Dems to pass Wall Street reform; Rossi passes gas

With the support of Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, the U.S. Senate has finally put together the bare minimum 60 votes needed to break the Republican filibuster on Wall Street reform, making passage a sure thing.

Meanwhile, Republican real estate speculator Dino Rossi has finally taken a position on an issue, telling the Seattle Times that he would have voted with his fellow Republicans to block the measure, because, apparently, preventing banks and other financial firms from doing the same sort of things that recently cost millions of Americans their jobs would “stifle job growth,” or something.

And if that sounds confused, just watch Rossi step in it when he attempts to dig into the details:

Rossi depicted Murray’s planned vote in favor of the measure — which could come as early as Thursday — as akin to putting taxpayers on the hook for another possible bailout of financial firms. He contends that it does little to discourage future risky behavior and called on Murray to “stand up to big banks” and vote it down.

[…] Murray’s campaign swiftly derided Rossi for overlooking the fact that Murray co-sponsored a successful amendment explicitly prohibiting using tax dollars to bail out troubled financial companies.

“It seems strange that Dino Rossi took weeks to take a position on this bill without apparently having read it,” said Julie Edwards, a Murray campaign spokeswoman.

But, you know, why bother reading something as big and as complicated as the actual bill when your heart’s not really in this campaign anyway?


  1. 2

    rhp6033 spews:

    Rossi’s just echoing the current Republican party line, that regulating bank and investment houses will lead to another bailout. The real facts never mattered to Rossi or to the GOP, they just read the polls and saw that people were really pissed about the taxpayer-funded bailouts, so they are trying to transfer the blame to the Democrats.

    Of course, the bailouts were caused by the lack of regulation and oversight, especially during the Bush administration, and the TARP bailout was DURING the Bush administration, and authorized by Congress only because Bush & Co. insisted it had to be done quickly with little debate in order to avoid another Great Depression.

    But the Republican Party ceased to be about facts and logic a long time ago. It was replaced by Gingrich-style rhetoric and ten-second sound bites, repeating false labels often enough that it is eventually believed by just enough people to swing an election.

    By the way Gingrich seems to be positioning himself for a run for President in 2012. I’d love for him to run a “family values” platform – we could have so much fun with that!

  2. 3

    John425 spews:

    Patty Murray had to have someone read the bill to her. The big words always cause her problems. Then Reid had to tell her how to vote because she is not allowed out without adult supervision.

  3. 5

    rhp6033 spews:

    # 3: That sounds like a description of Reichart, not Murray.

    But keep on throwing out those unsubstantiated and blatantly false accusations, it keeps reminding us of how important it is that the candidates you like aren’t elected.

  4. 6

    YellowPup spews:

    LOL, the Republican economic agenda worked so well during the Bush years.

    Cutting taxes for the rich while cutting off unemployment benefits is going to spur economic growth–don’t you realize how many working parts are in a second yacht?

  5. 7

    lostinaseaofblue spews:

    RE 2

    Umm hmm. I seem to remember Obama telling us that no time for debate was possible with stimulus money and with health care ‘reform.’ (Read ‘reform’ here as a sort of Orwellian way of saying insurance company welfare. (The same folks who everyone hates in health care now have full control over it! Yippee.) All politicians lie, manipulate emotions, and play games to get more power and do more favors for their buddies whether they append a ‘d’ or an ‘r’ to their names.

    Re 6

    Maybe, just maybe it’s as much a question of social morality as one of economic advantage. I hear all sorts of stuff from the left about how we need to tax the rich to pay for the poor. What I don’t hear is the moral justification for stealing from one person for anothers advantage.

    BTW, if you’ve been unemployed for 99 weeks it’s about time to get back to work. Move if you have to. Take a job at lower pay if you must. Sell the car and house and buy something in your new price range. In the late 70’s and early 80’s my dad took a 60% pay cut. His construction company went under. But he worked. He didn’t take a dime of someone elses money to pay for his obligations. He swallowed his pride and did what needed done to take care of his family. He drove crappy cars on which he was always working, but he worked. He and my mother gave up an awful lot for their independence, and gave 6 children a lesson in values your side of the fence would like to demolish.

