Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn 2004, 20 million unmarried women – single, divorced, separated or widowed – didn't vote. In 2006, that number was 30 million. Depressing? Yes. But in 2008, these women are also known as the voting bloc that could determine the outcome of this election and many more to come.
Unmarried women make up the largest bloc of non-voters in the nation. Over 26 percent of eligible voters – 53 million people – are unmarried women. And for the first time in history there are as many women who are unmarried as married. A majority of households in the nation are headed by an unmarried person. Unmarried women are growing at twice the rate of married women since 2000, but are 9 percentage points less likely to register and 13 percentage points less likely to vote than married women.
Women's Voices. Women Vote. (WVWV) is targeting 25 states in an effort to register over one million unmarried women and reach out to an additional 3 million "low-propensity voters." (Unmarried women who are registered but didn't vote in at least one of the last two presidential elections.) WVWV Founder and President, Page Gardner, says, "We are making sure the voices of women on their own are heard in the political process. Particularly, that they are heard from in terms of the strength of their numbers. Polling shows that these women are paying attention earlier than ever before and they are motivated. They are wanting change, they are desperate for change, and we are going to see their participation go up." Gardner points to a recent study by the polling firm, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, that showed 85 percent of unmarried women saying they are so frustrated with the direction of the country, they are more likely to vote.
WVWV understands that it's not just about registering the voters but also getting them to cast their ballots. "Given their income, many of these women are incredibly stretched," Gardner says. "We have to not only take the registration to them, we have to take the voting booth to them too." She says that in 2006 they conducted a vote-by-mail program that was "extraordinarily successful." (All WVWV programs are tested before they are rolled out – with a control group and a treatment group – so the value of the program in gaining new voters and its cost-effectiveness can be determined.) In addition to registration forms, WVWV will be providing vote-by-mail applications so that women can vote at their convenience and take their time to study the candidates. The group also has a strong online presence, including widgets and banners that people can place on their own sites, allowing visitors to watch a "20 million Reasons" PSA campaign and register to vote.
In contrast to married women, Gardner says, unmarried women are largely driven by economic issues when it comes to their politics. She points to the fact that 44 percent of them live in households with annual incomes of $30,000 or less, while approximately 44 percent of married women live in households earning over $75,000 annually. One in five unmarried women lacks health care, and 50 percent of children who are age six or younger – and live with single Moms – live in poverty. The connection between this voting bloc's economic concerns and its potential power at the polls isn't lost on Ann Lewis, Senior Advisor at Hillary Clinton for President. Lewis coined the phrase "single anxious female" which has since gained traction in the press.
"I was talking to a reporter who used a term I didn't like – something that sounded too Sex and the City," Lewis told me. "So I said that wasn't accurate, the biggest common factor was economic anxiety, more like single anxious female."
According to Lewis, the Clinton campaign has a layered program to connect with "women on their own" and make an impact. "We know that they are more likely to be economically vulnerable," she says, "and to think of themselves as outsiders to the political system. So our outreach programs include an emphasis on economic issues that make a difference in their lives – like equal pay – where Hillary has been the leader in the Senate on strengthening equal pay laws. We also did a series of events around Equal Pay Day in the early primary states and nationwide. In New Hampshire, we held a panel discussion led by Evelyn Murphy, an expert on equal pay, and released a list of women supporters, including the [New Hampshire] co-chair who was also the first woman firefighter in the state. In Iowa, [former First Lady of Iowa] Christie Vilsack did a press conference with two cakes – one whole one representing men's pay, and one with a big slice taken out for women's pay; in Nevada, an open letter was signed by many women urging support for Hillary's equal pay bill. Meanwhile, nationally, Hillary spoke at a rally at the Capitol – as she has done before. We also featured a calculator on our website where women could figure out their own wage gap. Hillary also often talks about her commitment to Social Security – and her opposition to Republican attempts to privatize it – as an example of where she stands up and fights. Single women also often have family responsibilities – Hillary talks about her work for children's health, and also issues like long-term care, because being responsible for aging parents is a growing concern."
Audrey Waters, spokesperson for the John Edwards for President campaign, says that Senator Edwards has an agenda that strikes a chord with all women, and his economic platform in particular appeals to unmarried women. "Senator Edwards has proposed a bold and specific policy agenda on issues that most directly impact women voters," says Waters. "We're proud of the tremendous support it has earned Senator Edwards among women." She also points to the campaign website's Women for Edwards page and "an extensive outreach effort, led in part by NARAL Pro-Choice America President Emeritus, Kate Michelman, who has campaigned for us in New Hampshire and other early states."
