Email us!
LiL Fundraising for Elizabeth Warren!
Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums
- Art is the Handmaid of Human Good
- Blog from the Office of the City Manager, Lowell MA
- Captains Log (Paul Belley)
- Choosing a Soundtrack
- Corey Sciuto
- Downtown Lowell Blog
- Dracut Forum
- Dracut Musings
- Dracut Politics
- gerrynutter'slowell
- JackieDoherty.org
- Lowell Deeds
- Lowell Police Dept WebNews
- Lowell Public Schools Blog
- Lowellest Common Denominator
- lowellresident
- Middlesex Community College Blog
- MV Homlessness Blog
- RichardHowe.com
- Right-Side-of-Lowell
- Tewksbury Issues
- The New Englander
Lowell Politics
Mass Bloggers
- - Leftyblogs MA Blogroll - Almost all of my favorite lefty blogs in Massachusetts can be found here. Linking here keeps my own blogroll short but still up to date! Below are some other MA blogs which are not listed at LB.
- H2Otown (Watertown, MA)
- MargeBLOG (Williamstown)
- Michael Forbes Wilcox (Western MA)
- The Gazebo (Worcester area)
Media in Lowell
- Chelmsford Mass News
- Community Connections The online archive of many of WUML's radio shows.
- LTC :: Our community cable access channel (8 & 10). Excellent people, I've worked with them before.
- Open Source :: Chris Lydon's new show, broadcast on WUML and WGBH locally.
- The Lowell Sun :: Love it or hate it, it's the big newspaper in town.
- WCAP radio :: Talk radio in Lowell - still locally owned, and in transition.
- WUML :: The student- and community-run radio station of UMass-Lowell. Lynne hosts a radio show, Thinking Out Loud, 10am on Fridays.
Media in MA
Other Daily Reads
Politics Online
- City Council Agenda Past City Council agendas, posted in a mostly timely manner
- Lowellma.gov Official city website
Progressive Local Orgs
Snark and politics
The Arts in Lowell
- 119 Gallery - Art gallery with exhibitions of many local artists, interesting events, and living, breathing culture.
- Arts League of Lowell (ALL) - Artist community group, a recent but welcome addition to the arts scene in Lowell.
- Brush Art Gallery - Come and meet working artists in their natural habitats!
- Cultural Organization of Lowell (COOL) - Great local calendar of events.
- Lowell Opera Company - Community opera.
- Lowell Philharmonic Orchestra - Local community orchestra.
- Lowell Poetry Network
- Lowell Rocks - List of live music events
- Merrimack Repertory Theatre - A local theatre "presenting an exciting mix of contemporary and new plays in historic downtown Lowell."
- OUtlET - Paper and online 'zine making a splash locally with events in art, poetry, music, and everything in between!
- Revolving Museum Contemporary, local, public art space with a plethora of children's programs and art by and for the community.
- The Fine Print - Socially aware, themed, arts and issues periodic publication available throughout Lowell.
- The Image Theater - Theatre company which puts on all original works by local playwrights.
- Whistler House Museum - A great collection of contemporaries of Whistler at his historic birthplace.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Republicans in the house stand together saying this package is too much pork and and not enough stimulus.
The polls all show that the people are in general agreement.
At the Senate, large parts are being taken out and reworked to try to make it more palatable.
All the while Obama is too busy with his cabinet picks being poor choices (his own description).
Score Republicans on this one.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Bullshit, what polls. Link?
And most of that “pork” isn’t pork, but it’s what the Republicans, who are swarming like flies all over the media, are calling it. Not only that, but the things they are bitching about are like, tiny subpercentages of the entire bill. It’s like nitpicking your neighbor’s grass cutting job because he missed one or two blades every 50 feet.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
By the way, don’t cite ANY polls talking about TARP, which is an entirely different thing, and deserves the derision the public gives it, because the Bushies didn’t put any sorts of restrictions OR accountability on how they handed that money out.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Limiting executive pay for those corporations taking taxpayer money makes all the sense in the world. For those executives squealing about the lack on incentive with limited salaries, we should point out to them that once they pay the taxpayer back their compensation can return to skimming off the top. The class warfare has been that these greedy executives have been living off the work of their employees and investors for too long.
