louis c's Journal
Home country: USA
Current location: Boston
Member since: Fri May 14, 2004, 05:52 PM
Number of posts: 4,632
Home country: USA
Current location: Boston
Member since: Fri May 14, 2004, 05:52 PM
Number of posts: 4,632
I'm a union President. For 12 years the worst case scenario for me has always been responsibility without authority. In other words, we're going to do something some one else's way, but, in the end, the responsibility rests with me.
No way. If I take the hit, I'll listen to other peoples' opinions, take it into account, much the same way any chief Executive does, then make a final decision, and live with the consequences. I've won 4 elections and have held office for 12 years.
That's what happened to this God Damned Affordable Care Act. It should have just been Medicare for All. We knew that's the best way. We should have outlawed the filibuster, coming in, so that we owned all the proposal.
We then would have lived, as Democrats and Americans, with the consequences.
What the fuck good is it to do something half-assed, with the opponents trying to make it fail, and then getting the blame.
We're responsible for what happened, but we compromised and ceded the authority, like Republican Governors deciding that their states don't participate.
WTF. We'll never get a chance like this again in my life time. It only happens every 30 to 40 years. (1932, 1965, 2013).
Posted by louis c | Tue Nov 19, 2013, 08:06 PM (0 replies)
I was reading today's story out of Wyoming about the Sisters Cheney.
It seems that Liz Cheney's campaign to unseat the incumbent Senator in that state has a poll indicating that she is down by 50 points.
Liz, if you come to Massachusetts and run for the U.S. Senate against Liz Warren, that 50% margin in Wyoming will look like a nail biter by comparison here If you didn't wake up in time on election day, you may even get shut out.
Politics More: Elections Liz Cheney Election 2014 Senate 2014
Liz Cheney's Sister Unloads On Her Over Gay Marriage Opposition
Liz Cheney Wyoming AP
Liz Cheney is trying to build momentum — any momentum — for her Senate candidacy in Wyoming. But she still hasn't even convinced her family.
Mary Cheney unloaded on comments her sister made about gay marriage on "Fox News Sunday," saying that Liz is on the "wrong side of history." So did Heather Poe, Mary's wife.
"I love Mary very much, I love her family very much," Liz Cheney said on Fox News, defending her past stance of opposition to gay marriage despite the personal connection. "This is just an issue on which we disagree."
That drew the ire of both her sister and her sister's wife. Poe, on Facebook, wrote that Cheney's comments were "offensive."
Her full message:
I was watching my sister-in-law on Fox News Sunday (yes Liz, in fifteen states and the District of Columbia you are my sister-in-law) and was very disappointed to hear her say "I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage."
Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 - she didn't hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us.
To have her now say she doesn't support our right to marry is offensive to say the least.
I can't help but wonder how Liz would feel if as she moved from state to state, she discovered that her family was protected in one but not the other.
I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE.
Mary Cheney shared that status on her own Facebook page, adding a personal message for her sister.
"Liz — this isn't just an issue on which we disagree — you're just wrong — and on the wrong side of history," she wrote.
Liz Cheney, the elder daughter to former Vice President Dick Cheney, is mounting a primary challenge to Republican Sen. Mike Enzi. A poll taken last week showed Enzi up by more than 50 points. That's even worse than early polls found upon her entering the race in July.
Posted by louis c | Sun Nov 17, 2013, 06:26 PM (6 replies)
If you were born before 1963, you will never see another New York Yankees' Championship or another Republican President in your life time.
BOSTON: The only thing better than our politics is our baseball team. Our state is deep blue and our Sox are vivid red.
See you at the parade.
Posted by louis c | Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:53 AM (22 replies)
I'm discussing the government shut-down with my co-workers and somebody comes up with "why doesn't Obama just negotiate".
Now the discussion takes on a civics' lesson.
What the hold up is that the short term budget (or continuing resolution) will not be brought to the House floor for a vote.
A CR is a budget that has already been negotiated. The Democrats want a Budget with over a Trillion Dollars, the Republicans proposed one at about 900 Billion. The Democrats conceded to the Republican proposal. End of negotiations.
Now, the Republicans want to hold up their own budget in order to extract concessions on issues that they can't win through the normal parliamentary process or at the ballot box.
