An Amazing Piece of Propaganda by AP on the Barrett-Walker Race

68 posts / 0 new

I wonder how many other portals besides ours (Cablevision) featured this item today as a "news headline": What to know about the Wisconsin recall vote

?

kodowdus's picture
kodowdus
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

What part of this was propaganda?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

Compare this:

"Outside groups have spent $21 million and issue ad groups that don't have to disclose their spending have put in at least $7.5 million."

with this:

"Democrats and organized labor spent millions to remove Walker, but found themselves hopelessly outspent by Republicans from across the country who donated record-setting sums to the governor's campaign."

for example.

kodowdus's picture
kodowdus
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The public employee unions can no longer hold the taxpayers of Wisconsin hostage. I am not a republican (nor democrat) but Walker is taking measures that the idiots in DC should emulate.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

This letter, from a Las Vegas Teachers Union member, hits a new level for clueless and delusional. Let me paraphrase. The writer says, For those who don’t understand why we are making so much more money than you – it’s simple. We’re unionized and you’re not. Those of us that work for government make so much more than you because we were smart enough to join unions. Only 6% of you folks in the private sector belong to unions. You’re all fools. Instead of attacking us for our bloated salaries and insanely high pensions…you should be joining a union and getting the same bloated salaries and insanely high pensions. So stop trying to tear us down. Instead, get the same deal for yourselves.

Can you imagine being this delusional, ignorant, and clueless? Even if you think this way (and I have to believe many government union employees do), to say it publicly makes you a moron. A moron who believes that money grows on trees, there are endless trees, and pigs fly. But pigs also go to slaughter.

The cold, hard truth is that America is bankrupt, broke, and insolvent. Just like Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Belgium, France…and soon add UK to the list. Europe is facing an economic Armageddon that will go down in history as “the Big One.”

Why?

Because the European countries have too many government employees, let them retire too early, give them bloated pensions for more years than the employee actually worked, and of course they all get free health care for life. Unions killed the EU. It’s all over for them. The question is can America still be saved?

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

I don't know if I can believe that that's truly a "letter from a Las Vegas Teachers Union member". I could have written that or you could have written that. I doubt that anyone in a union is going to call their own benefits "bloated" and "insanely high". LOL but whatever.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote camaroman:

I am not a republican (nor democrat) but Walker is taking measures that the idiots in DC should emulate.

That may or may not be true, but what does it have to do with the fact that "people" (real and corporate, domestic or foreign) with large sums of extra cash can now use as much of it as they want to try and shape the discussion in any American election without even being identified?

kodowdus's picture
kodowdus
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have NOT voted dem or repub in the general election since Jmma Carta and damn sure did not vote for his ass. I don't really care what you think is true or not.

Ask the SCOTUS, or maybe Clintion can help you out on foreign money. Corporations should not have free speech or any other personhood rights.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

Ask the SCOTUS, or maybe Clintion can help you out on foreign money. Corporations should not have free speech or any other personhood rights.

We can certainly agree on your latter point, but not on the disingenous implication by AP and others that Democrats and Republicans benefit equally from this blatant flaw in our election process.

kodowdus's picture
kodowdus
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

AP or ASSOCIATED PROSTITUTES it's a wonder they haven't been outed sooner by Progressives. For the last 12 years I've seen mostly a lying Corporatist bias. A lying pro-war Defense Contractor Corporate bias. Pure lies. But with the introduction of reader comment sections on the content providers like Message Boards, Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC, CBS... we could go and post the truth within the report. Except that bring up my yesterday's post. Yahoo has turned off comments on their campaige section "The Ticket". Yahoo's other political reports dealing with lies for the NeoCons also have their comments turned off.

dArKeR's picture
dArKeR
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman:...Unions killed the EU. It’s all over for them. The question is can America still be saved?

In the US, unionization rates have fallen from 40% to now 6%. I doubt it is the Unions that are causing the problem.

It is likely that manufacturing has moved to places that treat their citizens like crap.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Dr., "In the US, unionization rates have fallen from 40% to now 6%. I doubt it is the Unions that are causing the problem.

It is likely that manufacturing has moved to places that treat their citizens like crap."

Are you talking about private or public sector unions?

It's been argued before that public- and private-sector unions are quite different beasts and that public-sector unions cannot be justified on liberal-democratic grounds while private-sector unions are not only unobjectionable, but desirable. The argument that it’s not only possible but reasonable to support private-sector unions as a safeguard against economic exploitation and oppose public-sector unions as an instrument of political exploitation.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

Dr., "In the US, unionization rates have fallen from 40% to now 6%. I doubt it is the Unions that are causing the problem.

It is likely that manufacturing has moved to places that treat their citizens like crap."

Are you talking about private or public sector unions?

It's been argued before that public- and private-sector unions are quite different beasts and that public-sector unions cannot be justified on liberal-democratic grounds while private-sector unions are not only unobjectionable, but desirable. The argument that it’s not only possible but reasonable to support private-sector unions as a safeguard against economic exploitation and oppose public-sector unions as an instrument of political exploitation.

So your saying that public unions killed everything everywhere? Sort of hard to believe. Have public sector union rates been rising anywhere? Do you want all the workers to be like China and India? I mean, you have maintain some standards.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

"Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself," FDR said in 1937. "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."

