home

Thursday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 09:03:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

HBO is airing Schmatta: Rags to Riches, a history of New York's garment district.

For thousands of immigrants the garment industry was a path to their American Dream, but today most of those jobs are gone. A microcosm of the economic and social forces transforming our nation over the past one hundred years, Schmatta: Rags To Riches To Rags tells the story of this vanishing industry through the voices of the people who have experienced its highs and lows.

I'm also watching Grey's Anatomy.

Here's an open thread for the evening, all topics welcome.

< MN Supreme Court: Bong Water is Class 1 Drug Offense | Politico: Obama Fighting For Snowe's Triggers >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Night Open Thread | 63 comments (63 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Does anyone know.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 10:33:20 PM EST
    If the banksters can't produce the properly titled paper for foreclosures, doesn't the same thing apply to mortgages...if the paperwork is not correct and in place on a mortgage, then there's no need to pay your mortgage?????

    (Pam Martens at Counterpunch (thanks to Corrente) reports:)

        Three plain talking judges, in state courts in Massachusetts and Kansas, and a Federal Court in Ohio, have drilled down to the "straw man" aspect of securitization. The judges' decisions have raised serious questions as to the legality of hundreds of thousands of foreclosures that have transpired as well as the legal standing of the subsequent purchasers of those homes, who are more and more frequently the Wall Street banks themselves. ....

        The problems grew out of the steps required to structure a mortgage securitization. In order to meet the test of an arm's length transaction, pass muster with regulators, conform to accounting rules and to qualify as an actual sale of the securities in order to be removed from the bank's balance sheet, the mortgages get transferred a number of times before being sold to investors. Typically, the original lender (or a sponsor who has purchased the mortgages in the secondary market) will transfer the mortgages to a limited purpose entity called a depositor. The depositor will then transfer the mortgages to a trust which sells certificates to investors based on the various risk-rated tranches of the mortgage pool. (Theoretically, the lower rated tranches were to absorb the losses of defaults first with the top triple-A tiers being safe. In reality, many of the triple-A tiers have received ratings downgrades along with all the other tranches.)

        Because of the expense, time and paperwork it would take to record each of the assignments of the thousands of mortgages in each securitization, Wall Street firms decided to just issue blank mortgage assignments all along the channel of transfers, skipping the actual physical recording of the mortgage at the county registry of deeds.

        Astonishingly, representatives for the trusts have been foreclosing on homes across the country, evicting the families, then auctioning the homes, without a proper paper trail on the mortgage assignments or proof that they had legal standing. In some cases, the courts have allowed the representatives to foreclose and evict despite their admission that the original mortgage note is lost. (This raises the question as to whether these mortgage notes are really lost or might have been fraudulently used in multiple securitizations, a concern raised by some Wall Street veterans.)

    It would beyond cool... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 08:10:52 AM EST
    if all the foreclosed upon got their homes back because of this...and if people got out of the rest of their mortgages.  Talk about wildest dreams coming true!

    The first time the banksters greed bit 'em in the arse, Uncle Sam was there to stich it.  This time they'd get their just desserts in a major way...what am I saying, Congress would just pass a law to make it all "legit".  Losing is for little people.

    Parent

    Whoa...time somebody went to jail. (none / 0) (#5)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 10:43:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, I've been wondering (none / 0) (#9)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:56:02 AM EST
    about this exact thing since we first learned about these insane securitizations of securitizations!

    Parent
    Yes yes something to the core of (none / 0) (#11)
    by joze46 on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 06:00:13 AM EST
    the whole line if corruption in this banking stuff. What the heck is a title trust if you can't trust it. sheesh...lots of persons are real felony's walking around as happy as can be. While John Doe has to live in a card board box.

    Now watching MSNBC and the analysis of Peggy Noonon (spelling ?) anyway she says Obama owns the "Bush Rubble"... very funny,

    O.K. If the republicans fund a war with no end now they do not own it? yikes...How about if the Republicans build a bridge to nowhere. Who owns it? LOL...  

    Parent

    To understand Peggy Noonan (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 07:40:48 AM EST
    Here are a couple of facts:
    Noonan was one of Reagan's speech writers.
    She apparently had a huge man crush on Reagan.  