    I work in construction. I was laid off a year ago. I’ve turned down work as often as taken it, due to lack of time or project interest. Don’t tell me there isn’t work out there. There is, but unemployment takes away the need to find it.

  6. 8

    rhp6033 spews:

    “Sell the car and house and buy something in your new price range.”

    Funny. You are telling unemployed people to solve their problems by selling their house and down-sizing to a smaller place?

    Let me know how many banks you find which will lend money for a mortgage to an unemployed person, no matter how “down-sized” it is.

  7. 10

    Randroid spews:

    @7. What I don’t hear is the moral justification for stealing from one person for another’s advantage.

    A simple Google search found this. Emphasis is mine.
    America’s government has at least two fundamental functions, protection and empowerment. Protection includes the police, firefighters, emergency services, public health, the military, and so on. Empowerment includes the infrastructure needed for business and everyday life: roads, communications systems, water supplies, public education, the banking system for loans and economic stability, the SEC for the stock market, the courts for enforcing contracts, air traffic control, support for basic science, our national parks and public buildings, and more. We are usually aware of protection. But the empowerment infrastructure, provided by taxes, is usually taken for granted, hidden, or ignored. Yet it is absolutely crucial, a fundamental truth about America and why America provides opportunity.

    This is a basic truth. That is what framing should be about: revealing truths and allowing us to reason using them.

    Taxes are part of our common wealth, what we all share. Protection and empowerment serve the common good. Because of our common wealth, we are all protected and America’s empowering infrastructure is available to all. That is a fundamental America value: the common wealth should serve the common good. It benefits everyone.

    Citizens are financially responsible to maintain this common wealth. If we shirked this responsibility, we could not maintain our roads, fund our schools, protect ourselves from military threats, enforce our laws, and so on. Equally importantly, we could not create prosperity for ourselves, because we would have no protection of our intellectual property, no oversight of our markets, no means to enforce our contracts, no way to educate most of our children.

    Several main progressive values support the idea of progressive taxation. One is the belief that the common wealth should be used for the common good. Another is responsibility, the responsibility that citizens have to pay for the benefits we receive from our common wealth. And still another is fairness. These values intertwine on the question of progressive taxation.
    Are you arguing that the rich have no responsibility to the common good?

  8. 11

    Randroid spews:

    Or how about…

    Libertarians often argue: TAX IS THEFT!
    It’s human nature to overestimate one’s own powers and to undervalue the help we have received. The toys. Perhaps taxes are like any other transaction. A bundled transaction. When you buy a set of tires or a meal at a restaurant, you are paying for employee theft, drunk employees, security, air conditioning, accountants, and stupid business moves, etc. that you may disapprove of, bundled into the cost of doing business and it’s not on your invoice. Bottom line: nobody is forcing you to buy the tires or the meal.

    Your choice. You can live like a hermit in a shack, eating roots. If you do not consume the toys, likely you will be poor and owe no taxes. But once you have eaten and grown fat you are now in debt. There is no free lunch.

    Some say that the American meal is the best meal in the world. If you have eaten of it, pay your debts, and don’t try and sneak out the back door.

  9. 13

    lostinaseaofblue spews:

    Re 8 and 9

    I’m unclear on how this is my problem. My mortgage is being paid. This has meant sacrifice as I build a business. I used to travel to Europe once a year. Not this year. I used to buy a coffee every morning. Not so much now. It’s all about personal responsibility, as dirty a phrase that is for progressives.

    The only thing I’m telling unemployed people to do is find work. How they manage their personal finances is their problem, and absolutely not a government or social one.

  10. 15

    manoftruth spews:

    lets try and figure out how barney franks jew friends will scam money using this bill.

    oh no sorry, barney doing it for the little guy, just remember the respectful way he answered his constituents at the healcare town hall meeting

  11. 16

    Randroid spews:

    Or even this.

