President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 04, 2009 03:12 PM UTC
41 Comments
from CNN
What’s especially worrisome is they are asking the unions for 10 million in savings, but are losing 85 million this year. Calling on every bit of my vast mathematics skills, I think that means they will still lose 75 million this year.
Newspapers the old way does not appear to be a sustainable business.
to install weather-stripping on older, drafty homes, and Boston has a lot of those.
from CNN
Keeping the cash (earnings from their overseas Corps and Dutch shell companies) off shore and investing it in low cost economies with prospects for growth.
Then they’ll tell Wall Street to value their businesses not on repatriated cash for dividends (to pay PERA who holds their shares), but some other measure such as EBITDA.
I wouldn’t count on the Treasury seeing a revenue (tax) increase of $100 billion over the next 10 years, but I would count on sovereign nations seeing $100 billion in added DFI to spur their economic growth.
I ask this without snark: How does that differ from what they’re doing now?
In terms of capital allocation, they’ll continue to operate as businesses do – maximize cash generating investments – they just be doing less in the US.
Or at least US shareholders.
So what’s wrong with thsi scenario?
If offshore corps quit paying dividends, then it follows that their share price will fall. Consequently, the value of management stock options falls significantly. CEOs get mad and quit to go work for US-based companies.
You know dividends, you get’em and you pay taxes on them.
Wake up dude, you’re a mongering tax whore and you don’t even understand what feeds your socialist appetite.
closing loopholes that allow the corporate elite to thumb their noses at ordinary American taxpayers. Also to legislation that would help people stay in their homes and make payments on their credit cards. Profit now is their only consideration. They’ll no doubt be joined by “moderate” Dems like Ben Nelson and our own Michael Bennet.
Surely they are all too big to fail so we’ll just have to keep giving them every break and loophole they ask for and bailing them out the next time and the next and the next. Complete gold-plated safety nets and tax breaks for the elite aren’t socialism in their book. Stuff like decent health care and fair by business practices for all the little people, now that’s socialism, fascism and communism all rolled into one, to hear the righties spin it.
So let the little people bail out the Masters of the Universe and sweat over taxes. Just one little thing… Who do they think is going to bail them out and support them in their accustomed style after they’ve sucked the American middle completely dry? Maybe they should consider giving the goose that’s been laying their golden eggs a break or two, including contributing a few bucks in taxes. The higher rate they whine about is a joke considering so many corporations manage to avoid paying a cent and the individuals who control those corporations so often pay at a lower rate than their secretaries as it is.
If the loopholes are truly closed, then a substantial majority of management must be conducted overseas by people living overseas in order for the companies to escape the tax laws. If they want to be a foreign corporation, then they can be a foreign corporation. Import/export laws, membership on foreign exchanges, the whole deal.
I, personally, would go a step further and do what many other countries do: ensure that U.S. operations of any company are done by a U.S. subsidiary subject to U.S. tax law. You want to do business in the (still) largest economy in the world? Pay your fair share of taxes.
from the Daily Camera
Gee, if only there was a system that could solve this problem quickly and inexpensively. If only…
There are thousands of unemployed finance and accounting managers looking for work.
… some basic project management, some number 2 pencils, Microsoft Office, some outsourcing for management talent, and Windward (via a competitive bid) would do wonders.
I truly believe there are millions wasted by the government because they have control gaps, choose to buy expensive IBM (just a phrase) solutions, don’t have some crusty old asshole CPA riding herd and choose not to by off the shelf solutions like Windward.
Did I mention Windward Reports, a local Colorado company that services copious amounts of financial reporting solutions to many large organizations throughout the world?
Libertad predicts he will die, uncertain on timing.
Guv sees successful election, uncertain if he’ll retain the Mansion.
Libertad sees need for bathroom, uncertain when he’ll crap next.
I know Buffet just held his big annual meeting, but crap like this makes me think the PR machine is rumbling out of control or he had nothing more positive to say.
but Buffet can see the end of the resession from his office on Farnam Street in Omaha.
