC no matter what ya do...but I like 'em just as a reminder to watch those rear-view mirrors for cyclists...they'll whiz by the window and scare the sh*t out of ya sometimes.  Would hate to clip somebody.

    But in Williamsburg, I think its more about the "outsiders"...I hate that sh*t...its everybodys city, if you don't like the view go home and close the curtains.

    Parent

    I get down on the "outsiders" (none / 0) (#25)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 06:06:26 PM EST
    they come over here and just treat the 'hood like a big ol' trash pit. You should see the mass of garbage on the streets after a Saturday during the summer. But I suspect you're talking about the "outsiders" that live here. Those that don't like them really need to get over it. They've had 20yrs to adjust, lol!~

    Yeah, some of those bike riders are just plain crazy. I think the cops started cracking down, as they were pretty much a menace riding around in packs. I'm more worried about them clipping pedestrians than cars clipping them! They almost hit my on leash dog once. That would have been very ugly for them if they had . . . .

    Bikers who ride by the laws of the road I have no prob with though  ;)

    Parent

    Read Greenwald (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 02:44:33 PM EST
    on the Obamabots responses to criticism of The one. You'll laugh, you'll cry.

    Obama's speech at Brookings today (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 12:18:08 PM EST
    on Job Creation and Growth

    First, we're proposing a series of steps to help small businesses grow and hire new staff. Over the past fifteen years, small businesses have created roughly 65 percent of all new jobs in America. These are companies formed around kitchen tables in family meetings, formed when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, formed when a worker decides its time she became her own boss. These are also companies that drive innovation, producing thirteen times more patents per employee than large companies. And, it's worth remembering, every once in a while a small business becomes a big business - and changes the world.

    That's why it is so important that we help small business struggling to open, or stay open, during these difficult times. Building on the tax cuts in the Recovery Act, we're proposing a complete elimination of capital gains taxes on small business investment along with an extension of write-offs to encourage small businesses to expand in the coming year. And I believe it's worthwhile to create a tax incentive to encourage small businesses to add and keep employees and I'm going to work with Congress to pass one.

    These steps will help, but we also have to address the continuing struggle of small businesses to get the loans they need to start up and grow. To that end, we're proposing to waive fees and increase the guarantees for SBA-backed loans. And I am asking my Treasury Secretary to continue mobilizing the remaining TARP funds to facilitate lending to small businesses.

    Second, we're proposing a boost in investment in the nation's infrastructure beyond what was included in the Recovery Act, to continue modernizing our transportation and communications networks. These are needed public works that engage private sector companies, spurring hiring across the country. Already, more than 10,000 of these projects have been funded through the Recovery Act. And by design, Recovery Act work on roads, bridges, water systems, Superfund sites, broadband networks, and clean energy projects will all be ramping up in the months ahead. It was planned this way for two reasons: so the impact would be felt over a two year period; and, more importantly, because we wanted to do this right. The potential for abuse in a program of this magnitude, while operating at such a fast pace, was enormous. So I asked Vice President Biden and others to make sure - to the extent humanly possible - that the investments were sound, the projects worthy, and the execution efficient. What this means is that we're going to see even more work - and workers - on Recovery projects in the next six months than we saw in the last six months.

    Even so, there are many more worthy projects than there were dollars to fund them. I recognize that by their nature these projects often take time, and will therefore create jobs over time. But the need for jobs will also last beyond next year and the benefits of these investments will last years beyond that. So adding to this initiative to rebuild America's infrastructure is the right thing to do.

    Third, I'm calling on Congress to consider a new program to provide incentives for consumers who retrofit their homes to become more energy efficient, which we know creates jobs, saves money for families, and reduces the pollution that threatens our environment. And I'm proposing that we expand select Recovery Act initiatives to promote energy efficiency and clean energy jobs which have proven particularly popular and effective. It's a positive sign that many of these programs drew so many applicants for funding that a lot of strong proposals - proposals that will leverage private capital and create jobs quickly - did not make the cut. With additional resources, in areas like advanced manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels, for instance, we can help turn good ideas into good private-sector jobs.

    Finally, as we are moving forward in these areas, we should also extend the relief in the Recovery Act, including emergency assistance to seniors, unemployment insurance benefits, COBRA, and relief to states and localities to prevent layoffs. This will help folks weathering these storms while boosting consumer spending and promoting jobs.

    Of course, there is only so much government can do. Job creation will ultimately depend on the real job creators: businesses across America. But government can help lay the groundwork on which the private sector can better generate jobs, growth, and innovation. After all, small business tax relief is not a substitute for the ingenuity and industriousness of our entrepreneurs; but it can help those with good ideas to grow and expand. Incentives to promote energy efficiency and clean energy manufacturing do not automatically create jobs or lower carbon emissions; but these steps provide a framework in which companies can compete and innovate to create those jobs and reduce energy consumption. And while modernizing the physical and virtual networks that connect us will create private-sector jobs, they'll do so while making it possible for companies to more easily and effectively move their products across this country and around the world.