That's not "negotiations", it's extortion.
Posted by louis c | Mon Oct 7, 2013, 05:31 AM (19 replies)
President Obama has the votes in the House for a clean CR. There are reports that upwards of 100 Republicans will vote with all the Democrats for a CR Resolution with no strings attached. All we need is 17 or 18. The Hastert rule stands in our way (a Majority of the Republican caucus must favor a bill for it to reach the floor). The Hastert rule amounts to a Republican House filibuster that ostensibly requires a 3/4ths vote for any legislation to pass that the Democrats agree with.
President Obama should just call on Speaker Boehner to allow for a simple up or down vote. That's Democracy.
"Speaker Boehner, just call for a vote, a clean vote, and let the people's Representatives decide."
Posted by louis c | Wed Oct 2, 2013, 07:09 AM (7 replies)
Here's a couple of "half-truths". I define that as a false premise based argument that is misleading.
For instance, "There are 40 million more people on food stamps now than when Obama took office". Possibly a true statistic. However, the fact is that nearly 80% of that growth in availability is as a result of wage earners earning such low wages that they need government assistance to survive, even though they work 30 to 40 hours a week. After all, at $8 an hour, a full-time job pays only $320 in gross income, and a net of closer to $270. Who can survive on that income? We are not subsidizing the worker, but the large corporations that cut benefits and reduce wages in order to increase profits.
Next, "53% of the American Public disapproves of Obama care, and only 37% approve". Possibly another accurate statistic. However, when you look into the numbers 15% of that 53% of disapproval is from people like me who think that Obama care doesn't go far enough, that we need to fix it and that we should attempt to pass a single payer system. therefore, the true number is the 37% who approve the program and the 15% that want to make it go even further toward helping the uninsured, creating a number that's exactly the opposite as what seems apparent on the surface.
In closing, do we really think this economy suffers because the poor have too much money, or that our health care system is better off if fewer people are insured?
Let's use logic to combat these absurd arguments.
Posted by louis c | Mon Sep 23, 2013, 08:06 PM (2 replies)
I'm from Massachusetts. I'm the Dem. Chair of my Ward. I'm on the Dem. City Committee in my home town. I've been a Delegate to the past 4 Dem. State Conventions. I serve on multiple union political action committees, including the AFL-CIO.
I voted for Liz Warren to help her get a "Super" majority at the Convention, thereby eliminating a primary fight and helping her marshal her resources to take on Scott Brown in the 2012 finals.
I stood with my Brothers and Sisters in labor to vote to make her "a special friend" of labor in 2012, so that maximum resources of people and funds could be directed to her campaign.
It took a Herculean effort to get her elected. After all, we beat a sitting U.S. Senator with a 57% approval rating on election night. Fortunately, Liz Warren's was in the 60's.
So, after saying all that, it is with more than a little pride that Warren is getting the credit for bringing down Larry Summers and Liz has Wall Street scared shit.
I can look in the mirror as I shave this morning and say to myself, "I had a little bit to do with that."
Sometimes Democracy does work.
Posted by louis c | Tue Sep 17, 2013, 06:54 AM (27 replies)
As the George W. Bush Administration was facing its closing months, all the economic chickens started coming home to roost.
This is day that Fox news and your Repuke friends never want to acknowledge. It was the beginning of the reckoning of the horrible financial decisions made by the Republicans who brought 1920's style economic policy to the beginning of the 21st Century.
<Snip> Art Hogan, Chief Market Strategist for Jeffries & Co. said the magnitude of the financial fallout is unprecedented and could only be compared to the Great Depression of the 1930's or the Railroad Bankruptcies of the 1800's. <Snip>
DATE: Monday, September 15, 2008
NEW YORK (CNN Money.com) -- Stocks tanked Monday, amid the largest financial crisis in years after Lehman Brothers filed for the biggest bankruptcy in history, Bank of America said it would buy Merrill Lynch and AIG slumped on fears that it can't raise cash.
Treasury prices rallied as investors sought the comparative safety of government debt, sending the corresponding yields lower. Oil prices tumbled, falling well below $100 a barrel on slowing global economic growth. The dollar rallied versus the euro and gold prices spiked.