More yet … yesterday Buffet was pumping the crap out of Wells Fargo, how strong it is, etc… The out of left field comes the administration shitting all over Wells Fargo in terms of ‘stress test’ risk.
Two things are sure. Buffet just got spanked by Geithner and the Administration feels fairly comfortable that the US will see sustained 11% unemployment and a further 22% drop in U.S. home prices (their stress test variables).
In yesterday’s largely disagreeable discussion of Markey’s vote against the budget, there was a chorus hereabouts that said, in effect: “I like an independent minded representative who doesn’t just vote the party line.”
So, I wonder: what was this independent thought/analysis of Markey, anyway, that caused her to vote against the budget but for the stimulus? Were the other 200-odd Democrats just “mindlessly voting the party line,” whereas Markey knew something they didn’t? Was she in a tiny group that had the, errr, physiological qualifications to vote for “the right thing to do” and “stand up to party pressures?” As opposed to caving in to her own calculation–miscalculation in my view–of political pressures of a different sort.
Odd that of her 10 her fellow Democratic dissidents on the budget all but one (Kucinich) were from perceived “Republican” districts, mostly in the Confederacy, whose hold on office is widely regarded as extremely tenuous. Does The Chorus really think that voting like a Republican will cause Republicans to vote for a Democrat?
Voting “against the party line” may or may not be an act of political courage, or independent thought. I can easily imagine, say, a bill regulating the cattle feedlot industry that would fall especially hard on the 4th CD and would spur the representative from that district to go against the party to protect the specific interests of her constituents.
But the budget was no such bill. It was arguably much more one of principle than of practicality from a political viewpoint (“I’m against deficits,” or “I’m against deficits bigger than $xxxx,” said number being known to Markey but not to Obama and Pelosi and Hoyer and all but 10 other “Democratic” representatives.) And, I would argue, much harder to justify on behalf of someone who styles herself a Democrat.
For a point of reference, take a look at Krugman’s column in the NYT today on the subject of whether we (the government) is spending enough yet to avoid a Japan-style deflation.
maybe you were talking about some other discussion, but my support for Markey is not because she is “an independent thinker.” I support her because I don’t really care how or what she thinks so long as she supports a good democrat for Speaker and leadership.
The only thing that matters for Markey is making sure she has a voting record she can defend for re-election. The leadership will take it from there and make sure the budget, stimulus, etc. get passed.
Markey ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism, and a desire to balance the budget and spend responsibly.
You and I, JO, agree that the stimulus and the budget were important pieces of legislation that needed to be passed in order to do something to stop the freefalling economy. Early signs seem to indicate the stimulus is having some sort of positive effect and we may see the recession end as soon as this year or early next year.
Whether or not a yes vote was the “right thing to do” as you and I believe, it certainly wouldn’t have been a vote for fiscal conservatism, and almost assuredly would have been a broken campaign promise.
Whether or not we agree with the political viewpoints shared by the large majority of her constituents, Markey was not only representing them, but she was following through with what she said she was going to do during the campaign.
I disagreed with her vote on this too, but in the end who did it hurt? The stimulus and the budget were passed by a wide margin, and when we look back on them and see that they were exactly what the country needed at the time, Markey, the rest of the Dems who voted no, and of course the Republicans, will receive no credit.
In the end our opinions on this don’t make a lick of difference since, if you’re like me, you don’t live in CD-4 (if you do, then you definitely have a legitimate gripe with your representative.) Even if we did, and tried to get a primary campaign against her going, we’d run into such a tiny amount of support it’d make the Draft Andrew campaign look like an overwhelming consensus.
First off, yes I have my preferences as to how Congress votes. But when it comes to individual reps, when bills are not coming down to a matter of a couple of votes, I am much more concerned on the other work they do. What bills and amendments they bring forward. What work they do in committee to improve legislation. Their constituent service. Their town hall meetings. All of that has much more impact.
And there will be times I am very upset with their votes. But if I have a bunch of litmus test votes, pretty soon everyone in Congress has flunked one or another. They’re not always going to vote as I want. No matter how important I think it is – every single one will vote the other way.
