The Seven Deadly Deficits
NEWS: What the Bush years really cost us, and how President Obama can get the economy back on track.
When president George W. Bush assumed office, most of those disgruntled about the stolen election contented themselves with this thought: Given our system of checks and balances, given the gridlock in Washington, how much damage could be done? Now we know: far more than the worst pessimists could have imagined. From the war in Iraq to the collapse of the credit markets, the financial losses are difficult to fathom. And behind those losses lie even greater missed opportunities.
Put it all together—the money squandered on the war, the money wasted on a housing pyramid scheme that impoverished the nation and enriched a few, and the money lost because of the recession—and the gap between what we could have produced and what we did produce will easily exceed $1.5 trillion. Think what that kind of money could have done to provide health care for the uninsured, to improve our education system, to build green technology...The list is endless.
And the true cost of our missed opportunities is likely even greater. Consider the war: First there are the funds directly allocated to it by the government (an estimated $12 billion a month even according to the misleading accounting of the Bush administration). Much larger, as the Kennedy School's Linda Bilmes and I documented in The Three Trillion Dollar War, are the indirect costs: the salaries not earned by those wounded or killed, the economic activity displaced (from, say, spending on American hospitals to spending on Nepalese security contractors). Such social and macroeconomic factors may account for more than $2 trillion of the war's overall cost.
There is a silver lining in these clouds. If we can pull ourselves out of the malaise, if we can think more carefully and less ideologically about how to make our economy stronger and our society better, perhaps we can make progress in addressing some of our long-festering problems. As a road map for where to begin, consider the seven major shortfalls the Bush administration leaves behind.
the values deficit: One of the strengths of America is its diversity, and there has always been a diversity of views even on our fundamental principles—innocent until proven guilty, the writ of habeas corpus, the rule of law. But (so we thought) those who disagreed with these principles were a fringe, easily ignored. We have now learned that the fringe is not so small and includes among its numbers the president and leaders of his party. And this division of values could not have come at a worse time. The realization that we may have less in common than we thought may make it difficult to solve the problems we must address together.
the climate deficit: With the help of corporate accomplices such as ExxonMobil, Bush tried to persuade Americans that global warming was fiction. It is not, and even the administration has finally admitted as much. But for eight years we did nothing, and America pollutes more than ever—a delay that will cost us dearly.
the equality deficit: In the past, even if those at the bottom saw little or any of the gains from economic expansion, life was viewed as a fair lottery. Up-by-your-bootstraps stories are part of America's sense of identity. But today, the promise of the Horatio Alger legend rings false. Upward mobility is becoming increasingly difficult. Growing divisions in income and wealth are reinforced by a tax code that rewards those who have lucked out in the globalization sweepstakes. As that realization sinks in, it will be even harder to find common cause.
the accountability deficit: The moguls of American finance justified their astronomical compensation by their ingenuity and the great benefits it supposedly bestowed upon the country. Now the emperors have been shown to have no clothes. They did not know how to manage risk; rather, their actions exacerbated risk. Capital was not well allocated; hundreds of billions were misspent, a level of inefficiency much greater than what people typically attribute to government. Yet the moguls walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars while taxpayers, workers, and the economy as a whole were stuck with the tab.
the trade deficit: Over the past decade, the nation has been borrowing massively abroad—some $739 billion in 2007 alone. And it is easy to see why: With the government running up huge debts, and with Americans' household savings close to zero, there was nowhere else to turn. America has been living on borrowed money and borrowed time, and the day of reckoning had to come. We used to lecture others about what good economic policy meant. Now they are laughing behind our backs, and even occasionally lecturing us. We've had to go begging to the sovereign wealth funds—the excess wealth that other governments have accumulated and can invest outside their borders. We recoil at the idea of our government running a bank. But we seem to accept the notion of foreign governments owning a major share in some of our iconic American banks, institutions that are critical to our economy. (So critical, in fact, we have given the Treasury a blank check to bail them out.)