While Lewis and Waters both point to the importance their campaigns place on addressing issues of particular concern to unmarried women, the Obama for America campaign seems to have a different approach. Spokesperson Jen Psaki said, "Women connect with Barack's message regardless of age, marital status or income because of the new ideas and real change he'll bring to Washington. All women are tired of politicians telling them what they want to hear; Barack tells them what they need to hear. They want an end to divisive politics in Washington and Barack is the only candidate who's actually worked to bring people together to get things done that matter to people – in the Illinois and US Senate he's been able to bring Republicans and Democrats together to pass ethics reforms, health care for uninsured children, domestic violence prevention, and bring change to the way government works." Psaki described the Obama campaign's outreach efforts: "We have a broad approach to communicating with women and some of that outreach connects in particular with younger, unmarried women through blogs, emails, e-newsletters, and podcasts. But the most effective way to reach out to undecided women is through the one-on-one contact that our supporters have with their undecided friends, family, colleagues and neighbors. It's that kind of outreach that's created our 20,000 women-strong grassroots organization, Women for Obama. These women have hosted house parties, book clubs, phone banks, Girls Night Out, canvassing, and other grassroots events to bring women together with other women to talk about their support for Obama."
Lewis also says that the Clinton campaign works hard in its outreach efforts to address feelings unmarried women have of being political outsiders. She says, "Our program in Iowa, for example, is geared to encouraging people, especially women, who have not caucused before: our Caucus with a Buddy program and the video Caucusing is Easy. We also feature women as messengers, knowing that woman-to-woman communication can be particularly effective. Single women strongly support having more women in elected office; many of our surrogates are elected women leaders, like Senator Barbara Mikulski, Congresswomen Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Sheila Jackson Lee, Allyson Schwartz, Hilda Solis, etc…."
While the campaigns vie for this voting bloc that the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner study described as "hav[ing] the power to reshape American politics further, if they vote," Gardner and WVWV will continue to do the hard work to make sure their voices are heard. She says they have partnered with both state and national organizations, including state-based and national groups, USAction Education Fund, Project Vote, Working America, and others.
"Our attitude is, ‘Steal this book,' Gardner says. "We share our materials, research, lists – anything to help [other 501c3] organizations increase the participation rates of unmarried women… anyone interested in doing that, we consider partners." Gardner says that every year since WVWV's founding in 2004 the organization's voter lists have grown in value, and their programs are increasingly innovative. "We have the best marital status model – predicting the likelihood that a person is unmarried – in the country," she says. "We have designed a model to predict who is and who is not likely to respond to voter registration and vote-by-mail efforts, so that helps organizations use their dollars wisely. And we know the issues that concern these women so we can ensure that we are talking to them in a way that resonates."
Gardner knows the impact that unmarried women can have – not only in 2008 – but the years ahead. "What we're trying to do by making this group of women heard – not just through voting, but advocating for their issues, and making sure politicians see their power – that they are the decisive factor in so many races….We are saying that their issues of concern need to be at the top of the list. Their power when they participate is astounding. We want that power realized, and their agenda to become America's agenda."
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
But again, the salient point is...
"In 2004, 20 million unmarried women – single, divorced, separated or widowed – didn't vote. In 2006, that number was 30 million. Depressing? Yes."
Seems an odd thing to bet a Presidential campaign on (Hillary, Edwards, or Obama), when the trend is DOWNWARD not upwards.
Or is this another of those "youth vote" things, where the promise comes every 2-4 years that "THIS year, this bloc will be the one that decides the election!"?
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2007 @ 3:47pm
While I don't disagree with you, I don't understand how you're able to constantly stalk this page and fire your grapeshot before the rest of the peanut gallery even realizes there's a new post.
Posted by chimichenga at 12/20/2007 @ 4:05pm
How could HRC know ANYTHING about unmarried, sub-$30k, head-of-household womens' struggles?
IF anything, she is the poster girl for riding her husband's coattail....even as Bill made multiple stops, NOT having sex of course, visiting with UNMARRIED women. I wonder what Helen Reddy thinks of HRC?
Another thin, specifically targeting unmarried women sounds like divisive politics to me.......but then, that's why we `like' her....heheheheh!!!
Posted by Happy at 12/20/2007 @ 4:18pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/20/2007 @ 4:05pm
I pay some poor Guatemalans to blog for me 19 hours a day.
