Skip to main content

On the Economy Debate, The Gloves Come Off | OurFuture.org

http://ga3.org/ct/ppMupW71p4vP/

By Robert Borosage
June 11th, 2008 - 9:17am ET


Monday in Raleigh, North Carolina, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama opened the general election fight, taking the gloves off against the "tired and misguided [economic] philosophy that has dominated Washington for too long," and offering a clear challenge to the Bush-McCain economic misrule. In Washington before the National Federation of Independent Business, McCain counterpunched, suggesting the choice was between low taxes and "the largest tax increase since World War II."

This argument will be the big kahuna in this election. Despite ritual boosterism, soothing rhetoric and quiet prayers by Wall Street pundits, the economy is foul and likely to get much worse. We've lost jobs for five months in a row. Gas, food, health care costs are soaring. For workers, the mess is worse than the stagflation of the 1970s. Then, growth was stagnant while prices and wages were spiraling up. Now we've got stagflation squared; growth and wages are stagnant and prices on basics are soaring, while the value of homes, the largest investment Americans have, is plummeting.

Many aren't making it. Home foreclosures are the highest since the great depression. One in six homes in America is worth less than the mortgage. With prices down 14 percent from last year, Americans have seen $2.5 trillion in wealth erased. No wonder credit card debt has soared, and workers are rifling retirement accounts.
President Bush and John McCain say the "fundamentals are strong," so the downturn is a "rough patch." As the president left for Europe, he once more celebrated our "open and flexible" economy, with "some of the deepest and most liquid capital markets" [he's apparently been AWOL the last months], arguing that the "long-term health and strong foundation of our economy will shine through and be reflected in currency values."

Bush and Republicans in Congress have been resisting any new stimulus measures, arguing that the $600 rebate checks going out in the stimulus package are just kicking in, and that things will get better.

Not likely. Gas prices will chew up the rebates — while racking up rising trade deficits. And beginning in July, states and localities will be laying off teachers and police, deferring construction projects as they struggle with rising deficits. And the banks staggered by the collapse of the financial bubble are now about to face the rising credit card, auto loan and mortgage defaults that come with an economic downturn.

Why are we in this mess? Obama put the blame for this directly on the Bush-McCain economic strategy. The current crisis, he argued, wasn't simply "some accident of history," or "an inevitable part of a business cycle." It was the "logical conclusion" of a "worn dogma" that has failed this country.

Obama called for a second, short-term $50 billion stimulus; for aiding homeowners facing foreclosure through no fault of their own; and for extending unemployment benefits for those workers caught in the economic ebb tide. Bush and Congressional Republicans have resisted these measures.

But he also began to contrast his longer-range strategy for rebuilding America to the failed trickle-down, market fundamentalism and fiscal irresponsibility of the past years:

"For eight long years, our president sacrificed investments in health care, and education, and energy, and infrastructure on the altar of tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs -- trillions of dollars in giveaways that proved neither compassionate nor conservative."


And with McCain pledging to sustain that same course — top end tax cuts and cuts in domestic spending — Obama draws the contrast:

John McCain and I have a fundamentally different vision of where to take the country. Because for all his talk of independence, the centerpiece of his economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies. He says we've made great progress in our economy these past eight years. He calls himself a fiscal conservative, and on the campaign trail he's a passionate critic of government spending, and yet he has no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for big corporations and a permanent occupation of Iraq — policies that have left our children with a mountain of debt.

In contrast, Obama calls for a "bottom-up prosperity," based upon his version of putting people first. He wants to invest in education and training. He'd generate millions of new jobs in a concerted drive for energy independence. He'll create a national investment bank to rebuild and modernize our aging infrastructure, and put people to work. He'll help make college more affordable. He'll offer middle-class families (generously defined as making under $150,000) a tax break, while raising taxes on the wealthy, shutting corporate tax loopholes, imposing an excess profits tax on the oil and gas companies, and using money saved from ending the Iraq war to invest here at home.

McCain scorns this as the old "tax and spend" policies that Americans can't afford, arguing that "Sen. Obama says I'm running for Bush's third term, seems to me he's running for Jimmy Carter's second." (Great line, except the stagflation is already here.) In his speech before the conservative National Federation of Independent Business, he called for not only sustaining the Bush tax cuts which he once opposed, but also adding new cuts (an estimated $300 billion a year) for corporations and the wealthy. He bizarrely emphasized "the estate tax," as "one of the most unfair taxes on the books," presumably because it applies primarily to the wealthiest 2 percent of America's fortunes.

McCain paints himself as the change largely by posing as the sheriff policing wasteful pork-barrel spending, in contrast to the wastrel ways of the Republican Congress and the Bush administration.
His plans earned Obama's scorn: McCain, he said:

is now calling for a new round of tax giveaways that are twice as expensive as the original Bush plan and nearly twice as regressive. His policy will spend nearly $2 trillion on tax breaks for corporations, including $1.2 billion for Exxon alone, a company that just recorded the highest profits in history. ... At a time when we're fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can't afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we're paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil. That isn't just irresponsible. It's outrageous.



I have a different vision for the future. Instead of spending $12 billion a month to rebuild Iraq, I think it's time we invested in our roads and schools and bridges and started to rebuild America. Instead of handing out giveaways to corporations that don't need them and didn't ask for them, it's time we started giving a hand up to families who are trying pay their medical bills and send their children to college. We can't afford four more years of skewed priorities that give us nothing but record debt — we need change that works for the American people.

In this exchange, McCain is in trouble. Here, as on Iraq, he is arguing for carrying the Bush agenda forward, while three-quarters of Americans think we're on the wrong course. As Obama puts it, "We have tried it their way for eight long years and it has failed. It is time to try something new. It is time for a change."

We haven't witnessed this clear an ideological division since the 1964 Johnson-Goldwater face-off. For those who feared Obama couldn't throw a punch, he showed both a good jab and a decent left hook in pounding McCain on the economy.

That's why the Republican posse is likely to scorn sparring about policy and turn this election into an alley fight, taking out the knives around patriotism, pastors and race.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by TheTotalTruth:
lol,,,SouthernPatriot,,, I read that thread and couldnt believe anyone had the cajones to make a thread like that with all the working ppl on this forum.... they are on my ''''bad'''' list!...... We just got to remember that God put stupid ppl on this earth to make us with brains look smarter....... Wink


I also heard that " He taketh the wise in his own craftyness". and another "God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise".
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
Originally posted by TheTotalTruth:
lol,,,SouthernPatriot,,, I read that thread and couldnt believe anyone had the cajones to make a thread like that with all the working ppl on this forum.... they are on my ''''bad'''' list!...... We just got to remember that God put stupid ppl on this earth to make us with brains look smarter....... Wink


I also heard that " He taketh the wise in his own craftyness". and another "God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise".


Cool,,,, you have proven your own comments...... yay you!...... Roll Eyes
Howard,
you really need to get out of Washington and see the real world. Last year in Colbert County schools the school system did not have the money to run air conditioning in classes in April and May. They did not even have money to run copiers, the kids had to copy tests as well as other things off the board.

But for you rich Republicans, we got a really nice Robert Trent golfcourse for you paid for by the poor folks.
Extra,

Did you even comprehend the meaning of my post? Through local control and funding, the US developed one of the best public education systems in the world. That system is declining!

A combination of federal, NEA and other organizations have usurped standards. The US spends more per capita than over 190 nations, but Obama desires to expend even more.

I don't play golf! And, if I become wealthy, it will be from a combination of education and sweat. Why do you think I'm improving a old townhouse?
The National Debt is $ 9 Trillion dollars, what do we have to show for this? The wealthiest increased their wealth while the middle class is barley holding on.

Obama says he wants to invest in the people, not the Military War Machine for the profits of the Corporate Class.

Excerpt from the article:

"...Despite ritual boosterism, soothing rhetoric and quiet prayers by Wall Street pundits, the economy is foul and likely to get much worse. We've lost jobs for five months in a row. Gas, food, health care costs are soaring. For workers, the mess is worse than the stagflation of the 1970s. Then, growth was stagnant while prices and wages were spiraling up. Now we've got stagflation squared; growth and wages are stagnant and prices on basics are soaring, while the value of homes, the largest investment Americans have, is plummeting.