the budget deficit: Thanks in part to runaway military spending, in just eight short years our national debt has increased by two-thirds, from $5.7 trillion to more than $9.5 trillion. But as dramatic as they are, these numbers vastly understate the problem. Many of the Iraq War bills, including the cost of benefits for injured veterans, have not yet come due, and they could amount to more than $600 billion. The federal deficit this year is likely to add up to another half-trillion to the nation's debt. And all this is before the Social Security and Medicare bills for the baby boomers.
the investment deficit: Government accounting is different from that in the private sector. A firm that borrows to make a good investment will see its balance sheet improved, and its leaders will be applauded. But in the public sector there is no balance sheet, and as a result, too many of us focus too narrowly on the deficit. In reality, wise government investments yield returns far higher than the interest rate the government pays on its debt; in the long run, investments help reduce deficits. To cut them is penny-wise but pound-foolish, as New Orleans' levees and Minneapolis' bridge attest.
There are two hypotheses (besides simple incompetence) about why Republicans paid so little attention to the growing budget shortfall. The first is that they simply trusted in supply-side economics—believing that, somehow, the economy would grow so much better with lower taxes that deficits would be ephemeral. That notion has been shown for the fantasy that it is.
The second theory is that by letting the budget deficit balloon, Bush and his allies hoped to force a reduction in the size of government. Indeed, the fiscal situation has grown so scary that many responsible Democrats are now playing into the hands of these "starve the beast" Republicans and calling for drastic cuts in expenditures. But with Democrats worrying about appearing soft on security—and therefore treating the military budget as sacrosanct—it is hard to cut spending without slashing the investments most important to solving the crisis.
The most urgent task for the new president will be to restore the economy's strength. Given our national debt, it is especially important to do that in ways that maximize the bang for our buck and help address at least one of the major deficits. Tax cuts work—if they work—by increasing consumption, but America's problem is that we have been on a consumption binge; prolonging that binge just postpones dealing with the deeper problems. States and localities are about to face real budget constraints as tax revenues plummet, and unless something is done, they will be forced to cut spending, deepening the downturn. At the federal level, we need to spend more, not less. The economy must be reconfigured to reflect new realities—including global warming. We will need fast trains and more efficient power plants. Such expenditures stimulate the economy while providing the foundation for long-term sustainable growth.
There are only two ways to pay for these investments: raise taxes or cut other expenditures. Upper-income Americans can well afford to pay higher taxes, and many countries in Europe have succeeded because of, not despite, high tax rates—rates that have enabled them to invest and compete in a globalized world.
But needless to say, there will be resistance to tax increases, and so the focus will shift to cuts. But our social expenditures are already so bare-bones that there is little to spare. Indeed, we stand out among the advanced industrial countries in the inadequacy of social protection. The problems with America's health care system, for example, are well recognized; fixing them means not only greater social justice, but greater economic efficiency. (Healthier workers are more productive workers.) That leaves but one major area in which to cut—defense. We account for half of all the world's military expenditures, with 42 percent of tax dollars spent directly or indirectly on defense. Even nonwar military expenditures have soared. With so much money spent on weapons that don't work against enemies that don't exist, there is ample room to increase security at the same time that we cut defense expenditures.
The good news about today's bad economic news is that we're being forced to curb our material consumption. If we do it in the right way, it will help limit global warming and may even force the realization that a truly high standard of living might entail more leisure, not just more material goods.
The laws of nature and the laws of economics are unforgiving. We can abuse our environment, but only for a while. We can spend beyond our means, but only for a while. We can free ride on the investments made in the past, but only for a while. Even the richest country in the world ignores the laws of nature and the laws of economics at its peril.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz is the coauthor of The Three Trillion Dollar War.
Guy Billout has done illustrations for dozens of publications and many children's books.