There's a critical difference between private sector unions and public employee unions. Industrial unions are organized against the might and greed of ownership. Public employees unions are organized against the might and greed ... of the public?

Public employee unions are now among the biggest spenders in our elections, which is a good deal for the politicians who hand them our money. But it's a terrible deal for the rest of us.

This from Al Fin:

"The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or "strong back" jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming "industry" left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.

Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt.

How did this happen? Very quietly. The rise of government unions has been like a silent coup, an inside job engineered by self-interested politicians and fueled by campaign contributions."

http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2010/12/public-unions-pushing-us-states-and.html

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

"Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself," FDR said in 1937. "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."

There's a critical difference between private sector unions and public employee unions. Industrial unions are organized against the might and greed of ownership. Public employees unions are organized against the might and greed ... of the public?

Public employee unions are now among the biggest spenders in our elections, which is a good deal for the politicians who hand them our money. But it's a terrible deal for the rest of us.

This from Al Fin:

"The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or "strong back" jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming "industry" left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.

Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt.

How did this happen? Very quietly. The rise of government unions has been like a silent coup, an inside job engineered by self-interested politicians and fueled by campaign contributions."

http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2010/12/public-unions-pushing-us-states-and.html

So he/you prove that public unions have risen because they are a larger share? Could it be that is because the private unions have fallen? Seriously. Show me that public unions have increased. State and local government have been cutting back on jobs - I think the number is close to a million since Obama took office, or shortly thereafter. I think Fin is making stuff up.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
"The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or "strong back" jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming "industry" left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.
This is bs, private sector has added 4.6 million, 800,000 this year alone. Public sector has shed 650,000 because of their stupid balanced budget status. In all past recessions, public sector increased as the choice Keynesian stimulus, those employees created demand for the private sector, and they began increase supply, soon the recession abated everytime, from bush to reagan to bush the same formula, only Obama has reduced govt payroll, thus slowing recovery.

Do people read that tripe and believe it? The facts are everywhere, the real facts. I don't know what that crap is 'booming govt' is the lowest gov't payroll in decades. From the time he was able to enact some measures to address the republican depression he has erased all the job losses in the private sector, just not the ones bush killed, and not the ones the republican governors are killing, you know firefighters, and policemen and teachers. Mittler has his own security, as do koch's and other filthy rich, of course they will cut them, rich parasites don't need them.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

doug, "This is bs, private sector has added 4.6 million, 800,000 this year alone. Public sector has shed 650,000 because of their stupid balanced budget status."

Where did you get this "bs"?

"Obama signed the failed $787 billion stimulus bill his first month in office.

No wonder the Obama Administration doesn’t talk about the created or saved stimulus jobs anymore. There weren’t any. According to a new study the Obama-Pelosi Stimulus bill created 450,000 government jobs and delayed or destroyed 1,000,000 private sector jobs.
And, it only cost you $1 trillion.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/05/obama-created-or-saved-450000-government-jobs-lost-1000000-private-sector-jobs-with-stimulus/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127628/Federal-Government-Outpaces-Private-Sector-Job-Creation.aspx

http://theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/11472-Private-Sector-Job-Losses-vs.-Public-Sector-Job-Gains.html

Are all these articles lying? Again, where did you come up with your bullshit? PBS

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

"Although Obama has requested Congress for more funding to help pay for more jobs in the public sector, Daniels dismissed the proposal, likening it to the president’s $800 billion stimulus package he enacted earlier in his term.

“It was just more money shoveled into government,” Daniels said."

Doesn't sound like he is trying to cut any publec sector jobs.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/06/daniels-obama-does-not-understand-job-creation-125732.html

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/obama-private-sector-job-creation-is-fine-but-we-need-bigger-government/

Notice the second graph comparing Bush labor force participation vs Obama's.

Again, doug, where did you get your numbers. You listening to to much Obama propaganda and lies.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Many states have already taken the necessary steps to deal with their budget shortfalls THEY CUT SPENDING!!! Something the federal governemtn would do well to emulate. Cut out unnecessary departments and duplicate ones and cut the bloated fat and waste out. Layoff some of the many unnecessary government drones. Cut the military budget by stopping all the unconstitutional protection of multinational corporate interests under the false pretense of fighting "terror". CUT SPENDING!!!

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

"Obama signed the failed $787 billion stimulus bill his first month in office.

No wonder the Obama Administration doesn’t talk about the created or saved stimulus jobs anymore. There weren’t any. According to a new study the Obama-Pelosi Stimulus bill created 450,000 government jobs and delayed or destroyed 1,000,000 private sector jobs.

I think there's broad agreemnt the stimulus was a necessary evil to prevent toppling into the abyss.

I prefer to believe these studies:

CBO: Between 1.3 million and 3.6 million jobs saved or created.

IHS/Global Insight: 2.45 million jobs saved or created.

Macroeconomic Advisers: 2.3 million jobs saved or created.

Moody’s Economy.com: 2.5 million jobs saved or created.

Private economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7%.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-2009-stimulus-created-zero-jobs/

The stimulus was not a “failure” as the GOP megaphones would have people to believe. The Dem’s problem, though is they did overpromise on the unemployment promises (8% max.)

