There is only one thing that can unfuck the economy. Only one.

[MannyGoldstein]

There is much gnashing of teeth today as we realize that http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562?redirect=1982284879">following Herbert Hoover policies for the past few years (giving even more money to the wealthiest and scraps to the rest) has not turned the economy around: indeed, we seem to be taking another turn for the worse. Real unemployment (as measured prior to Clinton's re-jiggering) continues to be stuck at almost 20%, and we lost many jobs last month after accounting for population growth.

So what do we need to turn this sucker around? We need money in the hands of working Americans. The data clearly show that if you give a dollar to a rich person it just goes into the bank: indeed, the wealthy and corporations are sitting on unprecedented piles of cash already, when we give them more money they just make those piles bigger.

Give a dollar to a working person, they spend it on stuff. Food. Clothing. Cars. Appliances. Housing and renovations.

There are multiple ways to get money into the hands of working Americans:

1. We can cut their taxes. Do you know that the median American http://wealthforcommongood.org/shifting-responsibility/">pays twice as much in taxes (as a percentage of income) as they did during the economic boom years of the 1950s and 1960s? (The wealthiest Americans pay two-thirds less than they did back then). Of course, we should also restore taxes on the wealthiest to historical levels, so as to keep funding government.

2. We can have a middle class bailout, a jobs program like FDR got started. If it's anywhere near the size of the bailout that the bankers got (trillions of dollars in gifts and loans, with no important strings attached), then we would be in much better shape. In FDR's first four years as President, unemployment halved and GDP increased 8% per year.

3. We can forgive debt, or lower usurious interest rates that many pay on credit card and other debt.

That's it. that's what we need to do.

Now we hear, from both parties, that we need to cut government spending. This will mostly cut spending on working Americans, which will fuck the economy up worse. The cuts have already started, and we see that the result is the economy heading down for another dip. This is madness.

[panader0]

1. Yes... and end the wars...rec'd

[divvy]

8. You need spending on infrastructure to provide jobs for soldiers.

Otherwise, the unemployment rate will skyrocket. Good luck with the current political mindset.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Yes, but that would be far cheaper than keeping them at war. nt

[divvy]

13. Instead of "put a man on the moon" lets "find clean renewable energy" to spend on

[Serve The Servants]

76. No snark

but that could very well be on the moon.
http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2004/12/mining-moon-helium-3-to-solve-earths.html
Maybe not completely renewable, but clean and abundant.

[Ghost Dog]

20. Cheaper and more cost-effective if focused on post-modern eco-sensible

re-tooling and development.

[csziggy]

25. Improving our infrastructure is an investment in the future

As long as we select good projects. In the 1930s, rural electrification and WPA building in communities and national parks gave us a framework for the economic boom of the 1950s and 60s. Now we need to build a framework of sustainable energy production, and pick other programs that will pay off in the future. We also need to repair the existing infrastructure that has been neglected because of decades of cutting government spending.

[Bandit]

99. Soldiers have jobs and they don't come from infrastructure

From the day one goes into the military until the day they leave they have work to do and receive a monthly paycheck..They maintain all their bases and equipment and they train. To say the civilian sector would be needed to maintain our military is simply wrong..

[think]

115. Our military budget is unsustainable.

and it will bleed our country dry.....

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[Vanje]

3. If I had 100 recs, I would spend them on this. NT

[hunter]

4. Exactly.

:kick:

[SugarShack]

5. What we need is a jobs bill from the house. This house won't, and are blaming Obama. Congress has

Congress has the power, the legislative branch. When the dems had the house, they wrote a jobs bill to reverse the tax codes, and bring our jobs back from overseas. Four Dems in the Senate, voted against it. That is where the change needs to come. Forget the prez. He does not have their power. Soon it will be all eyes on Iowa and New Hampshire. Why? No matter who the prez it, Sen. Ben Nelson and a few others, like Mary Landrieu, will continue to vote against the dem biils that get written. A sitting president will never receive them to sign.

THIS REPUB HOUSE, IS NOT EVEN GOING TO WRITE A JOBS BILL. THEN THEY CAN BLAME OBAMA FOR NOT CREATING JOBS. See how it works? We should focus on changing the house and senate, even if that means getting rid of those dems who will vote against a jobs bill, or against ending subsidies for oil corporations. That is where the change comes from. The change comes from the legislative branch to the presidents desk.

So I don't care who the president is anymore. I will work on seats, where the work is done.

Please do that in your state.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. They had their chance to do it easily

But they only passed a pop-gun when we needed a howitzer.

Now it is more difficult. But they must end the triangulation, roll up their sleeves and get going.

[Vanje]

12. Yes. When the time was ripe

for a WPA, they were all about Tarping.