    Given the challenge of accelerating the pace of hiring in the private sector, these targeted initiatives are right and they are needed. But with a fiscal crisis to match our economic crisis, we also must be prudent about how we fund it. So to help support these efforts, we're going to wind down the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP - the fund created to stabilize the financial system so banks would lend again.

    There has rarely been a less loved or more necessary emergency program than TARP, which - as galling as the assistance to banks may have been - indisputably helped prevent a collapse of the entire financial system. Launched hastily under the last administration, the TARP program was flawed, and we have worked hard to correct those flaws and manage it properly. And today, TARP has served its original purpose and at a much lower cost than we expected.

    In fact, because of our stewardship of this program, and the transparency and accountability we put in place, TARP is expected to cost the taxpayer at least $200 billion less than what was anticipated just this summer. And the assistance to banks, once thought to cost the taxpayers untold billions, is on track to actually reap billions in profit for the taxpaying public. This gives us a chance to pay down the deficit faster than we thought possible and to shift funds that would have gone to help the banks on Wall Street to help create jobs on Main Street.



    Sounds good to me (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    Unfortunately... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 01:37:05 PM EST
    we'll never know if TARP was really "necessary", no matter how often repeated.

    A necessary coup de tat without a shot for the oligarchs, perhaps, but the rest of us?  We will never know, no collective balls.

    As for the great payback we are getting from TARP, that doesn't include any of the trillions upon trillions the Federal Reserve pumped into the markets as s.o.p. right up until TARP, does it?

    Parent

    Andrew Ross Sorkin, in today's NYT (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    business section,  throws a little rain on this parade, with a discussion of why Bank of America was really in such a rush to pay back TARP money--desperation to provide competitive compensation for executives. Desperation to the extent that it diluted its own shareholders by selling new shares worth $18.8 billion to replace some of the funds its is returning. But questions remain, according to Sorkin.  What about the health of the bank, continuing risks to the system, and resumption of lending? And, is the return of the money premature? Yes, early returns have surprised the Treasury Department, Sorkin notes, along with his accompanying skepticism of Treasuries prognosticative abilities. The corker is Standard & Poor's research note that suggested the $45 billion repayment didn't really matter, because if the bank got in trouble again, taxpayers would be there with another bailout.

    who are you going to lend to? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 02:33:59 PM EST
    from 2000-2007 Americans doubled their household debts to 13.8 trillion dollars.  

    People are paying down their balances and/or are saving more.  When you double your debt in 7 years and hit the worst recession since the GD, odds are the appetite for taking on loans are small.

    It took 7 years to swell debt and we lost 7 million jobs in 2 years.  People who need loans cannot get it because the risk is too high.  People who can get loans don't want or need them (by and large).  

    Too much emphasis on lending has put us in this jobs crisis.  What Americans need are jobs, and lots of them.  Many of us said last year that the bailout would have zero impact on lending, not because the banks are evil but because the market is already tapped.  

    Jobs will help people pay down their debt quicker.  Bring in more tax state fed and local.  Help repair balance sheets, personal and for the banks.  

    What business is looking to expand when consumption is flat-lining?  There are of course some, but by and large 80% of businesses cannot invest to create jobs because demand isn't there.  

    BOA shouldn't loan its way out of its mess.  It should fee its way out.  One can switch banks if they don't like the fees.

    I may not like the banks but truth be told, I simply cannot imagine what they are supposed to do here.  I don't think there is a long line of qualified borrowers waiting for loans that the bank won't give them.

    One can say the banks caused the problem and I wouldn't argue that much with that position.  But at this point the problem is not the banks, the problem is job creation and the private sector cannot support it with consumption so incredibly low.  If the pvt industry cannot fix it, who will?

    Either our representatives give a rats tail or they don't.   I would say thus far, they don't....

    Parent

    The purposes of the bailout (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 02:55:54 PM EST
    program included putting the financial system on a firmer foundation and facilitating the banks readiness to lend, once again. Job creation and loan availability are interrelated. Bank of America still lost $l billion in its third quarter, an improvement by their lights,  so it seems time to shed the yoke of  government salary czars.

    Parent
    loans and jobs (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 03:21:56 PM EST
    interrelated.  How so and how many/much?

    You know what else is interrelated?  Low personal balance sheets with consumption.

    77% of our economy is consumption.  We doubled our balance sheets on the red side.  

    So currently, we have double the debt we had in 2000, 17.5 million people unemployed (or underemp), and consumption is at the new normal for 3 years.  

    Without a rise in consumption, and a projected 4 year window to return to "full employment" I simply cannot understand how the math works.  

    Perhaps I am missing something which is entirely probable as I am an idiot.  If you could show me how an increase in lending in the current debt ridden environment will lead to more jobs with consumption taking a back seat to debt paydown and an increased savings rate -- I am all ears.