    In terms of actual substance, she's a cut above Maureen Dowd and she's not nearly as wingnutty as Jonah Goldberg (was he always this bad?).  She's a lot better than some at disguising her conservative bias, but it is always there.  She's worth reading for a less painful look at the conservative thought process.  

    Parent

    You're right and wrong (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 08:37:05 AM EST
    if the same property has been used for multiple securitizations someone needs to go to jail.

    But that has nothing to do with how much is owed on the property and if the owner is making the payment every month. There is no doubt about these amounts and whether the owner is paying.

    Foreclosure and eviction is a result of the owner's actions, not the actions of the mortgage holder, or the "securitization" holder as the case may be.


    Parent

    If the borrower wants to (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:19:32 AM EST
    challenge that the people who have been taking the payments don't deserve the money they are free to do so.

    BTW - If the grocery store doesn't give you a receipt that doesn't mean you have a right to get your money back.

    You know, on every house we purchased we had a copy of the mortgage, terms of payment, etc., etc. Claiming that you don't know how the lenders have split your mortgage up doesn't mean you don't owe the money.

    It is owed to someone.

    Parent

    You have it backwards (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:28:58 AM EST
    if someone wants to go to court to enforce a mortgage contract, the burden is on them to show that they actually hold the mortgage.  It's not the homeowner's burden to prove that they don't!

    Parent
    Quit dodging (2.00 / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    you understood my point.

    Parent
    Accusing you of dodging? (2.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    Thank you for proving my point.

    Parent
    I didn't say that. (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:46:16 AM EST
    I said IF the borrower wants to challenge that the people who have been taking the payments don't deserve the money they are free to do so. I don't see how that is in conflict with a mortgage holder needing to prove they hold the mortgage. Whether or not a "securitization" document is proof that a mortgage exists is probably something that needs to be adjudicated.

    I would hope that the court would appoint a trustee to take the payments and act in the interest of the parties.


    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:41:49 AM EST
    if they want to recover money they've already paid, they probably have the burden.  If they simply stop making payments, any entity that wants to sue for nonpayment or to foreclose on the mortgage has the burden to show that it is entitled to do so.

    Parent
    Banks have investors (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 01:09:45 PM EST
    that's whose money has been loaned. You need to look at both sides.

    Parent
    Can't stay on subject can you? (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 06:16:50 PM EST
    lol

    Parent
    Since you were replying to a specific (2.00 / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:00:50 PM EST
    subject, and didn't start a new discussion on the open thread, yes, you can't stay on subject.

    Said subject was the possibility that some banks have lost track of the mortgages when creating new financial instruments. My position has been that while this is bad, I think a trustee should be appointed to represent both parties to prevent unethical behavior by both sides.

    The fact that the banks, at the behest of the Democrats under Clinton, opened the spigot of poor credit risks and then blocked reform by Bush and later McCain, is well known and a bevy of links showing this has been posted by yours truly. Why you want to spew hundreds of words confirming the problems created by the banks responding to (almost) free money I really don't know.

    Parent

    Gee I am impressed (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 11:00:38 PM EST
    by all the information... unfortunately it takes hundreds of words to say nothing....

    I mean we all know what happened. We all know who caused it.

    Now the trick is to fix it.

    I offered a solution. You don't like it? Offer yours..... but in 10,000 words or less.

    Parent

    Never fear DA (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 08:26:58 PM EST
    that what you write will be a strain. Now reading what you copy and paste could strain the eyes....

    Do you ever have an original comment?

    Parent

    Evidently you didn't read (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:50:30 AM EST
    I would hope that the court would appoint a trustee to take the payments and act in the interest of the parties.

    If the homeowner quits paying, someone is being cheated. It would be up to the trustee to act to protect the people who loaned the money in the expectation of being repaid, with interest.

    I would agree that some of these loans shouldn't have been made to people who shouldn't have applied for them but the fact is they applied and the loan was made.

    And failure to pay your mortgage, which the holder of the securitization can prove, means that you are not performing to the agreement, no matter who holds it.