Now…question to conservatives here…..a significant portion of the stimulus was tax cuts. If the stimulus was a 100% failure, then doesn’t this imply that the included tax cuts were also a failure? Since tax cuts always result in economic activity and jobs created, how was the stimulus a total failure?. What's the conservative spin on this?

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/obama-private-sector-job-creation-is-fine-but-we-need-bigger-government/

Depends on which piece of propoganda one chooses to beleive. If that many jobs were saved (iI don't think they were created) why has unemployment remained so high. Plus the unemployment figure that is given is no where near accurate. The unemployed that have stopped looking and benefits have run out are no longer counted. The true unemployment rate is probably closer to 18-20%.

The stimulus money went mostly to the too big to fail banks at 1% interest that they then turned around and loaned the money to the private illegal fed reserve at 3-4% making a hefty return. The money was not loaned to businesses to help create jobs. That is all bullshit.

http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/the-obama-stimulus-truth-and-consequences-2-29735

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082704193.html

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

13. June 2012 - 14:01Harry Blodget

Harry Blodget explains:

The
latest quarterly reports from the big Wall Street banks revealed a
startling fact: None of the big four banks had a single day in the
quarter in which they lost money trading.

For the 63 straight
trading days in Q1, in other words, Goldman Sachs (GS), JP Morgan
(JPM), Bank of America (BAC), and Citigroup (C) made money trading for
their own accounts.

Trading, of course, is supposed to be a
risky business: You win some, you lose some. That's how traders
justify their gargantuan bonuses--their jobs are so risky that they
deserve to be paid millions for protecting their firms' precious
capital. (Of course, the only thing that happens if traders fail to
protect that capital is that taxpayers bail out the bank and the
traders are paid huge "retention" bonuses to prevent them from leaving
to trade somewhere else, but that's a different story).

But these days, trading isn't risky at all. In fact, it's safer than walking down the street.

Why?

Because
the US government is lending money to the big banks at near-zero
interest rates. And the banks are then turning around and lending that
money back to the US government at 3%-4% interest rates, making 3%+
on the spread. What's more, the banks are leveraging this trade,
borrowing at least $10 for every $1 of equity capital they have, to
increase the size of their bets. Which means the banks can turn
relatively small amounts of equity into huge profits--by borrowing from
the taxpayer and then lending back to the taxpayer.

The
government's zero-interest-rate policy, in other words, is the
biggest Wall Street subsidy yet. So far, it has done little to increase
the supply of credit in the real economy. But it has hosed
responsible people who lived within their means and are now earning
next-to-nothing on their savings. It has also allowed the big Wall
Street banks to print money to offset all the dumb bets that brought
the financial system to the brink of collapse two years ago. And it
has fattened Wall Street bonus pools to record levels again.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/no-big-banks-have-not-paid-back-government-bailouts-and-subsidies

The taxpayers are getting hosed by the corporate/government collusion. And the private Fed is behind this scam!!!

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

Depends on which piece of propoganda one chooses to beleive. If that many jobs were saved (iI don't think they were created) why has unemployment remained so high. Plus the unemployment figure that is given is no where near accurate. The unemployed that have stopped looking and benefits have run out are no longer counted. The true unemployment rate is probably closer to 18-20%.

The stimulus money went mostly to the too big to fail banks at 1% interest that they then turned around and loaned the money to the private illegal fed reserve at 3-4% making a hefty return. The money was not loaned to businesses to help create jobs. That is all bullshit.

http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/the-obama-stimulus-truth-and-consequences-2-29735

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082704193.html

Unemployment was reported the same methods under Bush and nobody disputed the accuracy then...And the unemployment rate has gone down a bit. The stimulus and bailouts likely prevented a full blown depression and even higher unemployment. The Obama administration big mistake was committing to 8% max unemployment. Bush had the benefit of being allowed to spend money (on the credit card) andn hire government workers (Homeland security, wars) to goose the economy. Obama doesn't have that luxury. We can find common ground that banking is a totally rigged game, allowed by both parties. I'm not a fan of crazy deficit spending either, but I believe it was a necessary evil.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:
"The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or "strong back" jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming "industry" left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.
This is bs, private sector has added 4.6 million, 800,000 this year alone. Public sector has shed 650,000 because of their stupid balanced budget status. In all past recessions, public sector increased as the choice Keynesian stimulus, those employees created demand for the private sector, and they began increase supply, soon the recession abated everytime, from bush to reagan to bush the same formula, only Obama has reduced govt payroll, thus slowing recovery.

Do people read that tripe and believe it? The facts are everywhere, the real facts. I don't know what that crap is 'booming govt' is the lowest gov't payroll in decades. From the time he was able to enact some measures to address the republican depression he has erased all the job losses in the private sector, just not the ones bush killed, and not the ones the republican governors are killing, you know firefighters, and policemen and teachers. Mittler has his own security, as do koch's and other filthy rich, of course they will cut them, rich parasites don't need them.

I think the ratio of public sector union employees to private sector has grown. That is all that Camaroman's fact say. He is jumping from that fact to saying that public sector jobs have grown - which is false. It is just that private sector jobs have fallen like crazy as we shipped them to China and Mexico.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman:

doug, "This is bs, private sector has added 4.6 million, 800,000 this year alone. Public sector has shed 650,000 because of their stupid balanced budget status."

Where did you get this "bs"?...

