Home > Health Care > Danco selected to build Community Health Center

Danco selected to build Community Health Center

[Press Release]

Open Door Community Health Centers has selected Danco Builders Northwest to construct its new 27,500 square foot community health center on Tydd Street in Eureka. “We are very pleased to select a local company for this important project. The construction will have immediate impact on our local economy and, in the long run, the finished health center will contribute more new jobs and opportunities to the area.” says Herrmann Spetzler, Chief Executive Officer of Open Door Community Health Centers. Danco was selected in a competitive bid process. “We’ve signed the contracts. We’re ready to go.”

According to Dan Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Danco Builders Northwest, “We recognize the importance of this project to the community on many levels. We’re excited that we can be part of expanding healthcare in our region. We believe this will be a showcase facility long into the future.”

Designed by HMR Architects of Sacramento, this is the second time Open Door and HMR have collaborated. “We opened a great new facility in Crescent City in 2007,” notes Cheyenne Spetzler, Open Door’s Chief Operating Officer. “We all learned from our Del Norte experience and the design of our new Eureka facility reflects our best thinking. It will provide greater access to a larger array of services than any clinic in our system.”

Open Door was awarded a multi-million dollar grant in October 2010 to construct the new facility by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration under the Affordable Care Act. The grant came with one big condition: the building must be finished by September 2012. “It has been a race to get everything done, from purchasing the land to designing the building to gaining the necessary approvals from the City and selecting the contractor. With the help of many people, we’re finally ready to begin construction,” says Herrmann Spetzler. “The time frame is definitely a challenge, but we are confident of meeting the deadlines. We expect site work to begin in the next few days,” says Johnson.

According to Spetzler, an official groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled for October, “but we’re not waiting to get the construction started.”

  1. September 15, 2011 at 9:32 am

    I know the guy yhat wrote that grant and I’m darn proud of him!!!

  2. September 15, 2011 at 9:32 am

    And I’m sure he types better than I do!!!

  3. September 15, 2011 at 9:34 am

    Sorry about the typos. Couldn’t find my glasses!

  4. huufc
    September 15, 2011 at 9:49 am

    A multi-million dollar grant of money we dont have, great.

  5. September 15, 2011 at 9:58 am

    “A multi-million dollar grant of money we dont have, great.”.

    It is remarkable how much money keeps popping up when the state is supposedly broke.

  6. Anonymous
    September 15, 2011 at 10:29 am

    If we don’t take what we can get……

  7. Sports guy
    September 15, 2011 at 10:52 am

    What will this building be used for???

  8. Plain Jane
    September 15, 2011 at 11:02 am

    Sports Guy doesn’t know what a community health center will be used for? wow

  9. Sports guy
    September 15, 2011 at 11:07 am

    Thank you PJ for your kindness and help. You always reflect finest of the progressive values you so righteously proclaim. I guess I should have been more specific. As I am relatively young, PJ, and have never ventured into a health center, I was inquiring as to whether this will be a facility with private doctors who operate normal practices, is it a gov’t subsidized center? Is it for people without insurance? I wasn’t sure on the specifics of how community health center work.
    Feel free not to comment PJ as I would just as soon not here your opinion on anything.

  10. huufc
    September 15, 2011 at 11:50 am

    The grant was federal money we dont have, not the state.

  11. Plain Jane
    September 15, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    Just adding to the laughs at this site, Sports Guy. After your 9:23 post on the “Meet Susan Adams thread,” your latest post is hilarious.

  12. English Speaking Guy
    September 15, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Sports guy says:
    September 15, 2011 at 11:07 am

    “Feel free not to comment PJ as I would just as soon not here your opinion on anything.”

    It is “I would just assume”, not “I would just as soon”.
    And it is “hear” not “here”.

  13. Plain Jane
    September 15, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Half right, ESG. When what you mean is “I would rather not,” Sports Guy was right. He isn’t assuming he doesn’t want to hear my views, he knows he doesn’t.

  14. Anonymous
    September 15, 2011 at 12:54 pm


    Sports Guy used the idiom correctly.

  15. September 15, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    “The grant was federal money we dont have

    They don’t have it, either. They’re just printing new stuff to cover the federal debt. Haven’t you heard?

  16. Not A Native
    September 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Ok I’ll bite at Sports guy’s bait.

    Here’s a link to the Open Door Community Health Centers and the services provided at the various locations.

    But you know, Sports guy, I thought Conservatives take particular pride in doing things for themselves. You could have easily looked up this website if you sincerely want to find out. The picture has the organization’s name. Especially since you’re young, I’d expect you to have good net searching skills.

  17. Not A Native
    September 15, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    Look Fred, capitalism is a system that relies on borrowing wealth(capital) to create something of benefit to humans that they will value. And typically borrowed capital is created AT THE TIME IT IS BORROWED in the amount of part of the anticipated future benefit.

    As such, capitalism is a magical ultimate bootstrap, rivaling the proverbial work of Genesis. Capital is created out of nothing to result in a real ‘something’ that has more value than the created capital.

    But if capital is created and doesn’t result in something valuable, then a loss occurs. That loss must be allocated among the remaining things of value. If there’s a lot of losses at one time, a real economic decline happens.

    The economic problem today isn’t ‘spending money we don’t have’, its paying the cost of having “spent money on things we didn’t need(or want, or weren’t useful)”.

  18. September 15, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Printing money, when there isn’t a growing economy to absorb it, creates inflation. I think we’re already seeing that now and I’m guessing it will get much worse.

  19. Not A Native
    September 15, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    That’s nonsense. The (capitalist)economy isn’t a sponge that passsively ‘absorbs’ money. Created money is the means that fosters and enables economic growth.

    You think its absolutely perfect when money is created by a bank and lent(adsorbed?) to some individual or corporation that you’re in awe of. You rankle only when money is created by a bank and managed by the public’s elected representatives.

  20. Anonymous
    September 15, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    And then Danco will hire a crew or two of overqualified laborers at what amounts to minimum wages and pocket the rest of the millions themselves. Danco has always been a shit company to work for unless you are one of the ones on the inside. I guarantee you that the average wage for these builders will be about $12.00 per hour (less the on-site supervisor, of course). The rest goes to the ever deepening and expanding Johnson empire.

  21. September 15, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    The grant was federal money we dont have

    Banks don’t create money. They don’t print money. They loan out existing money.

  22. September 15, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    Hmmm…somehow my copy didn’t work. Let’s try it again:

    You think its absolutely perfect when money is created by a bank and lent.

    Banks don’t create money. They loan out from the existing money supply.

  23. 69er
    September 15, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Anonymous 3:42, I have been checking on this thread periodically today and wondering when and who would be the first to express displeasure at someone being successful in business, looks like pure jealousy to me. Why are so many people so down on those who are able to make it in a dog eat dog world?

  24. Anonymous
    September 15, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Yeah, let’s see. Let’s hire someone who is unsuccessful and doesn’t have a track record of coming out on top, they are politically correct. Yeah, let’s do that. It makes me feel all warm inside.