    Parent

    The loss of our manufacturing base (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:09:10 AM EST
    has changed the term from "rags to riches" to "rags to rags."  The factory that propelled the unskilled and uneducated into the mainstream of society is gone leaving most of our unskilled and undereducated adrift. Gangs and drugs have filled this vacuum. Is anyone listening?

    At the same time (none / 0) (#16)
    by Samuel on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 08:40:47 AM EST
    the flight of manufacturing from the US is a function of reduced costs abroad.  This translates into reduced costs for imported goods - which for consumers (some of whom are the former manufacturers) means a lower cost of living.  

    If it takes you 6 hours to change a car's oil and there's a mechanic willing to do it for $20 (less than you would expect to earn over 6 labor hours) - it is economically beneficial to pay the more efficient mechanic.  

    Parent

    The problem is (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:08:53 AM EST
    the consumer has to have enough money to take advantage of the reduced price.

    We have saved ourselves into bankruptcy.

    Parent

    Sure. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Samuel on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:22:58 AM EST
    But who's going to buy a more expensive good?  Because American manufacturers require hire pay, their products have lower demand.  Unless you force people to buy American, there's no way around that.

    Secondly, if trade restrictions were to be put in place, the net economic effect would surely be negative as international trade ONLY exists because it adds efficiency (participants get more for their inputs then under a restricted system).  We give money to Japan for making cars because they're better making cars.  

    Say I'm a web designer in Pittsburgh, PA - the only web designer.  I charge $1000 per website because it takes me 100 hours to complete it.  At the same time in Philadelphia, there's a web designer that charges $100 because he can make the same site in 10 hours.  Would it make sense to restrict the residents of Pittsburgh, PA from hiring the contractor in Philadelphia?  Ofcourse not, the local economy would be forced into putting an undue amount of resources to me when it should be possible for them to spend 1/10 the resources with the Philadelphia contractor and use the remaining 9/10 as they see fit.  Also - by allowing the Philadelphia contractor to compete with me - I am now forced to find a more efficient means of making the website OR to realize that I'm simply demanding to much / not skilled enough to be competitive in this industry.  

    Parent

    True, but.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:34:41 AM EST
    ... you are assuming it costs a roughly comparable amount to live in Pittsburgh vs Philadelphia. Whereas the Philly guy might also wind up competing with a web designer in India who might take twice as long, but still charge only half as much. Which is why in any job that can be done remotely, Americans will continue to lose ground until our standard of living sinks to the point where it meets the rising standards of India and China.

    Parent
    Yes but the opposite is true simulataneously. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Samuel on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:42:30 AM EST
    "Which is why in any job that can be done remotely, Americans will continue to lose ground until our standard of living sinks to the point where it meets the rising standards of India and China. "  But when we engage in free trade, the consumer sees a like good for a lower cost.  This means that their standard of living has been maintained as they have saved money - which means it's actually improved.  Consumers would not purchase goods from other countries if they did not believe these goods would improve their standard of living.  

    Are you suggesting that all Americans should not be allowed to buy foreign goods so that a select few who engaged in marginally inefficient manufacturing be able to maintain their lifestyle?  Why would it be that a car maker in the US has a right to maintain their wage rate at another individuals (consumer's) expense?  

    Parent

    Samuel, sooner or later (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 11:56:28 AM EST
    when the consumer loses his/her job they can save nothing.

    Look at Nike shoes made in Vietnam by people being paid $4.00 a day being sold in  the US for $90.00.

    Do you want to live like that?

    Parent

    Wait (none / 0) (#78)
    by Samuel on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    who's buying the 80 dollar shoes in this scenario?  

    What are you talking about?  

    Parent

    The two web designers are (none / 0) (#64)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:46:44 PM EST
    playing on a relatively even field.  When you factor in the UNSBSIDIZED cost of transportation (meaning US oil supplies, etc)  the field between the Chinese product and the American product are not that different.  Especially if you factor in the manipulization of the dollar by the Chinese. You have given us the simple answer not the factual answer.

    Parent
    So what's the factual answer? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Samuel on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 03:14:57 PM EST
    I do not understand how incorporating costs out of the control of the consumer - as in nonrefundable/retrievable - would have anything to do with their economic decision making.  