    A Christian Argument for Progressive Taxation

    Thus, progressive theologians developed a Christian argument for taxation. They believed that a progressive tax would increase the overall morality of society. For example, Scudder pointed out that “the Church, like her Master, is in a way more concerned over the spiritual state of the prosperous than over that of the poor” because the rich “countenance unbrotherly things.” In other words, the rich were not likely to practice Christian holiness. “It may be good for the soul of Patrick to subsist on a starvation wage,” she says of a hypothetical worker, “but it is very bad for the soul of Henry the mill-owner to pay him that wage.” Thus, the spiritual scales needed to somehow be equalized — by Henry surrendering some portion of his wealth in order to better the lot of his brothers and sisters. “It is spiritual suicide for the possessors of privileges to rest,” Scudder argued, “until such privileges become the common lot. This truth is what the Church should hold relentlessly before men’s eyes; it is what makes indifference to social readjustments impossible to her shepherding love.” A progressive tax was an expression of Christian love.

  12. 17

    lostinaseaofblue spews:

    Re 10 and 11

    Excellent points, most of which I agree with. The conclusions you, or rather the author of that essay, draw from them I respectfully don’t. Nor do I see anywhere in the Constitution or the writings of those who crafted it any notion of empowerment as a legitimate government function.

    I didn’t say taxation was theft on its face. When taxes are a means of taking one mans property and giving it to another for his or her sole benefit, that is theft.

    The rich have precisely the same responsiblity to the common good that the poor do. I agree that schools and many of the items listed in the essay you quote, often called the commons, are communally enjoyed and should communally be paid for. Why then does someone who used effort, discipline and whatever gifts God gave them to do well for themselves owe more than those who chose an easier path with less reward?

    What we ought to be aiming at is an equal starting point. No system that gaurantees an equal finish line could avoid tyranny to accomplish the goal.

  13. 18

    Randroid spews:

    Oh HO, when in doubt, pull out the constitution!
    For you, the key thing is the constitution.

    So here’s a extreme example of your argument:
    The Constitution doesn’t say I cannot read all your emails so that’s ok. The Constitution doesn’t say I cannot clone you and use the clone to sell body parts to china so that’s ok.
    The Constitution is a powerful framework, but we, the living, interpret it to fit the context of the day. The constitution explicitly say didn’t say corporations are “people” but the supreme court has interpreted it to say that.

    Why then does someone who used effort, discipline and whatever gifts God gave them to do well for themselves owe more than those who chose an easier path with less reward?
    A great argument for the estate tax. Let every generation earn their wealth! If your argument is Why should some slacker kid who didn’t work a day in his life get welfare, then why should some slacker kid who didn’t work a day in his life get millions?

    What we ought to be aiming at is an equal starting point. No system that gaurantees an equal finish line could avoid tyranny to accomplish the goal.
    Explain your system so an unemployed auto worker in Michigan and Paris Hilton who inherited millions have an equal starting point?

    I didn’t say taxation was theft on its face. When taxes are a means of taking one mans property and giving it to another for his or her sole benefit, that is theft.
    Care to site examples?
    Are you against eminent domain laws where property is taken so a shopping mall can be constructed?

  14. 19

    lostinaseaofblue spews:

    Re 11

    To clear up a misperception probably caused by imprecision in my writing-

    I gratefully acknowledge the help of personal friends and business acquantainces, family, and the society which has made my life possible and by most terms quite pleasant.

    As for what the wealthy morally owe, that is a question of humanism or faith, not government. CS Lewis wrote about charity that if it’s your giving isn’t uncomfortable it isn’t enough. I can agree with the sentiment, but disagree that government is the proper vehicle for that charity.

  15. 20

    rhp6033 spews:

    As for those unemployed for more than six months, I’m seeing two categories.