    Whoops. You mean our money is gone and the project went bust? Oh well, we at least have a nice lot with a lot of rebar on it that we can recycle at the salvage yard.

  25. Plain Jane
    September 15, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    Why do so many people jump on anonymous’ posts and attribute them to progressive, PC, leftist, liberal ideology when they are just spewing asshole ideology?

  26. High Finance
    September 15, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    The point is that the federal government is flat broke, same with the state government.

    This grants come from borrowed money, just like 40% of the regular budget. None of you would dare run your household budgets this way or bankruptcy is only a matter of time.

    The borrowed money adds to our huge deficit which adds to our national debt. The interest payments on the debt add to our budget. The interest on the debt will soon amount to more than half of our federal deficit.

    It is insanity and neither political party is willing to seriously address the issue. Our children & grandchildren’s generation will damn us for our greed & short sightedness.

  27. Plain Jane
    September 15, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    I have no doubt they will damn us for our waste of vital resources and letting the infrastructure collapse as we gave tax cuts to wealth hoarders.

  28. Anonymous
    September 15, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Because some of the posts, Jane, are progressive, PC, leftist, liberal ideology and some people feel they need to be addressed or answered. Your view that they are spewing asshole ideology is your opinion, as is theirs to answer in the opposite view. That’s why we live here in good ol’ America.

  29. Steak n Eggs
    September 15, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    “Spewing asshole ideology”… Another fine example of progressive smugness. Keep ’em coming, they work like bad perfume.

  30. Anonymous
    September 15, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    Hoarders or savers, Jane? Some of us wanted to hole it away for a rainy day. Did you notice that it seems to be raining right now?

  31. High Finance
    September 15, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    “wealth hoarders” ????

    What do you think those evil rich people do with all their dough PJ ?

    You have been watching too many Scrooge McDuck cartoons.

  32. Thorstein Veblen
    September 15, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    “Banks don’t create money. They loan out from the existing money supply.”

    Sorry Fred, you need to read up on our banking system. Creating money is one of its major features.

    For those of you who are unhappy “spending money we don’t have”, I’ll sweeten the pot a bit for you. Because if the Open Door Clinic is run like many other community health facilities, you’ll also be paying for most of the medical services provided there. You’ll pay to build it, then you’ll pay for people to use it. People who may not be worthy!!!!

    On the flip side, we should have healthier people in our community as a result, and you should be less likely to contract tuberculosis or some similar contagion.

    And the cost for this clinic pales in comparison to, for instance, the subsidy we provide to the oil companies. Who then use our tax dollars to lobby our lawmakers for even better subsidies and less regulation. Why only be unhappy with subsidies that help low and moderate income people as well as the common good, yet be silent or defend the destructive subsidies to the wealthy and powerful?

  33. Plain Jane
    September 15, 2011 at 9:00 pm

    You probably still believe it was poor people buying McMansions that caused the “rainy days.”

    They inflate markets with it instead of paying decent wages to American workers, HiFi. Where do you think all that irrational exuberance money comes from?

  34. 06em
    September 15, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    When private capital can’t or won’t get spent, the only alternative is for public money to be used to put people back to work. Unless this is done, and citizens buy stuff and pay taxes, the economy will continue to tank and there is no chance that the debt that the Republicans claim to be so worried about will be paid off. You’ll note that they never worry about debt when they’re the ones running it up with off the books wars and tax giveaways to their wealthy backers. Of course the real issue is that the Republicans will stop at nothing to make sure President Obama doesn’t succeed — even if it means trashing the economy further. They’ve said as much.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2010: “… the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Link

    And HiFi, comparing a family budget to what the government does is an extremely silly analogy. I’m embarrassed for you.

  35. 69er
    September 15, 2011 at 11:20 pm

    Yes, just look at all those new jobs that have been created by that injection of public money. I wonder how many more of those infused companies will file???

  36. Plain Jane
    September 16, 2011 at 6:46 am

    The nonpartisan CBO said in a legally mandated report that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had resulted in between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs for the U.S. economy that wouldn’t have existed in the absence of the stimulus.

    Additionally, the CBO said, gross domestic product (GDP) was as much as 3.2 percent higher than it would have been in the absence of the stimulus.


  37. 06em
    September 16, 2011 at 6:47 am

    Wow, 69er, the inner workings of your mind are a wonder to behold. You demand proof of new jobs when the construction has not even begun. And then you declare the bankruptcy of companies that have only popped into existence within your own personal nightmare of … what? … communism run amok?

    I realize it is probably too late in your case, but if there is any part of your mind that is still able to function independently (you would recognize it as the part that wonders “Can that really be true?” when FOX News and Limbaugh parrot Rick Perry in calling Social Security a ponzi scheme) you should use that sliver of free will to turn off the TVs and radios in your house and throw out that copy of Dick Cheney’s new fantasy novel you just bought.

    I suggest a good solid month of no America-hating right wing propaganda, although three months would be better. Then come back and maybe we can talk.

    Or you can keep spewing nonsense. This is America after all.

  38. Decline To State
    September 16, 2011 at 7:00 am

    Me, I’m just glad we’re getting a new health center here in Eureka. It’s needed.

    Thank you Open Door Community Health Centers and congratulations Danco Builders Northwest.

  39. Mitch
    September 16, 2011 at 7:41 am

    Thorstein, I’m outraged by your insinuations and foolishness.

    Worthy people do not get tuberculosis — it’s disgusting.

    It’s a simple matter of installing air filtration systems, remaining within your gated community, and hiring enough police to keep the TB-prone at bay.

    Now stop trying to suck money from the job-creators.

  40. 06em
    September 16, 2011 at 7:53 am

    Oh stop being so reasonable, Decline To State.

    Well, I’m out. Gotta go generate some payroll taxes and SS payments to the gubmint and create some take home I will later spend with some local businesses.

  41. Ann
    September 16, 2011 at 8:19 am

    The new clinic is very exciting. The old clinic is at capacity in terms of patients and there will be new equipment and a team approach in the new facility to continue their excellent care of our community.

    I think the old building may be a teaching facility, though I’m not sure.

    And by the way, I have insurance (incredibly expensive and nearly useless) so I pay my way, though I don’t object to paying taxes and helping those that aren’t as fortunate.

  42. Sim lib
    September 16, 2011 at 8:52 am

    Monopoly force of government is the greatest danger to liberty and the long-term well-being of the populace, State label: a “gang of thieves writ large”—the locus of the most immoral, grasping and unscrupulous individuals in any society.

    All services provided by monopoly governments can be provided more efficiently by the private sector. Regulations and laws ostensibly promulgated for the “public interest” are self-interested power grabs by scheming government bureaucrats engaging in dangerously unfettered self-aggrandizement, as they are not subject to market disciplines.

    Thoughts from Murray Rothbard

  43. Ed
    September 16, 2011 at 8:57 am

    Yeah, because we all know how moral the private sector is.