    Parent
    Here we go with the "preferences" again. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:09:31 AM EST
    In a meeting with President Obama yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) reportedly pushed for a public option that would allow states to opt-out of the program. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) reportedly doesn't have the votes for a robust public option. Meanwhile, one Democratic source said Obama appeared to prefer a "trigger" option.
    My bold.  Link.

    I guess President Snowe is still in charge.

    And Obama and the Democratic "leadership" are still doing the Hokey-Pokey...

    You put the public option in,
    You take the public option out;
    You put the public option in,
    And you dither all about.
    You do the Hokey-Pokey,
    And you dither all around.
    That's what it's all about!

    You put the opt-out in,
    You take the opt-out out;
    You put the opt-out in,
    And you dither all about.
    You do the Hokey-Pokey,
    And you dither all around.
    That's what it's all about!

    You put the triggers in,
    You take the triggers out;
    You put the triggers in,
    And you dither all about.
    You do the Hokey-Pokey,
    And you dither all around.
    That's what it's all about!


    I'm sure The Chicken Dance is next.
    Seems we are still playing what does Obama want? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:10:41 AM EST
    A lot of conflicting reports out this morning on where public option stands. The White House meeting late yesterday between President Obama and Senate Democratic leaders has yielded its own flurry of accounts of what went down.

    Obama told Democratic leadership at the White House Thursday evening that his preference is for the trigger championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) - a plan that would allow a public plan to kick in if private insurers don't expand coverage fast enough, a top administration official told POLITICO. It's also sign Obama is interested in maintaining a sense of bipartisanship around the health reform plan.

    Mr. Reid met with President Obama at the White House Thursday to inform him of his inclination to add the public option to the bill, but did not specifically ask the president to endorse that approach, a Democratic aide said. Mr. Obama asked questions, but did not express a preference at the meeting, a White House official said.

    link

    So leaks out of the WH are that he is siding with President Snowe over the wishes of the majority or he has no preference at all. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

    Bad news (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:21:06 AM EST
    Judging by the conversation in the next cubicle,w e are apparently at the point in our culture where we cannot assume everyone gets a 'Who's on First' reference.

    Angels were up 4 to zip over Yankees, (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 09:36:13 PM EST
    but, now it is 6 to 5, Yankees ahead, bottom of the 7th.  Exciting.  

    Angels win 7-6.. Back to Yankee Stadium. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 11:03:38 PM EST
    Love to listen to Torii Hunter.  Such enthusiasm.

    Parent
    Yikes. Well, let it be said (none / 0) (#3)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 09:43:32 PM EST
    that he'll save on a Halloween costume.

    Of course, if I saw that outside, I wouldn't come to the door with candy.  Pepper spray, maybe.

    Soupy Sales died: (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 11:44:44 PM EST
    AP

    Loved that show as a kid! (none / 0) (#10)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 02:44:57 AM EST
    Teaching myself how to do the "Soupy Shuffle" on the floor of the family room was a big moment in my young life.

    That man exuded genuine niceness.

    Parent

    I loved Soupy Sales... (none / 0) (#57)
    by desertswine on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    Let's do the Mouse!

    Parent
    "edible pets" (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 08:51:21 AM EST
    Sustainable living now includes "edible pets" to curb global warming

    "If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around," Brenda Vale said.

    "A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable."

    humm
    and me with two yummie Hummers waiting at home.

    full post (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 08:55:18 AM EST
    (jeez)

    Save the planet: time to eat dog?

    Parent

    Just reading through the first few (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:09:54 AM EST
    comments at the article says this isn't a very popular assessment, lol!~

    I like they way they jumped straight to pets you can eat vs feed local, etc. What's funny is they came up with a concept even PETA and the vegans can't support them on  :)

    Parent

    how would the outcome (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:11:42 AM EST
    be effected if we fed our pets environmentalists?

    Parent
    hey (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:05:51 AM EST
    come on

    Parent
    This is an... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    enviromental impact study that the American tree-huggers would rather not think about it.

    Parent
    that would be what (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:25:13 AM EST
    Cartman is talking about when he speaks of "tree huggin hippy crap?"