The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) lost 504 points, or 4.4%. It was the biggest one-day decline for the Dow on a point basis since Sept. 17, 2001, when the market reopened for trading after having been closed in the aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks. On a percentage basis, it was the biggest decline since July 19, 2002.
The Standard & Poor's 500 (SPX) index lost 4.7%, its worst day since Sept. 17, 2001, when it plunged 4.9%. The S&P 500 also closed at its lowest point since Oct. 27, 2005.
The Nasdaq composite (COMP) lost 3.6%, its worst single-session percentage decline since March 24, 2003. It left the tech-fueled average at its lowest point since March 17 of this year.
"It was an ugly day," said James King, president and chief investment officer at National Penn Investors Trust Company. "Lehman's failure to find a suitor and Merrill deciding to cash in their chips before a similar fate could befall them really stoked the fears of the public."
AIG exacerbated those fears in the afternoon. And all the bad news isn't out there yet, King said. "Investor confidence is at the lowest point we've seen in a while."
He said that after the government bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac last week and all the other financial market bad news, this was just too much for investors.
But it doesn't mean that the stock market is likely to see these kind of massive selloffs on a regular basis, King said. Nasdaq and S&P futures pointed to a higher open Tuesday, when fair value is taken into account.
After the close of trade, S&P said it is cutting its debt rating on mortgage lender Washington Mutual (WM, Fortune 500) to junk status, reflecting the ongoing credit market meltdown and WaMu's exposure to the housing market. WaMu shares fell almost 27% during the session and lost another 11% in extended-hours trading.
Also after the close, Hewlett-Packard (HPQ, Fortune 500) said it will cut 24,600 jobs, or 7.5% of the combined workforce of HP and the recently-purchased EDS. Shares were barely changed in extended-hours trading.
Stock market meltdown: Global markets tumbled as investors reeled after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch was forced to sell itself to Bank of America and investors awaited AIG's restructuring announcement.
"You have to throw out the history books because there's really nothing to compare this to," said Jim Dunigan, chief investment officer at PNC Advisors.
"Any speculation as to what inning we're in becomes difficult because each step of the way seems to bring another drop," Dunigan said.
Art Hogan, chief market strategist for Jefferies & Co., said the magnitude of the financial industry fallout is unprecedented, and could only be compared to the Great Depression of the 1930s or the railroad bankruptcies of the 1800s.
"We've never witnessed this before," said Hogan. "There's no road map for this."
Dow-component insurer AIG and mortgage lender Washington Mutual are the latest companies to spark investor fear.
AIG has been scrambling to raise enough cash to fend off ratings agency downgrades and stay afloat.
N.Y. Gov. David Paterson said in the afternoon that AIG will be allowed to use $20 billion in assets through its subsidiaries to stay afloat, basically providing itself with a bridge loan. AIG has also reportedly asked the Federal Reserve for a roughly $40 billion bridge loan over the weekend.
In addition, the federal government has asked Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan to lead a $70 billion to $75 billion lending pool for the company, the Wall Street Journal reported. (Full story)
Shares of AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) slumped 60.8%.
The developments of the day cemented for investors that the credit crisis is far from over, six months after the near-collapse and government rescue of Bear Stearns.
"The landscape has changed and a lot of the major players who were are no more, so of course people are panicked," said Stephen Leeb, president at Leeb Capital Management.
"But it's not the end of capitalism," he said. "This may usher in something worse than what we've seen in terms of the economy, but the companies left standing at the end of this will be OK."
Merrill Lynch's buyout was perhaps providing some reassurance to investors, said Dunigan, in that it shows there is still value in the market.
Losses were also tempered by the Federal Reserve's decisions to loosen up its lending restrictions. The central bank could end up cutting the fed funds rate, its key overnight bank lending rate, when it meets Tuesday, analysts said. The fed funds rate currently stands at 2.0%.
Also helping Tuesday: news that a group of 10 banks including Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Barclays had given up to $7 billion each to create a $70 billion lending pool to help smaller institutions.
Lehman bankruptcy: Lehman Brothers (LEH, Fortune 500) announced it was filing for bankruptcy, after weekend talks aimed at saving the 158-year old firm failed.
