Nothing To Spare In The New Reaganomic Low Wage Economy For 401K

[TheMastersNemesis]

By the time the GOP and its business allies are finished 80% of the working population will be a low wage worker. There will be nothing left to spare for any kind of 401K.

Unless there is radical progressive socialistic change to claw back decent wages, it will only get worse.

[JEFF9K]

1. Obama is blamed.

Conservatives keep blaming Obama for the economy and I keep telling them that we are still practicing Reaganomics, but it doesn't seem to register.

[TheMastersNemesis]

2. The Public Can Delude Itself All It Wants. GOP Control Will Mean The End Of All Labor Laws

The Rand Paul sponsored Empowerment Act if pass would nullify the entire domestic safety net and labor laws. By saying that the federal government can't do anything NOT SPECIFICALLY stated in the Constitution would be a disaster in this country. Such legislation is their intention. And there are already some nullification laws in the states that will NOT ALLOW raising the minimum wage.

[Bobcat]

4. Clueless

Rand Paul needs to read the Constitution. Article I Section 8 empowers Congress to do all sorts of things, most of them in the arena of the economy. Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, expands and broadens the application of the aforementioned powers in clauses 1 through 17. Numerous court cases have been decided on the basis of the commerce clause in Article 1 Section 8. Most recently the SCOTUS decision on the Affordable Care Act cited the commerce clause as the basis for its decision. Rand Paul is ignorant of the legacy of numerous court decisions upholding the legality of government exercising its constitutionally derived economic powers. These specific decisions citing the commerce clause date all the way back to 1824 in Gibbons vs. Ogden.

[LWolf]

3. Probably because

Obama supports Reaganomics. He talked about it in '08, before he ever won the Democratic nomination, for anyone who was paying attention.

[progressoid]

5. Yup. n/t

[JoePhilly]

7. Got a link to where he said that?

[LWolf]

8. Sure.

I've got a link to where he said this:

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/3263/

Obama was commenting positively on Ronald Reagan. The bolded statement is instructive. Those "excesses" were the advances made towards social and economic justice. Government having "grown" is presented as a problem: "Big Government," something Reagan liked to rant about. "Accountability" means reigning in those advances and that growth. All very Reagan-like and Reagan friendly.

It was offensive at the time. It's more offensive now.

As someone else once said, "You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows."

[JEFF9K]

11. dishonest

That's very dishonest of you. You are putting words into Obama's mouth. He didn't say he supported Reaganomics!

[LWolf]

13. Bullshit.

Comprehension and critical thinking require interpretation. Especially of a political speech, since so many politicians use vague phrases and euphemisms. My interpretation is pretty damned clear and aligns with plenty of others.

Disagree if you like; you would if Obama opened his mouth and said he was the second coming of RR himself.

But don't call me a liar.

[JoePhilly]

14. I figured that would be the small part of Obama's comment on Reagan you'd

refer to.

Here's a link to a longer version of that interview that is not clipped to remove the full context.

But before going to it ... even what the link you provide doesn't show what you claimed. No where in it does Obama endorse Reaganomics. It doesn't happen. But by clipping the video, you can try to claim that's what he means.

Which is why the longer clip is important to watch, in full.

Again, nowhere in it does Obama endorse Reaganomics. Nowhere. He never mentions it. Doesn't come close to doing so. What he mentioned is how Reagan tapped into a frustration with government and used it to get the country to follow him.

Immediately after the tiny fragment you present, Obama talks about how JFK changed the trajectory of the country. Then he talks about how in each case, the events of the time were a significant factor in how the trajectory changed. You pretend not to notice.

Not only that, later in the video (which anyone can now check because, again, I link to a more complete version) Obama says the GOP economic polices that have been in place for so long, HAVE NOT WORKED.

This is all very clear when you include the full video and not just a limited clip edited to remove critical elements.

Brietbart would be proud of you. Which is the truly offensive event here.

[LWolf]

15. I've read the whole thing. And watched it.

Back when it happened. You aren't going to acknowledge Obama's support of RR; your agenda is to deny. As said before, you wouldn't acknowledge reality if it flew out of his mouth and bit you on the ass.

He quite clearly indicated positive support of Reagan and his policies, which created that change of trajectory. Plenty of people didn't want to see that then.

By now, though, his actions back that clear and obvious interpretation to the hilt.

I'm thinking that you need to pat yourself on the back for having the last word.

Go for it. I've made my point, I'm done, and you have not, and cannot, refute it with your disingenuous refusal of inference.

[JoePhilly]

16. You linked to an edited video because the full version doesn't support

your argument.

Having seen others use the exact same video clip to make the exact same false argument, it was very easy for me to refute it.

Probably why your post above takes such a nasty and personal tone.

Others who happen to come across our exchange can now watch the longer video and determine for themselves if Obama endorsed Reaganomics in that interview (as you claimed), or not.

Perhaps that's what is upsetting you.

[LWolf]

17. I linked to the original place

that I saw the video. Five years down the line, I'm not surprised that the link isn't live. The transcript was still there, though. I don't mind you providing a fresh link to the whole video. My point stands.

[JoePhilly]

19. The transcript wasn't complete, its clipped too.

Your point fails in both video and transcript form when examined in full context.

[JEFF9K]

9. proof

Let's have some proof.

[LWolf]

10. #8. nt

[Safetykitten]

6. And completely rightly so. He had a chance. He blew it.

[reformist2]

12. The ReaganoBushoClintonoDubyaObama Low Wage Economy.

It's kind of petty to blame one president for a problem that every subsequent president has made worse. If only we could get back to the wages we had under Reagan!

[Octafish]

18. 32 years on of Trickle Down Voodoo.

Meanwhile, the lion's share of the greatest amount of wealth created in human history has gone offshore.