  44. Anonymous
    September 16, 2011 at 9:03 am

    “None of you would dare run your household budgets this way or bankruptcy is only a matter of time.” – Hi Fi

    Actually most people do – they owe more on their mortgages and cars then they have in the bank. Especially younger households that have not paid off their mortgages and are unable to save up enough money to buy a car outright. It’s actually how our economy works. If these households didn’t operate on borrowed money, the economy would tank from lack of home and car sales.

    The economy is complex, but it works on positive and negative feedback. The idea of stimulus is to jump start it into a positive feedback where more jobs and revenue generate more spending and more jobs and revenue. The key is to pay off the stimulus once things get moving – not to spend the surplus on wars or other government programs. Private corporations won’t do this because their share holders would be outraged about a burst of job creation that might lessen their bottom line. For those that don’t think stimulus works – check out PJs link above

  45. September 16, 2011 at 9:03 am

    I believe the Open Door Clinics take anyone and charge on a sliding scale according to ability to pay. They are the primary source of health care for thousands of people on the North Coast. Without the Clinics, many or most of these people would have no health care and would end up at the Emergency rooms in crisis condition. That’s when the costs get HUGE.
    Thank you, Open Door, for doing a great job for our community.

  46. Plain Jane
    September 16, 2011 at 9:03 am

    “The Census Bureau reported that there are now 46.2 million Americans living below the official poverty line—the highest number in the 52 years since that statistic was first measured—and median household income has fallen back to the 1996 level. As Harvard economist Lawrence Katz summarized this dreary news: “This is truly a lost decade. We think of America as a place where every generation is doing better, but we’re looking at a period when the median family is in worse shape than it was in the late 1990s.

    The late 1990s, it should be noted, is when President Clinton, working with Phil Gramm, the Republican head of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed through two critical pieces of legislation ending effective regulation of the banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act smashed the wall between high-flying Wall Street investment firms and the once staid commercial banks entrusted with the deposits and mortgages of America’s innocent souls. The next year Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, banning any effective regulation of the rapidly expanded trade in the collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps that have since haunted the world’s economy.

    The collapse of those toxic securities led to the housing crisis and resulted in 15.1 percent of Americans now living in poverty, the same level as when Bill Clinton took office. But thanks to another one of Clinton’s grand triangulation strategies, the one he called “welfare reform,” the impoverished are now denied the safety net that existed before the Clinton presidency. Although 22 percent of U.S. children are now below the poverty line, the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program no longer exists.”

    Robert Scheer

    They’ll reform privatize Medicare and Social Security and millions of elder Americans will no longer be able to afford medical care. They really do want to let people die, other people, of course. People who can never have enough don’t draw the line at reducing the population by letting people starve so they can have always more.

  47. September 16, 2011 at 9:14 am

    And to those above who cry about how bankrupt and insolvent our country is at the moment, I refer you to several VERY expensive foreign wars that we have been waging for over TEN YEARS. The trillions they have cost would have payed all the teachers and road builders we could ever need. We have squandered our nations riches with little to show for it.
    When that mythical family cries “poormouth” while buying hot tubs and Cadilacs, it does not add up. The USA is in the same position. If we want to play War, we have to ante up enough to keep the systems at home working as well. If we’re unwilling to pay, it’s time to end the wars and focus on our real needs right here at home.

  48. September 16, 2011 at 10:03 am

    “We have squandered our nations riches with little to show for it.”

    Oh, I don’t know, a-nony-mouse. The top 500 families have a lot to show for it, and others in the top tenth of a percent have also made out quite well. It’s just the 99.9% that didn’t get anything except coffins.

  49. 69er
    September 16, 2011 at 10:08 am

    Wow, did I ever get chastised by 06em and perhaps rightfully so. However I think he may have misunderstood what i was atempting to say. I was referring to the bad mouthing of Danco, a prosperous and job providing company and the infusion om public funds into companies that take the money and run. The one i had in mind is Solyndra, how do you feel about that fiasco??


  50. September 16, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Solyndra had a lot — I mean a LOT — of venture capital backing it. So it looks like the government was fooled, yes, but so was a lot of Silicon Valley.

    But 69er, I don’t doubt that connections have a lot to do with which companies get $500 million in loan guarantees. And Solyndra probably would have been a decent success if we were still allowed to protect markets for American companies. Free trade “cured” us of protected markets. Both the Dems and the Pubs can take credit for that brilliant move.

  51. Plain Jane
    September 16, 2011 at 10:35 am

    I think it might have had a chance of succeeding if our government bought US manufactured solar panels instead of Chinese solar panels, 69er.

  52. High Finance
    September 16, 2011 at 11:25 am

    Silly Mouse.

    The entire cost of both the Iraq & Afghanistan wars COMBINED since 9/11 are less than this year’s Obama deficit.


  53. Plain Jane
    September 16, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    How much of Obama’s debt this year is due to the interest on the trillions spent on Iraq and Afghanistan and making up for the Bush tax cuts with increased borrowing, HiFi?

  54. High Finance
    September 16, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    You sound very desperate PJ. Get over it, the Obama is a failure and big time.

  55. 69er
    September 16, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Obama was a failure before he even started his run for the presidency. On top of all the baggage he was carrying, his agenda was to tear down America and he said as much while running for office and so far he is doing a good job of it.

  56. September 16, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    “…he said as much while running for office…”

    How about some quotes, 69er.

  57. September 16, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    And HiFi seems to think that our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan were bargains that Bush found at WalMart.

  58. September 16, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    School House Rocks – Tyrannosaurus Debt

    The debt was born in 1790 when our new government took over 75 million the colonies spent in the Revolutionary War.

    The debt was born in 1790 when our new government took over 75 million the colonies spent in the Revolutionary War.

  59. September 16, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    The Civil War ran up a debt of almost three billion dollars that still wasn’t paid off by World War One.

  60. Plain Jane
    September 16, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    Only 16% of the 2009, 2010 fiscal deterioration is due to Obama’s spending, HiFi. 40% is due to Bush’s policies, 20% to the economic downturn, 12% due to Bush’s rescue efforts and 12% for all other.

    Read about it here:


  61. Anonymous
  62. Plain Jane
    September 16, 2011 at 9:48 pm

    Did you notice all the qualifying “ifs” in that Heritage propaganda piece? If taxes stay the same and if spending stays the same and if people continue to be unemployed in great numbers and if blah blah blah.

  63. Anonymous
    September 17, 2011 at 9:01 am

    i saw one “if” pj, and it was “if taxes are held at the historical average” . did you read the methodology for the link you posted, PJ?
    ‘To come to these conclusions, we calculated the relative importance of the several factors contributing to the 2009 and 2010 deficits by looking at the impact in those years of various policies.’

    and you want to talk about qualifiers – they are only talking about ’09 and ’10.

