Painting a portrait

Tuesday:

The dogs woke me up at 6:30 this morning, and I've been up ever since.  Three-and-half hours into a potentially gorgeous day and, surprise, I'm already flustered by the news of the world and what our day looks like.

The plan for today, I think, is to sell more audio CDs. We're selling them somewhat arbitrarily, but today, my favorite Beach Boys: Pet Sounds is on the block. I think we've both sold CDs that have emotional resonance for each of us, and I'm guessing that there will be a handful of leftovers that we can't sell, either because of the potential for slight emotional wreckage or the simple fact that they won't want them.

Keep in mind that a good deal for us would be a depreciation of 75%.  Most that we can sell have lost 95% of their original value.

***

One thing that I'm not certain I've made clear here yet is that I don't want you to feel sorry for me or my wife. The blog, initially, seemed culturally and, perhaps, historically important. Like letters from an 18-year-old boy on his way to war. Then, it seemed we'd be more likely to make it through with my funding for school, Michelle's unemployment, and a little help from family. I stopped blogging here for that reason. It seemed likely that--despite our situation--we'd hold on long enough for the economy to right itself.

After all, Michelle is smart, has a degree from Carnegie Mellon with University Honors, and has consistently been successful in the workplace. Moreover, she's applying for Office Manager and Administration jobs, the sort that a college grad could--not so along ago--just walk right into. Plus, she types like lightning.

I'm sure her job search strategy needs work, but these days, whose doesn't?

The fact remains that she has applied to hundreds of jobs. She's gotten two calls: One from a temp agency that hasn't followed up and one that was imminently suspicious and may very well have constituted fraud.

***

Wednesday:

Ruby, our beagle, hasn't been faring too well lately. I think she has a bevy of allergies that make her life worse in summer. When she woke me up this morning, there was a big pink welt on her head, from scratching herself. I'd like to take her to the vet, but . . .

But at least she's mostly happy here, and she adores me (and to a perhaps lesser degree, my wife).

***

So yesterday we spent the evening selling CDs and movies. The first place offered us something like $7.00 for something like 20 CDs (or more).

A number were too scratched to take, though the decision seemed rather arbitrary.

We went back home. Gathered two boxes of books and a handful more of CDs.

On the way to another shop, my wife wept.

***

Last Sunday, Dateline aired a remarkable story about the lives of several poor families in southeast Ohio. The story was jaw-dropping to me. And as a man named Daniel, in a basement in a dilapidated house with no other form of heat, showed Ann Curry the wood burner he tended through winter, sleeping only 3 hours at a time so his sons could stay warm, I wept.

At that moment, I couldn't handle everything anymore.

***

Michelle and I are struggling. But we haven't (yet) fallen behind on our mortgage. Right now, it's a fight to make our bills.

I fucked up this summer. I should have been looking for temporary work much, much sooner than June. It won't happen again, but will it matter?

Michelle and I have both, I do not doubt, made some poor decisions. We've made some decisions that are based on not wanting to make decisions, some that were based, wholly, in psychological comfort, and the (apparently) errant assumption that things would turn around soon. Furthermore, we--like many other Americans--never entertained the possibility that our (upper?) middle class lifestyle could suddenly collapse.  We had debt we were working to pay down. We failed to make investments and spent what now seems a ludicrous amount of money on baubles like those CDs, those books.

But last Sunday, after watching that remarkable tear-jerker of a documentary, after being stunned that such desperation--desperation far deeper than ours--can occur in a nation of such unbridled wealth and resources, I stumbled across the associated Newsvine thread.

Weaved with sincere wishes of luck, thoughtfulness, and offers of assistance, I found so, so many comments that were simply cruel. People--ensconced in relative or complete anonymity--attacked the families that were profiled primarily on the base of "hygiene." Those anonymous and, in all likelihood, middle class Americans complained loudly about 1) the lack of cleanliness in a small house where 14 people were living 2) the smoking of cigarettes 3) obesity and the choice of food (food largely donated and largely high in fructose, fat, and salts) 4) a fake gold chain that one person was wearing, and perhaps most troubling 5) the fact that one woman had her three children out of wedlock.

In the midst of the worst recession that the world has seen since the 30s, people in comfort were re-defining what they'd seen, ignoring the statistics, and voraciously screaming that their taxes should not be used on those people. Never mind the potential fallacies based on the actual spread of the tax burden or the fact that the details that angered them were a handful among thousands.