HEY! It gives them some needed cash, so they don't mind only sleeping 5 hours a day.
Wanna buy a knapsack?
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2007 @ 4:19pm
anything that can get more than 25% of the u.s. population to pick the president of the world (at least for a while longer) is a good thing.
some serious election reform would help.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 4:28pm
Posted by MASK 12/20/2007 @ 3:47pm
thomas maskolot, circa 1770:
"Nay, i say. We'll NEVER have enough support to render the Redcoats asunder. and to WHOM will we give the reigns of power if the King WERE to be defeated?!?!?!?!?"
heheh
:+]
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 4:33pm
I think the concerns of unmarried women who are part of our working poor is a "real" concern.
Equal pay legislation is a good start, but like with the equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws that are already on the books, they mean nothing if they are not enforced.
What is really needed are community based outreach and support that connects people in their own neighborhoods. Many of these women feel isolated, and therefore community support groups can help these women feel connected to others in similar circumstances.
For single moms, increased federal funding of child care through tax deductions or credits should be pursued. Working moms still have a difficult time finding affordable and reliable childcare, and the federal government needs to step up to the plate and ease the financial burden associated with childcare for working mothers.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/20/2007 @ 4:40pm
Posted by MASK 12/20/2007 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person
No, you're the one blogging (when not engaging in other activities on line that may very well land you on an episode of To Catch a Predator).
Posted by chimichenga at 12/20/2007 @ 4:52pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/20/2007 @ 5:14pm
If that father is in prison, then tracking him down won't help much.
Child support enforcement is definitely on the rise, but what about the women that this doesn't help?
Posted by Metteyya at 12/20/2007 @ 5:19pm
It amazes me that with the tremendous struggle women went through to gain the right to vote, that women of today don't vote. Perhaps one of the campaign websites could put up a shortened YouTube version of a History Channel episode on the sufferage movement that led to the 19th amendment or something. Something to refresh in the minds of women voters the hard fought right they have.
I am glad to see that the candidates are addressing this issue. If history repeats itself, it apparently won't help.
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/20/2007 @ 5:38pm
Supposedly the polls indicate that single women are twice as likely to lean Democratic than their married counterparts - a far more significant result than the vaunted 'gender gap' of years past.
So it's no wonder that the pollster-driven, focus-grouping Hillary would come out with a gimmick like the highly problematic 'equal pay' proposal, a warmed-over version of the 'comparable worth' conundrum of the 70s.
Genuinely Democratic proposals for improving the lot of all single parents might include raising the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Credit, or Standard Deduction. The Child Tax Credit in particular has tremendous appeal, as evidenced by the Liar-In-Chief's allegation during the 2006 campaign that a Democratic majority would cut the Credit.
Posted by samcrossett at 12/20/2007 @ 5:59pm
How about making the child support a father pays tax deductible?
Posted by mtspence05 at 12/20/2007 @ 6:04pm
Does anyone know of a candidate that is wanting to do away with the marriage penalty? I know when I got remarried in 2005, I lost over 3K in taxes. She lost almost twice as much.
MT, I like that idea!
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/20/2007 @ 6:09pm
.....Democratic majority would cut the Credit.
Posted by SAMCROSSETT 12/20/2007 @ 5:59pm
....know of a candidate that is wanting to do away with the marriage penalty?
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 12/20/2007 @ 6:09pm
The Dems will both "cut" the Child Credit (now $1k each) and "do away" with marriage RELIEF by letting Bush's 2001/2003 Tax Cuts EXPIRE in 2010. That is what has been flaunted to the loonies since these `cuts', benefit the so-wealthy!
Well, if the Dems do as they say (certainly not a trustworthy thing, LOL!) and let these expire, at least the Child Credit `benefit' don't affect me....He's already NOT "Under 17"...Tx Yr 2006 was the last time for us....sniff, sniff......
Posted by Happy at 12/20/2007 @ 7:03pm
Single, unwed mothers are one of many demographic 'voting blocs' that by and large don't vote because they are too consumed with raising children and/or struggling economically to have the effort to seek out real political information. In the hour or so of spare time that one may have, they turn on the tube and are inundated with garbage. Yet another example of how successful the subjugation tactic has been for the greedy elitists at the top to remain on top.
Posted by MATTMAN at 12/20/2007 @ 7:41pm
...And crown thy good, with motherhood... from sea to shining sea...