    “The President’s media apologists are attempting to carry water for Obama and shift the blame for the budget mess squarely at the feet of President George W. Bush. Specifically, they argue that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and the recession are all to blame for today’s deficits. It’s an argument we heard before from Obama since the days of his campaign, and it’s an argument that is as flawed today as it was then. One simple number explains it well: the budget deficit figure in 2007, the last Bush year prior to the recession. The tax cuts were in full effect, both wars were raging, and the recession had not yet struck, yet the budget deficit in 2007 was $160 billion, or about a tenth of Obama’s deficit this year.”

    propaganda on both sides pj. think for yourself. there is a huge deficit and it is both parties’ fault. your study attributed all legislative factors to Bush during his tenure. do you think that is reasonable? what about congress?

  64. Anonymous
    September 17, 2011 at 9:33 am

    The American Progress site was talking about the past with complete data, 9:01. The data is not complete for 2011 since it is still 2011. The Heritage link was about projections based on assumptions which there is no logical reason to accept.

    All of the budget deficits from the Bush years are costing more money every year in interest on the amounts. Blaming Obama for the deficits in 2010 caused by the Bush policies, bail-outs, and lower revenues is absurd.

    No where did the study I linked imply or state that it was all due to Bush or his policies, but Bush is responsible for every bill he signed (as is Obama) and nothing became law without his signature during his terms in office. I understand that both parties are at fault and neither I nor the site I linked said it was all Bush’s fault. However, it is well known that the GOP agenda has for decades been obsessed with shrinking government and forcing cuts in social spending and increasing the wealth of those at the top of the pile. They have succeeded but it’s been a catastrophe for the country.

    For the record, I hold Clinton responsible for a large share of the economic collapse for signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which was a GOP bill, as well as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, also a GOP bill. Without these 2 horrifically flawed bills and Bush’s tax cuts, the economic collapse wouldn’t have occurred and we wouldn’t have the increasing chasm between the financial elites and the rest of the country. The Bush tax cuts and wars took us off the path to a balanced budget into uncharted territory. But most of all I blame SCOTUS for allowing corporations to buy both parties and enabled them hold the country hostage to their demands for bail-outs, lower taxes, cuts to the social safety net and a shrinking economy. No agenda is possible today without corporate approval and that isn’t the principle upon which this country was founded.

  65. Plain Jane
    September 17, 2011 at 9:34 am

    9:33 is me.

  66. Plain Jane
    September 17, 2011 at 9:46 am

    “The tax cuts were in full effect, both wars were raging, and the recession had not yet struck, yet the budget deficit in 2007 was $160 billion, or about a tenth of Obama’s deficit this year.”

    What a bizarre statement that is. What relevance is the 2008 – ???recession to the $160 billion budget deficit in 2007? If it had occurred prior to 2007, the 2007 budget deficit would have been much larger due to decreased revenues, bail-outs and necessary increased social spending to keep people alive. Just a little sleight-of-hand for those who lack critical thinking?

  67. Plain Jane
    September 17, 2011 at 10:10 am

    It is further interesting to note that they used the 2007 $160 Billion to compare to Obama’s deficit instead of 2008 when the Bush deficit was $438 billion.

    “Major rounds of tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 have also contributed to the deficit and renewing them — and their $200 billion-plus annual cost — when they expire at the end of 2010 would make it extremely difficult to balance the budget anytime soon.”


  68. 69er
    September 17, 2011 at 11:06 am

    You will never be able to defend the failure of the present administration’s policies with any amount of statistics. The results are the proof of the failure and the results are here and blatant, total failure.

  69. Plain Jane
    September 17, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    I don’t deny that Obama has been a failure. Many leading economists said in 2009 that the stimulus was too small and it would probably be impossible to pass another later on, but Obama got what he could. Single payer insurance would have cut the cost of health care for everyone, including seniors, but instead we got Obamacare which will do much less to rein in costs. Negotiating for drug prices would also have done a lot to decrease costs, but again the GOP (and conservative Democrats who belong to the same corporations) would have none of that. The GOP negotiated in bad faith, getting concessions and then still refused to vote for it. They bears a large share of the blame for blocking every attempt to improve the economy, holding the unemployed and local communities hostage for continuing tax cuts which only added to the deficit. There have been a number of news articles lately about the damage done to the economy and the imbalance of wealth by the tax cuts and their continuation. People who think you can cut social programs as the need for them increases without damage to individuals as well as state and local economies need to get a clue. Corporations and rich people are literally sitting on trillions of dollars because they have no good place to invest. Inflating financial bubbles, whether stock market or housing, serves no good, especially when the stock market is already over-priced because consumption isn’t generating the profits to justify the prices. Pretending that corporate tax cuts create jobs, against 100% of the evidence to the contrary, will never make it true. Tax cuts for the working classes would increase demand and create jobs because they spend most of the money they have. Making wealth hoarding more expensive would discourage it. It is demand that creates jobs, not supply, and certainly not tax cuts for corporations or the rich. Cutting taxes more on the rich and corporations will only make it worse and won’t encourage them to invest in jobs when people don’t have the money to purchase the products they create. When Walmart has to start a lay-a-way plan to get people to buy, you know this country is in trouble. I believe the wealthy are waiting on buying opportunities for the shrinking share of assets owned by the majority, less fortunate, at the inevitable fire sales.

  70. High Finance
    September 17, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    I have got to hand it to you PJ, you are relentless.

    So your solution is: more government spending, complete government takeover of the healthcare industry (17% of the entire country’s economy) and huge tax increases on those who pay taxes.

    You must have cried when the communist Soviet Union collapsed.

    You fool, the tax cuts of 2001 & 2002 didn’t contribute to the deficit, it helped end the recession we were starting at the time. It brought in more tax revenue, not less, by spuring the economy.

  71. Plain Jane
    September 17, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Single payer health insurance is not a take-over of the health care industry. The health care industry is medical care providers and hospitals. The health insurance industry takes a big chunk out of the health care funding pie for shuffling papers, delaying and / or denying coverage and payments. They don’t provide any health care. Single payer, like they have in virtually every other first world country, results in a healthier populace with lower health care costs across all age groups. Greedy, selfish people like you who would rather pay more for private insurance so you can deny health care to those can’t buy insurance due to pre-existing conditions or poverty are repugnant. I don’t deny I believe in a balance of capitalism and socialism, but not a pure form of either. You are fascist who denies what he is either through deceit or ignorance.

  72. Plain Jane
    September 17, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    You are the fool, HiFi. In 2000 there was a budget surplus which was wiped out and hundreds of millions added EVERY year of the Dubya presidency from the tax cuts. Supply side economics is a fraud. A little bump because people sell assets at a lower tax rate today out of fear of a higher tax rate tomorrow isn’t a real gain because it decreases future taxes, which is exactly what the Bush tax cuts did. For the working classes, the tax cuts didn’t make up what they had lost in jobs and income since 1980 while the rich had more money than good places to invest so they inflated the stock and home markets with it, bet against our economy with hedge funds and crashed the economy.

    Just as 2009 was a Bush budget, 2000 was a Clinton budget.