Illustration: Guy Billout
There are two exceptions to this rule in China and India who have continued to manufacture and produce product which they sell to the world which has forgotten about Manufacturing and Production of products..The only production left in the USA is the manufacture of Military weapons..Could it be that the USA is afraid of what would happen if they lost this production and that is why they continue their wars in Iraq and Afganistan..
Wallstreet and other world markets did very well until greed and corruption showed them for what they are..Crooks..
It was then that it was noticed that Manufacturing and Production had moved to China and India where the big corporations in order to help their bottom line on wallsteet had shipped them..
Now China and India are sitting pretty while we have a recession..
There are two exceptions to this rule in China and India who have continued to manufacture and produce product which they sell to the world which has forgotten about Manufacturing and Production of products..The only production left in the USA is the manufacture of Military weapons..Could it be that the USA is afraid of what would happen if they lost this production and that is why they continue their wars in Iraq and Afganistan..
Wallstreet and other world markets did very well until greed and corruption showed them for what they are..Crooks..
It was then that it was noticed that Manufacturing and Production had moved to China and India where the big corporations in order to help their bottom line on wallsteet had shipped them..
Now China and India are sitting pretty while we have a recession..
I hope that Obama will contribute to honesty and integrity and swing the tide in favor of honesty/truth versus the lie. That is one way to interpret his campaign and his win.
Hopefully that is the way and the hope of the future.
Given enough warning, two trains headed at each other on the same track can avoid hitting. There comes a time however, that the collision is unavoidable; only those with the advantage of perspective can know it prior to this point. The rest of us find out too late, and some won't accept the cause. Is it true that over 25% of Americans think that Bush is doing a good job, and that this financial crisis was caused by Carter and Clinton? Will the difficult times last a decade? I must admit, I'm not optimistic. Too many Americans don't know or don't accept what happened, and are driven by divisive social issues.
"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
Obama just ran the most expensive campaign in world history. He betrayed his promise to abide by campaign finance reforms. He is almost entirely the product of political PR. Nothing should have been "above his paygrade" as a U.S. Senator, but the media loves him, so they have softballed him from Harvard till...when? Will he be as skillful in media manipulation as President as he has been as a candidate? Is there enough independent, "smart, fearless" journalism out there to prohibit Obama from spinning incompetence and mediocrity into brilliance and heroism, and accountability into blame-shifting?
The Orwellian view, to which I ascribe, is to view all Democrat and Republican politicians as one Big Brother. Orwell's dystopian nightmare is being (has been?) fulfilled. We have war without end, loss of freedoms, constant surveillance, thought control (e.g., "politically correct" or "un-American"), polical control via fear, an overly powerful executive branch, etc.
The wealth/power elites can easily weather financial panics, especially given that they can indemnify their losses with federal bailout funds. The current Panic & Bailout could even be thought of as a "shot accross the bow" of all upper class wannabees: "you will not defile our holy priesthood, and you WILL pay for our risky investments." The lower-upper class and the upper-middle class will pay for the bailout, while upper-upper class, or Ruling Class, is bailed out. They are forcibly exacting their tribute. Why? To show us that they CAN.
We mistakenly thought the Divine Right of Kings was an idea of the past, gone with the passage of absolute monarchs. Wrong. It was passed on to the nobility, feudal lords, plantation owners, captains of industry, robber barons, and high-tech multi-billionaires in the sacrosanct (and fallacious) American Dream "right" of unlimited individual accumulation of wealth. The Horatio Alger, "rags-to-riches" promises are pure ruling class control myths today. Personal property laws, when concerning vast, mind-boggling accumulations of wealth, are only accessories to the wealth inequality crime. Those laws have no greater unimpeachability than the Divine Right laws did to the downtrodden subjects of any tyrant.
We live in a socio-economic tyranny, a kleptocratic phobocracy. How can Obama, who had to fulfill years of preparation and approval from his ruling class masters, do anything but perform within the model created for his position?