K... so we've got 45 million single moms in this country, that as a voting block are potentially 'the deciders' for the presidential election in 2008. This would require a candidate that actually 'appeals' to their interests as a group... which is certainly a rarity for US elections.
Most single moms live perilously close to the poverty line, and would probably 'rather not'... and I think that it's pretty obvious that keeping 40% of the mothers in this country on an unbearably short economic tether is a bad plan for the future of our country.
What's the real problem here though...? Thats a heck of a lot of single moms, and I'm just not comfortable with the 'notion' (no pun intended) that this is acceptable, or 'just something to get used to'. Kids need dads and families, and both dads and moms need loving partners after the 'hot sex' has cooled... and a prosperous posterity for all prefers a properly adjusted progeny. Is the future our priority, or not?
C'mon... add it all up... little things like... you know... the National Debt of 9 trillion and rising fast with which we kid ourselves with monthly 'additives' that our economy is safe and secure... The 'Environment' (need I say more?)... America's general reliance on credit as 'a way of life', rather than a fall back system... Oil based economy in a nano based technological 'now and forever'... And an out of control market economy that encourages short term gain for the wealthiest among us to the exclusion of 'all other factors'...
But, I digress...
Why is it "OK" that America no longer values 'the family'...?
Could it maybe... just kinda be... because... Oh I don't know... well... you know... like... isn't it possible that our... whatchacallit... Uh...'quality of life' issues... aren't really attainable for most of us because we're just too darn busy trying to make ends meet? Especially single moms.
Yup... too darn busy to take part in our only hope for improving our overall situation, so 'caught up' in the turmoil of 'trying to get by' that our voices can not be heard over the towering static of commercial drug disclaimers and campaign ads funded by the very people that are 'selling short' on Americas (read: our children's) future.
Democracy is a responsibility... not a pastime... not just some inconvenient intrusion into the divine right of Kings...
ttr
Posted by ttr at 12/20/2007 @ 7:41pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/20/2007 @ 7:31pm
Which demoncrats gave you the $50k figure?
$250K annual sounds more reasonable to me.
But doggone it, I'm not running for president! Oh well, I'm not electable anyway.
Posted by MATTMAN at 12/20/2007 @ 7:44pm
Most single moms live perilously close to the poverty line, and would probably 'rather not'... and I think that it's pretty obvious that keeping 40% of the mothers in this country on an unbearably short economic tether is a bad plan for the future of our country. Posted by TTR 12/20/2007 @ 7:41pm
I guess that's a matter of perspective, which is exactly the perpetual problem for those on the losing end. The oligarchs consistently bank on this strategy.
Posted by MATTMAN at 12/20/2007 @ 7:55pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/20/2007 @ 8:00pm
A stratified system of taxation in which the basic premise of you make more, you pay more, seems about perfect to better distribute wealth, and thus encourage consumerism and stimulate the economy. Shit, the rich have what they need, and probably what they want anyway.
Posted by MATTMAN at 12/20/2007 @ 8:12pm
That was fun, later.
Posted by MATTMAN at 12/20/2007 @ 8:12pm
Demoncrat speak is "no tax cuts for the rich like Bush gave" , but what they don't tell you is that Demoncrats think anyone making over $50,000. is rich according to all their tax scales they keep trying to promote everytime they get into power. So far they have been lucky promoting the idea since they have always fooled their followers in the past and know a sucker when they see one!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/20/2007 @ 7:31pm | ignore this person
you are just making this up, you bullshit artist. Bush's tax cuts went predominantly for the rich rich.
Posted by el dorado at 12/20/2007 @ 9:01pm
ZERO,
You are not being PC!! Women are a protected class!!
Hope I earned some brownie points w/KvH....
Posted by Happy at 12/20/2007 @ 9:11pm
Zero... Down, boy...
KVH is neither downplaying the role men have to play in the coming election, nor is she suggesting that women should band together to vote for women candidates. And, I see no evidence of KVH 'franticly rushing' to fixate on the importance of women in society...
She is merely pointing out a relevant voting contingency that may have gotten lost in the shuffle, and it is much to the detriment of our overall condition that single moms are preemptively disenfranchised by the system they bear many burdens for.
I must admit, however, to be of the opinion that women do in fact have the "most important figures in society"... ;^)... or certainly the most alluring...
Oh, well... one out of two isn't bad...
Posted by ttr at 12/20/2007 @ 9:14pm
Bush's tax cuts went predominantly for the rich rich.
