I don't generally credit my fellow Americans with memories much longer than that of "Dory" in Finding Nemo. So, color me pleasantly surprised at this news!
[Excerpt] CNN Poll: Americans Still Blame Bush For Struggling Economy
Five years into Obama's presidency 44 percent of Americans still blame former President George W. Bush and the Republican Party for the country's economic woes, while 34 percent blame President Obama and Democrats, according to aCNN/ORC International poll released Thursday.
While more Americans fault Bush for the state of the economy, blame on the former president and Republicans has dipped since 2012, when 57 percent held Bush responsible compared to 35 percent who viewed Obama more culpable. . .
In the waning days of the Bush Era--and just before the economic downturn--Las Vegas was a boom town. "Stratosphere" wasn't just the tower on the strip, it was where everything was headed, and the developers and casinos, everybody just thought it would last forever.* To be fair, Vegas had been on the upward trajectory for a dozen years or more, so it did feel like we'd just keep growing and growing.
Image from Wikipedia
But what do you do, when you've already got a dozen themed resorts, complete with fake cities (New York, Paris, Monte Carlo), a castle, a pyramid and more? Well, you move from resorts to mega-resorts. City centers, with multiple hotel properties on one site, with shopping and galleries and attractions, all within the boundaries of the new property. Many were planned, including Viva! which was never made, City Cener which was, and Echelon Place which. . .landed somewhere in-between.
Another thing we did in those days was implode old properties. We didn't just implode buildings, we erased swaths of Vegas history along with a great deal of brand equity. The Dunes and The Sands, long famed names (and signs!) were destroyed to make way for Bellagio and The Venetian. Those properties worked, and at least The Sands lives on as a brand as a convention center here in Las Vegas, and in properties in other parts of the world. But The Dunes is gone, and so is Stardust, one of the most iconic old hotels, with its (formerly) lightning bolt logo. Stardust was imploded to make way for Echelon Place, a grand city center megaresort, in the shadow of the Stratosphere.
The proposed new Asian-themed Resort World Las Vegas, from VegasInc
I remember when the project was announced. Originally, I don't think there was a "Place" at the end of the project's name, but it didn't matter. What did it mean? And it was dotted with other names that didn't mean much to most people, like Delano and Mondrian. Where older properties had a clear theme, this one seemed rather a conglomeration of stuff, and it didn't seem coherent. But we'll never know if it would have ultimately made sense or not, because in 2008 it just stopped. It just sits there--unfinished--a blight. Well, no more. After more than six years, and countless millions of dollars lost (six plus years of prime real estate earning zero dollars, just for a start), the property has been purchased, and will be developed at last.
And it looks like one of Sheldon Adelson's Malaysian rivals will be setting up right across the street.
[Excerpt] Asian-themed megaresort planned for old Stardust site
An Asian gaming powerhouse is planning a $2 billion Asian-themed
mega-resort on the Las Vegas Strip where the old Stardust was imploded
and the stalled Echelon was planned. Genting Group plans to build the 3,500-room Chinese-themed resort
with a 175,000-square-foot casino. The company calls it the “first
phase” of a property to be named Resorts World Las Vegas. . .
* Speaking of the economic downturn, and bigwigs not knowing it was coming, I'm still blown away by that. Not just the casinos and developers of Las Vegas, but auto manufacturers, banks, real estate moguls. CEOs get paid ridiculous sums of money for their "high stress" jobs, yet they seem to have no contingency plans. No Plan B, should things go south. No alternatives when people stop buying huge SUVs. Now that we have experienced very nearly another depression, will we be any better at this the next time?
Have you seen those heartwarming AIG ads (oddly enough, as I type this, one is airing during an episode of The New Normal), talking about how they're so grateful that we--the American public--bailed them out, and how they paid us back with interest? "Thank you, America!" they say. Don't get teary eyed, they're just buttering you up. For what, I have no idea. But they intend to take some of that interest they paid us back. It's pretty galling. They were only saved because of the damage their stupidity would have wrought on the economy if we hadn't bailed them out. Now they complain about the terms? [Excerpt]
Oddly enough, as I type this, one is airing during an episode of The New Normal. American International Group, the mega-insurer that nearly collapsed in 2008 before being bailed out, is now considering joining a lawsuit filed by its former chairman against the federal government. The lawsuit, filed in 2011 by former AIG chairman Maurice Greenberg, contends that the federal government violated the Fifth Amendment by taking too large a share in the company and charging it excessive interest rates on the $182 billion in loans it gave the company. . .