[sheldon]

80. Bingo!

The repubs are almost 100% hard right wing.
The dems are maybe 10% left wing, 50% moderate, and 40% right wing.
The repubs and the "liberal media" have succeeded in shifting the scale so hard to the right, that even moderate right wingers are lefties!
So when the dems are in 'control', it amounts to almost nothing. (As we've witnessed)

[ooglymoogly]

106. +1

Been saying something to this effect for years....we have to get rid of the blue dogs and DINO's if we expect any progress. When Democrats are in "control" it is only in delusion. The Pugs have had all bases covered for decades, no matter how the beltway propagandizes it.

[BumRushDaShow]

84. +infinity!!!!!

The Landrieus and Baucus' need to either shutup and vote with the party or go the way of their buddy Blanche Lincoln. And the Democratic parties in the states that produced these people need to seriously find some more progressive candidates.

[cascadiance]

7. And it needs to be real EARNED money at a living wage...

NOT money from increased credit card debt, or money from borrowing against assets like one's home equity.

We've been lectured for years that the way to "make it" in this economy is to buy a house so that our home equity can give us the wealth we need as we get older to have a decent retirement.

What we really need is a set of steady jobs with decent and living wage pay1

This means we need to put in place things like tariffs, etc. to encourage our business sector to start building up our working class again with appropriate pay for their work, not continuing to outsource it or to milk it to the point that even pushing them to continue to spend on debt hits a brick wall like it just has.

Ravi Batra has said this over and over again too. Increasing debt, whether its consumer debt, or government debt to throw money at us to help us stimulate demand just creates another bubble that will crash later. Ultimately it is about paying people decent wages, and bringing jobs back home that will solve this mess.

Unfortunately those that have bought the Republican Party and much of the Democratic Party don't want to share their wealth with us, and probably in their UnAmerican ways would just as soon leave the country to live off of their Caymans or Swiss bank accounts instead of doing the real American thing and build up our economy appropriately again.

[phiddle]

10. In it's many manifestations, call it "DEMAND SIDE" economics.

(and we should demand it!)

[HughBeaumont]

93. NAAAAAH. Supply Side's enhanced 5% while failing the other 95% for 30 years running. Why stop now?

I think it's only really supposed to make sense if you're whacked out on alcohol and hard homemade drugs. I think that's how it's gotta be done. :rofl:

[rateyes]

11. Bingo. If we raised tax rates on the wealthy to the levels they

were under JFK, you would see unemployment hit rock bottom. Money is like water; if it is not flowing it gets stagnant. It is pooled in the hands of those who won't turn it loose because they know how bad things are going to get.

[melm00se]

95. you are both right and wrong

yes: money that is not in motion is just a pile of paper.

no: if tax rates go too high money will only move when absolutely necessary.

The federal government does not have the ability to tax wealth (altho states and localities do), they can only tax income (and that ability was only granted under the 16th amendment).

Finding the right level of taxation is a tricky thing.

AS to pointing to the 90%+ tax rates of the 50's: the postwar economic boom was, for the most part, in full swing. The USA had the only major, undamaged, industrial economy and Europe in a full swing rebuilding plan. The upward economic pressure was more than sufficient to overcome the downward economic pressure taxes create.

Are current tax rates too low? yes
Is returning to the tax rates of the 50's too high? yes
Is government spending (on the federal level) too high? Probably yes

a balance between tax rates, economic growth and government spending must be struck otherwise we are all in deep doo-doo.

[rateyes]

116. I maintain that going to the 90%+ tax rate on all income over a million dollars

would cause unemployment to bottom out because, rather than give it to the government, those making that money would hire more people to produce goods at 8 cents on the dollar.

One would also assume that charitable giving would go through the roof as well.

I do agree that there needs to be optimal tax rates for revenue v. incentive to work, but the higher tax rates don't have to kick in until one has earned more than enough to live luxuriously.

[melm00se]

117. like i said before

the sale of "wealth assets" will go down, essentially freezing money in place thus not exposing them to those tax rates.

this comment also causes me some concern:

but the higher tax rates don't have to kick in until one has earned more than enough to live luxuriously.

as "luxurious" is not really an objectively quantifiable measurement.

what one person calls "luxurious" another person calls "just getting by".

How do you objectively quantify "luxury"?

[Scuba]

14. Don't be silly. Only tax dollars stuffed into the already-bloated Swiss...

...bank accounts of international MIC owners can help the economy.



Only a liberal whackjob would argue differently.

[Warpy]

15. Well, that isn't all we need to do, but it's part of what we need to do

We desperately need a return to the progressive income tax structure but tie it to the median wage this time instead of fixed dollar amounts. The tax for idiotically high incomes needs to be near confiscatory as a disincentive to greed and a preventive for the growth of a moneyed de facto aristocracy.

We also need to trim the Pentagon budget as a way of ceding an empire we can no longer afford to keep. 10% per year cuts until we're spending about what other nations do as a percentage of GDP would be prudent, a slow slide that would force the generals to start making realistic decisions instead of throwing hissy fits and organizing a military takeover of the country.

Unless these two things are done, your plans have no hope of either being passed or of working since there will be no money in the treasury to put them into practice.

<plink, plink>

[lunatica]

16. What makes anyone think our reps don't already know all this?

People think that if we tell them the facts that they'll suddenly see the light and immediately do the right thing. They see plenty and they know this would work, but they're doing what their campaign donors, the Big Bucks base want.

Money talks big in this country, and it talks louder than all it's citizens united. Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Stock Market Speculators have the floor all the time and won't give it up to us lowlifes. They make and break politicians.

[elleng]

18. Yes, but to a large extent, imo, they don't know, they are ignorant,

foolish and stupid, logic and reason have never been a part of many of their worlds. So we're stuck with the selfish, greedy ones and the fools.

[elleng]

17. Yes, but don't confuse them with facts.

[fredamae]

19. We also need to "unfuck" the Three Branches of Gov't

House and Senate at State levels. We must elect those who will work With us and Not just corporations.

Once We clean the House, we next need to "unfuck" the SCOTUS...a few times.

[bvar22]

21. A 10 Year Plan for a State of the Art, High Speed Rail System,

built in America by Americans, using ONLY parts manufactured in America
would turn things around nicely.
Cut "Defense" Spending by 50%,
and re-establish Income Tax rates to what the Republicans thought was fair in the 60s.

Unlike Military Spending, America would actually have something energy efficient & useful for ALL Americans after we were finished.

[ProSense]

22. Cool. Now

if FDR's Congress would step forward. You know, the one in which 16 Republicans voted for Social Security and other New Deal programs.

Unfortunately, today's Republicans Party are busy trying to take the country back to 1890.

It's not that Obama is like Hoover, it's really that the last Congress, specifically the Senate, weren't cooperative.

NAACP applauds Obama's call for jobs bill

Stimulus Jobs Program's End 'Totally Unbelievable'

In Sept 2010, Obama offered an infrastructure jobs plan. In March, Kerry proposed the BUILD Act.

Kerry's bill was introduced in March. Congress can pass it any day now, but will it?

[MannyGoldstein]

23. WWFDRD?

What would FDR do? I don't think that he'd just tell Rahm to tell Harry to do whatever Lieberman and the Republicans want in the name of "bipartisanship". I don't think he'd appoint a commission carefully crafted to gut Social Security, either.

Ever notice that the Republicans got whatever insane shit they wanted under Bush, despite never having 60 votes in the Senate? That was because, like FDR and all effective leaders, Bush made it clear that mooning the party position would cause great pain.

Obama fights for nothing. He sticks his neck out for nothing. His toughest words are reserved for "those on the Left", the people who only want him to try hard to meet his campaign promises, and to fight for Democratic values.

[ProSense]

24. "What would FDR do? "

What did he do in 1937 when unemployment climbed back up to 20 percent?

"I don't think that he'd just tell Rahm..."

Rahm doesn't work at the WH anymore.

"Ever notice that the Republicans got whatever insane shit they wanted under Bush, despite never having 60 votes in the Senate?"

Maybe because they're "insane"?

When people think logically, they tend to discuss the pros and cons of stuff rather joining wholesale to sell scams.

"Obama fights for nothing. He sticks his neck out for nothing."

Isn't he accused of fighting for corporations?

He fought for health care reform and wall street reform, and those were good enough to get Bernie Sanders' vote.

He fought for the middle class tax cuts, and Bernie Sanders voted against those.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. "What did he do in 1937 when unemployment climbed back up"

He changed course. FDR could admit mistakes.

"It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."
-FDR

And it climbed back up to 12.5%, not 20%, still far lower than the 18% or so we have today if calculated the same way.

Logical people know that teams require following the leader once a decision is made.

Obama fought for health care reform? Really? Are insurance costs rising at, or below, the rate of general inflations? Insurance company stocks are doing great! The way I see it, Obama cut a secret backroom deal with Pharma and the Insurers, got the latter to write the bill, and it was done. Are a smaller percentage of Americans uninsured today?

Was Glass-Steagall reinstated when i wasn't looking? Can you provide a link?

Middle class tax cuts? Don't you remember he was "hostaged" into giving the rich all kinds of stuff in exchange for a few bucks for the middle class, the latter soon to be offset by the savage cuts in government programs and Social Security that Obama is calling for,

[ProSense]

33. "And it climbed back up to 12.5%, not 20%"

So this chart is wrong:



Unemployment climb during the first half of FDR's first year, dropped in the second half, and then in 1934, it steadily climbed back up to nearly 22 percent. It went from 25 percent to 12 percent in his first term, and then it shot back up to 20 percent in the following year. Next came the war.