Many aren't making it. Home foreclosures are the highest since the great depression. One in six homes in America is worth less than the mortgage. With prices down 14 percent from last year, Americans have seen $2.5 trillion in wealth erased. No wonder credit card debt has soared, and workers are rifling retirement accounts.'
quote:
No wonder credit card debt has soared, and workers are rifling retirement accounts.'


I'm middle class, I'm doing fine. Everyone I know is middle class, they are all doing fine as well. One couple just bought their first house.

So much for that theory.

Besides, a high percentage of wealthy people started out middle class or lower. Are you saying we should prevent people from getting rich?

So have you ever actually been to the Shoals or did you just stumble across this forum at random? Is this forum being passed around by some lefist group, encouraging it's members to post it's nonsense here? What is your motivation for being here, Pogo?
__________________________________________________________________________________________


Well there you go, Nash is doing fine, everyone he knows is Middle Class, so the statistics of unemployment, debt, poverty, foreclosures must be all wrong. Forget the government statistic and the news, all we have to do is ask Nash.

The Wealthy range from the multi billionaires to the millionaires, the rest are struggling to get by. Not many getting wealthy anymore.
quote:
The Wealthy range from the multi billionaires to the millionaires, the rest are struggling to get by. Not many getting wealthy anymore.


Total crap. I produce commercials for small business owners all the time. They are getting wealthy. The economy has slowed, but for the most part they are doing well.

Money is not finite, the banks basically print it out of air every day, but that's a different story. I live in the real world and look to reality for my information, not some pro socialist propaganda painting a gloom and doom story about how everyone is poor. That's just not real.

By the way Pogo, are you in the U.S. or Canada? Maybe the U.K.?
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
"bottoms-up prosperity"???? that sounds like some kind of a San Francisco dance or something conducted under the wave of the rainbow flag. We don't take kindly to that kind of thang downs here.... Wink


Bottoms-up

Lets just say for the sake of argument that you like to drink beer, a lot of beer. You receive a big tax break from government.
So you go out every night and drink lots of beer with your new-found windfall, creating a beer shortage. The brewer recognizes that his beer is getting in short supply, and so he will build another brewery, and hire more people to run it, to supply you with your insatiable thirst.
That's what I personally refer to as "trickle-up economics".

There is another scenario tho, that which is the mantra of Regan, and Bush called "trickle-down economics. (Bush 1 referred to it as "voodoo economics, but kept it after becoming president"
That economic theory is that if the government gives big enough tax breaks to the brewery, they will go build another plant, and hire lots of people. They will then produce more of that beer you love to drink, and since there is more beer on the market, you will decide to go drink it, even though you don't have the extra money to do so.

That is the difference. Which economic theory do you think is the most plausible ?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________


NashBama:

Total crap. I produce commercials for small business owners all the time. They are getting wealthy. The economy has slowed, but for the most part they are doing well.

Money is not finite, the banks basically print it out of air every day, but that's a different story. I live in the real world and look to reality for my information, not some pro socialist propaganda painting a gloom and doom story about how everyone is poor. That's just not real.

________________________________________________________________________________________________


You live in a bubble Nash, the instability of economy right now is not "pro socialist propaganda." It's a fact and you can find it in the business pages, the middle class is struggling. The facts are plain.

There are sections of the country and some people doing well. In the heart of the depression some people did well, but not the majority. And we are seeing it again, people especially in the "Heartland" as well as others are struggling. Even those who are comfortable are worried about their economic security. It is why we are seeing the rise of the democrats in congress and Obama.

My business also deals with wealthy people who also live in a bubble.

The very wealthy are the top percentage of the population, the billionaires and millionaires. That's like that the top 5%. Then there is another percentage who are over the 100,000 a year level or so but the average income is around $50 to $75,000 and they are one step ahead of failing. All it takes is a major illness, loss of job and some other event and they are in big trouble.

Personal debt is up and the National Debt is up and although the government can print as much money as it wants it does not always solve the problems. Funny for a conservative to suggest that the government can "print" it's way out of economic trouble. We all know that unless there is something to back it up it can lead to inflation and become worthless. Then you have real problems.
quote:
My business also deals with wealthy people who also live in a bubble.


You didn't answer my question Pogo. Are you in the U.S. or Canada?

It's very rude to ignore a question.

I'm not dealing with wealthy people, I'm dealing with small business owners. For most of them it's the first time to ever advertise.

Personal debt is a personal problem. You don't have to have a credit card or car payment, that's a personal choice.

Check your PM Pogo, or are you ignoring those as well? Would you like to tell everyone why you are so secretive?
As I say the instability of economy right now is a fact. It not some "pro socialist propaganda." The middle class is struggling. Personal debt is up because salaries were not keeping pace with costs.

There are some people doing well but there are a lot who aren't. Enough to have others who are secure concerned and worried about their own situation. They know they also can be in the same boat and the right wingers will just turn their backs on them and make excuses as McCain and the republcian comgress and right wing talk show demagogues. You can't bully or spin out of this one. The people know they are suffering.

That's one of the reasons for the rise of the democrats and Obama.

It's "rude" to ask personal questions.
quote:
It's "rude" to ask personal questions.


Location is not a personal question. It's one of the first things asked when you meet someone new.

Notice that almost everyone has their location at the bottom of their posts, even me. General location is not really that personal.

It's rude not to answer a general question. Your avoidance is suspicious to say the least. A simple open answer to start with and I wouldn't have to keep harping on this.

Besides, I also asked in PM just in case you are embarrassed of where you're from or have some other reason. You are ignoring those as well.

Personal debt is a choice. You make a choice to buy a new car, a choice to get a credit card, a choice to get home equity loans. Americans spend billions on entertainment alone, quite a bit of that is paid with credit cards. That says Americans are able to make ends meet, but their spending habits are out of whack.

Now, back to the important question. If you have no ties to the Shoals, why are you here?
quote:
Nash,
you have done a good job of turning this thread personal and getting off topic.


My response is still on topic, I addressed the myth of personal debt being the fault of someone other than the person borrowing the money.

Pogo's evasiveness has sparked my curiosity. Such a simple question is usually easily answered. Why would someone post here with no ties to the Shoals? Running from that question has me suspicious, so until it's answered I will continue to ask.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
That is the difference. Which economic theory do you think is the most plausible ?

I subscribe to the theory that it has to flow both ways. First the product has to have a need. Let's take cheap beer for example. If you want beer, then beer needs to be available. Now if the beer is good you will buy it, more money in the pocket of the maker, who in turn will hire more workers, who will earn more money and be able to buy more beer. Now, let's add the guv'ment. They decide that you may want the beer, but they need to get a piece of the action as well. The beer that used to be a $1 is taxed by the government at let's say 10%....now it's $1.10. You buy the beer, the government gets their share and you enjoy it. The government decides that is not enough, so they also go to the maker and say we want 38% of your income from the beer. The beermaker now has to either add this to the cost of the beer, or cut some employees in order to make payroll. The maker cannot hire more people, because he already pays the benefits of the workers, and gives them a good salary and tries to make a clean and safe product. He works harder and needs his employees to do so in order to get the product to market and make a profit, lest there is no reason nor incentive to continue to make the beer. Morale at the beer factory goes down.
The beer maker now cannot find anyone willing to work for the money he was paying to get his $1 beer to market, so he is 1) force to close the factory, or 2) move the factory to someplace where the people are willing to work for less money or 3) increase the price of his beer in order to capture the monies needed to pay his employees and the tax man. This is not an option since the imported beer, with a higher alcohol content is already being sold for a less price than he can produce his cheap $1 product. So he moves his business south of the border.

Now we have a situation where we lose employees, who cannot buy the beer (they got no money), so they complain loudly enough and the government sends them a check each month. They can then go and buy the beer, but wait there is no beer at the store cause the beerman had to close up shop and move it to Mexico. Later the beer shows up, it is bought, the people with the check each month are so happy cause they got their beer for a dollar. The beerman is happy cause he is in Mexico making beer and is able to sell it for a $1. The government then wonders why they are not getting their 37%...oh wait, the beer man left. "Let's just increase taxes on everyone else, cause we need the money to send the checks each month to folks who wouldn't work to make the beer so the beerman could keep his business here in this country"....

What a sad tale of current business in this country. It happens everyday. Companies are hit with more and more taxes and restrictions, causing them to have to make changes that do not go over to well with the workers, who want more and more money to meet the increasing prices of goods. yet the government is the only one who never suffers in this endless circle.
Sure, Personal debt is a choice. Either buy that new car or walk 30 miles to work. Can't afford doctor bills, better to suffer and die then go into debt. Half the bankruptcies are due to medical bills.

Personal debt is up because salaries have not kept up with costs.

The reason we are in economic trouble now is due to Corporate Greed which has taken good paying jobs and sent them overseas. They busted the unions and use the threat of sending your job overseas to keep wages down and their profits up. Also there are not enough good paying jobs.

It has nothing to do with taxing the rich, that's the right wing line pushed by Reagan and it's only made things worse. The wealthy are not paying in accordance to what they are taking out of the economy and it shifts the tax burden to the middle class.

If the government doesn't tax that business who's going to pay for that big expensive military?
Podo, you need to read this quote from the man who was over the Federal Reserve during the depression It is eye opening. The quote is from Wkipedia.

We need this man around today:Marriner S. Eccles who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November, 1934 to February, 1948 detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs, Beckoning Frontiers (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1951)[22]:

As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation s economic machinery. [Emphasis in original.] Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.

That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spending by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929.

The time came when there were no more poker chips to be loaned on credit. Debtors thereupon were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin that could be applied to the reduction of outstanding debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds and brought on what seemed to be overproduction, but was in reality underconsumption when judged in terms of the real world instead of the money world. This, in turn, brought about a fall in prices and employment.

Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus closing the circle in a continuing decline of prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds in the wages, salaries, and time of those employed. And thus again the vicious circle of deflation was closed until one third of the entire working population was unemployed, with our national income reduced by fifty per cent, and with the aggregate debt burden greater than ever before, not in dollars, but measured by current values and income that represented the ability to pay. Fixed charges, such as taxes, railroad and other utility rates, insurance and interest charges, clung close to the 1929 level and required such a portion of the national income to meet them that the amount left for consumption of goods was not sufficient to support the population.

This then, was my reading of what brought on the depression
quote:
Sure, Personal debt is a choice. Either buy that new car or walk 30 miles to work. Can't afford doctor bills, better to suffer and die then go into debt. Half the bankruptcies are due to medical bills.

Personal debt is up because salaries have not kept up with costs.


No one is faced with a choice of buy a new car or walk. That is a lie.

There are inexpensive used cars out there, it doesn't take that long to save up and buy one. Unless you can afford to throw away $2,000 on depreciation, you shouldn't buy new.

Hospitals have to treat people regardless of ability to pay, it's federal law. No one is dying because they can't pay their bills. Just look at how many illegal aliens are flooding emergency rooms for simple care. They're getting car at our expense.

Typical emotional response with no facts to prove it.

Pogo, please explain why you are on these forums if you have no ties to the Shoals. If you can't answer that question, please explain why you refuse to answer it.
Nash,
for goodness sake Roll Eyes, c'mon, are you misinformed, you know as well as I do that it is a guaranteed civil right that everyone should they be able to afford it or not, should be guaranteed a new car, perhaps a Harley, maybe a bass boat, and a large house with a flat screen TV and a Xbox. Not because I need it, but because I want it. Why should I be denied these excesses that others enjoy. Run up that credit card if I wish, I can claim bankruptcy and wait a year or two and get another one. Why everyone realizes it is that nasty old bank down there that is forcing me to take it, sign the agreement and use it without thinking about the reprecussions. I mean they don't actually expect me to read those terms of use they send along do they? Their shareholders and depositirs can afford to supplement my income, they are not gonna miss that money.
And I don't need to think about insurance for that car or for myself should I get sick, someone else who makes more money than I do can carry the brunt of that responsibility. If not the government can tax those who are working and provide me with free healthcare, and take care of me when I get emphysema or God forbid lung cancer from my two pack a day habit.

I mean let's face it, the story of the ant and the grasshopper means nothing to these people.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×