*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
*
*
Will.I.Am steals the last minute of the second clip without even saying a word. Three brief cuts to WIA says everything you’re thinking about Andrew Sullivan’s BS.
(Culturally/socially speaking, I think this is the most fascinating race in Vermont this year. – promoted by odum)
Now how cool is that?!!!
Way to go, Kesha. 🙂
DON COLLINS D Franklin incumbent
SARA KITTELL D Franklin incumbent
RANDY BROCK R Franklin
BILL ROWELL R Franklin
This election year is going to be a tough one for Don Collins and Sara Kittell. Don Collins barley held on to his senate seat in 2006 winning by just a few votes. This year the republicans have two great canidates and they seem to be very organized. Driving around the St Albans area you see very few Sarah and Don Collins signs and many Randy Brock and Bill Rowell signs. Randy Brock who lost his positon as state auditor last election is well known and liked in Franklin county. Bill Rowell also seems to be well known and liked. The only thing the democrats have going for them is that this is a presidential election year and voter turn out will be high. Hopefully Obama brings new and young voters out who might help Sarah and Collins keep thier job. I hope the Vermont Democratic party allocates enough money and support to Franklin county this year because my observations make me believe they are going to need it.
Hat tip to SPS.
it’s yet one more Democratic kowtowing to Cheney/Bush empire building.
Look at the Cheney/Bush “bailout”, and ask yourself … “Self? Why are the Dems surrendering power and responsibility to the Cheney/Bush regime yet one more time?”
Shortest version: The Department of Treasury is given absolute power to purchase bad debt instruments at any price and simultaneously borrow money in the name of the United States to do so … hell, Congress even raised the debt ceiling by another one and a half trillion dollars to do so.
Every plaintive scream of doom and gloom by Cheney/Bush has resulted in one more surrender by the DC Dem surrender monkeys.
Every tiime I hear Art Woolf described as one of “Vermont's leading economists,” I almost double over as if with a knife-like pain in the abdomen.
The word, “leading,” desbrides the present tense. Are you a leader today, and are you leading others toward tomorrow. “Leading” does not mean you served as a State Economist decades ago.
One way to determine the present quality of any economist's opinion is to ask the question, “Did he get it right?”
For those who don't follow finance, be assured it was a collapse of huge magnitude and right now the Fed is throwing a trillion dollars at it and crossing their fingers. We're borrowing new money — raising our national debt ceiling to $11.5 trillion — to throw a safety net under the so-called “free” market system, beginning with an 80% buyup of the world's largest insurance company, AIG, through the purchase of warrants. There's no guaranteel that this trick will work, but whether it does or not, we're talking about an incredibly heavy debt-load for future generations.
Art Woolf, alledgedly “one of Vermont's leading economists,” recently wailed and moaned in response to the July 29th Rutland Herald editorial, “Revisiting the Depression.”
On the same day, Mr. Woolf asserts that, despite the financial crisis,
Economic indicators are not great, but they are far from the worst we have seen since the 1930s. They are still better than they were in the early 1990s, for example.
Economic indicators? Sure the econonomy is just dandy at the time the Fed is bailing out Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac, bankruptcies and foreclosures are rising through the roof and the unemployment rate is increasing. As any economist might predict, everything is just fine, pay no attention to that elephant in the room.
“Leading economist” Woolf centers his rebuttal around a quibble of history, arguing that policies from the Federal Reserve caused the great depression. What gets his ire up is this line from the Herald:
The Depression showed what can happen when policymakers place their trust in the self-correcting magic of the market.
“It was the Fed's fault! It was the Fed's fault!” Woolf cries out, chastising the Herald for not knowing their history.
Fair enough Mr. Woolf. You've earned the title of “Vermont's leading economic historian.”
But the next time I hear you on the radio, I won't be bringing you free-market ideology to the bank.
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2008/07/getting-history.html
(I agree, although I think a lot of the larger, worst players looking at collapse should be absorbed wholesale and broken into constituent parts in the process… – promoted by odum)
As you all know, I have been supportive of a bailout that tried to move the bad mortgage paper out of the system. I thought it made sense to have the govt buy this for nickels on the dollar and simply purge the system. If priced right, the lenders will be punished, but can issue new stock and move on. Bank Shareholders will pay the price for the stupidity of mortgage lending, but will not be totally wiped out. More importantly, if priced right the ultimate tab to the taxpayer will be minimized as the government can re-sell the paper after it has cleaned it up.
Details are sketchy, but it looks like this bailout may offer to pay book value for these bad loans. That is absurd. Here is a very good analysis of why:
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot…
As currently proposed, I am opposed to this bailout because it gives the Bush administration WAY too much latitude and does nothing to prevent bade behavior.