"Was Glass-Steagall reinstated when i wasn't looking? Can you provide a link?"

Where is Glass-Steagall mentioned in the comment you responded to? BTW, ever heard of the Volcker Rule?

[MannyGoldstein]

38. It's wrong.

Those right-wing talking points (graphs) count WPA workers as unemployed. Counting them as employed - which they were - shows a much different picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Economic_environment

The Volcker rule is an untried experiment. Glass-Steagall saved us from financial disaster for 75 years. Switching from simple, tried and true to a 2,500+ page lobbyist-written experiment cannot be a good idea.

[ProSense]

43. Hmmm?

So it's wrong using a lower scale? From your link:

1933 24.9 20.6
1934 21.7 16.0
1935 20.1 14.2
1936 16.9 9.9
1937 14.3 9.1
1938 19.0 12.5
1939 17.2 11.3
1940 14.6 9.5

It climbed from 14.3 (or 9.1) percent to 19 (or 12.5) percent.

Either way, unemployment jumped by nearly 6 (or 3.5) percentage points, and didn't come back down to 1937 levels until 1940, three years later.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. vs. Obama, where true unemployment's stuck at almost 20% for years

for years, and is only getting worse.

Within one year of FDR taking office, true unemployment had dropped to well below what it is now, and stayed well below what it is now. We could have had the same when Obama took office.

FDR later fucked up, and fixed it. Will Obama admit that *he* fucked up and ignored the lessons of Hoover and FDR, and will he make things right? Or will Obama continue to moon Liberals who simply ask him to do as he promised as a candidate, and do what history has shown to work whenever it's been implemented?

[ProSense]

48. What was

true unemployment during FDR's years?

Obama's job creation will likely reach about 2 million this year. A lot more is needed, but it's a sign of the times.

[MannyGoldstein]

64. Unemployment was counted correctly during FDR's tenure

It was rejiggered under Clinton to remove those unemployed workers who have given up on looking for a job ("discouraged workers"), making figures look better. When times are really bad, this has an even-larger effect.

We need about 150,000 new jobs each month to break even after accounting for population growth. Looking at BLS numbers:

Jan: 68,000
Feb: 235,000
Mar: 194,000
Apr: 232,000
May: 54,000

The average is 157,000 which is basically break-even - so if the average to date continues for the rest of the year, real unemployment will not budge. However the outlook is not even *that* good at this point. There's a very good chance that our already-terrible unemployment situation will get worse.

[ProSense]

65. It

requires about 125,000 to break even.

"The average is 157,000..."

That would put the annual total at nearly 2 million.

[me b zola]

78. lol, yeah taco bell jobs

[slipslidingaway]

30. One glance at the WH graph on the budget tells me that 40% of my tax dollars...

go towards SS, Medicare and Medicaid, there is no corresponding graph that I have seen for revenues.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/winning-the-future/interactive-budget

So where do we need to cut.

:(

[MannyGoldstein]

39. Social Security took in $100 billion more than it paid out last year

And will continue to accumulate money for 15 years or so. It's making money. It also has zero to do with the federal debt in any situation - it is forbidden by law from affecting the debt.

[slipslidingaway]

44. So one would think there should be another graph on the WH site showing revenues...

but the only graph posted on the WH site at the time showed outlays ... how convenient.

[MannyGoldstein]

47. How convenient, indeed

As soon as Obama took office, he appointed a commission designed to vote for savage cuts in Social Security:

http://fdrdemocrats.org/the-common-sense-guide-to-social-security/6/

[slipslidingaway]

53. And before he took office gave a speech about reducing the deficit ...

and having entitlement reform play a central role.

"We will — we are working currently on our budget plans. We are beginning consultations with members of Congress around how we expect to approach the deficit. We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part, of those plans..."

[HughBeaumont]

92. Well, that and a lot of "D"s are actually milquetoast Landreiu-esque "R"s.

Which was WHY President Cockbag never needed 60 votes but Obama ALWAYS did and never got them. The Blew Dogs are the problem in that regard.

[slipslidingaway]

27. Kucinich has had an infrastructure bill for over a decade ...

so not a new idea and actually it was an other member of Congress from Ohio who introduced it in the 90's. Obama could have introduced a similar bill when he was a senator.

[ProSense]

31. Did it

pass? Is it relevant to the last or current Congress?

"Obama could have introduced a similar bill when he was a senator."

He introduced one as President, which is more relevant than a bill he "could have introduced" as Senator.