Doug is talking overall public sector jobs, you are talking about possible federal jobs. HOwever, the stimulus was pretty much over by the end of FY2010. I think the last year or two federal employment is basically flat.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman:...No wonder the Obama Administration doesn’t talk about the created or saved stimulus jobs anymore. There weren’t any. According to a new study the Obama-Pelosi Stimulus bill created 450,000 government jobs and delayed or destroyed 1,000,000 private sector jobs.

This paper is more an exercise in state and local government accounting. The private sector jobs lost are due to the fact that state and local governments decided to spend more money on debt and transfers instead of public works projects. The literature review in the study shows that all the other studies find huge increases in jobs. Because we know that all public employment fell by 650,000 jobs, the paper's findings seem like rubbish.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman: http://www.gallup.com/poll/127628/Federal-Government-Outpaces-Private-Sector-Job-Creation.aspx

I don't want to get into the details why this poll dosen't say what you think it says, but (to repeat) we weren't talking about Federal hiring, we were talking about all public emploment.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman:

http://theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/11472-Private-Sector-Job-Losses-vs.-Public-Sector-Job-Gains.html

"And since the passage of the stimulus bill (February 2009), over 2.6 million private jobs were lost, but the government workforce grew by 400,000."

That was Feb 2009 to June 26 2010. I think you can see that blip here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/public-sector-austerity-in-one-graph/2012/06/11/gJQAv89NVV_blog.html

Which I think was just a temporary census worker thing. In any case, these facts should be easy to verify. In nearly every source I have see there is an overall drop in overall public employment.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman:

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/obama-private-sector-job-creation-is-fine-but-we-need-bigger-government/

Notice the second graph comparing Bush labor force participation vs Obama's.

Right, a few percent fall. But look carefully at the graph, it shows a gradual falling trend from 2001 to 2004, a flattening, then more falling trend - you might think that this sort of happens during recessions.

And, the rate is higher now than before 1984.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman:

Many states have already taken the necessary steps to deal with their budget shortfalls THEY CUT SPENDING!!! Something the federal governemtn would do well to emulate. Cut out unnecessary departments and duplicate ones and cut the bloated fat and waste out. Layoff some of the many unnecessary government drones. Cut the military budget by stopping all the unconstitutional protection of multinational corporate interests under the false pretense of fighting "terror". CUT SPENDING!!!

How is cutting spending with a huge unemployment going to help anything?

How is federal government spending a problem now? You really think that is causing the high unemployment rate or falling labor force participation? How?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Federal "stimulus" spending is going into the pockets of the 1%. It is not being used top help the 99%. It may not be the ultimate cause of high unemployment, but it is definately not being used to facilitate employment in the private sector. Most of the money has been used by the too big to fail banksters to increase their holdings and leverage their risky investment in phony derivatives. Wall Street may be falsely booming (another bubble in the derivatives market IS coming) but mainstreet is crumbling. This does not even take into account the wasting of taxpayer money by Obama on so-called green technology projects like Solyndra.

Taxpayers will have to pay off the bonds created to give away this cash, which means the cost won’t just be the $4.853 million, but also the interest we have to pay on each $4.853 million over the next ten years or so. We also have to count the opportunity costs as well. Had we not borrowed this money to feed Obama’s green-jobs-explosion delusions, taxpayers in the future would have that capital to invest, expand and create businesses, and create jobs that make far more efficient use of the capital than $4.853 million per worker. We have not only failed in the present, we have set ourselves up for failure in the future as American capital has to get redirected into paying off the debt Obama hung on us for his green-jobs subsidy program.

That’s Obamanomics in a nutshell. Which is, by the way, exactly where it belongs.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote al3:

…..a significant portion of the stimulus was tax cuts. If the stimulus was such a failure, then doesn’t this imply that the included tax cuts were also a failure? Since tax cuts always result in economic activity and jobs created, how was the stimulus a total failure?

Are any of the conservatives here going to expain this one?

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Government jobs are always more stable than private sector jobs during downturns, but their ability to weather the current deep recession startled Donald J. Boyd, the senior fellow at the institute who wrote the report.

“I am a little surprised at the fact that state and local government has remained as stable as it has in the nation as a whole, given the depth of the current recession,” Mr. Boyd said in an interview.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/us/20states.html

al3, I am not a conservative but the tax cuts that,yes, 94.6% of working taxpers got was so minute nobody noticed and in a lot of cases stae income taxes were raised and or take home was reduced by increased health insurance deductions. Also, a lot of people were already making less money.

It was like expecting to fill an elephant up with a peanut.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

Federal "stimulus" spending is going into the pockets of the 1%. It is not being used top help the 99%. It may not be the ultimate cause of high unemployment, but it is definately not being used to facilitate employment in the private sector. Most of the money has been used by the too big to fail banksters to increase their holdings and leverage their risky investment in phony derivatives. Wall Street may be falsely booming (another bubble in the derivatives market IS coming) but mainstreet is crumbling. This does not even take into account the wasting of taxpayer money by Obama on so-called green technology projects like Solyndra.

Taxpayers will have to pay off the bonds created to give away this cash, which means the cost won’t just be the $4.853 million, but also the interest we have to pay on each $4.853 million over the next ten years or so. We also have to count the opportunity costs as well. Had we not borrowed this money to feed Obama’s green-jobs-explosion delusions, taxpayers in the future would have that capital to invest, expand and create businesses, and create jobs that make far more efficient use of the capital than $4.853 million per worker. We have not only failed in the present, we have set ourselves up for failure in the future as American capital has to get redirected into paying off the debt Obama hung on us for his green-jobs subsidy program.

That’s Obamanomics in a nutshell. Which is, by the way, exactly where it belongs.

When is the last time you had to make out a personal check to pay back a stimulus? How about the national debt?

Never, that's when. You never will. They let us "think" that we owe trillions of dollars. Who do we owe it too? Did the government borrow it from God? They didn't borrow it from anybody. They are just tracking what they spend. They create whatever they spend minus what they take from us through taxes. We as taxpayers pay the government x amount of dollars each year and the government spends y amount of dollars each year. y-x equals the "debt". If the government spends less than it receives from the taxpayer then x-y equals "surplus". A surplus means that we as the people have paid the government more than we have received. That means we've taken money out of our economy and put it into the treasury. The treasury is where they make money and therefore don't need anything extra. A deficit means that we as the people have received more from the government than we have paid in. That means we've put more money into our economy and kept it out of the treasury.

As long as their is unemployment and less production than is possible in the country we need to keep pumping "money" into the economy. WE will never have to pay it back because the more we pay back to the treasury the more we create the need for the treasury to keep spending. It's a game and we are the pawns.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

BW, " A surplus means that we as the people have paid the government more than we have received. That means we've taken money out of our economy and put it into the treasury. The treasury is where they make money and therefore don't need anything extra. A deficit means that we as the people have received more from the government than we have paid in. That means we've put more money into our economy and kept it out of the treasury. "

Then why do we need taxes? Why tax at all if deficits and debt don't matter? The treasury could print all the money it needed to fund the illegal private federal reserve, that inturn loans it to the too big to fail banks at near zero interest that then turns around and buys that phony debt created by the treasury in the first place and earns a hefty 3% profit on it that enables them to continue to pay outragous bonuses and continue to get evr more too big to fail through more and more aquisitions all with the blessings of politicians from both sides of the aisle.

We could just tell the Chinese and Japanese to kiss where the sun don't shine. That would be fine with me.

This from USA Patriot News:

"

During a 2½ year period starting at the end of 2007, the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in secret bailouts to banks and other companies around the world, according to a government audit of some of the U.S. central bank’s operations.

Much of the Fed’s largesse was lavished on banks in Europe (such as Barclays, left) and Asia, the audit revealed. More than $3 trillion, for example, went to financial institutions in just five European countries. Trillions more flowed toward some of the biggest banks in America. Institutions from Brazil and Mexico to South Korea and Canada also benefited."

We could just tell them don't worry about it, forget it.

The following is a list of loan recipients that was taken directly from page 131 of theFederal Reserve audit report....

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

It is no accident that the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 and the Federal Reserve system was also created in 1913.Even since it was created, the Federal Reserve system has been dominated by the big Wall Street banks.

The Federal Reserve runs the U.S. economy but it is not accountable to the American people. We can't vote those that run the Fed out of office if we do not like what they do.

Yes, the president appoints those that run the Fed, but he also knows that if he does not tread lightly he won't get the money from the big Wall Street banks that he needs for his next election."

BW, "As long as their is unemployment and less production than is possible in the country we need to keep pumping "money" into the economy."

Then why does the treasury just pump trllions more and give each citizen a million dollars. Would that work. It would if you want bread to go to 15.00/loaf and gas to go to 20.oo/gallon. Your assumption that debt doesn't matter is ridiculous.

The article is rather lenthy. I found it quite informative. Here it is , if one vares to read it.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-09/wall_street/31040431_1_interest-rates-big-banks-member-banks/4

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

And why aren't those secret bailouts on the books? Because they know it's never going to be paid back. They are simply making money when they need it. They just won't let us play.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote camaroman: Federal "stimulus" spending is going into the pockets of the 1%.

You are confusing the 'stimulus' bill with TARP and the low discount window policy. But, sure, a lot of the money did not go where it should have gone - either stimulus or TAPR or other bailouts.

But the reason this happened was that conservatives pushed for deregulation of banking and laws against monopoly, as well as lowering tarriffs. Thus, banks became 'too big to fail' and I believe needed to be bailed out.

Quote camaroman: It may not be the ultimate cause of high unemployment, but it is definately not being used to facilitate employment in the private sector.

That's certainly not the consensus of the economic research in this area - as pointed out in the literature review of the article you quote.[/quote]

Quote camaroman:...Had we not borrowed this money to feed Obama’s green-jobs-explosion delusions, taxpayers in the future would have that capital to invest, expand and create businesses, and create jobs that make far more efficient use of the capital than $4.853 million per worker.

Sure, if we weren't sitting in the middle of something like a recession with zero interest rates, negligable inflation and good demand for our government bonds.

The taxpayers of the future won't care about the debt if we are still in a recession.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote al3:
Quote al3:

…..a significant portion of the stimulus was tax cuts. If the stimulus was such a failure, then doesn’t this imply that the included tax cuts were also a failure? Since tax cuts always result in economic activity and jobs created, how was the stimulus a total failure?

Are any of the conservatives here going to expain this one?

Let's not forget THREE Bush tax cuts and a Bush tax cut stimulus. Worked like a charm to prevent the greatest recession since the Great Depression, didn't it?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman:

This letter, from a Las Vegas Teachers Union member, hits a new level for clueless and delusional. Let me paraphrase. The writer says, For those who don’t understand why we are making so much more money than you – it’s simple. We’re unionized and you’re not. Those of us that work for government make so much more than you because we were smart enough to join unions. Only 6% of you folks in the private sector belong to unions. You’re all fools. Instead of attacking us for our bloated salaries and insanely high pensions…you should be joining a union and getting the same bloated salaries and insanely high pensions. So stop trying to tear us down. Instead, get the same deal for yourselves.

Can you imagine being this delusional, ignorant, and clueless? Even if you think this way (and I have to believe many government union employees do), to say it publicly makes you a moron. A moron who believes that money grows on trees, there are endless trees, and pigs fly. But pigs also go to slaughter.

The cold, hard truth is that America is bankrupt, broke, and insolvent. Just like Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Belgium, France…and soon add UK to the list. Europe is facing an economic Armageddon that will go down in history as “the Big One.”

Why?

Because the European countries have too many government employees, let them retire too early, give them bloated pensions for more years than the employee actually worked, and of course they all get free health care for life. Unions killed the EU. It’s all over for them. The question is can America still be saved?

Wow this is just completely upside down when you actually know the facts. The two most solvent economies in Europe are Sweden and Germany. Sweden is a Socialist Democracy and Germany has laws that require the majority of coprorate boards to be employees from the company - arguably an even stronger policy than unionization.

You are correct, money does not grow on trees - it comes from production which results from economic activity which results from high aggregate demand. You know where aggregate demand comes from? That's right - high paid employees which is why countries like Sweden and Germany are kicking our ass.

The rise and fall of the US economy and the middle class is DIRECTLY correlated with the rise and fall of unionization and union membership. This is a cold hard and undisputeable FACT.

Take a look at two graphs here - the rate of unionization overtime correlated with middleclass wage and the one further down that shows higher wages in states with higher union membership. And keep in mind that isn't just wages of the unionized workers, that is higher wages for everyone in the state as a result of the higher unionization rates.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2012/01/unions_middleclass.html

Anyone who actually does even 5 minutes of research on this topic would realize that your comments are utter bullshit.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote camaroman:

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/obama-private-sector-job-creation-is-fine-but-we-need-bigger-government/

Notice the second graph comparing Bush labor force participation vs Obama's.

Again, doug, where did you get your numbers. You listening to to much Obama propaganda and lies.

Yep this is indicative of nothing more than baby boomers choosing to retire. Expect the per capita labor force participation to decline for the next decade and a half bro. That has nothing to do with policy.

Oh unless you are one of those guys that wants to cut social security so that people have to work into their 70s. Then I guess you could say it is a matter of policy. I happen to think that once people start getting arthritis and osteoperosis from old age that they should probably not have to do hard labor anymore and should retire.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote camaroman:..Then why do we need taxes?

We need debt financing during recessions, but to do that when the economy is in recovery, it would simply produce inflation and price uncertainity in the economy. It would also shift the burden of paying taxes to those on fixed incomes or less able to negotiate wage bargains. It would also cause financial distortions since people could no longer hold onto cash - raising not just the nominal but the real interest rate as well.

Quote camaroman:. Much of the Fed’s largesse was lavished on banks in Europe (such as Barclays, left) and Asia, the audit revealed. More than $3 trillion, for example, went to financial institutions in just five European countries. Trillions more flowed toward some of the biggest banks in America. Institutions from Brazil and Mexico to South Korea and Canada also benefited."

We could just tell them don't worry about it, forget it.

Although one might think that countries that go bankrupt (or refuse to pay off their debt) are unable to borrow again, in practice, this is mostly not the case. I think your course of action would have less detrimental impact than one might think.

Quote camaroman:.It is no accident that the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 and the Federal Reserve system was also created in 1913.Even since it was created, the Federal Reserve system has been dominated by the big Wall Street banks.

It was the banks that issued much of the currency in the first place. The FED reduced the power of the big banks by at least putting it's chairmen who is appointed by the President.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I believe a LARGE portion of union members themselves do NOT support unions. I think what really upset the Unions in Wisconsin was one very specific part of the law they rarely mentioned. Unions in Wisconsin still have collective bargaining for wages, but health and retirement benefits will not be part of collective bargining. I dont even think they are that upset about paying a little more for health & retirements (the 94% of us that are non-union have been paying a little more) why should unions get special exemptions?

What really ticked off the unions was the that state was not going to automatically withhold union dues from state municipal workers. When union members in Wisconsin had the free choice to either write a check for their dues or keep their money, over half of them chose to NOT support their union. Union dues paying membership to AFSCME in Wisconsin dropped from 62,818 in March 2011 to only 28,745 in Feb 2012. That means over 50% of UNION MEMBERS didnt think paying their dues was worth it.

Combine that with a large portion of union members voting FOR Scott Walker and I think regardless of money differential (which nobody seemed upset about in the Obama/McCain election) the Unions have a massive internal messaging problem. Seems when people are given choice to vote with money/dues a majority opts out. When given choice to vote a large majority of union members voted against union interests.