Four years ago, this was the point in John McCain's campaign that the writing was on the wall. Given his comments on the economy, the massive nosedive of the stock market just didn't fit with his narrative, and he kept making it worse. But on the day this happened, I wasn't really putting it in that context. I was just blown away by the spectacle. So much so that I used a fairly bad graphic--but then, it was from the source, so I guess they did too? It should have been a jagged stab downward. . .
ORIGINAL POST: September 29, 2008
It's admittedly hard to write this blog, when the biggest stories of the day are in an area I simply cannot speak authoritatively about. I've written a few times already, that I just don't get Wall Street, and all that it entails. And I'd be a bad broker if I did understand it, because the roller coaster ride of the Dow Jones Industrial Average gives me heartburn anyway.
Image from source, AOL News
Today's stock market ride was kind of like watching someone spike your bid on eBay. After seemingly being headed back up after a dive, at about one minute until closing bell, the bottom dropped out. I have a stock ticker on my desktop, and when refreshing it every 20 or 30 seconds, it went down each time. And after 1:00 pm Pacific time, it still kept dropping, from the six hundreds to the low seven hundreds, all the way down to minus 777. That's a lot, right? And how does it keep dropping after the market has supposedly closed? Maybe I don't want to know how all of this works.
Oh, and the headline below is rounding to the nearest fraction, but 777 is the number being used most.
[Excerpt]
Bailout Vote Sacks Dow by Record 778 The failure of the bailout package in Congress triggered a historic selloff on Wall Street - including a terrifying decline of nearly 500 points in mere minutes as the vote took place, the closest thing to panic the stock market has seen in years. . .
Heh. Boehner Bill. Anyway, this thing would be a disaster if it passed the Senate. But Harry Reid and President Obama both promise it will not pass. Which, even though the debt ceiling deadline looms, is actually a good thing. Next (after the Senate votes this one down) will be Harry Reid's bill, which will require a super majority (and that might be tricky). Stupid Senate and their stupid filibuster that they could have neutered but didn't. But isn't this fun?
By the way, the addition of a "balanced budget amendment" is epically stupid, not to mention impossible. Constitutional amendments aren't crammed through in 11th-hour bills, they take years. Stupid.
[Excerpt]
House Passes Boehner Debt Bill
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner brought a revised bill to raise the debt ceiling, cut spending and call for a balanced-budget amendment to House floor for a vote Friday evening. . .
It's been a while since I've posted a clip from The Rachel Maddow Show, so I'm due. And this one is instructive. There are schools that will reconvene in the fall on a four-day-per-week schedule, because we can't afford education. Police forces too, too expensive. E. coli inspectors? Who needs 'em, we're broke!
But what can we afford? Tax cuts for the rich! Tax loopholes for corporations! Giant subsidies for oil companies that are already swimming in profits! Because if we throw enough money at rich people and corporations, maybe they'll make jobs for us! Even though we've been at that plan for ten years, and it hasn't worked, we--like insane people--are going to keep trying more of the same while expecting a different result.
When is somebody besides liberal bloggers and--bless her heart, Rachel Maddow--going to point at the GOP's Emporer's New Clothes??? He's naked, everybody!
Grover Norquist--the unelected lobbyist--wields all the power in the GOP Congress. For whatever reason, this odd man has managed to get most, if not all of them to sign his "no new taxes" pledge. I guess the poor little feller got his heart broken when George H.W. Bush broke his pledge. So, good for Grover. Why anyone feels bound by this useless document is anyone's guess.
But okay. Let's say that "no new taxes" is a good, sound, logical idea (just go with me). It would mean not creating any taxes that don't exist right now, right? No. According to Norquist, getting rid of loopholes is a "new tax." Getting rid of subsidies is a "new tax." The former is a stretch, the latter is just wrong.
The oil and gas industries are the most profitable companies to exist in human history.* They get multi-billion dollar government subsidies. These are essentially checks. Payments. Say it with me, "Spending." The GOP (and Norquist) say that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. I don't agree, but let's say they're right. Okay, take every subsidy that can't be vigorously defended as essential, and zero it out. Those are spending cuts, not tax cuts. They're exactly what John Boner Boehner and Mitch McConnell are asking for, they just don't know it. Maybe someone should explain it to Grover Norquist.