    In 2000 revenues were $2025.2 Billion and spending was $1789 Billion. It was this surplus that Bush used to justify tax cuts “returning money to its rightful owners.” In 2001, the first Bush budget, revenues were $1991 Billion and spending was $1862.9. In 2002 it was $1853.1 in revenues and 2010.9 spending. Not until 2005 was revenue higher than in 2000 but spending increased every year while the deficits exploded. We went from an 84 Billion dollar Clinton surplus in 2000 to a $1,550 TRILLION dollar Bush deficit in 2009.


  73. Plain Jane
    September 17, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Furthermore, Clinton saw an increase in jobs of 2.6% in his first term, 2.3 in his second term while Bush had 0% increase in jobs his first term and only 0.8% in his second term. Obama, from 1/2009 through 7/2011 had more new job creation than Bush did in his entire 2nd term. Inflating financial bubbles with tax cuts for the investor class isn’t restoring the economy because they pop, causing even greater damage.

  74. Plain Jane
  75. The Monitor
    September 17, 2011 at 10:08 pm


  76. High Finance
    September 17, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    PJ, I am frightened by the economic ignorance demonstrated here. Clinton had the high tech bubble that occured on his watch. That created the jobs, not him.

    Single payer health insurance means the government will quickly take over the health insurance industry. Then they will be able to dictate to the health providers what they provide, how much they will charge and who gets service.

    Only a fool would see what a failure Obama’s first porkulus bill was and want to repeat it.

  77. Plain Jane
    September 18, 2011 at 4:25 am

    You aren’t worth wasting time on, HiFi. No matter how much evidence you are given, you just rinse and repeat. Probably too much alcohol.

  78. Plain Jane
  79. High Finance
    September 18, 2011 at 7:20 am

    Actually PJ, you know or understand almost nothing about me. You constantly misinterpret what I say to fit your preconcieved prejudices.

    I am not entirely sold on the value of the capital gains tax break. Better minds than your’s or mine say that it encourages more investment. More investment is good for the country.

  80. Plain Jane
    September 18, 2011 at 8:06 am

    Better minds than yours or mine also say that it is fueling the wealth gap and preventing economic recovery. IF capital gains taxes were kept very low (or even zero) for domestic business start-ups, rather than buying and selling stocks to and from other investors, it might help to create jobs. However, since the major problem in our economy is lack of jobs which reduces consumption by the majority, keeping them low only increases the income gap and starves programs that people desperately need to survive. Inflating the stock market doesn’t fix the economy, doesn’t create jobs, and only increases the risk of calamity because share prices unjustified by company profitability is unsustainable due to the lack of ability to consume the products they create. We have today the lowest capital gains rates in history and they aren’t creating jobs. To make matters worse, the people receiving preferential treatment are demanding millions of government employees, federal, state and local, be laid off so they don’t have to pay higher taxes to support them.

    People like you who are incapable of understanding that when bosses keep most of the profit for themselves and cut the pay and jobs of the workers, sooner or later the lack of spending comes home to roost.

    What the polls show:

    80% want increased spending on infrastructure.
    71% want a balanced approach with both tax increases and spending cuts.
    56% want the wealthy to pay higher taxes to reduce the deficit.


    The polls compared to the DC rhetoric show that not enough Democrats and no Republicans are paying any attention to the people, just to their big campaign donors.

  81. Not A Native
    September 18, 2011 at 8:36 am

    PJ, Warren Buffett, when asked by Charlie Rose whether Obama’s earlier tax proposal was ‘class war’ replied jokingly: The class war is over, and my side won.

    Personally , I think we need to develop an economy where investing profitably doesn’t rely on future increasing percapita consumption. But the way to do that and have political stability isn’t to create a large group of people who each consume little and a small group who each consume alot. Right now, capitalism is being equated by some as what used to be derisively called ‘speculation’. Speculation was believed to warrant heavy regulation and taxation because it was a threat to the economic well being of the populace.

  82. tra
    September 18, 2011 at 9:21 am

    I think we need to develop an economy where investing profitably doesn’t rely on future increasing percapita consumption.

    And also doesn’t rely on an endlessly increasing population size.

    Given that we live on a planet with a finite amount of space, a finite supply of resources and limits to the planet’s ability to absorb pollution and other human impacts, then a system that relies on an endlessly increasing population and/or endlessly increasing per-capita consumption, is, by definition, not sustainable over the long term.

  83. Plagiarizing results are evident once again
    September 18, 2011 at 9:23 am

    In a nutshell, it all translates to plagiarisms on this site…..as if PJ or anyone else has ever had the above discussions before, but for only after the sinister posters’ plagiarisms of other people’s intelligiences.

    Karma has bitten the Herald as the decling number of posters clearly represent. Apparantly, provocation in the wrong areas is indicitive of a “doomsday” result.

    Still laughing over the comments by people who really know very little about economics.

  84. Plain Jane
    September 18, 2011 at 9:32 am

    If I could figure out wtf Plagiarizing is saying, I might have a response; but nothing it said makes any sense.

  85. The past century of Duopoly Presidents have been elitist fools too
    September 18, 2011 at 9:43 am

    Clinton helped create the housing bubble too with the capital gains tax break change.

    Alas though, both repubs and demos applauded the move because for the wealthy, it meant more “wealth creation opportunities – tax free” and for the “social entitlement programmers” it meant a rise in costs (from speculatory over-valuations) which conjured up thoughts for more social aides. programs and other deceptive practices through regulatory schemes based on increased costs and taxes on the poorer via sales transactions – ya know, those transactions that the less fortunate were allowed to encumber because government backed the real-estate loan schemes of over-valuations that equated to no less than one time charges at the point-of-sale + sales transaction taxes, processing fees, mortgage interest payments, etc……. then the refis and reverse mortgage schemes came knocking when the # of transactions started to dip……

    Still laughing so hard it hurts. It all starts with over-population – there will never be enough jobs for everyone in America let alone the planet, not even close.

  86. PJ is still offering up PB&J sandwiches for consumption
    September 18, 2011 at 9:50 am

    PJ – is willfully blind to that which is truth and fact, no other reason but to make up stupid retorts that a blind person could see as stupid.

  87. Plain Jane
    September 18, 2011 at 9:53 am

    Is there a problem with the thread? My posts aren’t showing.

  88. Plain Jane
    September 18, 2011 at 9:54 am

    Ah, must be a block of JL’s name and usual ID. Looks like’s back.

  89. tra
    September 18, 2011 at 10:48 am

    For anyone who is curious about the prospects for an economy that is NOT reliant on a model of endlessly increasing population and endlessly increasing per-capita consumption, here’s a good place to start:


    One element that is necessary for us to begin to transition toward a sustainable economic system, but which is not discussed in that wikipedia overview, is that we must we must also stop (and I would argue, reverse) the trend of increasing economic inequality.

    In a world of finitie physical resources, there is no way that the rich and super-rich can continue to use more and more of those resources without that consumption taking away from what is available for everyone else. The fantasy of endless growth is the myth that masks that reality.

    The pursuit of true sustainability is the junction where the path of environmentalism intersects with the path of social and economic justice.

