Slog
News & ArtsSunday, February 8, 2009
Economy The Dreamers
Posted by Charles Mudede on Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Amazing...
Leading Republicans warned Sunday that the Obama administration's $800 billion-plus economic stimulus effort will lead to what one called a "financial disaster."
This can only mean that leading Republicans consider our current financial situation to be not a disaster. The banks closing, the 600,000 jobs lost in February alone, the market crash (losing one-third of its value in just three months)—all of this does not indicate a disaster. Republicans are truly lost in a wilderness of the mind.
2
Charles, you Jackass:
Things could get a lot worse.
And nothing in what the Republicans said suggests they do not consider the current situation to be a disaster.
It is possible, however, to follow the current 'disaster' by another even worse one.
Sorry, this post isn't close to being clever, or informative.
Things could get a lot worse.
And nothing in what the Republicans said suggests they do not consider the current situation to be a disaster.
It is possible, however, to follow the current 'disaster' by another even worse one.
Sorry, this post isn't close to being clever, or informative.
3
The nation was already deep in debt, and over the past months has thrown hundreds of billions away in poorly advised bailouts. The money has to come from somewhere and we can't borrow indefinitely.
Throwing another $850 billion away just to be seen to be doing something is not a good plan.
We are in the third year of Democratic control of Congress and Bush has been gone a month, the buck passing won't work much longer.
Throwing another $850 billion away just to be seen to be doing something is not a good plan.
We are in the third year of Democratic control of Congress and Bush has been gone a month, the buck passing won't work much longer.
4
Think of the money saved if America left Iraq for the Iraqis. But what about our oil under their sand?
5
Republican deficits during good economic times: perfectly fine, especially when those deficits are wasted on pork and unnecessary wars.
Democratic deficits during bad economic times: horrifying, especially when those deficits are used on repairing and building roads and schools and other necessary infrastructure.
Republicans, and #2 and #3 in this thread, are a bunch of useless cocksuckers.
Democratic deficits during bad economic times: horrifying, especially when those deficits are used on repairing and building roads and schools and other necessary infrastructure.
Republicans, and #2 and #3 in this thread, are a bunch of useless cocksuckers.
6
Republican deficits during good economic times were inexcusable mistakes.
We wish the Obama stimulus plan was about infrastructure and not pork.
You girls are at the wheel, now.
Hopefully there will be more to the new administration than blaming Bush and Republicans for the next four years.
We wish the Obama stimulus plan was about infrastructure and not pork.
You girls are at the wheel, now.
Hopefully there will be more to the new administration than blaming Bush and Republicans for the next four years.
7
Man, even on the SLOG comments, we have evidence of the fact that there are two completely different Americas right now, and the one you live in all depends on how you chose to label yourself. Democrats and Republicans, and all their constant bickering, make me fucking sick. Grow the fuck up already.
8
Sorry Chuck, I'm extremely aggravated by the actions of the Republicans in Congress right now, but just because they say the Stimulus will lead to disaster does not mean that they don't think we're in a disaster. Like #2 said, its always possible to make things much worse than they are now.
9
Well, duh, if the money isn't going exclusively to Repubs and their fellow travelers, some of them Democrats in name only, they think it's disastrous! Can't let any of them Dems or progressives get any money!
Fuck "bipartisanship". The GOPers had their chance over the past 8 years, and it's turned out to be a horror show.
Fuck "bipartisanship". The GOPers had their chance over the past 8 years, and it's turned out to be a horror show.
10
Button, button...who's got the money. Yeah, it's Barack's three card monte box...made of genuwine cardboard.
See, it goes like this
850B tarp
800B stimulus
Watch me spin those cards around, thank you sir, yes, I'll take your bets...
Ok, so now there are 100 million households in America, dig, and 1650B divided by 100M...that's $16,500 per household.
Only, at Barack's you don't get $16,500 -- you get a $300 tax cut...see, so I stimulated your wallet and all the money got excited and went to my wallet, dig.
Yeah, $16,500 gets you $300 -- who wants to play...who wants to play?!?
See, it goes like this
850B tarp
800B stimulus
Watch me spin those cards around, thank you sir, yes, I'll take your bets...
Ok, so now there are 100 million households in America, dig, and 1650B divided by 100M...that's $16,500 per household.