Any bailout needs to include a fair price to the taxpayer provision so that the treasury doesn’t simply buy up crap at premium prices. It also needs to include warrants that will allow the debt to convert to shares to allow the taxpayer to be compensated for any paper that tanks.
It is an absolute must that any bailout also include re-regulation of Wall Street, so that financial instruments are transparent with harsh criminal penalties. I want any i-banker to think long and hard about a possible federal prison sentence if s/he knowingly issues bum securities.
I also think there should be a provision to pay for the costs of this bail out through a supplemental professional tax of i-bankers of their gross income (regardless of the source) for the next 20 years.
Lastly, there should be simplified provisions for judges to reset mortgage values to get people into homes they can actually afford.
[Cross Posted from DailyKos, with permission. I’m putting this here so, as we head into home heating season and the drumbeats for action increase in both intensity and speed, we’ll all have an understanding of exactly how little offshore drilling will do.
Credit to Get Energy Smart Now ]
During the Republican primaries, John McCain fell in Michigan, in part because he was living in reality when it came to Global Warming rhetoric, a reality uncomfortable for the flat-earth, reality-denying wing of the Republican party. Come this November, McCain doesn’t plan to make the same mistake. The Palin-McCain campaign’s latest ad is, not surprisingly, dishonest on multiple levels and offers ugly prospects for the future. The Palin-McCain Lying Ad is, well, despicable.
This ad is about “jobs” for Michigan, a state under great (and continuing) pressure. The ad deceptively links McCain to Obama theme like “reform” and “change”.
[more below the fold]
Let us take a moment to consider just one sentence:
“Offshore drilling to reduce the price of gas to spur truck sales.”
How many times does it need to be said? Offshore drilling is, at best, a 1 cent, 1 percent solution 20 years off to the question of gasoline prices. According to Department of Energy analysis, offshore drilling would:
Yes, a 1 cent, 1 percent solution, 20 years from now would “spur truck sales”.
How can anyone take the Palin-McCain campaign seriously?
The Sierra Club has weighed in … strongly. This press release merits quotation in full:
“This ad is so full of lies, deceptions, and failed approaches to our energy and economic problems, it’s hard to know where to start. Michiganders are smart enough to see through the lies and simple-minded pandering in this ad. They know we need a real plan, real change, and that we need a candidate who understands our energy and economic crises. This ad is further proof that John McCain just doesn’t get it and doesn’t have the kind of plan that Michigan—and America—needs.
“The Sierra Club understand that times are tough in Michigan and that the automakers need help. We support government loans to help the automakers if they are willing to make the kind of real, fleet-wide improvements in fuel economy that will help consumers spend less on gas and help reduce our dangerous dependence on oil. And what the ad doesn’t tell you is that McCain opposed helping the automakers and only changed his mind once he started to slip in the polls in Michigan.
“John McCain says that the solution to Detroit’s woes is to have lower gas prices so they can sell more trucks. Unfortunately, McCain’s drilling plan won’t lower prices and selling more trucks won’t help Detroit solve its problems in the long-run—but it will increase our addiction to oil. Michiganders know that relying too heavily on gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs is what got the auto industry into this mess in the first place and that’s why they want help building the next generation of fuel-efficient vehicles. This is just one more example of John McCain’s backward-looking, outdated approach to America’s most pressing problems.
“Barack Obama has a real plan to invest $150 billion in the clean energy technologies we need. That includes giving the auto industry the help they need to double fuel economy and make the next generation of fuel-efficient vehicles here in America.
“Instead of a real plan, John McCain wants to run the economy like a game show full of misguided gimmicks like a $300 million prize for car batteries and the widely denounced gas tax holiday.
“It’s shameful that the McCain campaign continues to repeat the completely discredited claim that more offshore drilling will lower gas prices. This is the second ad just this week to do so. Even the Bush administration admits that drilling won’t lower gas prices. It’s time for McCain and his campaign to start being honest with the American public about his energy plans.”
NOTE: An excellent graphic from Architecture2030 to illustrate the volume impact. (Note that the total figures here are quite low. Current US consumption is 20 million barrels per day, not 15 …)
This is defined as “US oil consumption” and you will see that we are at about 15 million barrels / day in the chart. The problem: The United States is using more than 20 million barrels per day. (According to the Energy Information Administration, “20,680,000 barrels per day” is their current statement as to US use.) It looks as if Architecture2030 used the 70% of US oil use that is dedicated to transportation rather than the total petroleum product use. This graphic is, actually, overstating the impact of the 200,000 barrels/day since they are showing current and projected demand about 1/3rd lower than what the Energy Information Administration shows. Even so, it clearly shows how this is about a 1 percent solution, decades into the future.