    The first is professional/mid-level management people who have found their jobs outsourced, in many cases to overseas location. It’s not that they can move somewhere, or take a pay cut – their jobs just don’t exist anymore, at least not in this country. It’s been a trend for the past ten years, but those who have managed to hang on due to their knowledge, talent, expertise, and hard work got hit by a sledgehammer in the downsizing of the current rescession. I know an aerospace engineer with thirty years in the industry who spent eleven months looking for work before taking a job on the other side of the country for half of the pay – his wife and kids are remaining here so they can finish school without transferring. My brother-in-law, a computer programmer for the past 35 years, has had three pay cuts totallying almost half his salary. He’s now working for $45K a year, tasked with training guys in India how to do his job (obviously, people who will be his replacements). He’d take another job, if he could find one – he’s been actively looking for two years. If he can’t find a replacement before his laid off, what is he going to do as a 56 year-old mainframe computer programmer? He could go back and learn PC programming, but what do you think the odds are that he’s going to be hired at Microsoft (or similar company) at his age?

    But the other category is on the low end of the job spectrum. Those who have been laid off are all pushing down into the lower levels of the employment ladder, which simply pushes others off the ladder completely. More and more people are simply competing for fewer and fewer jobs which are at best “entry level”, or more likely “dead-end” jobs. What this does is shut out the new entrants into the job force completely – those that recently graduated, just got out of the military, are trying to return to the job market after an injury or raising kids, or trying to get a job because their spouse recently became unemployed.

    For them, even “pounding the streets” isn’t an options, because most companies will only take online applications these days, and managers are prohibited from hiring directly – it’s all handled by HR somewhere in corporate headquarters. A friend of my son, now a year out of the military and still unemployed, says that his attempts to go door-to-door have been completely rebuffed. He’s attending community college now, but he’d rather be working – he already learned the skills in the military which they are teaching in class.

    What I am seeing is that the out-of-work are indeed taking any job they can find, rather than sit on their rear ends taking unemployment. Through my debt and financial counseling efforts at church, I have seen a few hundred people over the past two years, and NONE of them would accept unemployment payments if they had any reasonable job option available. I only use the word “reasonable” to exclude commission-only sales jobs which cycle through people every few weeks, those requiring uncompensated travel for hundreds of miles daily, sales jobs directed solely at extracting money from your friends and relatives after which you will be fired for “non-performance” when those contacts are used up, exotic dancing, etc.).

    And yes, when times were tough I also did anything I could to keep food on the table myself. I learned how to repair my cars myself (although I wouldn’t try to do much now with computerized systems). I took jobs delivering phone books in the evening to supplement low-wage jobs during the day. I taught myself how to build a website and turn it into something that brings in a few hundred dollars a month. I did odd labor jobs for anyone I knew.

    Cutting off unemployement isn’t the solution. That doesn’t create a single job. It just means that more people are fighting for the same few jobs, all at lower wages (which seems to be the goal of Republican policy these days). Indeed, cutting off unemployment benefits will actually cost jobs, as the people who would be receiving unemployment now can’t pay their bills, buy food, pay rent, causing a cascading economic failure. Lots of small businesses which support such people would go under, and the “double-dip” rescession would be a reality. Which again, might be the current goal of the Republicans – cause another economic collapse, blame it on Obama, and use it to gain more seats in the upcoming elections.

  16. 21

    Randroid spews:

    When I was at Dominoes last, of the 6 staff, all were over 50, some easily over 65 and the only young guy was the manager, who looked and acted about 25.

    Is an out of work 58 year old mid level office executive with a bad back supposed to go say… work in the fields and make enough to support his family?

  17. 22

    Randroid spews:

    Do you see unemployment as charity?
    Do you see social programs as DSHS as charity?
    Do you see the VA as charity?
    Do you see medicare and medicaid as charity?
    Do you see social security as charity?
    Do you see AIDS research as charity?
    Do you see farm subsidies as charity?
    Do you see oil industry tax breaks as charity?

  18. 23

    lostinaseaofblue spews:

    Re 18

    Yes, when discussing American government I do default to the Constitution. Discussing that government without understanding the fundamental role of that document would be pointless.