Only, at Barack's you don't get $16,500 -- you get a $300 tax cut...see, so I stimulated your wallet and all the money got excited and went to my wallet, dig.
Yeah, $16,500 gets you $300 -- who wants to play...who wants to play?!?
11
What's scarier than the Republicans in Congress (who are just spinning their own powerhunger, inexcusable as that is) are the majorities out in Am-ur-u-kuh, who swallow this crap hook/line/sinker. Stimulus support is at 37% and falling. Apparently the "Dreamers" are getting heard.
12
@6,
Pork makes up 2 percent of the bill. Perhaps you should take a look at the thing rather than regurgitate Republican talking points.
Let me guess. You believed McCain when he said he could balance the budget (even after giving additional tax cuts) by eliminating $60 billion in earmarks.
Pork makes up 2 percent of the bill. Perhaps you should take a look at the thing rather than regurgitate Republican talking points.
Let me guess. You believed McCain when he said he could balance the budget (even after giving additional tax cuts) by eliminating $60 billion in earmarks.
13
@10
Are you actually trying to blame Obama and Obama alone for TARP? Because that's what it looks like.
Are you actually trying to blame Obama and Obama alone for TARP? Because that's what it looks like.
14
Of course (s)he is, @10.
Because Republicans only take responsibility when things go right, never when things go wrong.
Because Republicans only take responsibility when things go right, never when things go wrong.
15
You have to do it now, because we actually still have a significant economy that can carry the load. A huge stimulus + time + moderate inflation = greater economic investment in the long run. Use the money now to buy something while it is still actually worth something, or have you forgotten that the economy has already shurnk 7% in the past few months. I mean, monopoly money is valuable when you are playing monopoly. And what happens when you run out of notes!
Nobody LIKES the deficit, nobody likes stimulus spending. But Obama is TRYING to make compromises. Living in Seattle now, coming from the tri-state New York area. Republicans with money, in the cities (or at least in the Northeast), can't really morally justify their stance on finances. They don't want to share, and why should any self preserving human WANT to share. They more or less throw up their arms and say, "fine I'm a greedy son of a bitch who doesn't want to give away my money and I hold no moral authority over you." I may not agree with their beliefs, but I respect it! I truely do. You go into the Republican small town bible belt, they have never SEEN the amount of wealth this nation has generated! It's astounding! They live on 20 grand a year and don't understand how or why anyone would choose otherwise. And the morality police?????
Please people, as far as stimulus goes, we have plenty of money (it truely is a fictitious concept). And those that DO have money are begging for places to spend and invest, otherwise why the hell would people be locking up their dollars in negative and neutral trusts at the momment? In this economy, the rich have dollars that go down the shitter with everyone elses. And they have a lot more to loose.
Nobody LIKES the deficit, nobody likes stimulus spending. But Obama is TRYING to make compromises. Living in Seattle now, coming from the tri-state New York area. Republicans with money, in the cities (or at least in the Northeast), can't really morally justify their stance on finances. They don't want to share, and why should any self preserving human WANT to share. They more or less throw up their arms and say, "fine I'm a greedy son of a bitch who doesn't want to give away my money and I hold no moral authority over you." I may not agree with their beliefs, but I respect it! I truely do. You go into the Republican small town bible belt, they have never SEEN the amount of wealth this nation has generated! It's astounding! They live on 20 grand a year and don't understand how or why anyone would choose otherwise. And the morality police?????
Please people, as far as stimulus goes, we have plenty of money (it truely is a fictitious concept). And those that DO have money are begging for places to spend and invest, otherwise why the hell would people be locking up their dollars in negative and neutral trusts at the momment? In this economy, the rich have dollars that go down the shitter with everyone elses. And they have a lot more to loose.
16
Let's be fair. There is a LEGITIMATE debate as to whether or not Keynesian stimuli are, in the long run, beneficial to a depressed economy. THIS is the problem with the stimulus package and I challenge you to decisively prove to me that any such plan would leave us better off. And, if it doesn't, we needlessly add one trillion to the national debt. Brilliant. Let's throw all our weight behind a plan we have no reason to believe in!
And, personally, my problem with the whole deal has nothing to do with that particular aspect of the economics--there is a real debate there. I'm much more concerned with the conceited notion that our standard of living is savable, or even worth saving.
If you are of the belief that our current standard of living is unsustainable and entirely leveraged on debt (and we all ought to be) then it stands to reason that we should be afraid and skeptical of ANY solution that promises to keep our current standard of living intact. We HAVE to let the economy adjust, if we don't do it now it will be worse in the long run. Ultimately, this is the problem with any stimulus plan.
All y'all are fooling yourselves if you believe the republicans and democrats to be substantively different on economic issues. This ain't a partisan problem, this is an AMERICAN problem. Prez Obama is trying to save the flat screens and 5000 square foot homes just the same way a republican would, albeit by [slightly] different means. In the end, the problem doesn't lie with the proposed solutions, but rather in the absurd idea that are economy has EVER been strong enough to keep the modern, opulent middle class afloat.
Pardon the sloppy writing, it's been a night for heavy drinking.
And, personally, my problem with the whole deal has nothing to do with that particular aspect of the economics--there is a real debate there. I'm much more concerned with the conceited notion that our standard of living is savable, or even worth saving.
If you are of the belief that our current standard of living is unsustainable and entirely leveraged on debt (and we all ought to be) then it stands to reason that we should be afraid and skeptical of ANY solution that promises to keep our current standard of living intact. We HAVE to let the economy adjust, if we don't do it now it will be worse in the long run. Ultimately, this is the problem with any stimulus plan.
All y'all are fooling yourselves if you believe the republicans and democrats to be substantively different on economic issues. This ain't a partisan problem, this is an AMERICAN problem. Prez Obama is trying to save the flat screens and 5000 square foot homes just the same way a republican would, albeit by [slightly] different means. In the end, the problem doesn't lie with the proposed solutions, but rather in the absurd idea that are economy has EVER been strong enough to keep the modern, opulent middle class afloat.
Pardon the sloppy writing, it's been a night for heavy drinking.
19
lets hit the fan so all of us can have a shit shower. nothings stanky when everythangs stanky, got it?
25
The GOP has captured 46% of the stimulus package because it is 46% tax cuts. Their man Gregg doesn't even vote for it and his reward is to enter the Cabinet. They have won, so far, the media battle wich is on their terms: pork or not pork? All when they were flatlining. But instead of pulling the plug on them -- instead of being finally partisan and sending them into oblivion -- our man Obama rescues them, gives them 46% of the plan, which btw does weaken it and make it more likely it won't work, thus validating the GOP quote in the post, which btw agrees with Krugman who says the compromise is "very bad" and the plan isn't enough to avoid Depression, by far.
The GOP has gone from near dead to owning half the plan and making sure it's too small to work -- somebody's lost here, but it ain't them.
(Oh and what happens to you if you are a GOP senator, and don't even *vote* for the Obama plan? Well, Obama apparently may think you are cool enuf to get a cabinet slot, like Gregg. Wow. Who's really lost their way in that picture?)
The GOP has gone from near dead to owning half the plan and making sure it's too small to work -- somebody's lost here, but it ain't them.
(Oh and what happens to you if you are a GOP senator, and don't even *vote* for the Obama plan? Well, Obama apparently may think you are cool enuf to get a cabinet slot, like Gregg. Wow. Who's really lost their way in that picture?)
30
PC, I more than aggree! It is bull shit, but obviously life is not fair.
and to qwertyuiop @6
Our oppulant standard of living? Is it what it is. How the fuck are we supposed to value our life? In the old days, people would live for the their future, and their families future ... and HAVE LOTS OF BABIES.
Well six billion people later, I'm proud to say that our hedonistic self serving life style may in fact SAVE THIS PLANET. Instead of living miserably in the hopes that our offspring will live in oppulance. We can take the stakes for ourselves, live longer, higher quality lives, and inevitably less of a footprint
and to qwertyuiop @6
Our oppulant standard of living? Is it what it is. How the fuck are we supposed to value our life? In the old days, people would live for the their future, and their families future ... and HAVE LOTS OF BABIES.
Well six billion people later, I'm proud to say that our hedonistic self serving life style may in fact SAVE THIS PLANET. Instead of living miserably in the hopes that our offspring will live in oppulance. We can take the stakes for ourselves, live longer, higher quality lives, and inevitably less of a footprint
31
@30 (former Tri-State)
Do you even know what opulent means? It doesn't mean "hedonistic" and it doesn't mean "self-serving." The OED defines it as: " Indicative or suggestive of wealth; ostentatiously luxurious or grand, sumptuous." As far as I'm aware, living ostentatiously has little bearing on birth rates.