* And FYI for Grover, "profits" are the dollars that are left over after you pay for everything. I've heard it said that they need this money for the exploration, extraction, refining. . .no. That's accounted for.
Okay, so here's a topic outside of my recent spate of posts. And it's a question that is starting to be asked by people outside of liberal bloggers, finally. The answer is very clear: Yes. The GOP would be happy to see, and deliberately cause the economy to tank, especially if they think they can lob the blame onto President Obama's plate. Forget that all the money crap starts in the House of Representatives, and that it is controlled by Republicans. If they are successful in not raising the debt ceiling, or getting Democrats to cave to all of their demands (which will create a dire economy, but less dire than defaulting on our debts) they'll have done their job as they see it, and they'll have Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Koch Brothers' Americans for Prosperity (and its affiliates, and imitators) to spin any good that comes of it to Mitch McConnell and John Boner Boehner, and all the bad onto Obama. [Story continues below]
"Yeah, so? That's politics!" a conservative might say as he reads this. My answer is no, it's not. We've never played political chicken with the debt limit, and Republicans haven't been shy about voting for it. The predictions of what happens if the debt limit isn't raised, go from "no good" to "rotten" to "very bad" to cataclysmic. Possibly a world-wide depression to rival the one from the 30s.
So, what exactly is the end game here? Suppose we don't raise the debt limit, the world economy crashes, and then the Republicans are heralded as our salvation, and we elect President Bachmann or President Herman Cain or whoever. That person will have inherited a set of problems magnitudes higher than even Obama did. And they won't be able to solve them in four years (or the 2-1/2 Obama has had so far). Certainly not with the "don't increase revenue at all, and slash taxes" nonsense, magical "plan." The American people. . .most much poorer, a few even richer than now will have turned into an unruly mob that'll make the tea parties look as dainty as they sound.
My guess is that they a) don't care, or b) don't think that far ahead. I don't think they have an end game. I think they just play to win, no matter how they get there. They've constantly shown that they're fantastic at campaigning and lousy at governance. And if they're really plotting to make the economy as nasty as possible? That will prove that they're evil too.
This is a plain and simple question to the universe: what is the end game of the "austerity" plan of the GOP in America? We're "broke" as a nation and as individual states, they say. We can't afford social programs, so the poor, the sick, the old and any other unfortunates will have to cut wayyy back. We can't afford pensions, unemployment insurance, or social security, even if you've already paid into those programs. Doesn't matter, we're broke. You think the money you paid gives you some sort of security? Screw you!
But, in order to draw interest from the fat cats from Wall Street and the banking sector--companies who are sitting on trillions of dollars--we've got to sweeten the pot. We're broke you understand, but we've got to spend anyway. Not on welfare, unemployment, medicare, medicaid, social security. . .no. . .tax cuts and subsidies to the super duper rich! Yep! Money for the billionaires! In tax cuts and subsidies and other enticements! That will create jobs! Even though they're sitting on more money than ever, we're going to give them more, and that will create jobs!
Don't go crying to your union either. Your union is busted! Why should you have any protections when nobody else does? If the non-union people get treated like crap, you should be treated like crap too! The new austerity means, everybody gets treated like crap! Bridges and roads are falling apart? Tough! People can't afford the very basics of life? They can suck it up! Screw 'em! This is a fight between the winners and the losers, and you lose!
Seriously though, how long can this go on? How long can the "winners" actually claim to be winners if the vast majority end up losers? This trajectory cannot end up good for anybody if things keep on like they're keeping on. I know that most corporations and big entities tend to live in the "now." Think of Ford in the era of the Expedition and Excursion when gas hit $4.50 per gallon for example.
But what is the end game here? What's going to happen if 85% or more of us fall below "middle class", and only 1 or 2% end up in the "upper class?" How does that work? Sure, for a little while, the GOP may be able to hold on to power with their 90% of the corporate election dollars. But when most of us are being crushed under their boots? Will we still vote for them? What the heck do they think is going to happen? I'm serious, what is the end game?