I also like this link -

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&q=unemployment+rate#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=state:ST550000&ifdim=state&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

It lets you compare state unemployment rates with national average. Its really interesting if you compare right work states with union states. Love to hear an explanation why union states have dramatically higher unemployment especially combined with long records of democrat leadership?

Wisconsin has a 6.2% and dropping unemployment rate. Obama has an 8.2% and rising unemployment rate. I suspect Obama would kiss Reverened Wright's ass in Bill Ayer's kitchen while Bernadine Dorn took pictures for a prime time special on Fox News to get a 6.2% unemployment rate before November!

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 7:27 pm
Quote liberalsyndrome:

I believe a LARGE portion of union members themselves do NOT support unions. I think what really upset the Unions in Wisconsin was one very specific part of the law they rarely mentioned. Unions in Wisconsin still have collective bargaining for wages, but health and retirement benefits will not be part of collective bargining. I dont even think they are that upset about paying a little more for health & retirements (the 94% of us that are non-union have been paying a little more) why should unions get special exemptions?

What really ticked off the unions was the that state was not going to automatically withhold union dues from state municipal workers. When union members in Wisconsin had the free choice to either write a check for their dues or keep their money, over half of them chose to NOT support their union. Union dues paying membership to AFSCME in Wisconsin dropped from 62,818 in March 2011 to only 28,745 in Feb 2012. That means over 50% of UNION MEMBERS didnt think paying their dues was worth it.

Combine that with a large portion of union members voting FOR Scott Walker and I think regardless of money differential (which nobody seemed upset about in the Obama/McCain election) the Unions have a massive internal messaging problem. Seems when people are given choice to vote with money/dues a majority opts out. When given choice to vote a large majority of union members voted against union interests.

I posted about this earlier. I supported the Wisconsin unions. I gave them money. And I was upset with the election results. But I was more upset when I learned these statistics as I never would have given them my money had I known the Wisconsin unions were full of such idiots. Why should I have worried about them, when they didn't care? And what were the chances of convincing non union households when the union members themselves weren't convinced. Sheesh.. I wish I had my money back now. I also believe that national Dems and Obama knew about this and that's why they stayed away. Ill advised and needless national embarassment for Dems and needless boost for the effort to turn Wisconsin into Wisconsinissippi.

I also like this link -

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&q=unemployment+rate#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=state:ST550000&ifdim=state&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

It lets you compare state unemployment rates with national average. Its really interesting if you compare right work states with union states. Love to hear an explanation why union states have dramatically higher unemployment especially combined with long records of democrat leadership?

I don't buy your argument here. I like the tool, but there's no real trend here. What about non RTW states South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolinia, Mississippi? Pretty red, without the contamination of "democrat leadership" or unions.....Unemployment pretty high...unions' fault? Doubt it.......Of course Texas and Louisana are saviours but more likely to their dumb luck of sitting on top of a bunch of oil.....How bout New York is under the national average...hmmmm..dark blue. ...Wisconsin's track record most always under the US average - even when those evil unions had more power.....Of course many red state RTW rural states have a population of 2, which bolsters their unemployment numbers. It will be interesting to watch Wisconsin's performance moving into the future, as it's transformed into Wisconsinissippi.;).

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I agree with your points and with 50 states there will be outliers on the Red & Blue side of things. When have looked at statistics for unemployment it seems to me there are few factors that really drive up unemployment.

Looking at the numbers when Union percentage is above 10% of workforce the unemployment rate seemed to be MUCH higher than national average. When its below 10% of the workforce its employment numbers look much better. And contrary to Thom with "right to work for less" the hourly rates are not that different.

Corporate & personal income tax rates also have a direct correlation to unemployment rate. Seems like states with rates above 5% have higher rates of unemployed.

http://www.workerfreedom.org/labor-statistics

I look at this list its from 2010 but in general states with unemployment above national average either have one of those two factors working against them. High taxes, or high union work force. If you look at average rates across states there is not much difference between some of the RTW and enforced union states

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 7:27 pm
Quote liberalsyndrome:

Looking at the numbers when Union percentage is above 10% of workforce the unemployment rate seemed to be MUCH higher than national average. When its below 10% of the workforce its employment numbers look much better.

Corporate & personal income tax rates also have a direct correlation to unemployment rate. Seems like states with rates above 5% have higher rates of unemployed.

It could also correlate to states that have very large populations vs small populations. Employment and cost (tax) dynamics are vastly different in these states, with large urban centers (typically blue) vs rural, agricultural states that have very low populatons (typically red). This will confound union vs non union stats and arguments.

http://www.workerfreedom.org/labor-statistics

I look at this list its from 2010 but in general states with unemployment above national average either have one of those two factors working against them. High taxes, or high union work force.

The only problem is this site is a Grover Nordquist sponsored site, and therefore supported by the right wing billionaires that support Nordquist. I read these statistics with a grain of salt becasue I doubt this group really is concerned with worker well being or unemployment, what they are concerned with is neutralizing the threat of labor unions to increase their own massive share of the pie.

It's a pretty slick site, even has the art-deco type motif that labor unions used in the '30s and '40s. Boy those right wingers know how to dress wolves into sheeps clothing...and it works, sadly hardly anyone recognizes the wolf, as evidence by Wisconin recall results

From the bottom of the home page.... "AWF is a special project of Americans for Tax Reform dedicated to combating anti-worker legislation and promoting free and open markets."......In other words - the right to work for less!