Besides, living in service of oneself more or less sums up consumer capitalism. Your idea of what may "SAVE THIS PLANET" is a pretty good description of how we got into this mess in the first place.
Do you even know what opulent means? It doesn't mean "hedonistic" and it doesn't mean "self-serving." The OED defines it as: " Indicative or suggestive of wealth; ostentatiously luxurious or grand, sumptuous." As far as I'm aware, living ostentatiously has little bearing on birth rates.
Besides, living in service of oneself more or less sums up consumer capitalism. Your idea of what may "SAVE THIS PLANET" is a pretty good description of how we got into this mess in the first place.
32
The right wing doesn't want this because there is money for the American people(i.e. poor, black,etc.) and not billions for KBR and Haliburton, Banks, (i.e. rich, white, racist, Republicans). If you supported Obama for President you absolutely must show your support for him now in his struggle against the forces of right wing racism and ignorant greed.
35
http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/…
In which that evil, un-american communiss, FDR, prolongs the Great Depression with his marxist stimulus, or something....
In which that evil, un-american communiss, FDR, prolongs the Great Depression with his marxist stimulus, or something....
36
I might be one ot the few people who believes the Stranger should have staff which is competent in economics.
The reason why this would be a disaster are many. Disastrous inflation, decreased productivity, and what's worse, even though the gov's spending money, they might not actually creat more jobs!!!
Let me tell you, what it looks like now is nothing compared to what it looks like if these guys get it wrong. You should ask an economist, though instead of reacting to republicans like their ideas have cooties.
The reason why this would be a disaster are many. Disastrous inflation, decreased productivity, and what's worse, even though the gov's spending money, they might not actually creat more jobs!!!
Let me tell you, what it looks like now is nothing compared to what it looks like if these guys get it wrong. You should ask an economist, though instead of reacting to republicans like their ideas have cooties.
37
Umm... the current crisis is rooted in thirty years of right wing, Republican economic policy - why would anyone conclude that Republicans don't have cooties?
We will begin to move on from this crisis only when those who worship the corpse of Ayn Rand are completely removed from the body politic, and forced to set up card tables next to the LaRouchies to proselytize.
We will begin to move on from this crisis only when those who worship the corpse of Ayn Rand are completely removed from the body politic, and forced to set up card tables next to the LaRouchies to proselytize.
39
@31 ...
Sorry, I'm an organic chemist. Looking at history, technology is what allows us to cram more asses on the planet, feed them AND keep them occupied. So we can develop cleaner resources which will inevitably become maxed out so another 6 billion selfish people can occupy and suck our resources dry.
We are fucked because of overpopulation, pure and simple. Why do we have more people? Because when you have given up on your wealth, happiness, and opulance, you can pass down your dreams onto your offspring. Which is why third world hell holes generally have higher birthrates.
Sorry, I'm an organic chemist. Looking at history, technology is what allows us to cram more asses on the planet, feed them AND keep them occupied. So we can develop cleaner resources which will inevitably become maxed out so another 6 billion selfish people can occupy and suck our resources dry.
We are fucked because of overpopulation, pure and simple. Why do we have more people? Because when you have given up on your wealth, happiness, and opulance, you can pass down your dreams onto your offspring. Which is why third world hell holes generally have higher birthrates.
41
Hey 36, here's an economist - a Nobel prize winning one, Paul Krugman.
The Destructive Center
NYT 2/9/09
What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?
A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.
Even if the original Obama plan — around $800 billion in stimulus, with a substantial fraction of that total given over to ineffective tax cuts — had been enacted, it wouldn’t have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years.
Yet the centrists did their best to make the plan weaker and worse.
One of the best features of the original plan was aid to cash-strapped state governments, which would have provided a quick boost to the economy while preserving essential services. But the centrists insisted on a $40 billion cut in that spending.
The original plan also included badly needed spending on school construction; $16 billion of that spending was cut. It included aid to the unemployed, especially help in maintaining health care — cut. Food stamps — cut. All in all, more than $80 billion was cut from the plan, with the great bulk of those cuts falling on precisely the measures that would do the most to reduce the depth and pain of this slump.