  90. September 18, 2011 at 10:57 am

    “Single payer health insurance means the government will quickly take over the health insurance industry.”

    Yes, HiFi. That’s the point.

  91. The Big Picture
    September 18, 2011 at 11:16 am

    The U.S. will be the last of the industrialized nations to do so.

  92. tra
    September 18, 2011 at 11:29 am

    If single-payer health care is such a horrible option, we’d better do away with single-payer fire protection too.

    Obviously it would be so much better for each city to have dozens of private fire protection companies, each with their own rules, their own bureacracies and varying levels of coverage, each competing for the most profitable parts of the market, while leaving a huge proportion of people having no fire protection.

    This should work out great, since fortunately fire, like communicable diseases, would NEVER spread from those in the unprotected portion of the population to those who do have protection.

    What’s that? Your house burned down because of the uncontrolled blaze at your unprotected neighbor’s house, and you contracted tuberculosis from an uninsured restauraunt worker? Awww, quit yer whinin’ and just be thankful for money you saved on taxes that would otherwise have gone to universal fire protection and universal health care.

  93. Plain Jane
    September 18, 2011 at 11:56 am

    The link about steady state economy is very interesting, Tra. Thanks.

  94. 06em
    September 18, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    For 69er at 10:08:

    May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

    July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

    February 2006 – October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

    December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.

    Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

    October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the “company’s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.”

    November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra’s very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

    January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment.

    March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

    June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.

    September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years – not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be “scored.” OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.

    January – June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra’s ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors.

    November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month — on time and on budget — employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

    February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company – which was a going concern – for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

    March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI): “despite the Administration’s urgency and haste to pass the bill [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] … billions of dollars have yet to be spent.”

    And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL): “The whole point of the Democrat’s stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars … most of the money still hasn’t been spent.”

    June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50%, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.

    August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.

    September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE’s loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.

    Meanwhile, after complaining about stimulus funds moving too slowly, Congressmen Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns are now claiming that the Administration was pushing funds out the door too quickly: “In the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the Administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning.”


  95. tra
    September 18, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Glad you liked it P.J.

    I doubt we’ll see humankind achieve a steady-state economy and true ecological fsustainability in my our own lifetimes, but I do hope to see us beginning to steer things in that direction.

    Endlessly increasing population and endlessly increasing per-capita consumption, which necessitates the increasing use of resources and increasing production of pollution are the fundamental drivers of so many of our struggles, whether we’re talking about struggles over land use, struggles over control of natural resources, or struggles over control of financial resources.

    The current “solution” to the problem of how the rich and super-rich can keep getting a larger and larger percentage of the pie, while middle-income and lower-income families can still get enough of the pie to survive, is to just keep growing that pie so that those getting a smaller and smaller percentage still get a big enough chunk to get by. But of course at some point there just isn’t enough room in the oven. At which point the larger and larger slices taken by the rich and super-rich necessarily reduce what’s left over for everyone else. It appears that we may have already reached that point, or that we are at least getting very, very close.

  96. The thing about pies and its slices
    September 18, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    Is that the pyramid scheme is inclusive of human population growth….”for when those who are put into economic penury (no matter how) begin to not give as much of their labor/earnings/wealth due to wising-up to the fraud of pyramid constructionisms”, the return on wealth investment for those nearer to the top understand that the ROI is dipping “due to its slaves becoming educated”. Therefore, import more people(immigration) or expand that pyramid abroad through outsourcing(hence globalization)….but at some point, it blows-up….for which was seered by enough folks, but scoffed by so many. Time to pay the Piper since we Americans are too smart for our own britches – unions, tax subsidies and exemptions, write-offs, grants, fiscal budgets, employee paycheck deductions, personal savings, forfeitures, bankruptcies, …….hmmmm, are we noticing more empty pockets of citizens within Americas borders that translates to importing new labor from abroad which is not educated to the financial terrorisms upon the individual within American borders….nah, then Americans would be even more savy on immigration, outsourced labor and decreasing wealth as a nation, regardless of personal income levels……Utopic!

  97. Anonymous
    September 18, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    “Single payer health insurance means the government will quickly take over the health insurance industry.”

    Yes, the “industry”, but not the health care. There is a difference!

    An insurance company has never provided me with care – only profited off of my misfortune or my fear of misfortune.

    Most of us (except share holders) would benefit from the management portion being a non-profit endeavor. Making money off illness (beyond reasonable salaries for professionals and expenses) is despicable, but that’s what this “industry” is all about.

  98. Plain Jane
    September 18, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    Health insurance industry CEO’s make tens of millions a year while surgeons who save lives every single day are struggling to pay their office overhead because of low reimbursement rates from the insurance industry and the growing numbers of uninsured who have no funds to pay their bills.

  99. Plain Jane
    September 18, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Listening to the GOP debates the other night, it’s obvious Dr. Paul hasn’t practiced in a long time. Doctors have always treated the indigent and, of course, that means the non-indigent pay more than they would if there were no indigent receiving free (to them) care. Today with much higher practice costs and lower insurance reimbursements as well as growing bad debt write-offs, private practices are selling out to corporations, consolidating and outsourcing as much of the paperwork as possible. McHealthmart here we come!

  100. Local sellouts are community members too, as cheezy as it may seem
    September 18, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    Wow, the little guy selling out to corporations, now that is interesting…..kinda says much about local community types….but who would know until after the sell-out, for which the former community type would now be despised, but not until caught red-handed. So, in the meantime, just think about how many local sell-outs exist under the radar.

    To be fair though, there most likely exists more labor force sell-outs than business owner sell-outs….just based on numbers and how money flows from pocket to pocket through supportive labor practices. So,let us guess, the labor force participants were backed into a corner and had to be a sell-out for personal income purposes working for an employer they’d rather not work for but for not their lack of wealth……Nah, the laborers of WalMart, Home Depot, Target, BP, Exxon, Warren Buffet, etc…. could never be sell-outs…..

  101. Plain Jane
    September 18, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    They aren’t sell-outs. They are dedicated physicians who are doing what they have to do to keep their office doors open to see patients. They can’t afford the heavy burden on their time and staff to fulfill the different insurance company requirements iwhile losing money on Medicaid patients and hemorrhaging it on the increasing number of patients who can’t pay. At your next checkup, ask your medical provider what they think of the current medical economic system.

  102. Percy
    September 19, 2011 at 7:49 am

    None of the nonsense that hifi and the cheerleaders spout makes any sense. I’m guessing non of these propagandists for the super rich actually are, although they can see themselves or their progeny getting there someday. That makes them nothing but Jews for Hitler.

  103. September 19, 2011 at 8:01 am

    “…it’s obvious Dr. Paul hasn’t practiced in a long time.”

    So true, but for Libertarians everything is theoretical.

  104. High Finance
    September 19, 2011 at 8:15 am

    And Percy is more concerned that some people are well off than he is about his own condition.