Posted by EL DORADO 12/20/2007 @ 9:01pm
Demonspeak!! It's true that the "rich rich" got a higher % cut but in total dollars, the other-than-"rich rich" received the bulk of the cuts.
A major fallacy of the Left....the "rich rich" is such a small portion of the total taxpayer base and deft at legal maneuvers to avoid many taxes, any scheme to up tax collection by meaningful amounts, WILL HAVE TO `touch' a lot of $50k-$250k folks! Collateral Damage? Watch capital gains tax receipts shrivel......Oh, first, a severe recession is the boobie prize as the ink dries on the Demon Tax Bill.
Posted by Happy at 12/20/2007 @ 9:24pm
Restoring the Estate Tax, borne by the 'rich rich' like the Bush family, would more than suffice to pay for tax cuts to lift working families, headed by one parent or two, out of poverty.
Yet Republicans like Gingrich have opposed tax cuts like Billy Clinton's increase in the Earned Income Credit on the grounds that cutting taxes on the workers constitutes 'welfare'!
Don't forget the dire predictions by Republicans that Billy Clinton's more-progressive taxation and deficit reduction would produce a 'severe recession'!
Posted by samcrossett at 12/20/2007 @ 9:38pm
What about this! Help empower working women, to include single women, to organize and demand a reasonable share of a company's profits through collective negotiation and reasonable living wages. We are speaking of single women, many without skills and education for corporate ladder climbing, who consist of the lowest levels of income, importantly - along with their children, and have no, nonononono voice in their ability to change their lives. Why should they vote when in concrete circumstance, what the frost difference does it make?
Get the forken politicians to approve the Employee Free Choice legislation that continues to flounder in committee because everyone knows it will not make the vote. It gives employees the right to form unions and have a democratic right to self determination in their lives to bargin for improvements. Believe me, if there is real, concrete evidence that their participation on this very real level counts, we will have that voting block back their backers. If there are no backers for these women, why would we expect that they step forward to give a vote which in their eyes is meaningless.
It is a mult-pronged approach with tax credits, child care grants, and freer participation in the workplace that is oriented to self-determination.
Posted by steve foster at 12/20/2007 @ 10:06pm
making the rich pay their share makes all of us better off, including the rich, as they benefit from gov't.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/20/2007 @ 11:03pm
"In 2004, 20 million unmarried women – single, divorced, separated or widowed – didn't vote. In 2006, that number was 30 million. Depressing? Yes."
Seems an odd thing to bet a Presidential campaign on (Hillary, Edwards, or Obama), when the trend is DOWNWARD not upwards.
Posted by MASK 12/20/2007 @ 3:47pm
Mask,
2006 was a midterm election. if it was 20 million in 2004, 30 million in 2008 -- that would be the downward trend. But you're comparing apples and oranges.
Posted by italiano at 12/20/2007 @ 11:09pm
making the rich pay their share...
Posted by BIG JAKE 12/20/2007 @ 11:03pm
I see your point!
As JOMAMMA points out, the richest 1% shouldn't pay more than 1% of all income taxes, and neither should the top 5% pay more than 5%. Seriously, why force them to pay 39% & 60%? IF we don't take your advice, next thing you know, the top 5% will be paying 100% of all taxes and I won't have any incentives left to try to squeeze in!
Posted by Happy at 12/20/2007 @ 11:10pm
What are we to do if some people are unable to discern social patterns. Just realize they are handicapped, and therefore Reps.
The unmarried women's unresponsiveness to voting may have multiple reasons but surely the main two are:
1) She does not have faith in the political system and does not see a connection between government and her personal fate.
2) She's probably the busiest person in the world, working, and if she has kids ( a great percentage do) looking after the children and doing the housekeeping. A multitasker that most probably would not participate in this blog.
"Divisive" Mr. Happy is a society that denies some help to people that have to overcome several disadvantages, but yet speak with hypocrisy about the "sanctity of marriage". Those are the pharisees that Christ condemned yesterday and today.