In essence, the argument for why tax monies shouldn't be used to help families living in poverty was that those people were neither morally nor physically clean enough to receive aid. They had, clearly, not done enough for themselves. Those people were somehow Other, somehow unclean.

Several posts, in fact, suggested that the young woman with three children born out of wedlock (who slept through an Ohio winter in her van) ought to have her tubes tied.  No one considered the possibility that love was involved in any way or that she could have been manipulated or that we live in a culture that prioritizes overly sexualized women or that young people struggle with foresight and consequence. No. They just assumed she was immoral.

From a historical perspective this is mind-numbingly depressing and horrifyingly frightening. I hear echoes I never thought I'd hear.

All of the families, though, were white.  If I pause to consider what the reaction might have been if, say, inner city blacks or Southwestern Latinos had been profiled, I will have nightmares.

***

When Michelle and I moved to Ohio in 2005, it was thrilling.We were, finally, participating in the American Dream (writ large, in italics, in the enormous skies of our futures). We had a house large enough to imagine dogs frolicking in the yard, infants sleeping in a spare room. We didn't, though the temptation was certainly there, overextend our budget. We didn't take on a subprime or adjustable-rate mortgage.

With what knowledge we had at the time and the advice of our real estate agent, we thought we were getting a good deal, that we were buying in a buyer's market that was about to correct, in a neighborhood that was bound to improve. Moreover, we believed--perhaps irrationally--in the quality of such an investment. Yet, who could blame us?

Every personal finance show I'd ever seen touted a mortgage as "good debt."  Even before we moved, my wife and I had seen the first few episodes of Flip That House while visiting her mom. More, we were aware of home-equity lines of credit that allowed home owners to dip into home equity, which would grow of course, if they ever hit a financial rough spot.

How could we, with that knowledge, not be optimistic?

***

In retrospect, there's much information to which we weren't privy. The inspection on our house was subpar.  Cincinnati, apparently, has an infrastructure that somehow is reflected in the very core of its city planning. The real estate market, as a whole, was inflated by investment buyers. Shortly, the American financial markets would collapse on the back of what we had thought was one of the best decisions for our lives and our future that we had ever made.

Now, here's a rough picture of what the housing market here in Cincinnati looks like. If you mess around with some of the parameters and look at, for example, the 10 year plot, you could see the picture of what this city is facing slightly better. That link though is from Zillow, not the government, and may not have enough data points for an accurate depiction. In particular, I find it difficult to believe that final data point, but then what would you expect?

We've lived here almost five years, and our taxes for 2009 suggested that we'd lost about 2% of the home's value (in 2009) and that selling could be an option. Zillow, by contrast, suggests we've lost 32% of the home's value. I suspect the truth is closer to Zillow's estimate, but not quite that bad. We like so many other Americans are way, way underwater.

So why not get a loan modification? Because we can't. Banks are notoriously reluctant to make such modifications. Moreover, if you look at the requirements, you sacrifice a great deal of equity (and we're negative remember) to make such a modification. Finally, you have to have enough income to make the modification financially viable.

And what did we do to have what little wealth we'd built vanish?  Nothing.

***

The infants will have to wait a bit longer.

***

When Michelle and I began dating (and long-time friendship became something else entirely), it was cross country. I could, then, afford such flights.

On one of my visits to see her, I bought that Beach Boys CD, and we listened to "God Only Knows" as her Ford Escort wound down the perilous roads of autumnal Pittsburgh. I think we were listening to that CD when the notion of marriage first came up. Even if it's a false memory, it is what I believe to be true, and I've long had associations between that lovely song and my relationship with her.
  
Back then, we made the country feel smaller, and somehow, made our futures seem so much larger.

Now, we've tried to sell that CD, but were turned down because of damage. I only own it still because of damage. Damage. Flaw.

***

Personal finance is, of course, taboo in our culture. We might, for example, talk about good deals on shopping, but we won't talk about how much someone makes even if we realize (faintly) that those who are paying us may benefit far more from such strategies than we do.

There are exceptions, of course, we learn how much Tiger Woods makes via endorsements or how much Tom Cruise makes for a few hundred hours of work. Even as we publicly foot the bill for new stadiums, we read about how much the football and baseball players take home.