    Your example isn’t extreme, just wrong. The incursions on the 4th and 1st Amendment under Bush and continued by Obama are an abomination. I would rather accept some threats to my safety and retain my liberties. Franklin said it best- “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

    The estate tax is double taxation. On money or the products purchased with it that have already been taxed we assess a monstrous penalty for the serious crime of inheritance? Really, this seems fair to you?

    Your unemployed auto worker made choices. He chose a safe salary rather than the risks of entrepeurship. He’s entitled to the choice, so long as he accepts the consequences.

    Care to cite examples!? AFDC, subsidized housing or education, welfare in general, and I could go on. And on. And on. In our current tax system close to 50% pay no taxes when the direct benefits they get from these programs are factored in. A pretty sizeable minority actually is effectively paid for their citizenship. This is equitable in your view?

  19. 24

    Right Stuff spews:

    Top 2 reasons to vote no.
    1. Fannie Mae
    2. Freddie Mack

    That giant sucking sound you hear is those entities costing US taxpayes Trillions of dollars….

    But, hey, no problems there…No need to address the root cause of the mortgage crisis.

    Best bumper stick I ever saw reads

    *Honk if I’m paying your mortgage!*

  20. 25

    uptown spews:

    Unemployment just doesn’t pay or cost that much, and quite a bit is recovered in taxes.

    Those “unemployed folks” have been paying taxes for years, they deserve to have some of that money paid back to them, instead of paying for foreign wars and the Bush bank handouts.

  21. 26

    lostinaseaofblue spews:

    Re 25

    Yes, the money is recovered in taxes. From employers. Employees pay a tiny fraction of unemployment taxes. It is true, however, that we all pay it every time we buy a burger or a sheet of plywood as part of the cost of doing business and the consequent purchase price of the whatever we are buying.

    So the argument is that by constricting the employers cash flow even further we will encourage employment? With all due respect I just don’t see it.

  22. 27

    Randroid spews:

    em>The estate tax is double taxation. On money or the products purchased with it that have already been taxed we assess a monstrous penalty for the serious crime of inheritance? Really, this seems fair to you?
    I noted your twisting of the argument by calling crime of inheritance. It’s not a crime, it’s a tax.

    But the heirs didn’t earn that money, all they had to do is sit on their buts and wait for the parent to die. If you value entrepeurship, make the heirs earn their own money.
    How is that any different that waiting for the welfare check?

    Do you think a wife is entitled to alimony since she made the choice to stay home and raise the kids instead of getting her own job?

    I don’t think my taxes doing to two needless wars, or oil company subsidies is fair either.

  23. 28

    uptown spews:

    WTF 26?

    I paid all of my unemployment, 6 months worth, back in extra income taxes the year I was unemployed. It’s taxable income and was enough to put me in a higher bracket. That doesn’t include sales taxes I paid with the money, or all the other taxes we pay everyday. Income tax is not the only tax out there.

    The extension money comes directly from the federal, not local funds.

  24. 29

    lostinaseaofblue spews:

    Re 27

    I honestly don’t care what the heirs earned. It’s irrelevant in this context. The point is that the same dollar is taxed at two points, once at point of earning and again at death of the taxpayer.

    I don’t get to pick where my taxes go provided it’s within the Constitutional authority of the taxing government. I don’t like a lot of things we pay for, but that’s the price of living in a democracy. Where I kick is when government exceeds that authority and charges me for the priviledge.

    Alimony is a red herring. We could trade questions about specifics all day to no purpose. Fundamentally I have a different and in my view more Constitutional view of what our government is authorized to do than most progressives, or far right for that matter.

  25. 30

    uptown spews:


    No, the money is taxed based on where it goes. Money to charities would not be taxed, and money to heirs would be.

  26. 31

    lostinaseaofblue spews:


    With respect, I was speaking about the direct tax employers largely pay on the earnings of an employee to support unemployment. I wasn’t talking about income tax implications of collecting it. Your situation is regrettable but must be fairly unusual.