Greed has previously sunk the boat:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6854/greatdep.html
And the boat has again sprung some serious leaks.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Rasmussen, saw it all over the news yesterday.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/kristol_new_poll_shows_stimulu.asp
And I agree with them. Hundreds of millions for health programs and such provide zero long term improvement in the economy.
Put the money towards physical infrastruture.. bridges, highways, electric grid, I would propose a “water grid” as well.
Tax incentives for businesses that would encourage growth (r&d, retooling of production lines, pilot new products, etc..).
And .. every million or billion dollar program that you call “subpercentages” are sure more than I make in a year.. how bout you?
Waste is waste.. put it in your regular annual budget, not in an emergency stimulus package.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Sorry, here’s the direct Rasmussen link:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37
February 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
and I guess Gallop got the same result, only 38% in favor
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114097/Americans-Support-Stimulus-Major-Changes.aspx
February 5th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
The first one is garbage. All it asks is support for Obama’s stimulus, not what’s IN it. If you asked ME if I’d supported Obama’s plan as he proposed it, I would have had to say no, too high a percent of it was in crap-all non-stimulative tax cuts put there for the sole purpose of appeasing Republicans.
And NOW we’re f-ing worried about polls, Shawn? What about the polls showing over the last few years a HUGE plurality of people wanted us out of Iraq? “I don’t govern by polls” says our president and his Republican party. And that was soooo brave of them! Now, it’s “govern by polls, dammit!”
Also, these polls are HEAVILY influenced by the media blitz that Repubs have been doing on this. So honey, these polls only prove that your side is better at going out and bullshitting the public, NOT that a spending stimulus is the wrong thing to do.
You are on the wrong side of history, and you wait, if this gets blocked, the people are going to be pissed. They want SOMEthing to be done, and getting nothing done WILL be blamed SOLEly on the Repubs, mark my words.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
And tax incentives do crap for stimulus, history shows this. A) if you have no job, a tax cut does nothing for you. B) if you are a business, and no one is buying your products, a tax cut is NOT going to create one single job.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Neil Sinhababu from Ezra earlier this week:
As Shawn indicated, putting money toward infrastructure is a desirable thing. This is true for many reasons, but for purposes of stimulus, such work support the jobs of the workers who would do it. It comes out with a net benefit beyond stimulus in that the public is left with a public good at the end. Money for health programs can also be a stimulus for largely the same reasons… money going to jobs that need doing anyway, and a net public good at the end beyond the stimulus effect.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
No. the problem with the health care programs is that they create new government jobs, that when the grants run out, they have no source of revenue.. but the jobs dry up unless the government grows again, thus once again increasing the cost of government.
You asked me for polls, and then you attack me when I provide them.
Respected pollsters, saying that most of the people out there do not believe that the spending part of this package is being put together correctly.
This is not the NY Times or ABC asking 200 black people if they like Obama..
This is actually the reason Obama is once again going to grab some prime time to try to sell the package again. He can read the polls as well as I.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Please. I didn’t attack you for providing them, I attacked the poll (in the first case) because it wasn’t relevant, and in the second case, gave you a reason why I think it was going in that direction. If you can’t take the heat…
February 5th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“… they create new government jobs,” That’s what I said… jobs. You just don’t like that they are government funded. Where do you think the construction worker building a bridge gets paid from? “…but the jobs dry up unless the government grows again,…” What do you think happens at the end of a large government funded building project? It’s jobs now bought with impermanent government funding in the hopes that the economic activity thus generated grows the overall economy to be able to support those jobs going forward after the funding. What you’re pointing out is a distinction without a difference. They are both stimulus.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
No, improving infrastructure improves economic by providing new economic capabilities.
A new intersection on 93 in Andover will make new tracts available for industry and connect customers to vendors in that area.. as well as allow industry to grow in those towns.. providing for new jobs.
Health programs do nothing to promote long term economy. When the revenue streams run out, everyone has to decide whether the program had enough of a value to add to the basic operating costs of the community, and in most cases it doesn’t.