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    my co workers (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    are all over this

    Parent
    ROTFLMFAO! n/t (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ellie on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:24:44 AM EST


    Parent
    a little frightening (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:26:42 AM EST
    how well it fits though, no?


    Parent
    Frightening yeah, in that I'll eat almost anything (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ellie on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:38:35 AM EST
    ... until I get tired of it. :-P

    Parent
    This fear addiction scares the bejeezus out of me (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ellie on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:23:20 AM EST
    And my little dog too! (My cats, actually, especially the plump succulent-looking one at my feet.)

    I'm not having a whack at you Cap'n, but at this cultural insanity of presenting everything in extreme post-Apocalyptic scenarios.

    If everyone just ate lower down on the food chain once or twice a week (less meat, more plant foods) we'd be leaps and bounds towards reclaiming this blighted planet.

    Including in every home meal or brown bagged lunch something personally grown from a seed or cutting fosters a mindful approach to health and nutrition that would save and extend lives, spare people a lot of pain, save millions of dollars in health care -- the benefits are actually too numerous to list.

    (This is true whether it's a window box of herbs, a deck garden of this and that, a backyard or patch of community garden, etc.)

    Yikes we don't have to eat our pets! :-)

    Parent

    amen (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:26:02 AM EST


    Parent
    Ding-Dong... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:24:19 AM EST
    the mandatory H1N1 vaccine for healthcare workers in NY State is dead...not by court ruling, but because of the vaccine shortage.

    I was very interested to see how the courts would end up ruling...but with our sovereign individual rights record lately, the result could have been ugly.  I'm happy for the workers, they won't have to worry.  

    Seems NY might have built up some immunity when we got hit hard in the spring, pretty quiet around here compared to other states.

    White House Enemies List... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:34:02 AM EST
    might have a new edition...comedian David Cross.

    If he's tellin' the truth, man does he have some stones...I love this guy!  But next time be really bold and spark one up dude!

    Latest in the Polanski saga (none / 0) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:36:29 AM EST
    The Justice Ministry said in a statement that Washington filed its formal extradition request late Thursday. The 76-year-old filmmaker has been in Swiss custody since his arrest Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to attend a film festival.

    The request has been forwarded to Zurich authorities, who will hold a hearing on an unspecified date to decide whether Polanski should be sent back to Los Angeles. If extradition is approved, Polanski may appeal the decision to Switzerland's top criminal court and, theoretically, to the Federal Supreme Court. link
    Scoop! (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:44:31 AM EST


    Parent
    I thought about titling my (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:56:43 AM EST
    comment "This one's for you, oculus."

    Parent
    According to your link, max. sentence (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:49:00 AM EST
    on PC 261.5 is 2 years, which the Swiss spokesperson sd. was information in the documents filed via LA County DA's office.  

    Parent
    Also, per Bloomberg: (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:05:35 AM EST
    "According to the indication in the formal demand the maximum sentence for the offense in question is two years in jail," Folco Galli, of the Swiss Ministry of Justice said in a telephone interview with French radio station Europe 1 today. Polanski can only be prosecuted for the offense for which he's extradited and no other offenses, Galli said.



    Parent
    Does anyone care to... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:42:09 AM EST
    Defend Hannah?

    Not me, I liked her better as a prostitute myself:)

    The rape problem at KBR pales in comparison to the evil that is Acorn though...right gang?  We must prioritize our defunding efforts.

    Apparently (none / 0) (#63)
    by CST on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:44:30 PM EST
    Obama is in town.

    How do I know?  Traffic is terrible and trains are shut down.

    Between him and Tom Cruise - they have managed to disrupt a lot of driving in this already congested mess of a roadway system.

    I usually b*tch when the Prez (none / 0) (#68)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 06:28:15 PM EST
    comes to town (any Prez), but boy, if TC messed up my travels, there would be H*ll ta pay!

    Parent
    labor tax (none / 0) (#70)
    by diogenes on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 08:51:54 PM EST
    Garment industry rose before workers had labor taxes in the form of unemployment insurance, workers compensation, employer health insurance, employer paid share of social security.  All these things should be paid for out of general revenues or by individuals out of their incomes.  Having taxes on jobs created is stupid.

    Thursday Night Open Thread | 63 comments (63 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment