Progressive group stands out as the lone Lee endorser


Mayor Ed Lee’s support by the wealthy power brokers and his checkered history with the Willie Brown administration has caused most progressive groups to shun him in this election, with one notable exception. San Francisco Rising Action Fund, a grassroots organization for working class people of color, gave Lee its second place endorsement, right after progressive favorite John Avalos. It's the only slate that the two political opposites appear on together.

The San Francisco Democratic Party, Sierra Club, San Francisco Labor Council, the Bay Guardian, and other progressive groups have all issued endorsement slates that generally include Avalos, Dennis Herrera, and sometimes Leland Yee. But Lee has been almost entirely shut out on the left – except for a third place endorsement by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, which is generally left but mostly single issue – making SFRAF the rare exception.

Alex Tom, one of the directors of SFRAF, clarified that its endorsement “ is not about Ed, but about the larger progressive movement.” Going against the endorsement grain, he said SFRAF consolidates the Asian, Latino, and Black communities— a strategy to compensate the divided nature in the political left.

“We need to step back in general and have a conversation with how people of color engage with politics and the progressive movement,” Tom told us.

Like many liberal groups, SFRAF is at the front lines of OccupySF and supports progressive bills like the Health Care Security Ordinance, which was the subject of Lee's first veto this week, angering progressive groups who sought to close a loophole that lets businesses raid the health savings accounts of their employees.

But Tom points out that “there is an assumption in SF that to get progressive things passed you need to go to District 5, 6, and 9— you don’t go to the Southeast,” or other lower income neighborhoods. SFRAF is trying to reframe the broad spectrum of progressives, to “civically engage [voters of color and lower incomes] and [include them] in the electorate.”

Voters of color don’t engage in the same spaces that other progressive do. “We are not insiders, we are not even inside the progressive circle,” Tom says.

SFRAF's Board of Directors includes Joel Aguilar, who recently left SF Day Labor Program; Chelsea Boilard with Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Antonio Diaz of People Organized to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights; Ariana Gil of Mujers Unidas y Activas; Adam Gold of Causa Justa: Alex Tom with the Chinese Progressive Association; and Steve Williams of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER).

The Directors promote Ed Lee’s platforms on local hire, summer school, fight against wage-theft, and facilitating equitable budget process. Lee’s a viable candidate for a new type of progressive, says SFRAF, who doesn’t “agree with the insider game” in regards to Rose Pak and Willie Brown, Lee’s closest associates.

SFRAF doesn’t believe the company Lee keeps makes him untrustworthy. While many progressives see a politician's connections as good indicators of their future actions and allegiances, SFRAF doesn’t seem to place much emphasis on this. Indeed, Lee seems to be an obstacle to much of the group's agenda.

Take the SFRAF’s 10-point platform, which is diametrically opposed to many of Lee's recent actions. In the matters of health care, SFRAF’s promotes, “policies that require employers to provide quality, affordable healthcare coverage to their employees and their families,” something that Lee's recent veto seemed to weaken, letting businesses take about $50 million per year that city law required them to set aside for employee health care.

The next day, Lee faced the same groups he voted against— at a labor union rally— and explained his veto was an act of diligence to protect jobs. But the sponsor of the vetoed legislation, Sup. David Campos, said the veto was an setback for workers' rights and consumer protection. “It's a defining issue for us at City Hall,” Campos told us.

But Tom disagrees with progressive assessments that “pay to play” is a major force in City Hall politics, although to did say it is important to “acknowledge your power structure.” To SFRAF, the progressive sector cannot duplicate a city run by a few insiders— a fear SFBG expects to be a reality with Ed Lee as mayor. Instead, he says a progressive City Hall must bring a “multi-sectored” people into the decision-making process.

And he think Lee will be an ally in doing so.

Steven T. Jones contributed to this report.


What are you waiting for? You said: "No tents."

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

and grow a pair yourself.

Why are you waiting for someone else to do your dirty work, you fucking keyboard warrior troll?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

Must have been the MC Hammer video.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 12:07 pm

"The San Francisco Democratic Party, Sierra Club, San Francisco Labor Council, the Bay Guardian, and other progressive groups have all issued endorsement slates that generally include Avalos, Dennis Herrera, and sometimes Leland Yee."

Why do you say "sometimes Leland Yee" when he's been endorsed as the
#1 candidate from the Sierra Club
#1 from the Labor Council and
#3 on the Guardian?

Herrera didn't make the Sierra Club cut and Avalos didn't place with the Labor Council.

Posted by SFBarbara on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 1:10 pm

He's been all over the map during his many years in power, and it's near impossible to predict how he would function as Mayor. For instance, he's voted against tenants more times than for them.

And of course there are many allegations of sleaze against him.

To my mind, the safer progressive ticket is Avalos, Dufty and Herrera. The only worry is that there's no Asian there, and that's 30% of the voters.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 1:47 pm

So why would you label them as such?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 4:47 pm

almost any reasonable definition of that word. OK, maybe not Hall. But remember, Newson is considered "hopelessly liberal" by national pundits.

But we were discussing the gay vote, and Dufty and Herrera are "it", while Avalos screwed that up a long time ago and hasn't redemmed himself.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

Dufty has told me to my face he is not a progressive, and he has even said the same in public.

Herrera is shill for Wall Street developers, and therefore simply doesn't fit the description 'progressive'.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 5:41 pm

Actually not true. Yee has voted with tenants a lot more than not. While there were a couple of votes years ago that weren't great, he has been better on tenant issues then any of our Senators in SF for years. He was 100 rated by Housing California, Congress of California Seniors, Teachers, Nurses, SEIU, and many others who care deeply about tenant issues. He also grew up in an SRO and understands this issue quite well. I am proudly voting Yee as my 1st choice!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 9:25 pm

Too many scandals, lies and switched positions. That's maybe a problem with having a long history.

But still, for me it's Chiu, Dufty and Adachi.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 11:21 am

Hi, respectfully just want to say -- speaking of switched positions and unpredictable politics: Chiu is among the most slippery in City Hall, so often finding an Obama-like way to straddle the issues and not take a clear stand...recall he was swing vote on demolishing Park Merced affordable housing, helped water down the city benefits for America's Cup, and constantly says we should "consider" things rather than taking a clear stand. Adachi, for all the great he's done, has willfully chosen to run an attack campaign against public sector workers, twice now, funded by millionaires and billionaires, and instead of fighting for progressive taxation to help save social services, he blames middle-class pensioners and civil servants. Why not support John Avalos--a clear consistent voice for tenants, affordable housing, living-wage jobs, local hiring, and making San Francisco a city for all of us and not just the rich? Avalos has been highly effective on the board, knows how to work with people and bring them together, and does it with clarity of purpose and principles. Thanks for listening, I hope.

Posted by Christopher Cook on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

I guess you nuts believe if you keep repeating this tripe, independent-minded folks will start believing it. I guess it would be news to Jerry Brown that he is attacking the workers who put him into office.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

as opposed to the Judean peoples front.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 1:38 pm

Reminded me of a few BofS meetings.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 2:20 pm

Unfortunately this is just San Francisco Rising Action Fund attempting to protect its own access to City Hall in case Lee wins.

Such liberal (rather than radical) politics of cynically preserving mere access, has been abjectly failing since the early 1980's and has been abandoned by groups which seek to make actual meaningful change happen.

Groups like Sierra Club and Greenpeace used to try this access ploy with D.C. Democrats, and have discovered it to be such a dismal failure when the actual votes and policies come down, that these big mainstream left organizations are now wisely beginning to abandon the tactic.

"Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will." ~ Frederick Douglass.

Protecting access just isn't good enough. It consistently fails to get results, and worse, will get you mired in problematic relationships with the powerful, which will block you from winning important victories as you stand back from pushing, in order to preserve that useless access.

So I see why you made the move SFRAF, but it won't work.

Which is why no other progressive groups did the same.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 5:18 pm

"grassroots organization for low-income and working classes of color"

Just because they call themselves this does not mean it is true.

This is yet another incarnation of the nonprofit coffee klatch cabal. As these self proclaimed vanguard activists of communities of color and poor folks have run the table on progressive politics in my community, we've seen a decrease in the number of poor people of color in my community.

Their success is measured solely in keeping the grant funding flowing that allows them to provide some services to a small sliver of the communities they claim to care about. These are truly leaders without movements.

Didn't Eric Quezada found the "grassroots democratic club?" Isn't this but another recreation of the SFPO coalition of nonprofits? Or the Mission Antidisplacement Coalition that dwindled down to meaninglessness after the jobs were handed out?

I got a solicitation for funds from these people earlier in the campaign season. I sent email asking them for clarification on their mission, goals and plans and got no response.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 8:29 pm

Ah, Marc Solomon, there you go again, and I cannot let this stand -- attacking Eric Quezada and the Grassroots Democratic Club, SFPO and MAC--yet again, finding an excuse to attack rather than build your own alternative constructively. What on earth good comes from attacking Eric, who did so much good for so many, who energized and mentored a generation of activists (many of whom do not work within the NGO sector), who helped lead a movement that in fact did change the discussion around planning and zoning, who helped give voice to so many beyond himself, who mobilized hundreds if not more who had never had a voice before, to speak for themselves to power....who helped create tons of affordable housing units in the eastern neighborhoods...who was a strident yet also eloquent and effective leading voice for comprehensive immigration reform...
Like you and others, I have a real problem with SF Rising's #2 for Ed Lee. But how dare you drag Eric Quezada into this after all he did to help build a stronger left voice in San Francisco? And Grassroots Democratic Club has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the "nonprofit industrial complex." Build something constructive Marc, instead of these old stale attacks against the wrong "enemy." Bigger fish to fry.

Posted by Christopher Cook on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

The Bike Coalition made the same mistake, for the same reason. It's why I won't be renewing my membership.

Posted by JMC on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 10:20 pm

Not to mention the fact that the Bike Coalition has over the last year supported Lennar's massive toxic gentrification projects in the Bayview Hunters Point and on Treasure Island, as well as the totally unacceptable Parkmerced project.

It is time for progressive groups to join together in San Francisco and institute a boycott of the Bike Coalition and shun solidarity with them until they stop stabbing us in the back on so many other issues.

The Bike Coalition needs a serious wake-up call...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 10:51 pm

I feel the same way. I was disappointed but understood when the SFBC endorsed Jane Kim (even if she has never been on a bike) but their endorsement of Ed Lee (you know, the guy who made crap MTA appointments and is letting taxi's park in bike lanes?) has pushed me over the edge.
What are they thinking?
I can't give them any money with a membership renewal. They've lost my respect.

Posted by SFBarbara on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:04 pm

Much betetr than Walker would have been, and far more conciliatory and co-operative than Daly.

Lee will bring more investment to the City which will bring much desired infrastructure investment. If you care about transit, then it has to be Lee.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:14 pm

SFBC Rainbow discount ends 12/13, so we'll see their membership come back down to earth in short order and see fewer motorists taking 10% off at Rainbow. There is talk of forming a bicycle advocacy cooperative that would join Network of Bay Area Worker Cooperatives (NoBAWC) pronounced no-boss, and automatically become eligible for a discount because there is so much disgust with the San Francisco Bicycle Corporation.

I told progressives that the nonprofits were a point of vulnerability that would see the progressive electoral movement fully coopted, nobody listened to me, dismissed these observations and predictions as divisive, and here we are with a broken, exhausted, coopted progressive electoral movement.

These nonprofits and community leaders without constituencies have been trying to graft their failed model onto the Occupation as well, but at the only GA that I attended this week, someone else voiced my concerns precisely and blocked their proposal. After hearing him articulate my position, I changed my stand aside to a block.

Steve Williams was present at the occupation yesterday. I don't think he knows who I am by face even though the POWER office is 1 block from our home. It was all I could do to restrain myself from asking how SF Rising is going. It must be said that POWER and PODER are located in The Mission. People organizing for employment and economic rights have seen both deteriorate over the past decade. It was on their watch that Eastern Neighborhoods went down and our community was rezoned for car rich higher density luxury condo projects near freeways and bus lines were.

When it came time to deal with 1501 15th Street, luxury condos right down the street from POWER, not a peep of assistance to demand more affordability from anyone but Tommi A. Mecca at HRC. When Daly put forth a proposition several years ago to address Bayview redevelopment affordability, I asked Chris why not put in 1/3 of housing for cops, firefighters and teachers as that would sell the measure? Daly said that POWER did not want cops living in those neighborhoods. The measure failed 2:1 and the march of the luxury condos continues, all that cop salary goes to the suburbs and teachers are on their own. Pro family, yeah, only when it comes to hating on queers taking housing from deserving poor immigrant families of color. But the POWER activists got to take the most left position and got that marked down in the Big Leftist Book In The Sky.

Now these see-through leftists are hedging their bets and focusing on the most important thing in the world--keeping their meal tickets up to date and validated. That, and trying to hijack the Occupation the same way they sandbagged San Francisco's progressive electoral project, using divisive identity politics appeals that do not seem to even carry weight amidst the communities of color they claim to represent.

Snip, snip, the integument burst asunder, the 20th century failed activists models are relegated to the dustbin of history.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 7:18 am

Well said.


I can't believe you were about to stand aside! It is absolutely vital that we keep traditional liberal nonproifts from hijacking the consensus process at the Occupy encampments.

From now on, good mind stimulating/clearing herb tea before you go to the GA ;)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 12:04 pm

My mind was not unstimulated. I thought it bad form to block the first proposal to come up at the first GA that I attended. I asked clarifying questions, like whether this would divert resources from the main occupation, one that was having troubles of its own, and whether the organizing style of the people behind this was horizontal like Occupy. It ended up more powerful that I switched my stand aside to a block, because I trusted in the wisdom of the GA and it all worked out well.

Things worked out, there was a watered down proposal that passed which created a communications council for information sharing but with nothing more to it. These vertical activists cannot comprehend the notion of open, horizontal democratic organizing, and Must. Have. Structure. To. Control.

That said, we Mission residents are left cleaning up the Eastern Neighborhoods mess that these leftist vanguard activists of color, more leftist than any of us and more connected to their communities, left for poor folks and people of color and white folks and queers when they cut their crappy deal with the 1% to entitle all sorts of luxury development in the Mission. The far left of color cuts deals with the 1% wealthy SWMs and thinks that they're radical and connected to the community.

The funny thing is that it is not difficult for a childless white homosexual like me to connect with our community of poor families of color. One development at 15th/SVN wanted parking on 15th Street which would send cars by the Marshall School during the morning walk to school and commute. I worked to get the PTA involved and we had several bilingual meetings with the community and parents who didn't want their kids dodging cars after we voted to traffic calm our neighborhood, improvements forthcoming. Consensus was reached, we cornered the developer and Jane Kim's office helped to explore options to make the development safer when ended up moving parking to SVN and making the drive from parking effectively six times further from the freeway ramp.

The Marshall School is equidistant from my home and POWER's offices. Do you all think that these celebrators of families of color ever worked with a PTA, one of the larger popular organizations in our community with branches at every school, to advance a people-centered politics in SF? OF course not, they're afraid that any open, democratic political construct will reject their fantasy politics and threaten their continued nonprofit funding.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 6:53 am

Makes sense, I didn't realize it was your first Occupy SF general assembly.

On SF Rising

It's interesting to note that when many of us were engaged in the effort to win a progressive interim mayor appointment, one big reason that we never got consensus was that SF Rising fudged around (and eventually bailed) on committing to help choose a specific progressive candidate and help push for that candidate; specifically because they were worried about preserving relationships with individual Supervisors and the Mayor's office.

SF Rising piddled around with us and then backed out, costing us valuable time and contributing to the undercutting of solidarity toward the goal.

The rest is history.

Had we been more organized, we might have succeeded in getting Hennessey appointed, and the mayor's race in San Francisco would be a -very- different trip.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 11:36 am

No longer will these activists of color be able to hide behind their ethnicity to cover their actions by calling everyone who challenges them a racist.

They've proven they have no real base, cannot mobilize the communities they claim to speak for, and are leaders without a movement, endpoints for public and foundation grant funding.

The spell is broken, they've marginalized themselves and like David Chiu, will find their efforts to preserve relationships aren't worth shit.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 1:51 pm


Posted by marcos on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 7:36 am

8 minutes-

Good to hear from a real progressive for a change.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 3:16 pm

"Adachi, for all the great he's done, has willfully chosen to run an attack campaign against public sector workers, twice now, funded by millionaires and billionaires, and instead of fighting for progressive taxation to help save social services, he blames middle-class pensioners and civil servants.
Why not support John Avalos--a clear consistent voice for tenants, affordable housing, living-wage jobs, local hiring, and making San Francisco a city for all of us and not just the rich? Avalos has been highly effective on the board, knows how to work with people and bring them together, and does it with clarity of purpose and principles." ~Christopher Cook

John Avalos for Mayor!!

Posted by Lisa on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 4:44 pm

'Great video'???

You've got to be kidding.

Folks should definitely watch it and note that after the 1 minute mark it viciously attacks public campaign funding and likewise viciously demonizes John Avalos and others who accepted public financing for supposedly stealing finds from school children.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 5:00 pm

Yeah, I was pretty shocked by Gonzalez' attack on John Avalos. Public campaign financing is a bedrock principle of progressive politics (cleaning up politics by clearing out the big money). I keep wondering what Matt can possibly do to top himself in his race to throw progressives under the train.

Shame, shame, shame on you Matt Gonzalez!!!

Posted by Lisa on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 5:41 pm

Progressive ever to achieve critical mass in the City. He almost beat Newsom and, quite rightly IMO, sees Avalos as a weak candidate. He is, and cannot win.

Eric wouldn't last 2 minutes in a straight-up debate with Matt, and he kinows it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 6:40 pm

A) What does your petty grandstanding have to do with the fact that it is completely fucked up, and not in the slightest bit progressive, for Jeff Adachi to attack public financing?

B) Interesting that you are trying to deflect this conversation toward Gonzalez and my debate skills, when the -subject- is the Adachi campaign's unconscionable attack on public financing and progressives; both attacks showing that Adachi is now carrying the right wing agenda, and that if he could get away with it, he would run as a Republican.

C) You've ever seen me in a debate...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 7:13 pm

Quit clutching your pearls and shut up. If you can't stand being challenged then stop leaving comments inviting others to do so.

Jesus you sound like a little bitch.

Posted by guest on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 7:25 pm

Where did you learn to debate, modeling school?

Perhaps if we could figure out what your challenge was, we could respond.

Ducking the issue with smart ass remarks will get you nowhere.

The subject at hand seems to be Adachi's shameless trashing of both workers and the public financing of campaigns, the latter which Nader rightly points out is the only way to guarantee fair elections.

Time to start calling former Jedi Jeff Adachi, Darth Republicus.

Posted by Aragorn on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 7:53 pm

Matt came close to beating Newsom because the strength of the progressive movement was at its peak and lots of people worked hard on that campaign. It wasn't simply because of Matt, who took his ball and went home the next year, hurting the movement. He's also refusing to support some of his top campaign staffers, such as Ross Mirkarimi. And now he's running commercials criticizing the public financing system he helped create and supporting a candidate who has more support on the right than the left. No, I don't think I'll be taking my cues from Matt in this election.

Posted by steven on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 10:07 am

You can't even drop out if you want to when you have no chance of winning?? That's ridiculous. The amount of money being spent by those who can't win is also ridiculous. Why do I think Gonzales didn't write that entire law himself?