[slipslidingaway]

50. It has been relevant for over a decade, late 2010 is a little late. n/t

[ProSense]

51. Late 2010

is not as late as now (or whenever they get around enacting such legislation).

[slipslidingaway]

54. Kucinich thought it should have been a major part of the stimulus plan...

back in early 2009 when the Dems held the majority in Congress, unfortunately it was not.

[ProSense]

56. "back in early 2009 "

2009: Obama budget has $5 billion for infrastructure bank

2008:

<...>

For years, we have stood by while our national infrastructure has crumbled and decayed. In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave it a D, citing problems with our airports, dams, schools, highways, and waterways. One out of three urban bridges were classified as structurally deficient, and we all saw the tragic results of what that could mean in Minnesota last year. Right here in Wisconsin, we know that $500 million of freight will come through this state by 2020, and if we do not have the infrastructure to handle it, we will not get the business.

For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I’m proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs – many of them in the construction industry that’s been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we’ll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It’s time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead.

<...>

It's not too late to pass Kerry's proposal.

[slipslidingaway]

26. Thought the "WGA" and Medicare for All would help put our country ...

on the right track, but people supported other ideas and candidates.

:shrug:

The Works Green Administration --Dennis Kucinich
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=43914&mesg_id=43914

Also there was an infrastructure bill for years, almost as long as Kucinich has been in Congress, not many supporters though and no debate. When I researched this it was actually introduced by another member of Congress from Ohio in the 1990's.

Kucinich And LaTourette Take Action For Federal Financing of Infrastructure Repair
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=70849

"Washington, Aug 3, 2007 - Today Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Congressman Steven LaTourette (R-OH), introduced bipartisan legislation to improve critical infrastructure in Ohio and nationwide. The Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure Act of 2007, would create a low-cost federal financing mechanism to administer zero-interest loans to localities. States choose which projects to fund with the loans according to their specific needs. Kucinich and LaTourette have introduced versions of this bill in each of the past three Congresses.

...The bill would create the Federal Bank for Infrastructure Modernization (FBIM). The bank, as an extension of the Federal Financing bank under the Treasury Department, would establish zero interest mortgage loans for states and local governments to use to fund specific projects. The loans would bear a small fee of one-quarter of one percent of the loan principle to cover the administrative costs of the FBIM. The bill would not require Congress to appropriate any funds and would effectively double the amount of financing that is available to states and localities for infrastructure investment.

“This bill is not just an infrastructure improvements bill but a jobs bill as well,” stated Kucinich. “The Cleveland-area, and big and small cities across the country, would benefit greatly from this large federal investment.”

“Our infrastructure needs are many and dollars are scarce,” LaTourette said. “This bill will help communities do big-ticket projects for wastewater and water plants, roads and bridges.”

[Shagbark Hickory]

28. The Federal govt should go into the oil business and make every citizen a shareholder.

And while they're at it, they can maybe buy some other profitable companies or get into some industries that can make lots of money and hire people and pay citizens more dividends.

[on point]

32. Giving money to the rich when there is excess supply IS THE SOURCE OF INFLATION!!

Classic case. When you have too much money chasing the same assets, the result is inflation. We have asset price inflation in the stock market, expensive houses, commodities and the like, because there is too much cash in the hands of the wealthy and they have no where to spend or invest it.

When are we going to declare that supply side economics is a COMPLETE FAILURE and is destroying the economy???

[Fuddnik]

34. It's called "The Velocity of Money".

How fast a dollar moves through the economy.

Right now, it's just sitting in the banks and in T-bills. It's not being used for purchasing goods and services.

The banks promised to loosen up credit to get their bailout. They didn't. Instead, they took near zero interest loans from the government, and bought T-bills at a higher rate. A guaranteed investment!

[mimitabby]

35. it is unbelievable

that we can't get lower interest rates, limits passed by law.

[madville]

36. The tax system is horrid but the middle class only shoulder about 30% of the total burden

The tax system is so jacked up with so many loopholes it's a wonder they even collect any money from anyone.

I've been screwed and have benefited from the tax code, if you are around the national median income it largely depends on whether you are single or married and/or have kids.

One year I was single and made about $45,000, I wound up paying about $5,000 in federal income tax that year, about 11%

Another year I was married with three dependents, wife didn't work, I made $34,000, had $3,500 withheld from my paychecks. Thanks to the EIC (Earned Income Credit) we got a "refund" for $7,700. So we made a $4,200 profit from doing our taxes, all within the rules, exactly how it was meant to work.

Not fair to the single person or couple with no kids at all in my opinion but I will take what I can get.

The bottom 50% of income earners as a whole pay almost no income tax at all and many profit from doing their taxes as I did in my experience above. The top 10% of earners pay around 70% of the collected income taxes. So about 30% of the income tax burden rests on the "middle class", (people/households) who make $40,000 to $125,000 a year. I don't think that's really all that outrageous for the "middle class", how low should it be, 0%?