    I understand that estate planning can eliminate much of the taxation in the death tax. What I don’t understand is why a person should have to pay taxes on already taxed income at all.

  27. 33

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    A Christian Argument for Progressive Taxation

    Jim Wallis

    Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaah haaaaaaaaaaa

    Jim Wallis


    Jim Wallis

    Thanks for the laugh!

  28. 34

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:


    Why the progressive big income redistribution argument? Did you forget the heirs of Joe Robbie had to sell the Miami Dolphins to pay the inheritance tax? Is that fair? Of course to you it is!

    You upset one of your buds got a big inheritance?

    Do you think a wife is entitled to alimony since she made the choice to stay home and raise the kids instead of getting her own job?

    Glad to see you are a misogynist like other leftists here.

  29. 35

    Steve spews:

    @31 “What I don’t understand is why a person should have to pay taxes on already taxed income at all.”

    What tax? The wealth of the spawn of the super wealthy doesn’t come from weekly paychecks. It comes from inheritance, capital gains and dividends. The Republican mantra has for decades been to eliminate these taxes entirely. As it is, for the generationally rich, most capital gains are never taxed at all. The heirs realize these gains on a “stepped-up basis”. Is this what you desire? Generation after generation of America’s wealthiest families passing on their vast riches with no taxation whatsoever?

  30. 36

    rhp6033 spews:

    Lost @ 13 said:

    ” It’s all about personal responsibility, as dirty a phrase that is for progressives.”

    Gee, I’m all for personal responsibility. I just get rather angry when Republicans lecture me about how my problems are due to my personal irresponsiblity, and yet expect to get bailed out of their own personal irresponsibility. The Republican “Bankruptcy Reform” and TARP are just two glaring examples.

    “The only thing I’m telling unemployed people to do is find work. How they manage their personal finances is their problem, and absolutely not a government or social one.”

    Which works fine, as long as you are talking about a relatively small number of people. But there’s a tipping point where the number of unemployed results in a shrinkage of the economy which impacts everyone. You know the old saw – “If I owe the bank $100 and I can’t pay, it’s my problem. If I owe the bank $100 million and I can’t pay, it’s the bank’s problem.” Well, a similar dynamic works when large numbers of unemployed are no longer able to pay their landlords, their grocers, their barber shops, etc. – soon those folks (and their employees) will join the ranks of the unemployed also. We recognized this fact during the Great Rescession, and unemployement insurance was adopted for this very reason – to help prevent a rescession from becomming a depression.

    Oh, and as for the argument about whether or not unemployement insurance is paid for by the employer or the employee: it really doesn’t matter. It’s part of the total payroll cost. We could set it up for the employee to pay the cost, and the employer would (eventually) have to raise wages slightly to cover the cost, or he would soon have good employees leave to work for an employer who does so. But keeping the current system causes the employer to bear most of the risk of layoffs. An employer who abuses the system by routine hiring binges followed by frequent layoffs is penalized by having to pay higher premiums. This discourages the employer from using the unemployment system to subsidize his payroll cost during ordinary ebbs and flows of the work cycle.

  31. 37

    rhp6033 spews:

    The argument about “double-taxation” avoids the basic point: our income tax is based upon transactions. It is at the point where a transfer of money is paid for goods or services that the tax applies.

    Why should an inheritance be treated any differently? Why should workers have to pay “double taxes” on each paycheck (income tax), and again each time they buy something in a store (sales tax), just so a wealthy heir can avoid paying a one-time tax on their inheritance?

    Note that historically, the inheritance tax was a primary form of revenue for both the king and his nobility in feudal Britain. The heir had to pay a price, which was set by custom for the lower classes but often negotiated by the upper classes, in order to have their inheritance reconginized by the authorities. In the case of disputed claims, this sometimes turned into an auction of sorts. So inheritance taxes are hardly a new invention by the liberal Democrats.

    So what happens when you get away from a “transaction tax”? This is what happens in countries without a modern economy or record-keeping, or where enforcement is ineffective. At that point you find organized bribery as the primary method for financing government. Each sub-official is responsible for turning over a set amount of money to the person above him. Failure to do so results in dismissal. How do they get this money? By requiring those below them to do the same.

    So if you find yourself in an underdeveloped foreign country and some customs agent, policeman, or checkpoint guard is demanding a bribe before they perform their duties, don’t get mad – that’s an unwritten part of their job duties. In many cases, such departements are expected to finance their own operations, and turn over a bigger share to the authorities above them.

    But this is, in a sense, a transaction cost just like an income tax, a sales tax, or an inheritance tax. So either way, you can’t get around them.

  32. 38

    Randroid spews:

    Puddy doesn’t comprehend what he reads.

    I ask the question of the libertarian here “Do you think a wife is entitled to alimony since she made the choice to stay home and raise the kids instead of getting her own job? ”
    Instead of answering the question, I get attacked by Puddy
    “Glad to see you are a misogynist like other leftists here.”
    I am not some Tom Lykis misogynist.

    Unlike puddy or lostinaseaofblue, who did not answer, I think being a stay at home parent is a great thing for a child to have and if the family can afford it, one parent should do it. The parent who sacrifices their career to do so, should be compensated if they divorce. Most libertarians I have chatted with, tend to be of the “sucks to be you if you make a mistake” school of thought and don’t think the stay at home spouse should get anything. After all they choose to take themselves out of the job market.

  33. 39

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    What’s Wrong With This Picture?

    News Item #1:

    “What If Unemployment Is Really 22%?

    “Private pollsters and economists are piling up statistics showing the government’s official jobless rate is becoming more and more of a fiction. And that’s not helping solve the problem that’s No. 1 for most Americans.”

    New Item #2:

    “Goldman Sachs Shares Rising On SEC Settlement, Upgrade

    “Goldman Sachs (GS) shares have jumped some 4.7% in pre-market trading Friday to around $152. Shares closed at $145.22 Thursday, already up 4.4% in anticipation of a pre-announced press conference. Goldman has reached an agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will pay a record $550 million settlement over fraud claims linked to the subprime mortgage investment known as Abacus.

    “Bank of America Merrill Lynch upgraded Goldman Sachs to buy from neutral following the settlement, and lifted its price target for the stock to $182 from $160. The broker said the probability of other significant legal issues arising from the mortgage debacle is very low, according to Market Watch.”

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: The suffering of the workers who create ALL of this nation’s wealth continues unabated (meanwhile, Republicans try to block unemployment benefits), while the stock of the one of the worst perpetrators of the massive financial fraud that brought the global economy to its knees and cost honest people trillions of dollars of their savings leaps on news that the government sanctions for their criminal conduct amount to no more than the annual bonus for one Goldman executive (meanwhile, Republicans want to repeal financial reform). Why is this company still in business? (And why would sane person who loves America vote Republican?)

    Disclosure Statement: Roger Rabbit does not own any shares of Goldman Sachs, but maybe I should! If what passes fo a democratically elected government in this country is going to hand over everything the middle class owns to Wall Street sharks on a golden platter, it might be better to be one of the crooks instead of a hardworking, honest, middle-class American. Hmmm … isn’t this what they call “moral hazard”?

  34. 40

    Kyle L spews:

    Who’s the alternative to Patty Murray?… “Whose Shoes Will You Choose?”


    Oh the political rhetoric – how about electing an innovator, job creator, small business man, father, husband, an enlightened man who empowers his employees.
    He is not a politician by any means. What a breath of fresh air. His name:
    Visit his web site at If you like what you see, host a meet and greet in your neighborhood and he will come and speak and have a question and answer period. Democrats and Republicans alike are supporting him. He doesn’t look at parties to divide us, rather he treats each person as having something valuable to say. He empowers people. He is full of common sense to ensure that we work together to get results.
    Polls show that he is closing the gap – again, check out his website at