Posted by Frank42 at 12/20/2007 @ 11:13pm
Posted by HAPPY 12/20/2007 @ 11:10pm | ignore this person
you are an idiot. the rich used to pay ALL the income taxes. you are also a pathetic rich wannabe. I pity your family, whatta bore you must be around the family turkey.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 12:14am
Posted by ITALIANO 12/20/2007 @ 11:09pm | ignore this person
good point. while Mask's heart is often in the right place, he just as often fails to think things through.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 12:15am
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/21/2007 @ 12:27am
don't mess with BIG JAKE!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/21/2007 @ 12:35am
I have a feeling it would be hard to find a turkey on your table...but plenty around your table...
you are an ass who knows nothing about me.
actually we had an italian style thanksgiving, though they do not celebrate that holiday. we started with prosciutto di parma wrapped around very ripe figs. this was accompanied by a nice Prosecco.the main course was a stuffed turkey breast, we ate the rest of the bird later that week. the turkey of course was fresh, never frozen. I butterflied the breast and pounded it flat. that was layered with artisanial sage sausage and spinach and then rolled up and tied. that roll was then roasted. sliced and au jus, this was served with a nice Barolo. a modestly priced one, those can easily go in the hundreds. dessert was walnut cranberry pie served with espresso and Strega. and I paid for it all with food stamps.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 12:48am
my best friend thought the Strega looked and tasted like hair tonic. sigh.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 01:03am
Posted by HAPPY 12/20/2007 @ 4:18pm – in part:
How could HRC know ANYTHING about unmarried, sub-$30k, head-of-household woman's' struggles?
She does not know, nor does she care. She simply says she cares and that is all that is necessary for her supporters.
Also Posted by HAPPY 12/20/2007 @ 4:18pm – in part:
IF anything, she is the poster girl for riding her husband's coattail..
Without Bill, Hillary is a vacuum. Nothing. No there there. In fact, with Bill she is little more.
Posted by Econ Major at 12/21/2007 @ 01:33am
Posted by EL DORADO 12/20/2007 @ 9:01pm – in part:
Bush's tax cuts went predominantly for the rich rich..
Who cares? Only a selfish, myopic fool would worry about someone else's tax rate. The fact of the matter is government is not funded by TAX RATES; it is funded by TAX REVENUE. What are the revenue levels in the last 4 years?
Posted by Econ Major at 12/21/2007 @ 01:55am
Posted by SAMCROSSETT 12/20/2007 @ 9:38pm – in part:
Don't forget the dire predictions by Republicans that Billy Clinton's more-progressive taxation and deficit reduction would produce a 'severe recession'!
As I recall, the economy was in recession, 2 consecutive quarters of a shrinking economy, in March 2001. A continuation of Clinton's taxation policies would have likely resulted in the 'severe recession' alluded to above.
Posted by Econ Major at 12/21/2007 @ 02:08am
Posted by METTEYYA 12/20/2007 @ 4:40pm | ignore this person
Good first steps in the formulation of a mandate.
Posted by HAPPY 12/20/2007 @ 11:10pm | ignore this person
Don't worry, be Happy, you're not going to make it;
In Dec 15's, London Telegraph, Ernst & Young Item Club's Peter Spencer says; "government must suspend a set of key banking regulations at the heart of the current financial crisis, or risk seeing the economy spiral towards a future that could 'make 1929 look like a walk in the park'."
Spencer tries to blunt the clear meaning of his statement, by claiming that the banks are refusing to lend to each other, not because they are insolvent, but rather that they are being prevented from lending to each other by overly restrictive government regulations! The regulations he blames are the capital requirements set by the international Basel agreements, which require the banks to have an 8 percent capital reserve, which Spencer said should be cut to about 6 percent.
In reality, the idea that a mere 2 percent reduction in capital requirements would head off a crisis that would make 1929 look like a "walk in the park," is absurd, as both Spencer and the Telegraph know. What the auditors are really saying, is that the banks are already insolvent, and that the capital requirements must be lowered so that the auditors can continue to certify their books. Which is only an indirect way of admitting that the banks are indeed insolvent, despite his denial.
Closer to home, as to the raid on the U.S. Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) being carried out by the collapsing mortgage-lender Countrywide Financial Corp. and other predators ... The Financial Times reports today that the FHLB is continuing to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the hands of banks and mortgage lenders. The amount of funds handed out by the FHLB vastly exceeds the amount of direct lending to banks by the Federal Reserve. The Financial Times suggests that this is the only thing which has prevented runs on U.S. banks, like the one which hit Britain's Northern Rock Bank.
In late November, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) protested these hand-outs in a letter to the head of the FHLB, accusing Countrywide of using the FHLB system as a "personal ATM."
Posted by V at 12/21/2007 @ 02:14am
Posted by ECON MAJOR 12/21/2007 @ 01:55am
with a $9,000,000,000,000 debt, i think the government is funded by casper, the friendly ghost.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/21/2007 @ 03:01am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/20/2007 @ 4:33pm
Far from it, FZ. But look at the figures that Ms vanden Heuvel HERSELF gives....20 million in 2004....THIRTY million in 2006.