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Except that Social Security is currently used as income tax

Social Security payments go right into the general fund. Factoring that in, things look much different:



the Middle Class pays the vast bulk of Social Security, so effectively, the Middle Class pays the vast bulk of the income that the government uses to fund itself.

[on point]

58. If the top 1% has 50 % of wealth and income, perhaps they should pay 50% of the taxes!

[Chan790]

37. I'm taking inspiration from a quote by a different Roosevelt today.

Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures. But there is another harm; and it is evident that we should try to do away with that. The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown. There is clearly need of supervision--need to possess the power of regulation of these great corporations through the representatives of the public.

-Theodore Roosevelt

Now, those representatives today might be bought and paid for but I don't think the necessity of greater corporate regulation and the exercise of some proper and necessary trust-busting is even debatable at this point. If we fix our economy and fix the graft culture of the corporate klepto-class, we will fix the prosperity of the American people as a necessary consequence as certain as rain follows a low-pressure front. People do not exist for the benefit of the corporations, nor does the government exist for the benefit of the economy; corporations exist for the benefit of the people (and the people are the government) and when the day comes that is no longer true, the corporations should not continue to exist at all.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Can you imagine Obama ever saying that!

Even if he was on shrooms, absinthe, and nitrous oxide?

[ProSense]

49. Well, not

in those exact words: He Went There! Obama Attacks the 1%

[MannyGoldstein]

72. In your link, which part was the attack?

Obama simply said that rich people should not pay less taxes, and the middle class should not have Medicare taken away.

As far as I can see, he's simply preaching to maintain the status quo.

If I'm wrong, please point out the attack language. Thanks,

[MsPithy]

41. Rich people don't create jobs. Corporations don't create jobs. Small businesses don't

create jobs. CUSTOMERS CREATE JOBS! And, the largest group of customers is the middle class. Period.

[Maineman]

91. Bingo! Exactly correct. A simple truth. A great slogan.

Incidentally, CEOs and big business do create jobs - overseas!

[WillyT]

46. K & R !!!

:kick:

[SidDithers]

52. How 'bout McCain / Palin?...

you now wish they had beaten Obama, right?

I can link to the thread where you posted that, if you need me to.

Sid

[obxhead]

55. I often hear the term "consumer confidence" when talking about

the economy.

Everything you mention build that consumer confidence. Cutting safety nets and sending every penny upwards destroys it.

Yet very few politicians will discuss it and the few brave enough to do so are labeled crazy, even on this discussion board.

[lonestarnot]

57. Just wook at that smile.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. That was the signing of Social Security nt

[defendandprotect]

59. We need the Democratic Party/elected officials to GIVE UP CORPORATE $$$$ .... !!!

This isn't bad policy -- this is corruption!!!

[pansypoo53219]

60. we haven't tried ending the bush tax cuts.

or taxing the rich breaks. no shared sacrifice.....

[ProfessionalLeftist]

61. Social or other spending has little to nothing to do w/ the economy mess

but unemployment does. Yet neither party is doing a damn thing about jobs except waiting for "the market" and "the private sector" to do something.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Robert Reich wrote a piece about this in the past few days - about the ridiculousness of all this 'cut spending' crap when spending is NOT what got us here.

[dorkulon]

63. Make corruption illegal again. /nt

[ProSense]

66. Have you seen Boehner's

response to the jobs report?

He speaks for the Repub-controlled House.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. The White House and many elected Democrats fundamentally agree with Boehner

that slashing spending is critical to reviving America. They only differ in the severity of the cuts. They are both very, very wrong.

Triangulation über alles.

[Auntie Bush]

67. That's what we need alright. The only way we can get out of this mess. nt

[midnight]

68. K&R

[maxpower]

69. Scream it from the montains

K/R. I will share this, with your approval, to everyone I know.



Peace,
Max

[Stinky The Clown]

70. Sadly, Manny, we have no real, strong, principled leader.

[OwnedByFerrets]

71. It's quite simple, but it will never happen

[grahamhgreen]

74. We can have a mandatory wage increase for employers of over 1,000 people.

[napoleon_in_rags]

75. A simple principle is being ignored:

The amount of products of services produced isn't tied to the amount of money in the economy, its tied to the amount of money that CHANGES HANDS. If all the money pools in some place and stops changing hands, that represents a reduction in the amount of products and services produced. If 20 million dollars lands in a bank account and stops moving, that represents a 20 million dollar decrease in the amount of goods and services produced. If that 20 million dollars is out in the economy moving from hand to hand on a daily basis, than that 20 million dollars is producing 20 million dollars of products and services A DAY.