How long is this going to go on before people really start to notice? Can they continue to snow enough people with political advertising, think tanks, FOX "News", talk radio, Frank Luntz and the rest, indefinitely? Yes, I know that the arguments can have some semi-good points. I mean, yeah, them teachers is getting too many benefits and livin' high on the hog and shit! But damn it, folks. Have you noticed that every tax break either includes or is exclusively for rich people and corporations? Have you noticed that all the cutting, the sacrificing, the pain is being born by the poor, the old, the sick and the working class?
Even the tea partiers were out there complaining about the bailouts (though they conflate several issues, and pin it all on President Obama, even though President Bush had a lot to do with them). We the taxpayers bailed out Wall Street and the banks, right? And now, the rich guys are flush with cash. Oil companies continue to make more billions in profits than any other corporations in the history of humans. So, what is the solution? Tax breaks for corporations, and benefit cuts for working people, poor people, the elderly and infirm.
We could do well as a society to learn to come together for a common cause, sacrificing for the common good. The "greatest generation" did it during World War II, everybody did it, even the rich and corporations. But now, "sacrifice" is to be born only by those who can least afford it.
[Excerpt]
REPORT: Three States Propose Massive Tax Cuts For Millionaires, Tax Hikes for Middle Class
Last week, ThinkProgress documented conservative efforts in twelve states to shift the tax burden onto the middle class even while cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy. In three states, conservatives are going even further, proposing massive estate tax cuts for millionaires even as income inequality is at its worse since the 1920s. . .
Hey, I know the headline is silly. I'm not serious, I know the protests are about vastly different things. Still, I'm heartened to see our citizenry take to the streets, and fight for what they believe in. Sure, we had the "tea party" folks, but their message was vague and all over the place. Not to mention propped up by conservative billionaires, putting the protesters out there to fight against their own best interests.
Now, don't get me wrong. I've never been a member of a union, and I have opinions that come down on both the pro- and anti- sides. But I also recognize that were it not for unions, many of the things all workers have become accustomed to (40-hour work week, weekends, etc.) would not exist for many of us. But those things are now being chipped away. There are even conservatives out there arguing against child labor laws for goodness' sake. So, while I don't know all of the particulars in this battle yet, I know which side I'm more drawn to. And it isn't Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
From my vantage point, here is what we all need to pay attention to: what does each side want to keep, and what do they want to cut? For instance, does it make sense to cut funding for NPR and PBS, while continuing to provide billions in subsidies to Big Oil (whose companies make the largest profits of any industry in the history of the world)? Keep an eye on 'em, folks.
[Excerpt]
Angry Demonstrations in Wisconsin as Cuts Loom
As four game wardens awkwardly stood guard, protesters, scores deep, crushed into a corridor leading to the governor’s office here on Wednesday, their screams echoing through the Capitol: “Come out, come out, wherever you are!” . . .
I'm still studying and fumbling with my many remote controls on my home theater setup, but I thought I'd post this picture I snapped while out shopping this weekend.
In what is either a case of being way overprotective, or just too friggin' broke to tempt fate, the Nevada owner of this mid-90s Plymouth Neon put The Club on the steering wheel. You know, just to be sure.
I always thought that the US Chamber of Commerce was a fairly innocuous thing, with nebulous activities that didn't concern me. You know, like the Rotary Club, the Kiwanis, the Lion's Club and the like. I had no idea until recently that they were very, very right wing, and that they pump tons of money into campaigns--primarily for Republicans--to further their goals. As has been recently reported, the Chamber also takes contributions from foreign companies and governments, and puts them into the very same account they use to pay for the ads. You'd think there would be at least a segment of the Tea Partiers who'd be rubbed the wrong way by that. Of course, they're not really deep thinkers, so that's another subject.
Another thing that's kind of troubling about the Chamber is that they are in favor of, and advocate for the outsourcing of jobs from the United States to foreign countries. Millions of American jobs have been lost this way, which I have to conclude might have something to do with our current economic predicament. But what is the upside of saving money for corporations, if the public at large has no money to buy the things these corporations are making overseas?
Here's the scenario I've come up with. All the big corporations send the jobs overseas so that they can save money. Millions of Americans lose their jobs and are chronically unemployed. They can't afford anything, so the corporations can't sell very much in America. So, they sell their products to the overseas people who are working for them, and now have some money to spend. Eventually, as the third world becomes the first world, manufacturing overseas gets too expensive. In America, where there are now only the very rich and very poor, desperate people are willing to work for cheap. So, they start off-shoring to America. And the cycle begins anew! Sure, it might take fifty years or so, and by then we won't recognize our country, but hey! The corporations will still be doing very well. Ain't the free market great?