Even if the "tide was rolled back" to 2004...that's hardly the makings of a mass voting bloc. And THAT would be a ONE-THIRD reduction (or 1/3 increase if you like) of single women back to the ballot boxes.
Maybe in 3-5 election cycles...but hard to see 20-30 million women "suddenly" getting to the polling places that they haven't seen in 2-4 years.
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2007 @ 09:26am
Posted by ZERO 12/20/2007 @ 10:10pm :: Zero, why must you object to every single piece that is remotely feminist in nature? I can understand objecting to quite a few of them, but every single one you have problems with. Couldn't we agree that poor, single working moms are in fact a disenfranchised group of people? Couldn't we agree that they seem to be quite a sizable group? I think KVH's assessment of this group being a potentially formidable voting bloc is an accurate one.
Posted by jro555 at 12/21/2007 @ 09:36am
Posted by MASK 12/21/2007 @ 09:26am
well, someone has to wake these people* up. to sit their clakety-clacking saying, "naw, ain't gonna happen" is frankly counter-productive.
*not just single women, but any group that is seriously being f*cked over because of (at least partly) their political apathy.
here is the mother of all voter demographic tables, straight from the census bureau.
"Turnout for the November 2004 Election
In the presidential election of November 2004, the 64 percent of voting-age citi- zens who voted was higher than the 60 percent who turned out in 2000 (Table A).2
This was the highest turnout in a presidential election year since 1992, when 68 percent of voting-age citizens voted.3
The overall number of people who voted in the November 2004 election was 126 million, a record high for a presidential election year. Voter turnout increased by 15 million voters from the election in 2000. During this same 4-year period, the voting-age citizen population increased by 11 mil- lion people.
The registration rate of the voting-age citizen population, 72 percent, was higher than the 70 percent registered in the 2000 election. The last presidential election year to have a higher registra- tion rate was 1992, when 75 percent of voting-age citizens were registered to vote."
i think this election will pass 1992 in terms of voter turn out, and that single women will play a bigger role than in the past.
especially if someone(s) has the gumption to shake them out of their slumber.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/21/2007 @ 10:03am
Posted by ECON MAJOR 12/21/2007 @ 01:55am | ignore this person
and tax rates have nothing to do with revenue? c'mon now, college boy.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 10:15am
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/21/2007 @ 01:11am | ignore this person
I was of course kidding with food stamp part. liquor stores do not accept food stamps. hahahahaha
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 10:16am
Could the idiocy of secular society become any funnier!
Posted by RIO BRAVO
Why don't you move to Iran, then?
Posted by mtspence05 at 12/21/2007 @ 10:40am
Why don't you move to Iran, then?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 12/21/2007 @ 10:40am
they don't carry WWE on their cable.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/21/2007 @ 10:44am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/21/2007 @ 10:03am
I'm not saying it CAN'T happen, FZ.....just saying I doubt it's going to happen NEXT YEAR!
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2007 @ 11:07am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 12/21/2007 @ 10:40am
Welcome "back", SPENCE.
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2007 @ 11:07am
Could the idiocy of secular society become any funnier!
Posted by RIO BRAVO
Why don't you move to Iran, then?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 12/21/2007 @ 10:40am
yep, and that way he wouldn't have to hear about whining single mothers and didn't you know? Iran has NO homosexuals...they don't have that "phenomenon" over there ;)
Posted by jro555 at 12/21/2007 @ 11:52am
Posted by BIG JAKE 12/21/2007 @ 10:15am - in part:
tax rates have nothing to do with revenue?
They have everything to do with revenue and where in my post did you divine that they did not? The thrust of my post was to not focus on tax rates, but tax revenue. If adjusting tax rates, up or down, increases revenue, why not consider them? It is only a ignorant or selfish person who would not.
Posted by Econ Major at 12/21/2007 @ 12:29pm
With unrelenting dullness, a smack of idiocy and that sheer idleness so eloquent of solitude, MASK continues to splurge on mediocrity when launching his bush-league ripostes here. Most of us are well-aware of the fact that dodginess is on draught in his scrawls, which boast a heritage of inferiority and abysmal distance from anything en vogue. What is more, his braying, besides being in the idiom of an ass, is the equivalent of what you might expect a greengrocer in Skokie, IL to say about agriculture in China - that is, incoherent bosh interlarded with shop-worn catchphrases and well-recorded echoes gleaned from the multitudes he sees as his betters. And let's not forget that annoying custom he has of cutting, pasting and hoarding posts from many moons ago as if their re-appearance reminded us more of our human tendency to sing an occasional wrong note or alter our melodies than his unique talent for emphasizing his surplus of time and deficit of engagements in the real world.