Not to mention it's common knowledge that blue states Federal tax receipts subsidize most red states. When you look at that, the red state model is much more equal to the blue state model, and blue states rate much higher in education and poverty rates.

We'll have to agree to disagree. If Nordquist's benefactors paid their fair share of income and corporate taxes in the first place, most states would be in fine shape and we would not being having this conversation.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Liberalsyndrome:

Here is a link where you see who's sucking up the government benefits. You can even drill down to the county level. Red states seem to be taking most of the government benefits. Yes, it's the NYT, so you can scoff at that, but it's interesting.

Spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Income support (whatever that is) seems much more Red-state focused, while Unemployment expenses are more in the rust belt states. Overall spending on these items is much more in Red states, esp in rural ares, where almost everyone is poor, In urban centers, the rich people balance out the poor people.

Net - net - from my eyeball analysis, it's more of a rural vs urban thing, and since Red RTW states tend more rural, Red states take more than they give.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?ref=us

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote liberalsyndrome:

Looking at the numbers when Union percentage is above 10% of workforce the unemployment rate seemed to be MUCH higher than national average. When its below 10% of the workforce its employment numbers look much better. And contrary to Thom with "right to work for less" the hourly rates are not that different.

That's because union employment is so much more stable than private employment. If a states unemployment rises (employment drops) then the non moving union employment becomes a higher percentage of whats left. If a states unemplooyment drops (employment rises) then the non moving union employment becomes a smaller percentage of whats left. The unemployment rate is what determines the percentage of union workers compared to the whole, not the other way around.

Statistics are worthless unless you understand what they really mean in the real world.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

I dont scoff at NYT, and actually read it quite a bit. I think its wrong that we have a form of government that imposes a form of taxation where successful policies in one state can be punished through redistribution of their wealth to other states where they have imposed failing fiscal policies.

I know live in Virginia, and its sometimes hard to say if its Red or Blue state. I think 2008 was a fluke and its likely going to go Red in 2012. There are basically 3 blue areas (Northern VA, near DC, Norfolk, and Richomond). The rest is very Red.

Anyways, I dont think Virginia should ask any other state to pay for local services (fire, police, schools, parks, water, sewer). Those are all services I should be able to vote for on a local level and pay for through local state/county sales taxes, proceeds from lottery, property taxes, and state income tax.

On the same token, I dont feel obligated that I should be paying for a Park in Chuch Schummers district of NY, or Murtha library in PA, or big dig in MA, or the highspeed rail to nowhere in CA. I also should not be expected to bailout or pay for bad deals made between democrats and unions in Blue states.

Lets agree that each state should be an incubator for ideas. All 50 states competing for business and tax payers. Good ideas win and gain larger adoption, and bad ideas fail contained to only the few states that attempted them. I get angry when the Federal government tries a one size fits all approach. I think the rural areas are different than the urban areas. Each state has its own population dynamic to deal with and there is NO WAY that 535 rich people in DC are the best to legislate solutions across the 50 states!

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 7:27 pm
Quote liberalsyndrome:...When union members in Wisconsin had the free choice to either write a check for their dues or keep their money, over half of them chose to NOT support their union. Union dues paying membership to AFSCME in Wisconsin dropped from 62,818 in March 2011 to only 28,745 in Feb 2012. That means over 50% of UNION MEMBERS didnt think paying their dues was worth it.

I'm too lazy to correct your data. Suffice to say that it is not logical to pay for unions dues as an individual: - your behavior has no effect on the aggregate outcome. That doesn't you mean you don't bennefit from a union.

Quote liberalsyndrome:..why union states have dramatically higher unemployment especially combined with long records of democrat leadership?

There is no way the small 5-10% union membership can have an effect on the unemployment rate - which is broad based across all industries.

[/quote]

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I see that there is a relationship. If the 10% union membership is largely focused in public service unions (i.e. working for the state) its likely that one or more of the political parties bought their vote with sweet deals like $0 co-pay medical or the ability to max out over time in last 3 years and get 75% of base pay (overtime included) for the rest of your life when you retire at 55!

The politicians dont care because when the bill comes due they will be out of office. So for 2-3 cycles the debt bomb continues to tick until it explodes and the current political leaders have a choice... Cut benefits & break promises or raise taxes.

I think the correlation is that states that put the burden onto tax payers to bailout their hollow promises to public sector unions result in tax rates higher than 5%. In states where unions have controls, the rate tends to track below 5% and union membership is typically less than 10% of the workforce. Looking at Bureau of Labor stats on a couple websites, the states that meet those two thresholds all seem to have unemployment rates that are on average 2 pts below the national average.

Let me beat you to the punch line, there is probably one or two states that for other reasons are outside of the bell curve, Mississippi comes to mind, but the vast majority of the 50 states seem to fit within the stats I quoted.

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 7:27 pm

Currently Chatting

Keystone would be way worse than we thought!

We already know that the Keystone XL pipeline is a disaster waiting to happen. But, it turns out that the impact of that tar sands pipeline could be even worse than we thought. According to a new study by the Stockholm Environmental Institute, Keystone could add four times more carbon pollution to our atmosphere than the State Department originally estimated.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system