We always thought that if Las Vegas ever got in deep trouble, it would be because our massive growth ran us out of water. After 9/11, a lot of us worried that a terrorist attack at one of the big casino properties would cause an exodus. But nobody seems to have expected a big, worldwide economic downturn. I mean nobody. Just a few short years ago, we had huge projects on the drawing board. It wasn't just the City Center which (thanks to Harry Reid, and thank goodness we didn't have Sharron Angle) managed to open. There was Echelon Place, a project akin to City Center on the site of the old Stardust. It shut down when it was halfway finished, and sits there, a stillborn, half-built mess.
There were many others, one of which was called Viva, a project that Station Casinos was going to build on the west side of the I-15. They bought the land, even bulldozed some properties. The project was impressive, and included arterial roads, and more. But it never got off the ground, and Station is currently in a world of hurt. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
As Cenk Uygur mentions in the video below, we've got unemployment over 14%, foreclosures in every neighborhood (be it a poor or rich neighborhood), and a lot of sour, glum faces. I don't believe as Cenk does, that Las Vegas is dying. But it is very ill, and has a hacking cough. Can somebody get me some water?
I ain't gonna lie. Las Vegas has been hit hard by the great recession, and I've been a witness and victim to it. I still have my job--thank goodness--but things look pretty sour here in sin city. Several houses, including the one next door to us, are in foreclosure in my neighborhood. Our house, which was worth three times what we owed a couple of years ago is now under water. Storefronts sit vacant. And in America's playground, nobody who lives here seems very happy.
I don't mean to bum you out, but what we're going through might just be foreshadowing to what you might see soon. I hope not. I've always been a glass-half-full kind of guy (despite the evidence presented on this here blog thingy). But I've also been a "hope for the best, expect the worst" kind of guy. So plan ahead folks. Tighten the belt, pull the lap bar down, hold on for the ride, and try not to fall out.
[Excerpt]
Nevada's Economic Misery May Be America's Future
So many homes in Las Vegas have been foreclosed upon that banks rarely bother to hang a "For Sale" sign on the front lawn anymore. Instead, visitors identify bank-owned properties by the brown grass and the 8.5 x 11-inch sheet of paper taped to the front door or the garage. . .
One of the many issues of the diffused agenda of conservatives and tea baggers is the deficit. You'd think that when Republicans are in office, the deficit hawks have been in power, and spending is brought under control. And, by the same logic, when Democrats are in office, they spend willy-nilly, and run up massive deficits, heedless of the consequences.
Not really. Check out this clip from The Rachel Maddow Show (yep, her again). Seriously. Especially if you are in the camp that believes this myth. At about 2:41 in this video, Rachel shows a graph comparing Republican spending vs. the current Democratic health care reform plan. See if you can talk around that one.
It's funny that "bipartisan" now means a bare handfull from the Republican side voting with Democrats to help them flesh out their "small majority." Even funnier is that Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), whom the conservatives were fawning over last week is now on their shit list.
[Excerpt]
Bipartisan jobs bill clears GOP filibuster
A bipartisan jobs bill cleared a GOP filibuster on Monday with critical momentum provided by the Senate's newest Republican, Scott Brown of Massachusetts.
The 62-30 tally to advance the measure to a final vote on Wednesday gives both President Barack Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats a much-needed victory — even though the measure in question is likely to have only a modest boost on hiring. . .
Holy crap. 79.9% interest? Are you frackin' kidding me? I remember not so long ago when Democrats in Congress were trying to pass a 30% interest cap on credit cards, and Republicans--as they are wont to do--voted, "no!" But could even the "f**k the poor" GOP have forseen 79.9% interest? I guess my 12.9% Discover card isn't so bad after all.
[Excerpt]
Credit card's newest trick: 79.9 percent interest
It's no mistake. This credit card's interest rate is 79.9 percent.
The bloated APR is how First Premier Bank, a subprime credit card issuer, is skirting new regulations intended to curb abusive practices in the industry. It's a strategy other subprime card issuers could start adopting to get around the new rules. . .