MASK, with all your harping on my opinions of Cuba I can only ask, when the last time you were there? Have you ever been to a "communist" country? Ever traveled outside the US?
Your continued silence on these questions is not only telling and obviously expected, but increasingly welcomed due to the endless parade of soporific evasions you have spewed here in the interval. While I may disagree with Castro it is only because I disagree with most forms of authority, whether they be democratic or totalitarian. My thoughts of Cuba are based on my time touring the island and speaking with the natives.
You're just another drone who thinks a few books, articles and TV images make you an expert witness of a place you've never been and will never visit, kind of like how a box of Crayolas and a coloring book makes a kid feel like an artist.
Posted by chimichenga at 12/21/2007 @ 12:52pm
Rio-You forgot to tell any truth about the Democrat congress.Democrats have a slim majority.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/21/2007 @ 12:55pm
Rio-Why would having a secular humanist tell a Christian conservative "America love it or leave it" be funny?
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/21/2007 @ 12:57pm
Rio-You would not be considered to be a Christian conservative.You would be a religious fanatic.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/21/2007 @ 1:01pm
Would anyone here be even remotely surprised to read that RIOBRAVO went on a berserk rampage and gunned down a bunch of people at a church/planned parenthood/mall while ranting about "secular demoncrats" and how HRC is the bride of satan? This guy has "unstable lunatic" written all over him, and I just hope his shots are as ill aimed as his missives when those last scleritic neorons missfire into calamity.
Posted by entropy at 12/21/2007 @ 3:56pm
No one on here takes anything you say seriously RIOBRAVO. I would imagine that even your fellow reactionaries are embarassed by your inane, ill organized ranting. I totally disagree with 99.99% of what LVLIBERTY says, but at least the guy can order his thoughts in a way where you don't autamatically picture the guy in his trailer stroking an assault rifle while typing. I'm certain that the more rational rightists are even more humiliated to have a cretin such as yoursely in their lineup. You need medication very badly- please consider seeing a psychiatrist before I have to read about another bloodbath.
Posted by entropy at 12/21/2007 @ 4:02pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/21/2007 @ 12:52pm
WHICH thoughts on Cuba, CHIMI?
The ones from a year ago December 20th, 2006...
the ones from October...
or the ones from yesterday?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2007 @ 4:25pm
Posted by ENTROPY 12/21/2007 @ 3:56pm
No....RIO's just a hard-assed ol' Texas Rightie, who gets his info from "CBN News" and Limbaugh, and then claims to be a "independent".
(As if any guy who keeps saying "Demoncrat" is EVER going to vote anything but a straight-ticket GOP ballot....heheh)
But the nuts are more subtle or paranoid.
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2007 @ 4:28pm
Posted by MADLIB 12/22/2007 @ 01:42am | ignore this person
sexist pig
Posted by Big Jake at 12/22/2007 @ 09:32am
thass a little harsh, Jake. try misanthrope and misogynist.
Posted by the Badman at 12/22/2007 @ 2:27pm
the majority of women are pretty dumb
what could possibly be sexist or misogynist about that.
all people are dumb. excepting you I imagine. a misanthrope hates other people. all other people. but we all make mistakes. we don't have to defend them.
Posted by the Badman at 12/23/2007 @ 01:32am
Lazy is more like it. Which seems to be the biggest problem there is with the US. But that's another story.
Posted by MADLIB 12/23/2007 @ 02:18am
el flojo trabajo lo doble.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/23/2007 @ 2:36pm
Posted by MADLIB 12/23/2007 @ 3:30pm
the lazy one works twice as hard.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/23/2007 @ 3:38pm
RIO BRAVO:
Thank God for that... I guess that's conservatives' retort to the claims that the poor, indigent, needy, hungry and homeless aren't getting the appropriate support.
/sarcasm.off
Posted by jorcheim at 12/24/2007 @ 5:01pm
Did Rupert Murdoch pay Mask and Metteyya to comment on Nation Magazine? Such racist and sexist comments.
Posted by applerip at 12/26/2007 @ 5:52pm