And as RSB said, Betsy was elected to represent her voters and that means she should vote in line with their wishes most (not all) of the time on major legislation. That is the essence of our representative democracy. Dianna DeGette representing Colo Spgs or Doung Lamborn representing Denver would just be wrong.
But with al that said, your complaining is also an important and valid part of the process. If this is very important to you you should let Betsy know, and explain the why as you have done.
viz. to have a Democrat representing the fourth CD, for the entire gamut of reasons, from keeping the House under Democratic control to enacting legislation of all sorts that will move ahead an agenda of social justice and economic evolution.
And thanks to David for the observation that Markey needs to hear complaints when she votes against the Democrats, whether it’s crucial or not.
There is no inherent reason that the majority of voters in CD4 should be impervious to a change of mind, or be immune to understanding the basic principles of Keynesian economics. I would very much like to see Ms. Markey take an active role in helping persuade her constituents, including the “unaffiliateds,” make the transition and convince them that Keynsianism works, as it has proved to do in practice over and over.
The best guarantee of having a Democrat from CD4 to help reelect the Speaker is to convert a majority of voters to the Democratic philosophy. As I keep saying (but will not repeat after this…at least not for a few days!): Voting with the Republicans is a very dangerous idea for Democrats because it’s an action that that speaks the words: I think the Republicans, and their politico-economic policies, are right.
(That said, delightful to see a conversation carried out without resorting to ad hominem attacks or snide remarks.)
same to you.
She’s doing that with other issues besides the economy, like the Matthew Sheppard Act.
Could you please make the banner logo linky again? It’s useful for going back to the main page from stories/diaries.
Where I work, we call it an easter egg when you have a not-so-obvious link with some hidden content (except we do it on purpose).
Any way, in the banner you can click on “you ate five of them“. That’ll work.
Or click aboveColoraPols.com.
Must be a problem with layering of divs or some such thing.
While the page is loading, the link is “visible” – mouse over it, and you get the linky hand cursor and the status bar shows the URL for CP. But some way through the screen load, it stops – must be a div thing for ad space.
Please fix.
Quinnipiac has a new poll out of PA. It’s got Arlen Specter (D-Pa) running 20% ahead of presumptive GOP nominee Pat Toomey and Club for Growth President (53% to 33%).
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x132…
The only candidate who comes close to beating Specter in the general is RINO Tom Ridge (46% to 43%).
it would be hilarious to see Specter defeated by him. It’s one thing to be self-interested and not much of a team player, but this is ridiculous. He’s promising to vote more conservatively now than when he was a Republican (when he supported EFCA).
Once people start paying attention to this race, Specter will start dropping in the polls.
Unlike the guys who host Sunday talk shows, most people don’t particularly like someone who plays both sides of the fence, especially if that’s his only real claim to fame. The switch is going to hurt him in the general election, I’ll bet, unless he starts actually trying to be a Democrat.
.
and he has no respect for the guy.
What makes you think Spector can win the Dem primary ?
.
unless he actually becomes a Democrat.
because Obama, Biden, Reid, Menendez, and Schumer are all going to make sure he does.
There’s a lot of time until a primary.
If there was a deal done, Specter is going to have to uphold his portion, whatever that was, before anyone else upholds theirs.
Personally, I think there was a deal made for Specter’s vote on health care. He’s still being obscure on that point.
If he doesn’t vote the right way, his primary support will evaporate.
Don’t ask me if I think Specter is worth whatever deal has been made. I’ve followed him for too many years to think he’s worth much of anything.
is Specter is making a big deal of being his own man. So when he then votes the Dem party line he can claim it’s because he wants to, not because he promised.
and that was also with the help of most/all of the people you named.
the party didn’t have a standard bearer with a 68% approval rating. So long as Obama stands behind Specter (which he has said he would), I don’t see how Specter could be outed in a primary.
From a commenter at TPM. Could apply to some of our conservadems in this state too.