Obama’s budget reveals the bankruptcy of American capitalism

[Hannah Bell]

The budget forecasts the doubling of the US national debt over the next few years, even on the assumption of a rapid recovery from the financial crisis and slump. It projects that high, long-term unemployment will become a permanent fixture of American life.

Assuming a growth rate above 4 percent, historically rare, the budget estimates that the jobless rate will still top 8 percent in 2012...

The conclusion being drawn from this analysis in US ruling circles is that if American imperialism is to maintain its position of world domination, domestic politics and social relations within the United States must be radically restructured. The resources required to sustain a global military posture and prevent undue dependence on foreign creditors must be extracted from the American working people, through the gutting and effective destruction of the programs which consume the bulk of the federal budget—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

This is spelled out explicitly in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, in an article, “The Dollar and the Deficits,” by C. Fred Bergsten...Corporate America is leading the way with its destruction of jobs and wages in the current economic slump. Wall Street is demanding that similarly brutal methods be carried out against domestic social programs.

There is no alternative to this policy within the framework of the profit system... Thus, the official discussion of the federal budget crisis takes it for granted that exploding interest payments on the public debt, which go largely to the wealthy, and the huge sums expended on the bank bailout are untouchable, while all attention is focused on the rising costs of Medicare and Medicaid, which underwrite health care for the elderly, the poor and the disabled.

Likewise, the existing distribution of property and income in the United States is taken as unalterable. No one in official Washington proposes, for example, the doubling of taxes on the super-rich (restoring them to levels that prevailed under Richard Nixon), or that giant banks and corporations should be nationalized and turned into public utilities, rather than being bailed out by the taxpayers.

Why, given the manifest incompetence and greed of the financial oligarchy, should working people accept its continued domination? Why should less than one percent of the US population own 40 percent of the wealth directly, and control all of it indirectly? It is not that American society can’t afford health care for all or a decent retirement for the elderly, but that society can no longer afford the death grip of the Wall Street parasites...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/pers-f03.shtml

[Hannah Bell]

1. well, someone's been busy unreccing every post of mine as soon as they went up.

[Go2Peace]

2. Campaign workers likely. There is some truth there. I recd it.

[Ken Burch]

3. We need to call the current economic situation by it's true name, Hannah

It's not a "recession".

It's a CAPITAL STRIKE, carried out by the commanders of the commanding heights of this economy, with the specific intent of destablizing and forcing out of office the elected presdent of the United States.

We've been this way before....

[Hannah Bell]

4. that's an interesting thought. could you give some reasons why you think it's the case?

and are you saying capital strike v. the current president in particular? or to pressure for specific policies?

because if so, considering his campaign support included numerous notable holders of big capital, i'd then ask which team is trying to take down which team?

i'm trying to formulate a theory of what's going on these days myself, because so much doesn't make sense through any kind of lens i put on it.

[Ken Burch]

6. It's an attempt by the corporate wing of his supporters

To challenge the dualistic nature of the coalition that elected him:

There was a large corporate base of support for this candidate. THis has always been apparent

At the same time, there was a massive, and legitimate, popular movement that formed behind him and formed from below.

The intent of this strike(the deliberate refusal of the market sector to revive the economy)is to force Obama, if they can't defeat him outright, to renounce totally the popular wing of his support(and, if possible, to demoralize and demobilize the movement as well) and to make it clear that he will never carry out policies that movement supports or is capable of supporting, and to force him to carry out policies instead that weaken his own party's support deeply enough to put the more corporate-subservient party back in control of Congress(recreating the corporate utopia of the 1994-2006 era)and remind the president of "his place".

The rhetoric from the "opposition" party that implies that the economy would be soaring back if only MORE tax cuts for the rich were in place is a giveaway of the intent. So are the incessant right-wing attacks on ACORN, which are also attacks on the multiracial, multicultural, and more working-class based-character of the Obama movement(as opposed to the corporate wing of the Obama supporters).

[Hannah Bell]

13. I see what you're saying but not sure how it's different in practice with pressuring him

to enact policies favorable to capital (leaving the imputation of motives out of it).

Not saying I disagree with what you're saying, just saying using Occam's razor the "pressure to enact favored policies" seems to stand on its own without the rest.

The "capital strike" aspect (banks not lending, capital not investing (in real production), mass layoffs w/ feds refusing significant aid to states & localities, etc.) reminds me of the NYC debt crisis (financier-instigated):




The 1975 fiscal crisis:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hannah%20Bell/71


I guess what i'm saying is that while i agree with you re the idea of capitalists withholding capital as a political tactic, i'm not seeing that it's specifically directed against obama or the plebes that helped elect him -- any more than the usual, that is.

[leftstreet]

8. I don't know if this helps

but from my observations, we (the peon class) don't seem to really be part of the equation.

I also find myself wondering which Capital Holding Team is trying to take down which Capital Holding Team.

Consider advertising - if you happen to catch much in the way of teevee the ads are becoming very strange. Financial sector ads, green tech, etc. (I actually saw a commercial to "Invest in Turkey." Yeah, the country not the meat. ??)

I'd be very interested in hearing more about your theory as it develops!

[Hannah Bell]

14. "which Capital Holding Team is trying to take down which Capital Holding Team."

that's my general drift. who's on what team & what are their goals.

i'm pretty well decided that much of what we think constitutes "politics" = spectacle produced for mass consumption, to keep the plebes focused on bs & ignorant.

but that's just me.

i agree whole-heartedly about commercials. i started noticing that with the enron commercials, before "enron" was a household name. those were some damn weird commercials, & for what product i always wondered -- until the enron meltdown hit the news.

but evidentally (looking at the comments on youtube) some young folks at the time thought they were edgy, representative of the creative younger generation breaking with tradition & the boomer fogeys, showing the way to the new world, etc.

why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIQE3wGn9CI

[glitch]

5. Oh it's a Capital Strike all right.

The credit freeze even with govt bailout funds tells us that. Not sure the intent is to force out the elected president though. Do you see anything other than enabling on his part? If so please post, I could use the optimism.

[Ken Burch]

7. If not to force him out(which I still think is possible) it be to force him to replicate

the Great Capitulation of the 1990's, when our LAST Democratic president abandoned the handful of differences he had with the right-wing and governed after 1994 almost exactly as the Bush the Elder or Dole would have done.

If not, I think they are going to attempt to recreate the late '70's "Misery Index" conditions that doomed Jimmy Carter to defeat. Mr. Carter lost largely due to the fact that he followed orthodox conservative economic policies and put low inflation before full employment, thus allowing Reagan to run as the "Jobs, jobs jobs!" candidate in 1980.

[glitch]

11. Almost entirely agreed, I just don't think they'll find it necessary to force him out.

From their standpoint it'd be a lot easier to get what they want done with his genuine charm than with either a)batshit lunatic, or b)uncharismatic cutout or c)tarnished name that the Republicans could offer. If he is truly "captured" they'll go with him. IMO.

[leftstreet]

9. K&R

[rgbecker]

10. If you haven't yet, read "The Shock Doctrine" and prepare yourself.

This is their plan, they will succeed as planned when the shock of 1.5 trillion deficits are proposed and understood. Where will you turn?

[amborin]

12. recommended