    Parent

    headwinds (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 04:23:49 PM EST
    "But the survey found top executives cautious on making investments in their businesses and even more cautious on hiring workers--bad signs for an economy that has relied on government stimulus for its rebound so far and desperately needs private industry to step up to the plate."
    (emphasis mine)

    "With U.S. factories running on average at just 69 percent of capacity, Buckley said volumes would have to increase by nearly 25 percent next year for capacity utilization to reach 85 percent, a level most analyst consider optimal."

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/34330084

    You cannot lend your way out of this problem short term, in 2011-12 you might be able to but for now our representatives need to treat the jobs crisis with a fraction of the fervor they have for the Drug War, Afghanistan, Iraq, TARP, 3 Strikes and the biggest tax break in american history.

    Instead of blaming the banks at this point perhaps a look at whether or not our representatives give a rats tail about the un/underemployed.

    For example.  In the latest "stimulus" 50 bn was thrown about for infrastructure improvements.  that is a billion per state.  According to a report after the Minnesota bridge collapse it was estimated that 9 bn per year for 20 years is what it would take to fix all the ailing bridges in this country.

    1 bn per state for employment. That says it all.

    Change you can believe in?  Or chump change?

    Parent

    70 bn in job creation (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 01:56:51 PM EST
    from the current stimulus we have spent approximately 145bn and the number of jobs saved/created is somewhere around 650k.  

    70 bn is half of that. Can we expect 325k jobs to come from this 70 bn?

    We have lost 7 million jobs in two years.  That means that 5% of those who have lost their job (less if you consider how many jobs will be saved) can have some "hope" next year if they can muscle a bill that represents about 10% of the annual defense budget if you don't include wars.

    For the remaining 6.7 million, you are welcome to join our armed forces, they are always hiring.....

    So true... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 02:13:46 PM EST
    just earlier today I was talking to a truck driver making a pick-up here...an Aghanistan & Iraq occupation vet.  He was saying they offered him 15 large to re-enlist, he told 'em no way unless they make it 15k bonus and a salary comparable to a Blackwater merc.  Cool dude.

    Though he did say if he didn't land the driving gig he might have become too desperate to pass up the 15 large...we need job stimulus and a draft cuz this whole scene sucks.

    Parent

    Election day today (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 02:07:23 PM EST
    in MA.  Primary for Ted Kennedy's old seat.  The two clear front-runners are Capuano and Coakley, although there are a couple of other also-rans.

    Frankly, the also-rans are clear no-votes for me based on statements they have made on health care.  In fact, a few of their statements make me downright angry.  Mainly they are - "no public option" - or "who cares about abortion restrictions".

    The Boston Globe has this friendly little tool to compare candidates.  As you can see, Capuano and Coakley are pretty darn close on the "issues" they are willing to discuss on the campaign.  This one will probably come down to who you "like more".

    Saw that (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    Bill Clinton endorsed Coakley.

    Parent
    she will (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 03:20:34 PM EST
    probably win.

    To be frank, I'm not really in love with any of these candidates.

    Parent

    Three hours and continuing (none / 0) (#13)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 03:02:21 PM EST
    Live streaming

    The memorial service for the four slain Lakewood officers started with a procession of police cars and motorcycles at 10:00 AM this morning. Starting at McChord AFB, the procession of vehicles has been arriving at the Tacoma Dome for a couple of hours and is still leaving McChord there are so many police departments from around the country and Canada participating.


    Saw it on MSNBC (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    So sad - all the officers had children. They were so young and so respected.

    Parent
    The last police vehicle to leave (none / 0) (#18)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 03:40:17 PM EST
    McChord in the procession left only moments ago. They've had to post-pone starting the service for an hour while they wait for all the officers to arrive. I'm awe-struck. The emotional energy at the Tacoma Dome today is unbelievable.


    Parent
    Wild Horses.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 03:07:58 PM EST
    soon to be dragged away?  Link

    I say the wild horses will find food or die trying...leave them alone, we try to play god enough as it is.

    otoh, we introduced them to the ecosystem. (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 03:41:32 PM EST
    They are feral. Rounding them up seems comparatively mild compared to what they do with introduced feral pigs.

    The eradication program is being implemented by Prohunt Inc., a professional hunting firm from New Zealand that specializes in island conservation through elimination of non-native animals.

    That said, there is a large hilly property right near my home that grazes a dozen or so horses that I pass several times every day.

    It is a beautiful sight. Emotional, even.

    Parent

    Amazing animals... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 05:32:08 PM EST
    I'm sure thats a nice view ya got my man.

    I understand the horses were imported way back when and all...and its sure beats hunting them.  Stopping the meddling feels right though, even if the intentions are good, like the feral pigs.  Mother Nature will sort it out, even if she can be slow and harsh going about it.

    Parent