Spending should focus on one-time needed capital improvements throughout the country. Schools, town buldings, sewage, civil defense needs.. thats where the spending should go.
Pet projects put into this bill will be collected and used in the next election.. its the nature of modern politics. The democrats know this, and thats why this whole thing is being watched so closely. The Republicans are handling the role of minority party very well here.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
The ‘new economic capabilities’ are not stimulus, they are a side effect of the projects in question. The movement of capital into economic activity is the stimulus. Public health also provide ‘new economic capabilities’ because sick people don’t work so well. Your point about 93 is certainly true, but much of what we need to do in this country with regard to infrastructure is to ‘catch up’ on deferred maintenance. Healthy people generate more economic activity than non-healthy people. I agree that all the things you cite are things we need (I’m glad to see that you disagree with your GOP leaders about an ‘all tax cut’ stimulus - a tax cut never repaired a sewer or built a bridge). I submit that infrastructure projects are not the only conduit through which injected capital can generate economic activity (i.e. stimulus). Nor do I agree that infrastructure projects are the only stimulus activity where there are desirable non-stimulus side benefits. Economically, sure - the side benefits of a health program might not be as much as the multiplier effect of the 93 ramps (although I’ve seen plenty of well designed off ramp areas turn into boondoggles because local economic issues failed to keep the stores in the area solvent), but nonetheless, it is stimulus and it does provide a side benefit going forward.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Your definition of stimulus seems to not be mine.
Mine is that the economy grows.. greater commercial income, new markets, new products.. thus more jobs (which I prefer to be American).
This results in more personal, commercial and industrial tax revenue for communities to run their regular operations.
I do agree with the Republican leaders in that if the proposal is all non-stimulus pork, then do only the tax cuts (both demand and supply side tax cuts)… they’ve been shown to work.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Polls are all over the place, BTW. There’s this. And this. And this.
A lot of those are from early to mid January. Why should we take them into account, then, if more recent polls have shifted (if indeed they have, I think also you have to understand how the question was asked and the internals of the poll to really grok it)?
Because it speaks to my earlier point, that the ONLY reason the polls might be shifting is BECAUSE basically, the Republicans have been overwhelming the airwaves (while the Dems were actually trying to get work done) and bitching and moaning over tiny bits of the stimulus package and blowing them out of all proportion, and also distorting whether or not they create jobs (they do) or help (they do).
So as I said, Repubs are good at hoodwinking the public. Yeah, that’s nothing new, you’ve been doing it for 30 years. Of course you’re good at it. Doesn’t mean it means the public actually doesn’t understand that the serious cuts in funding at all levels of services and education aren’t going to totally hose this country.
And the next bridge to collapse or 500,000 jobs lost will VERY quickly turn public opinion against the Republican idiocy again. It won’t take much.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
1.) “Fair redistribution” is an oxymoron.
2.) I’m sorry, the limiting of executive pay is absolutely silly. It’s the number one way to keep good CEOs from taking over these positions. It’s a populist move meant to stick it to the man. It’s not class war in the Marxist sense, but it’s definately scapegoating a minority class of individuals.
3.) Don’t defend bailing out the banks and then bitch about it. You’re either for corporate handouts or you’re against them. It would not have utterly destroyed us.
4.) The bailouts and the stimulus package (both of which you support) don’t help anyone. They’re a giant tax on our children and our grandchildren. Maybe you’re all for sacrificing future generations so the Dems can pass their goodie bag of spending that they’ve been craving for decades, but that’s just not my cup of tea.
5.) And please don’t pretending your a friend of the taxpayer. You’ve never seen a spending bill you didn’t like.
6.) The Republicans are probably more popular now than they have been in the last 8 years. You’re letting your party loyalty blind you to the political reality. Reality-based my behind.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
1) Wrong. Some people are born though NO fault of their own in worse circumstances (poverty, single parent under stress, etc) than others (born with a silver spoon up their a** like Bush, goes to the best schools even though they have poor grades). A level playing field says that everyone has an opportunity, to go to school, to excel, and if possible, to be given the tools to do so. That requires the richboy’s parents to pay into the system as they can afford it (ie progressive income tax), so that poorboy can go to a good school too, and maybe afford college.