The filing came shortly after midnight Monday, after Bank of America and Barclays pulled out of negotiations to acquire Lehman, which has lost $60 billion in bad real estate bets and the credit market's collapse.
Unlike with Bear Stearns back in March, the government was reportedly not willing to help finance a takeover, bailout or restructuring of Lehman Brothers. This reportedly contributed to the reluctance of other firms to strike a deal with the troubled company. (Full story)
Speaking in the afternoon, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said that he hasn't ruled out additional government bailouts for the future. He also said that the banking system is sound. (Full story).
Lehman shares plunged 94%. (Full story)
Merrill Lynch buyout: After pulling out of the Lehman negotiations, Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) announced that it will buy Merrill Lynch (MER, Fortune 500) for $50 billion in stock. The price values the company at more than $29 a share, a more than 70% premium from Merrill's closing price on Friday of $17.05.
The company has posted losses of more than $17 billion over the last four quarters and saw its stock plunge 27% last week.
Shares had rallied more than 15% during the session Monday before ending little changed. Bank of America tumbled 21%. A variety of other financial shares plunged, including Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) and JP Morgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500).
Market breadth was negative, with losers beating winners by over 18 to 1 on volume of 1.8 billion shares. On the Nasdaq, decliners topped advancers by over six to one on volume of 2.75 billion shares.
10-bank emergency fund: In a bid to calm the markets, the Federal Reserve announced plans Sunday to loosen its lending restrictions to the banking industry. A consortium of 10 leading domestic and foreign banks, including Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), Barclays (BCS) and Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), agreed to create a $70 billion fund to lend to troubled financial firms.
The Federal Reserve, meeting Tuesday, could cut the fed funds rate, a key short-term interest rate, from the current level of 2%, analysts said.
Oil: Oil prices plunged as investors continued to bet on a global economic slowdown. Additionally, early reports showed Hurricane Ike didn't do as much damage to oil rigs and refineries in the Texas Gulf region as expected.
Oil prices were down $5.47 a barrel to settle at $95.71, the lowest point since Feb. 15. Oil dipped below $100 a barrel on Friday for the first time in five months.
Other markets: In global trade, European and Asian stocks ended lower. Many major Asian markets, including Tokyo and Hong Kong, were closed for holidays.
Treasury prices soared as investors poured money into the relatively safe-haven. The rally sent the benchmark 10-year note tumbling to 3.39% from 3.72% late Friday.
Posted by louis c | Sun Sep 15, 2013, 06:24 PM (2 replies)
Full disclosure: I love President Obama. The only fault I see in him is that he's too humble.
Having said that, I do understand my friends at DU having criticism for his handling on surveillance and the NSA. After all, I was a late 60's-early 70's radical myself.
I figured my President would take a hit from his base, without picking up any support from his haters.
However, here's today's Gallup Numbers
GALLUP DAILY Link: http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
Aug 21-23, 2013 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change
Posted by louis c | Sat Aug 24, 2013, 07:57 PM (96 replies)
Common sense, people.
The new Fox News, right wing bull-shit line is that people make more on welfare than they do by working. Once the average American hears that line, they naturally assume the loafers on welfare are choosing to stay home rather than work.
Of course, the common sense way to look at that statement is not that welfare pays too much. It's that the average worker is paid too little. What we have here today is a corporate welfare system which permeates the private sector. Big corporations hire service workers (after all, we are becoming a service sector driven economy) at low wages and no benefits. The worker supplements his or her income with public housing, food stamps and government health care. It's not that these workers are lazy, after all they work and work hard for a living. It's just that corporations, which once had a social responsibility, used to provide a living wage, health care and pension benefits.
Those days are gone.
How about making sure anyone who works for a living gets a living wage (not less than $15 an hour) and health care benefits.
Remember in the 60's and 70's, that was a common way of life and we had a booming economy.
Strong unions, good middle class jobs and the wealthy didn't seem to suffer too much.
Let's use our heads when this nonsense gets repeated into the public discourse. Let's make work worth it, and there will be fewer people on welfare and subsidies.
Posted by louis c | Sat Aug 24, 2013, 07:42 PM (17 replies)