In 2008, the number of children living in poverty was 19%. Over the ensuing two years, that number has likely rocketed upward.     

***

We've not gone hungry once. Not even for a day. Hopefully, even if we lose our house, this is a trend we can continue.

But we're no longer in a position to help others, and even though we had once sent almost a thousand dollars each year (or more) to my parents, and we frequently gave to charities like Doctors without Borders, it's difficult for me not to think Michelle and I never did enough when we had a chance.

Instead, we have a lot stuff, stuff that's difficult to liquidate. Stuff that depreciates rapidly, like most other used goods in such a market.

***

My definition of  "a lot of stuff" may differ from yours.

***

If you're still reading, I'm guessing you're not the sort of person who will lash out at my wife and me for making poor decisions. Likewise, I'm hoping that you see that this blog is about more than Michelle and me and our lot.

But how many people out there would tell us that I should quit the PhD program I'm in?  How many people would tell us to take our dogs to a shelter because we can no longer afford them?  How many people would tell us that an irrational trip to Taco Bell after we'd spent much of the day trying to sell objects that we've invested with meaning for less money than a day's work at minimum wage would bring was stupid?  Even if we know it was stupid, irrational, and little but a psychological salve for a painful day? How many people would think us different from them? Other?

How many would kick us?

***

Yesterday, before we went out on the selling spree, a friend emailed me from out of the blue, asking what kind of coffee we liked, so she could send us a care package. I almost wept.

***

Sometimes, while watching TV, I fantasize about how awesome it would be to go see a movie. In a movie theater. With popcorn.

Yesterday, at a convenience store, the site of a quarter tumbling down into the small cup for change that some registers have actually excited me.  I thought, this will be great for the Coinstar.

***

Michelle's unemployment got reinstated today. She'll see money for 3-4 weeks soon. With those weeks, she's started Tier 3 and that means something like 15 more weeks. So, for the near-term, we might be ok. The future, for a little while, isn't quite as horrifying (for us).

***

Elsewhere, like in southeastern Ohio, in inner cities, in the rural southwest, the story is different. There remains, I suppose, a continuum of despair in this country.  I want you to see some of it.  I want you to know it's there, and to spread such tales, regardless of how difficult they are to hear or read.

I want you to think (mightily) about how this wondrous country got here, and about what we as a people should do to prevent desperation--even as small as mine and my wife's--from ever, ever happening again.

And I want you to remember the large desperations. Think about that Beach Boy's CD and the way in which sentimentality attached to objects is a luxury. It's a luxury most of us take for granted.

Now think how far Michelle and I might go to keep our overvalued house. Do you think we'd sell her engagement ring? Our wedding rings?

Do you think, perhaps, there are people out there among the 99ers who have done just that? Or something that might be viewed as equally drastic? What sort of pittance might they get for a solitaire diamond on craigslist? How much time would that buy from a pawnbroker?

And where will that money go?

***

I say fuck the deficit.

We're already talking redistribution of wealth. Small pockets of emotional and physical wealth are seeping into the marketplace from the pockets of the middle class, the working class, and the poor. Those with next to nothing face the very real possibility that their collective assets will soon amount to nothing--just to make next month's rent, next month's mortgage.

And where's does that money go?

***

Please. Don't just read this. Comment. Share. Add your own stories.

Find a friend and be a friend, even if only in small ways.

If you can, donate.

Buyers and sellers....

Want a good deal on anything I own?

Zap me an email.

You can probably have it for less--if not far less--than market value. Of course, I realize that--due to economic pressures well beyond my control--the "fair market value" of anything I might have has plummeted, in part because that's the nature of goods in our disposable society and in part because the market for used goods (like the housing market) is currently flooded.  I wonder why . . .

Seriously though, you'd get a good deal, and I wouldn't hold it against you. I might ask that you understand or at least try to understand. I might just ask for the cash, the miraculous gateway to an evening at Taco Bell, the tiniest shred of something like normalcy to help my wife and I forget--even if only for an hour--the sudden spiral of fear and the knotting stress we've been feeling in our shoulders, our backs.

Yesterday, my wife and I gathered up two boxes of books and took them to sell at the local Half-Priced Books. We didn't get a good deal. We knew it wasn't a good deal. Still, we took the offer. My wife and I adore books, so this--our second trip in a month--was particularly painful. The money we got wasn't enough to buy dinner and gas. We picked dinner.