[democrank]

77. First step to an economic recovery.....

Stop enabling, making excuses for and electing politicians whose main goal is to sell out to the highest bidder.

[Major Hogwash]

79. Great point, cutting fed spending now will drain us of the momentum we got after Bush left the WH.

I don't know what else to say except that FDR's policies were sorely missed after he died.
He saved both of my grandfather's families from starving to death, literally.

I don't understand why we have to continually learn the same basic fundamentals of economics in this country every 35 years or so.
It's ridiculous.

If we stopped spending on the 2 wars, we'd save $1 Trillion a year right there!
Makes no damn sense at all to me.

[DeSwiss]

81. K&R n/t

[Skittles]

82. STOP.PIMPING.JOBS.OFF.OVERSEAS

BRING.THEM.BACK.

[sulphurdunn]

83. If you want to know the economic

game plan just visit the web sites of the DLC and RNC. I think you will find the experience enlightening.

[AllyCat]

85. This is so obvious that I can't understand what the problem is

Then I remember who really runs the country and realize why we keep making the rich richer to the detriment of everyone else.

[leveymg]

86. A 21st Century New Deal and a New GI Bill for All Americans.

Where is the Democratic President and Congressmen when we need them?

[hulka38]

87. K&R

Thanks, Manny. We need a leader who can overcome fear of the wealthy.

[FlyByNight]

88. The Beltway Set doesn't care about us

The MICC and other industries (health care, big finance/Wall St., etc.) will get what they want, many times over. It'll be austerity for the rest of us.

Shared sacrifice indeed.

[Hubert Flottz]

89. Another up side would be fixing the things that are broken in the US

Roads, Bridges, Water Systems, Sewer Systems, Schools, Dams and Waterways, Flood Control the failing Energy System and so on.

[certainot]

90. biggest obstruction to this: talk radio- here's a petition to stop US unis from supporting RW radio:

you have the solution, but the giant buzz machine that is the talk radio monopoly makes it impossible to have a real discussion of this solution.

the GOP/teapbaggers/blue dogs are/ is enabled in almost entirely in their obstruction by the fact that the left allows 1000 think tank- coordinated radio stations to blast their country all day long with whatever they want and the left completely ignores it until it shows up on fox or on the floor of congress, after being pounded into the earholes of 50 mil a week, and then the left asks "how did america get this way?"

And our universities and colleges helpt!::::::

http://signon.org/sign/american-universities-1?source=c.url&r_by=241761

American Universities: Stop broadcasting athletics on Rush Limbaugh radio stations.

American Universities: Stop broadcasting athletics on Rush Limbaugh radio stations.

To be delivered to: American Universities and Colleges

“We the undersigned, demand that our state funded universities and colleges immediately find alternative non-partisan radio stations to broadcast their athletics.

By broadcasting on Rush Limbaugh and other political talk radio stations they endorse partisan political propaganda, global warming denial, hate, racism, and attacks on our unions and teachers, and therefore contradict their own stated goals and mission statements.”
Most talk radio stations in the US are dedicated to partisan politics and pro corporate propaganda. On most, only a small percentage of their prime time broadcasting includes non-partisan programing including state and local sports, weather, and traffic.


By broadcasting athletics on these stations our universities endorse and give community credibility and acceptability to talk stars like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage, and significantly increase their local ad revenues.
Most national talkers are protected by call screeners from challenge and correction. There is evidence of regular participation by paid callers.


Long term attacks by these and other national and local talkers directed at teachers, unions, global warming science, as well as coordinated political disinformation and direct and inferred racism, sexism, and hate mongering, make radio stations that broadcast them unacceptable partners for American institutions of higher learning, as well as their students and faculty.

[fascisthunter]

94. FDR is one of my Favorite Presidents

and any so-called democrat railing against this man should not be considered a democratic by a right wing mole in our party.

[MannyGoldstein]

96. Obama parrots the fringe-right lie that FDR waited 6 months for the Depression to get worse

"We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly." - Barack Obama

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/fdr-reagan-and-obama/">This is totally untrue. FDR set to work the moment he could, and turned the economy around within months.

[ProSense]

111. He did no such thing.

The quote in context was made to bloggers

<...>

THE PRESIDENT: But I guess I’d make two points. The first is, I’m President and not king. And so I’ve got to get a majority in the House and I’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate to move any legislative initiative forward.

Now, during the course — the 21 months of my presidency so far, I think we had 60 votes in the Senate for seven months, six? I mean, it was after Franken finally got seated and Arlen had flipped, but before Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. So that’s a fairly narrow window. So we’re right at the number, and that presumes that there is uniformity within the Democratic caucus in the Senate — which, Barbara, you’ve been around a while. You know that not every Democrat in the Democratic caucus agrees with me or agrees with each other in terms of complicated issues like health care.