Adachi has plenty of support from the left. Not everyone is duped by SFBG's endless drivel that pension reform is an attack on workers and that includes Jerry Brown.

Adachi is more popular than ur boy Avalos and the election will reflect that.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 10:57 am

They become more moderate and balanced with time.

Those who don't become more moderate are usually people with no decision-making power, like activists and, er, journalists.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 11:18 am

Matt hasn't had "decision making power" since 2004. He hasn't "moderated" he ran on the freaking Nader ticket. 0 for 2.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

"Matt's gone moderate".

But people becoming more conservative as they get older is hardly a rare event.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 12:14 pm

"he (Adachi) blames middle-class pensioners."

Please provide ANY quote from Adachi where this would be even remotely true. (You can't)

You bet your ass he's blamed City officials overseeing the fund - but that is all.

Jerry Brown- another pension reformer dancing with billionaires and ATTACKING public sector workers...!!

You're a liar. Sometimes it needs to be said.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 5:00 pm


If you're going to call me a liar, at least have the decency to say it to my face~ that is, post your name. If you have the guts.

I would like to take credit for that comment, however it was originally posted by Christopher Cook. However, he's absolutely right. Adachi HAS blamed public workers for the city's deficit, for cuts in city services, the summer school cuts, etc. I have never once heard him blame the financial elites -- you know, the 1% who actually crashed the economy. But then, I wouldn't expect Adachi OR Gonzalez to demonstrate real leadership. I call as I see it.

Lisa Pelletier

Posted by Lisa on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 6:00 pm

public sector and their unions. They have benefits way beyond what the rest of us enjoy.

And the problem long pre-existed the sub-prime crisis.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

Hmm. Public sector and its unions, huh..?

So the fact that the U.S. and the Federal Reserve have bailed out global finance corporations etc, for at least $18 trillion dollars, and the U.S. has spent at least $3 trillion on wars over the control of fossil fuels in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, has nothing to do with the ongoing financial crisis on main street?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 7:34 pm

It fact, it was cash the government printed.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 8:39 am

You are actually ludicrously claiming that if we had not spent 21 TRILLION dollars on on bank bailouts and war, that somehow none of that money would have been spent on local economies to save them from ruin and keep people hired. Total nonsense.

And the continuous yearly drastic local budget cuts can absolutely be directly correlated to cuts in state and local subsidies from the federal government primarily because it has thrown so much money down the rathole of bank bailouts and war.

And your contention that the 'government' just 'printed' the money is simply false.

The Federal Reserve (a private bank) created all of that money through loans and financial instruments.

And while this is indeed akin to 'printing' 21 trillion dollars, you seem to be totally naive to the fact that when an amount of money that large is artificially pumped into the economy through bailouts, it has a -profound- effect on the economy; for the most part very bad for main street.

Especially since -none- of those bailed out banks gave -any- of the money as loans and debt readjustments to struggling businesses, homeowners and consumers; a move that would have -saved- our local saved our local economies.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 11:36 am

of the bailout money would have gone to your local pet projects. Why would they? Where's your evidence?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 11:52 am

No, that already happened genius. It the whole point of this discussion.

Since the 2007 crash, not one penny -has- gone to local supports because it went to banks and war instead.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 12:19 pm

have gone to municipalities.

And in fact the Feds did introduce "Build America" bonds that helped muni's.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 12:39 pm

Apparently your reading comprehension is so poor you simply did not grasp the previous post. It is already a fact that none of the money went to municipalities, because the assholes controlling the money purposely kept it from doing so.

And the 'Build America' bonds were a pitiful joke that were only a tiny mitigation to a larger deficit, meaning that locals suffered a net loss.

Interesting though that now you are blatantly arguing out of both sides of your mouth in one post of only two sentences.

First you say none of the money would have gone to the municipalities.

And then in very next -sentence- you claim that some of it -did- go to municipalities.

Is it your plan to make yourself look like a complete idiot?

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 1:31 pm

Also from this author

  • Battling big box

    City officials and small businesses seek more studies and controls on formula retailers

  • Alerts

  • Alerts