Today, we took a bagful of CDs and DVDs to sell. We tried one vendor. He attempted to rip us off something serious. We took it to a vendor next door and got twice the amount. Was it a fair price?

It depends. Depreciation. Emotion. Objects invested with peculiar meaning. No, not really. Still, it was more fair. The second vendor will make a tidy profit. We could (though it was dumb) afford a taste of Taco Bell and the briefest illusion of normalcy.

McDonald's posted quarterly results. They were excellent. Surprised?

Although our savings, by now, would very likely have been depleted regardless of how frugal, fastidious, or adept at investment we'd been, both my wife and I struggle with not blaming ourselves. If only, if only, if only is a constant refrain of interior monologue. If only, for example, we'd gotten different degrees. If only we'd stayed in Oakland.  If only we'd bought a condo rather than a house. If only . . . . There are thousands more. They all tighten the knots in our backs.

Being poor isn't healthy.

If you're still with me, listen. We know, intellectually, this wasn't our fault. We know that we're slightly different than the millions of others who've lost their unemployment, the millions who soon may lose their unemployment again. I have peculiar prospects and the promise of returning to my PhD program.

My wife . . . . I worry about my wife every day.

Soon, the unemployment will return for a short while. Soon after--given today's politics--it will end again.

Who knew that by hanging onto my wife's services as long as they did, my wife's former company might have doomed her to this? Who knew?

Why am I writing this? Breaking taboos of money talk?

Listen: I want to tell you the truth. Selves have already been eviscerated. Now, actual lives, actual hopes will be. It's not OK to watch television through this. It's not OK to simply buy green and donate to a charity or two. It's not OK just to vote the rascals out (whoever you think the rascals are).

My wife and I swore not to forget. We'll do more if we make it back to where we were. We've been broken, I think, but we're still, somehow, here. But seriously, we have more of our lives to sell and sell we will.

Obama, the Socialist and Other Misappropriations of Reality

Today, driving back from school, I listened to Rush Limbaugh.  I was in the car, driving home, and it's been a bad, bad week.  So, why not? I like to hear how radical conservatives "think."

Yet, today, it was particularly grating.  He's gotten progressively more radical since his heyday in the 90s, before he the talking heads at FOX managed to outparanoid him.

Today, he spent considerable time attacking moderate Republicans, like Olympia Snow, who actually did vote for the last attempt at an unemployment extension.  Moreover, he spent much of his time speaking about the so-called "opportunity" of this November and 2012 because of Obama's so-called "socialism." To Rush, Obama's policies are something like "low-hanging fruit".  Never mind that 2012 is two years away and people are losing allof their income now, that people are being thrown from insurance roles because they can't afford unsubsidized COBRA premiums, or that state and local governments are looking at drastic cuts (meaning more unemployment) and, in some cases, actual bankruptcy without federal aid.  Never mind that our great nation is on the verge of collapse precisely because Democrats and Republicans can't play nice.   Rush's prognostications were unabatedly rosy.  And, for him, for Rush Limbaugh, personally, why shouldn't they be?  The economy, according to Paul Krugman, has begun a deflationary period, meaning money (not debt, not commodities) is becoming increasingly valuable.  Rush has access to a sizable chunk of cash money, to T bills, etc.  More, if he can time his machinations well, he's well poised to enter the commodity market at or near the body, so the gentleman with a loud mouth could make a killing by, for example, dabbling in Florida real estate.

By contrast, my wife and I are . . . trying to be hopeful.  We have consumer commodities whose value is decreasing daily because the second-hand goods market is naturally flooded.  Do we care?  Sure.  But do we care enough not to sell such stuff . . . uh no.  We don't have the luxury of choice.  So essentially, Rush's fear and anger-mongering in pursuit of something he calls "freedom" has done him well. That same "freedom" for us . . . well, it's non-existent.  Unfortunately, in this country, there's an egregious conflation of economic policy with national pride and, oddly, notions of what "freedom" and "democracy" mean.  For many, freedom and democracy is equivalent with capitalism.  Capitalism, though, let me be clear, is only a system.  It's a system like any other that's both subject to abuse and capable of remarkable things.  It is not, however, the sole and only methodology for organizing social life that allows people to live their lives, make decisions for their own good (or ill), and not be subject to statism.  In fact, it's not difficult to imagine a pro-big business administration spying on and detaining its citizens without writ of habeas corpus.  In fact, you don't have to look very far into your history books to find such challenges to real and actual "freedom" under the guise of pro-business ideologies.