<..>

This notion that somehow I could have gone and made the case around the country for a far bigger stimulus because of the magnitude of the crisis, well, we understood the magnitude of the crisis. We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.

And getting 60 votes for what was an unprecedented stimulus was really hard. And we didn’t have the luxury of saying — first of all, we didn’t have 60 votes at the time. We had 58. And we didn’t have the luxury to say to the Senate, our way or the highway on this one.

So we did what we could in an emergency situation, anticipating that we were going to have to do more and hoping that we could continue to do more as time went on.

<...>

He was basically saying that he didn't do what FDR did because he didn't have the luxury of waiting until he had 60 Democratic votes or until things got so bad that that it became an "unprecedented national emergency" as FDR inherited.

Here's something else Krugman said.

The President's position on Social Security is clear.

Obama backs lifting income cap for Social Security

President Obama on Medicare and Turning 50

[MannyGoldstein]

113. I don't understand how that mitigates what Obama claims re: FDR

Your context claim doesn't follow.

As to Social Security: Obama's never said he's against cuts for those under 55, he says that everything's on the table, and he appointed a commission designed to recommend savage cuts: and indeed they voted to recommend a 22% cut for the median recipient, or $56,000 in lifetime benefits.

[dogmoma56]

97. the richest 1% hold 43% of Americas Financial Wealth, 6 times what the Bottom 80% hold at 7%.. >Link

the richest 5% hold 72%, so the richest 20% hold 93% of americas Financial wealth. so there is little doubt why there is a recession.. there is simply no money left in the economy left to be looted by the rich.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

they could create real wealth by letting anyone making under 60K start a family business with only 10% tax up to 60K annual. that would keep money local instead of multi nationals sucking the guts out of small communities and paying little to NO taxes

and put a 90% tax on all non value added speculation on Common Wealth products like food, fuel, clothes, medicine etc. and tax other speculation just like us winning the lottery 30%-40%, and take it out before they get a penny, it is only fair.

[Corruption Winz]

98. Tax the rich and get the hell out of the Middle East...

Put a cap on oil prices and give businesses incentives to keep jobs in America. Simple enough in theory. But, this would mean that American billionaires and trillion dollar companies would have to care about Americans.

[janet118]

100. We can't do any of the things you suggest . . .

until Congress ceases to be a wholly owned subsidiary of big donors. FDR had the backing of the legislature and the country. No modern president will be able to get anything done without huge changes in the campaign finance and spending laws. The incumbents are not about to change anything that might affect their chances at re-election and the Supreme Court has their collective backs. Meanwhile, who gets a huge chunk of this money? That's right, the media. We may well be f^%$ed.

[Jakes Progress]

101. K&R. This will be Obama's test.

If anyone still thinks he can pass, this is it. Stop pandering to the rich, stop listening you the advisors whose only concern is the rich.

Some of us don't think he wants to to the right thing. Some of us don't think he is smart enough to know the right thing.

Here is his chance to prove both groups wrong. Is he a good man? Is he a smart man? The next few months will prove things one way or the other.

[Ikonoklast]

102. Kill supply-side economic theory as the disaster it has been.

Demand drives economies, period.

No money to spend in the hands of the working masses equals no demand for products or services, and the demand of those with vast wealth alone cannot keep a huge economy afloat.

[Distant Observer]

103. Stop this NONSENSE. Congress controls the purse. Only massive popular protests will move congress

at this point, since they certainly have no interest in helping Obama with the economy.

[underpants]

104. you assume that they want the economy unfucked

the tech bubble was not only about over-valued stocks it was the old school pissed at kids making bank while they had to sweat it out for years and marry the boss's daughter.

Full employment is bad for the Masters of the Universe. The criticism of the Clinton 90's is a veil over the hatred for employers having to bid to get employees. They really hated that.

[Taverner]

105. #3 will only work if you also have #2 and #4, a subsidization of #3

[BrklynLiberal]

107. Exactly, instead of Hoovering the country, we need to FDR it!!!!

[slackmaster]

108. One simple word...

Jobs.

[Jim_Shorts]

109. I have hope of another way to unfuck this economy

I have hope that we can get the repukes to follow through on their "bluff" not to raise the debt ceiling.

Then markets can start to tumble and the banksters can panic and all the monopoly heads can wonder how to live without their million dollar salaries & dividends.

And we the people can reboot this "best government money can buy system"

I can only hope.

[Deep13]

110. Massive government spending.

Funding by tax hikes for the wealthy. And end the wars.

[GeorgeGist]

112. Pull the plug on capitalism ...

it's brain dead.

[Kolesar]

114. Don't terminate teachers and other public employees

Borrow money if we have to .