    He, and those like PJ and many others here, want to make society more equal by bringing down the successful instead of making the poor & jobless better off.

  105. High Finance
    September 19, 2011 at 8:27 am

    PJ brings up a perfect example. Supposedly all our health insurance problems with high costs are all due to a dozen CEO’s who make more than a million dollars a year. It is easy to appeal to lazy people who are infected with class envy & hatred of the rich.

    People like them don’t understand or want to bother trying to figure out the facts. If you combined all those 12 people’s salaries and cut them to zero the scale of the gross revenues would make the impact of your health insurance costs negligible.

    But it isn’t the costs that concern those type of haters. It is getting the rich to suffer.

  106. September 19, 2011 at 8:34 am

    HiFi desperately wants people to envy him for his “riches.”

  107. Anonymous
    September 19, 2011 at 8:40 am

    If the poor “hate” the rich and the rich “detest” the poor by withholding a safety net, who do you think hates more people?

  108. Plain Jane
    September 19, 2011 at 8:55 am

    It’s isn’t about envy or hatred, HiFi. It’s about an economic system that WORKS. The current one isn’t working, but apparently you haven’t notice. What a tool!

  109. Plain Jane
    September 19, 2011 at 9:03 am

    And here, a better mind than most on the dangers of economic bloodletting:


  110. Anonymous
    September 19, 2011 at 9:36 am

    “This isn’t class warfare, it’s math” Obama.

  111. Plain Jane
    September 19, 2011 at 9:43 am

    HiFi said, “”But it isn’t the costs that concern those type of haters. It is getting the rich to suffer.”

    It seems to me that HiFi is projecting since the rich don’t suffer from paying a few percent more in taxes, but the poor suffer horribly from lack of jobs and reductions in funding of the social and educational programs necessary to their very survival. Since the rich are increasing their wealth, sucking it out of worker’s pockets directly with lower wages and fewer domestic jobs and social programs with tax cuts while demanding an even greater reduction in domestic jobs (government workers) it’s obvious that it is they who want the working classes to suffer, not the other way around.

  112. Plain Jane
    September 19, 2011 at 9:45 am

    That should have said “fewer domestic jobs and *indirectly with tax cuts

  113. Plain Jane
    September 19, 2011 at 10:59 am

    The indisputable evidence shows that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer while tax rates for the very rich are at historic lows and funding for social programs is being cut as the numbers in need are increasing. Unions, public employees, the unemployed and the poor have been unceasingly assaulted since Reagan. Now that people are waking up and fighting back, they scream “CLASS WARFARE!” They do have a point. It’s not a war until both sides are fighting. Their claim of victimization is war propaganda, but no one who has been paying attention really believes it.

  114. Migh Finances
    September 19, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    You fools think you’re going to “speak truth to power” when power has always known exactly what it’s doing!

    My claims never require sources!

    My purpose is to provoke and I get far more responses and satisfaction by making childish accusations of others “hatred”!

  115. High Finance
    September 19, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    “You don’t raise taxes in a recession”

    Obama, August 2009

  116. September 19, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    “Supposedly all our health insurance problems with high costs are all due to a dozen CEO’s who make more than a million dollars a year.”

    No, HiFi. We have the shittiest health care system in the developed world, and CEOs who make too much money are just a part of the problem. You obviously haven’t taken the time to look at the problem, so why bother having an opinion?

  117. Walt
    September 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    . . .and it’s not “more than a million”. The average of the Fortune 500 CEOs’ salaries are $12 million/year. That’s the salaries. Then there’s the return on investment on the $12 million they had last year, and the year before. And yes, the shittiest healthcare system. Partly because the teapartiers CHEERED at the notion of somebody choosing not to pay exorbitant rates for health care being allowed to die. CHEERED. And Obush wants to make paying private insurers whatever they want to charge for insurane MANDATORY. And this is OK with Democrats. Yes, we have a HUGE problem.

  118. Plain Jane
    September 19, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    Raising taxes on people who are already struggling to survive doesn’t make sense at any time, but cutting funding for programs for the poor and firing public workers during a recession is obscene. If you want lower deficits in a recession, raising taxes and / or cutting programs which enrich the already rich is the only sensible, humane way to do it.

  119. Anonymous
    September 19, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Never mind that the lowest tax rates in several decades have not produced job growth this decade…

  120. High Finance
    September 19, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    “You don’t raise taxes in a recession”

    Obama, August 2009

  121. High Finance
    September 19, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    Obama’s tax increases in September 2011 ?

    Includes “fee” increases on those taking out new mortgages. $10 “fee” on all airline passengers taking non-stop round trip flights. Federal workers pay a new 1.2% “fee”, Military retirees pay a new “fee” of $200 upon turning 65 and will pay more for non-generic prescription drugs.

  122. Anonymous
    September 19, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    Never mind that the lowest tax rates in several decades have not produced job growth this decade

  123. September 19, 2011 at 7:51 pm

    Apparently, the “job creators” just need a few more tax cuts.

  124. Thorstein Veblen
    September 19, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    Why require the job creators to pay any taxes at all? Then maybe we could have full employment!!!

    Proof? Evidence? No, lets go by faith. After all, faith is more important than facts.

  125. Plain Jane
    September 19, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    Jeff is about to snap!

  126. HealthCare is not that shitty Joel
    September 19, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    Too many of the provided want to be over-pampered….some seem to always have a new problem everyday. Shucks, a boob job is often covered if ya want an increase or decrease in size, especially if some patients claim a mental disorder is associated with the onset of depression due to feeling physically unworthy. Often too, face-lifts are paid for by insurance……seems like the healthcare industry picks patients for guinea pig experiments it endorses. Oh well, pretty people need free aide too. Expectations are unreasonable because doctor side economics and patient side economics are attached to some industry that is really only about politics and profits.

    Wow, our ancestors were really in need of healthcare judging by the way evolution has played out…..darned ancestors living much more simply got our species all this way without a healthcare industry….say it ain’t so!

  127. Not A Native
    September 19, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    Why has he stopped posting under his own name? He used to claim that was a badge of honor, as opposed to those using pseudonyms. It was alot easier for me when I could just scroll past his posts. Now I’ve actually read a few and feel violated.

    And it seems that several posters now have a same gravatar, the one with pink background. I thought each email address generates a unique one. What’s the deal here H.??

  128. September 19, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    “Too many of the provided want to be over-pampered…”
    That does not make sense. And the rest of the comment is a load of nutty horse shit.

  129. September 19, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    His incontinent (and meaningless) use of ellipses is a dead giveaway.

  130. Thorstein Veblen
    September 19, 2011 at 10:32 pm

    Fun thread. Go Open Door Clinic. Go Danco.

  131. Juan Valdez
    September 20, 2011 at 3:00 am

    Danco? Don’t they have the dubious reputation for shoddy construction so they can make an extra buck. I bet the building will need upgrading within 2 years, at the cost of taxpayers.

  132. September 20, 2011 at 8:58 am

    I’m with Thorstein on this one. I’m happy for Open Door’s opportunity to expand and I’m glad that Danco can make it happen. Open Door is a much-relied-upon asset to this community.