But this isn't a problem I can solve.  So I'll concentrate on Rush and his glaring misappropriation of terminology that has a long, long history of loaded rhetorical stylings among politicians. Yes. Today, Rush did get me thinking more than the usual "what an ill-informed blow hard."  He got me thinking: what if Obama really were a socialist?

So let's dream for a moment or two. Here, I think, is what would have happened if all those meaningless attacks on our president were true:

Step 1, temporary nationalization of all troubled banks(and AIG, etc.) rather than the hefty & costly propping up of financial institutions.  Nationalization, though politically untenable, might have had the following impacts: A) allowed for immediate and thorough understanding of the depths of the derivative disaster. B) allowed the federal government to ensure that those banks continued to lend money responsibly to other institutions, and more importantly, corporations and small business. This would have prevented the deflationary pressures we're starting to see now.  c) allowed the federal government to have seized "worthless" assets (i.e., homes) that could have been used in the interim and sold at a profit once the money and housing markets stabilized.

Step 2: Nationalized healthcare.  Though costly, this would have insured that state and local-level cuts were not implemented in the suddenly redundant medicare and medicaid systems.  More, this would have eliminated the need for extremely costly subsidies to the insurance industry via COBRA.  Subsidies that have now been eliminated to the severe detriment of millions.

Step 3: A federalized jobs creation program wherein the government could temporarily hire millions of people for public works rather than following the outsourcing model currently being used.  This could have injected billions directly into economy, and provided enough money (in a way that unemployment does not) to multiply via the banking system. In other words, a bottom-up approach would have done far, far more work than providing those moneys directly to banks and auto manufacturers has done.

Step 4: Ending tax cuts for the rich and unfair subsidies (such as those that agribusiness and oil companies receive to maintain exorbitant exponential profits). This step would have to wait until the economy stabilized, but given steps 1, 2, and 3, stabilization would have been more likely.  Herein is where the deficit might be partially recaptured & eventually, it's possible, entirely recaptured. I personally would pay a significantly higher tax rate, particularly given my current tax rate.

Of course, upon reflection, I'm not sure this is "socialist," so much as "not-third-way Democrat". But for now, our nation seems doomed to such politicking by people who stand to benefit in very real ways from the suffering of millions.

Something Rotten in the State

Since my last post a few short days ago, the mainstream media has finally taken notice of the ongoing Congressional battle to extend unemployment benefits.  And my wife has become (yet again) another of those disconcerting statistics.  She is now one of the, according to Time, 1.3 million American's who have lost unemployment benefits during the latest round of partisan wrangling.

Of course, while you were enjoying a three-day weekend (if you're lucky enough to have a job), Congress took a week-long furlough--without making any headway into the unholy alliance of Republicans and so-called Blue Dog Democrats.  How is this possible?   

Over the course of the last month, the bill making the rounds on Capitol Hill has been stripped to skeletal form. It contains no extension of funds to states (Imagine if California actually goes bankrupt. Would our chances of avoiding a depression plummet then?). It contains no money for Medicare. It contains no extension of COBRA assistance. It contains no extension of the first-time home buyer's credit.  The bill has been pared down to nothing more than an extension of benefits for the unemployed.   Yet, in a striking refusal of Keynesian economics, Republicans have steadfastly refused to vote for the bill, and Democrats have been unable to break the filibuster.    

Keep in mind that in February, when Jim Bunning and Tom Cobourn decided to delay the passage of an extension, the general public--including many who self-identify as Republicans--decried the so-called stand as heartless and damn near evil.  It was, of course, just political grandstanding.  Or was it?

Now, the two "gentleman" seem like prophets.  Their "principled" stand against deficit spending (except, as Dean Barker notes in a harrowing article in the Guardian, in the case of war or tax cuts) is now the position of every single Republican in the House and the Senate.  The Republicans, clearly, are worried about the ballooning deficit--you know the one created, by and large, by the policies of George W. Bush. Is it possible that the mid-term elections have something to do with this? Greece? 