2) Wrong. Once upon a time they were not compensated at 800+ times the average salary in his company. And those companies did juuuuuuuuust fine. Give me a break.
3) Who’s defending the banks? Your types (ie Repubs, and the Village of course) are the ones mixing up the unregulated TARP handout (under Bush) to the current stimulus (which has nothing to do with it). However, as I said, we are given NO choice BUT to bail out these jerks, even if we don’t want to, because if they fail utterly, the whole economy collapses. Did you even read my post?
4) Yes, the stimulus does help, a LOT of people (4-5 million plus actually, as written now). AND I do not support the TARP bailout as it was handled by the Bushies). The stimulus spending will create jobs. People are losing jobs. Do the math. I know it’s very hard.
5) Wrong, and you’re genericizing besides. I have opposed all sorts of things if I don’t think they are smart spending. Demonize much?
6) Hahahaha! You go on thinking that dude.
February 5th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
That bailout legislation could be a rhetorical gift for progressives. Now if we want to pay for excellent public ed., universal health care, etc. and someone from the other side complains we don’t have the money, all we have to do is point out how quickly we managed to find 700 billion dollars for a corporate bailout. Also, I like Warren Buffet’s comment about class war. He’s quoted as saying, “If we are in a class war, then my class is certainly winning!”
February 5th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Chris.. yeah, you did it the same way Bush did.. you told our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids to pay for it.
I didn’t like him doing it.. and I don’t like my current legislators doing it.
Reagan’s team planned their deficit spending so that it would clear up within 15 years.. and it did.
These guys are just seeing that people are willing to deficit spend, so why not go all the way and spend on everything they can possbily think of.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Bush gave us absolutely NO choice, Shawn. We’re left to clean up his mess. Sorta like how we had to clean up after Reagan’s…
February 6th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Shawn, you prove here - No, improving infrastructure improves economic by providing new economic capabilities. - that you don’t understand what the term “stimulus” means.
Providing benefits down the road is not stimulus. It’s desirable, but it’s not stimulus.
The definition of fiscal stimulus is the use of government fiscal policy to stimulate demand in the short term. Paying people to dig holes and fill them in is stimulus. The money the government pays those workers stimulates demand, because they go out and spent it on groceries, gasoline, snow shovels and beer. The suppliers of those goods then take that money - which they would not have otherwise received - and spend it on they own payrolls and purchases, ie, increasing demand for the goods and services they consume.
It’s probably not the wisest form of stimulus to do it that way, because digging and filling in holes provides us literally nothing in the long term, but it is exactly as stimulatory as spending the same amount of money for those workers to build a bridge or repave a road.
Mine (definition of stimulus) is that the economy grows.. greater commercial income, new markets, new products.. thus more jobs Your definition is WRONG. This is the definition of economic development, which is great, btw, but is a distinct from stimulus.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Reagan’s team planned their deficit spending so that it would clear up within 15 years.. and it did.
Reagan’s team planned for a huge tax increase in 1986, another one in 1991, and another one in 1993?
You sure about that?
Because I don’t think that’s true.
February 6th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
“Reagan’s team planned for a huge tax increase in 1986, another one in 1991, and another one in 1993?”
Whether he planned it or not, it happened. And it will happen again in 2011, much to Shawn’s chagrin.
February 7th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
wait..
Talking to Pangi today, 2011 is expected to be the worst year of this situation.
And if you guys definition of stimulus is as joe described, then I applaud ANYONE for trying to stop it outright.
February 7th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Shawn: He’s not saying that that is the ONLY reason to have stimulus, just that your definition isn’t it.
Ie, not all stimulus spending has to be improving infrastructure to be defined as “stimulus,” though all spending to improve infrastructure can be said to be stimulating the economy.
No one is saying we don’t want lasting infrastructure improvements (or economic improvements, in the case of building up our renewable energy initiatives etc). YOU say that we said that, but you’re wrong.
You just basically overlooked what joe was actually saying, in order to score a nonrelated political point. Bravo on you for setting up a straw man, but you’re being illogical.