  133. Plain Jane
    September 20, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Me too, Joel. Hopefully the expansion will allow them to start accepting new patients again and reduce the number of people who have no choice but to use Urgent Care for their routine medical problems.

  134. Anonymous
    September 20, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Both Regan and Clinton raised taxes during recessions and the economy improved.

    Job growth has slowed with the lowered of tax rates of the last several years.

    But Hi Fi can’t seem to acknowledge these facts

  135. Anonymous
    September 20, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Danco gets another grant ridden project? What a surprise.

  136. Plain Jane
    September 20, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    It doesn’t take an economic genius to understand where the increasing wealth of the super rich is coming from, 12:11, and the lower tax rates encourage it. It’s not like they have their own money printing presses.

  137. Migh Finance
    September 20, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    “You don’t raise taxes in a recession”

    Obama, August 2009

    I knew FDR, and Obama is no FDR.

    So, the more liberals that think he’s the Dali-Bama, the better!

    Thus, I can continue to provoke my opponents by merely taking quotes out of context and by calling them “haters”.

    Otherwise, I have ZIP to refute the evidence that higher minimum wages, not lower taxes, reduces unemployment.

  138. The Big Picture
    September 20, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    This nation’s greatest period of prosperity was at a time when the top tax rate was 91% for individuals and 36% for corporations.

  139. High Finance
    September 21, 2011 at 7:58 am

    Big Picture could have just as correctly said;

    This nation’s greatest period of prosperity was at a time when the
    Cold War was at its peak, Europe was still reeling from the devastation of WWII and blacks had separate drinking fountains in the South.

    Also a Republican was the president.

  140. September 21, 2011 at 8:57 am

    Yes HiFI, Eisenhower was indeed a Republican, though the John Birch Society (the Teabaggers of that era) accused him of being a communist.

  141. The Big Picture
    September 21, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    Corporations and individuals prospered nicely under the highest tax rates in U.S. history.

    This tax-investment in America’s human resources was seen as a patriotic duty and economic necessity that grew innovative, competitive manufacturing and the educated, healthy workforce that’s needed to operate and manage it..(independent of today’s child labor and foreign tyrannies).

    The liars, provocateurs and traitors who advocate against returning 91% tax rates cannot cite any economic research showing that reduced top-rates improve economies, foreign or domestic.

  142. Mark Twain
    September 21, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    “Let me make a nation’s superstitions and I care not who makes its laws or songs…”

  143. Anonymous
  144. High Finance
    September 22, 2011 at 10:04 am

    Even a burglar and common thief lets his victims keep more than 9% of their income.

  145. Plain Jane
    September 22, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Are you comparing President Eisenhower to a burglar or thief, HiFi?

  146. September 22, 2011 at 11:44 am

    I don’t think that we heard a fraction of the whining from the wealthy in the 1950s that we hear from the wealthy today who pay a fraction of the taxes.

  147. Ed
    September 22, 2011 at 11:59 am

    It was pre Fox and Limbaugh

  148. Plain Jane
    September 22, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    Pre-revocation of the Fairness Doctrine.

  149. September 22, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    And, like the wealthy of today, nobody paid their scheduled rate.

  150. Plain Jane
    September 22, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    All the voters back then had lived the great depression, not just read about it in history books and, more recently, heard about it from economic history revisionists.

  151. High Finance
    September 22, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    And back in the 50’s when the rates were up so high there were many, many more deductions and tax shelters available.

    You are comparing apples to oranges to compare that top rate to today’s.

  152. September 22, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    There’s a dearth of deductions and tax shelters?

  153. The Big Picture
    September 22, 2011 at 10:27 pm

    As long as Heraldo’s readers take the time to become roiled over Hi-Liar’s unapologetic repetitions of the same tired lies about tax burdens, exclusions and deductions (among many other subjects), I suggest repeating expert testimony to dispatch the troll at a keystroke:

    “Government paid for all of this with tax revenues from an expanding middle class with rising incomes. Revenues were also boosted by those at the top of the income ladder whose marginal taxes were far higher. The top marginal income tax rate during World War II was over 68%. In the 1950s, under Dwight Eisenhower, whom few would call a radical, it rose to 91%. In the 1960s and 1970s the highest marginal rate was around 70%. Even after exploiting all possible deductions and credits, the typical high-income taxpayer paid a marginal federal tax of over 50%. But contrary to what conservative commentators had predicted, the high tax rates did not reduce economic growth. To the contrary, they enabled the nation to expand middle-class prosperity and fuel growth”.

    Robert Reich, a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was secretary of labor during the Clinton administration. He blogs at robertreich.org, where this originally appeared. It is excerpted from his May 12 testimony to the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and his recent book, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future. It also appeared at Salon.com.

  154. High Finance
    September 22, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    You are awful dense there Mr Big.

    But try and think for once. If the federal tax rate was put back at 91% and California’s is almost 10% …… I guess that means they would pay 101% of their income to taxes.

    This is nothing more than class envy. Shame on you.

  155. High Finance
    September 22, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    The economy grew fast during the 50’s & 60’s not because of high income taxes but despite them.

    The growth had to do with rapidly expanding markets in
    Europe and Asia who were rebuilding from the devastation of WWII and because we did not have the competition that we do today.

    It also had to do with our rapidly growing middle class. A middle class that was growing also because of the above.

  156. The Big Picture
    September 23, 2011 at 12:17 am

    “And back in the 50′s when the rates were up so high there were many, many more deductions and tax shelters available”.

    Call him on the crap he makes up, and he just makes up more!

    He needs no sources or research to reference, he’s a legend in his own mind.


  157. WhatNow
    September 23, 2011 at 2:17 am

    Highly Fried ventured to following hallucination 9/22/11 @ 11 pm:

    “The economy grew fast during the 50′s & 60′s not because of high income taxes but despite them.

    The growth had to do with rapidly expanding markets in
    Europe and Asia who were rebuilding from the devastation of WWII and because we did not have the competition that we do today.

    It also had to do with our rapidly growing middle class. A middle class that was growing also because of the above.”

    Evidently the only information he manages to acceess durting his ertrattic and fitful attempts at sobriety come only from Chicago School Adherents, The Berkley Business Scool “mafia” and fellow inebriates.

  158. September 23, 2011 at 9:02 am

    HiFi would benefit from a regular regimen of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

  159. September 23, 2011 at 11:52 am

    “That makes them nothing but Jews for Hitler.”
    Hey Man! You’ll be hearing from my attorneys….Ha!
    (No seriously…keep spreadin’ the word, Dude.)

  160. High Finance
    September 24, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    I thought you were against torture Joel ?

  161. September 25, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    Seriously, HiFi. Thoughtful and droll stuff, especially Colbert.

  162. September 26, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    Now==to graduate frm a public colleeg requires commmitted future debt of forty or fifty thousands of dollars–
    .A diffeent economy Do we ca re??????

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s