The sudden focus on deficit spending is, of course, understandable if you look at macroeconomics through the same lens as personal finance or Herbert Hoover.  Doubtless, there are economists who think that millions of people, in a job market where there are more than 5 applicants for every job opening, only need to have their benefits eliminated to find a job?  Why else would Republicans think that taking billions of dollars out of direct circulation in the economy? (remember the unemployed, living on approximately $300/week tend not to save--because they can't.  All of that money goes directly to the purchase of goods and services).  Why else would Republicans risk exacerbating the mortgage crisis by taking away such a lifeline, which would inevitably lead to an increase in the number of people evicted from apartments and, very likely, a subsequent increase in the number of foreclosures on both single-family and multiple family mortgages?  What could have changed since February?

Well, believe it or not, at least one economist, according to The Wall Street Journal, Michael Feroli, suggests that: 

Extending jobless benefits could inflate the official unemployment rate — even though more people aren’t out of work.

Now, before I continue, I should be clear: I don't have any problem with that statement.  Psychologically speaking, we should be prepared for a higher official unemployment rate because more people are continuing to look for jobs, which is, of course, good for the economy.  The key point here is that the rate could seem higher because of the way in which that rate is calculated. Essentially, without the extension of unemployment benefits, we will have millions of people who are neither employed nor looking for employment.  They will join those among the unemployed who are not counted in that statistic.  In other words, this is a sleight of hand that has no bearing (except perhaps in terms of psychology) on the actual health of the economy.  More, I should be clear that the above statement is the lead in that Wall Street Journal blog post. It is not, what Michael Feroli (an economist, remember) actually said.

Here's a little bit of what he actually wrote in a report dated March 17:

• Lengthened availability of jobless benefits has raised the unemployment rate by 1.5%-pts
• This added availability has increased the average duration of unemployment spells by over a month
• The resulting constraint on supply and lift to demand may explain recent phenomenal productivity growth

Here's a little bit more of Feroli's "analysis":

In particular, the availability of these benefits has almost certainly played a significant role in the record rise in the average duration of unemployment. Consequently, they have also had a role in the stunning rise in the unemployment rate over the last two years. Finally, and more conjecturally, the program’s support to consumption and restraint on forming employment matches may have a role in explaining the good growth/great productivity/bad labor market nexus that has characterized the recovery so far.

As a writer, I'm compelled to admire Feroli's deft use of qualifications here, "[f]inally, and more conjecturally." That's a gorgeous conjuring of speculation into the fabric of what purports to be a factual report.  Conversely, as a human being, the limit on Mr. Feroli's ability to see other potential variables (such as the slim possibility that "great productivity" is inextricably linked with continued layoffs and the abiding lack of employee/consumer confidence that began with that whole derivatives trading snafu).

Surely, this couldn't get any worse?  And yet, it does. Here's another taste of Feroli's actual text:

Note: In the analysis that follows, we attempt only to discern the impact of emergency benefits on the economic data. We make no recommendation or claim about the appropriateness of alternative unemployment compensation policies. Such an analysis would require a much more thorough consideration of other factors, such as equity and moral hazard, which are not addressed here.  

Or in layman's terms, "Note: CYA. This report is woefully incomplete for the policy decisions we'd like made to be made, but we're still going to speculate, and maybe we'll obfuscate ever so slightly on the basis of "data."

The "best" part though follows the multiple rejoinders:

Jobless benefits have the potential to increase the unemployment rate through two channels. First, by softening the blow of losing a job, they allow unemployed persons to become more selective in what job offer they accept, thereby raising the average duration of unemployment and increasing the unemployment rate. Second, they may encourage people who would otherwise drop out of the labor force to be counted as jobseekers and therefore in the labor force. 

And herein, we find evil masquerading as economics.

To be fair, I'm not an economist. But to be fair, the following conclusion can neither be supported by Mr. Feroli's so-called analysis, nor by, well, logic:

To the extent increased jobless benefits restrain the aggregate amount of labor employed in productive activities, they could in fact lower the amount of output produced.

Because, quite simply, the continuing instability in the credit and labor markets are responsible for the downturn in aggregate production.  You know, if your company lays people off, has less access to capital, and is facing a marketplace where consumer confidence is shaky, you make fewer fucking widgets.