On the other hand, the centrists were apparently just fine with one of the worst provisions in the Senate bill, a tax credit for home buyers. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research calls this the “flip your house to your brother” provision: it will cost a lot of money while doing nothing to help the economy.
All in all, the centrists’ insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering.
But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy.
After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy’s dire straits and his own electoral mandate.
Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate.
Mr. Obama’s postpartisan yearnings may also explain why he didn’t do something crucially important: speak forcefully about how government spending can help support the economy. Instead, he let conservatives define the debate, waiting until late last week before finally saying what needed to be said — that increasing spending is the whole point of the plan.
And Mr. Obama got nothing in return for his bipartisan outreach. Not one Republican voted for the House version of the stimulus plan, which was, by the way, better focused than the original administration proposal.
In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.
So Mr. Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh — not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small.
Such are the perils of negotiating with yourself.
Now, House and Senate negotiators have to reconcile their versions of the stimulus, and it’s possible that the final bill will undo the centrists’ worst. And Mr. Obama may be able to come back for a second round. But this was his best chance to get decisive action, and it fell short.
So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.
For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”
No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.
And so, once again, the cootie covered conservatives, Republicans and Blue Dogs alike, work hand in hand to destroy the American dream by widening the the already phenomenal gap between working Americans and the uber-wealthy. And the corpse of Ayn Rand smiles.
More...
The Destructive Center
NYT 2/9/09
What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?
A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.
Even if the original Obama plan — around $800 billion in stimulus, with a substantial fraction of that total given over to ineffective tax cuts — had been enacted, it wouldn’t have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years.
Yet the centrists did their best to make the plan weaker and worse.
One of the best features of the original plan was aid to cash-strapped state governments, which would have provided a quick boost to the economy while preserving essential services. But the centrists insisted on a $40 billion cut in that spending.
The original plan also included badly needed spending on school construction; $16 billion of that spending was cut. It included aid to the unemployed, especially help in maintaining health care — cut. Food stamps — cut. All in all, more than $80 billion was cut from the plan, with the great bulk of those cuts falling on precisely the measures that would do the most to reduce the depth and pain of this slump.
On the other hand, the centrists were apparently just fine with one of the worst provisions in the Senate bill, a tax credit for home buyers. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research calls this the “flip your house to your brother” provision: it will cost a lot of money while doing nothing to help the economy.
All in all, the centrists’ insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering.
But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy.
After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy’s dire straits and his own electoral mandate.
Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate.
Mr. Obama’s postpartisan yearnings may also explain why he didn’t do something crucially important: speak forcefully about how government spending can help support the economy. Instead, he let conservatives define the debate, waiting until late last week before finally saying what needed to be said — that increasing spending is the whole point of the plan.
And Mr. Obama got nothing in return for his bipartisan outreach. Not one Republican voted for the House version of the stimulus plan, which was, by the way, better focused than the original administration proposal.
In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.
So Mr. Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh — not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small.
Such are the perils of negotiating with yourself.
Now, House and Senate negotiators have to reconcile their versions of the stimulus, and it’s possible that the final bill will undo the centrists’ worst. And Mr. Obama may be able to come back for a second round. But this was his best chance to get decisive action, and it fell short.
So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.
For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”
No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.
And so, once again, the cootie covered conservatives, Republicans and Blue Dogs alike, work hand in hand to destroy the American dream by widening the the already phenomenal gap between working Americans and the uber-wealthy. And the corpse of Ayn Rand smiles.
43
Funny, an Republican named Herbert Hoover once argued that what we really needed to curb recession is fiscal conservatism, more zeal in balancing the budget, keeping government expenses down, etc. He also argued for tax cuts for business (i.e. rich people).
The Republican attitude today is the same one that existed back then, and back then it turned the recession of 1929 in to the Great Depression. We are very very lucky that we voted the bastards out in time.
The Republican attitude today is the same one that existed back then, and back then it turned the recession of 1929 in to the Great Depression. We are very very lucky that we voted the bastards out in time.
47
I love how Obama called them out on their shit though and talked about how anyone acting like they don't like spending who presided over the deficit is bullshit. It was awesome!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (58) RSS