For a, perhaps, better informed take on the report, see Robert Garcia's blog on The Huffington Post and Daniel Hoffman on Wall Street Cheat where I found the actual link to Feroli's "work."

Unfortunately, the problem here is that policy in our nation is now being shaped by such haphazard ideas.  While Paul Krugman--a professor of economics at MIT with degrees from both Yale and MIT, and by the way, a Nobel Laureate, suggests that we are on the cusp of Depression because of the overbearing (and sudden) concern of Republican and Blue Dog Democrats with balancing the budget.  As Krugman points out:

It’s almost as if the financial markets understand what policy makers seemingly don’t: that while long-term fiscal responsibility is important, slashing spending in the midst of a depression, which deepens that depression and paves the way for deflation, is actually self-defeating.

Furthermore, it seems to crucial to point out that this is not simply (as Mr. Feroli seems to believe) a matter of manipulating data points.  Instead, this is the well-being, the ability to make rent and eat for millions of unemployed Americans.

So, why would Feroli write such a report.  That's easy.  He works for JP Morgan Chase.  Why would our politicians--those entrusted with protecting and ensuring the public good--believe what Feroli and others of his ilk have written from a mire of conflicting interests?  Now, the answer to that question is a little bit harder.

In my opinion, the Republicans are playing politics. Grandstanding.  In short, they've fundamentally undermined their oaths of office, risked economic catastrophe, and deepened the gulf between those who have and have not.  Or else, they're just stupid and prone to false analogies, like USA is to Greece as Patriot is to Republican.

Still, I have a long history of listening to the other side, of believing, perhaps irrationally, that conservatives and liberals can work together for the betterment of our country, so I have a solution.  If the benefits need to be paid for before a single Republican will vote for their extension, here:  End subsidies for oil companies. As the New York Times reports, the most profitable companies in the world receive billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies. So let's start there.  

A Tested Faith in American "Exceptionalism"

Since I last posted here, my wife and I have muddled along, making mortgages, making bills.  We haven't lost everything. Yet. But we have sold a car and radically altered our lifestyle. We've put off getting haircuts, entering book contests, making home improvements that might eventually let us sell a home we paid far too much for (at a market price), and even drinking coffee (if you knew my wife, you'd understand how radical that is).

Until recently, I've been preoccupied with grad school and the requisite forward-looking stance of being in a PhD program.  Now, however, we're edging closer to disaster and hence contemplating new business ventures, like continuing this blog that hasn't been updated in months, starting and building a legitimate consulting business based on our collective expertise (or just on mine . . . we'll see how it goes), as well as a handful of other potentially unwise stratagems.

In other words, our future has gotten short-term, and it's increasingly horrifying for reasons I don't fully understand.  Why the sudden shift?

Well, my wife (somehow) hasn't yet lost her health insurance, but the federal Senate has failed numerous times to extend subsidized COBRA benefits.  More, her unemployment may soon be a memory. Thanks to political grandstanding (that seems to be working).

As odd as it may sound, when the current economic crisis began, I was hopeful, expectant.  I believed that our country could reshape itself and draw on its history of noble ideas and empathy to change the fabric of our society for the better.  I believed that the USA--not because of its politicians, but because of its people--truly was an exceptional place in the world.  Increasingly, I think that my assessment was correct, but not because we have lived up to the necessities of ingenuity and empathy.  No, I now think America is remarkable because of its remarkable collective amnesia, because this is a country where 2 million people might lose the lifeline of unemployment benefits simply for the sake of politics, where the truth is a variable that shifts in relation to the election cycle, where millionaires in the Senate chamber can put lipstick on a pig and call it "reform."  I believe, I'm afraid, that what makes us exceptional is our collective apathy.

We watch our friends, our neighbors struggle and then vote for those who are aligned with the insurance companies, the banks, the media, and just sort of hope.

Come on, America, prove me wrong.  Live up to the platitudes.  Let's see how we can innovate out of oil dependency, credit derivatives, corporate fraud, and the damn lies of politic speak.  Let's afford everyone their basic human dignity, their basic rights, like access to shelter, food, and healthcare.  Let's prove ourselves.

What? No?  You have other plans.  There's a new iPhone?  You're a real American?  And, as a liberal, I'm not?

Oh well, fuck it.  Life's too short to believe in fairy tales anyhow.