Please continue to blame everthing on Bush. It is a efficient way to determine which people should not have children.
The fact that mother jones can still operate in the black is proof that capitalism in the U.S. is still alive and well contrary to the handwringing, chicken-little, whining in this publication.
more media deception, you be the judge.
He who is without sin, cast the first stone!!!!
Please explain. Democrats like Cliinton, Obama, Dodd, Frank are to blame for the housing bubble. Forcing lenders to give money to people who should never have owned a home and who have now defaulted on their mortgages at record levels.
Seriously, what is your point?
Joseph Stiglitz is not a Johnny-come-lately who describes a train wreck after the fact. He predicted this disaster for years, and we ignore his voice at our peril.
Another voice we ignore at our peril is that of David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, who for years has worked hard to inform the public of America’s growing fiscal crisis. His many trips and presentations across America include his “Fiscal Wake-up Tour” of the United States in 2006.
The Comptroller General is America’s chief accountability officer and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). It is his job to report on America’s financial health.
As reported by Walker, there has been explosive growth during Bush’s watch in the gap between future “promised” and “funded “benefits (primarily Social Security and Medicare), as well as tremendous growth in many other federal commitments and contingencies, including veterans’ health care.
This total burden (“Total Burden”), as calculated by the GAO, rose to a staggering $46.4 trillion at the end of the government’s fiscal year 2005, versus “only” $20.4 trillion as of the end of 2000.
Thus the Total Burden far more than doubled in only five years under Bush, and it is continuing to grow rapidly every second of every day.
It is virtually impossible for anyone to comprehend a staggering number like the $46.4 trillion in Total Burden, or “just” the additional $26.0 trillion added to the Total Burden during just the first five years of Bush’s watch. But let’s give the numbers some common sense perspective by calculating how rapidly the Total Burden increased for the average American household. We can do this by evenly spreading the $26.0 trillion (Bush’s 5-year contribution only) over all 113 million American households.
Here’s the bad news:
The rate at which additional Total Burden (Bush’s contribution only) was imposed on American households during the first five years of Bush’s watch is equal to $46,050 per year per household. Incredibly, this is more than the median household income!
In other words, if during the first five years of the Bush regime, 100% of American households had applied 100% of their total household income to reduction of the Total Burden—and thus had not spent one cent for food, shelter, medical care, taxes or anything else—it would not have been enough to cover just the financial burden added during those five years under Bush!
This and much more is discussed in the popular new book “The Bush League of Nations,” by James A. Swanson (2008, CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages), which you can download for free at www.bushleagueofnations.com.
See in particular Chapter 12, “The GOP’s Bankruptcy of America.”
I ask for nothing in return, except that you consider using the free book to help restore and improve America.
James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com
Of course President Bush is responsible for the world hating us....but wait, IN Canada, Italy, Germany, France, Sweden, etc...all the conservative parties have been winning lately? Oh but of course THAT little detail is copmletely unrelated to President Bush.
Fact is that idiots are going to pin everything bad on president Bush, and not give him any, or VERY little, credit for all the good he has done.
Stiglitz is a partisan hack fraud. Don't confuse him with the fact that since Bush enacted his tax cuts, federal revenues have NEVER been higher. Spending has run wild....and not just military spending. That's a drop in the bucket compared with the entitlement issue. We've got huge problems, and they won't be cured unless the disease is diagnosed properly.
Disband the fed!
You mention that we could have spent $1.5 trillion on health care for the uninsured. What rresponsibility do uninsured people have to provide for themselves? Why do they have a right, using the force of the federal government, to pick my pocket for health care costs instead of working for it on their own?
You talk about a values deficit--I would say there is a fairness deficit. It's not fair for illegal immigrants to pick my pocket and to have benefits here for healthcare and social security that I have to pay for. We have an honesty deficit when it comes to the obfuscation of the rule of law. Illegals openly flaunt our laws and are never punished for it.
Climate issues---over 31000 real scientists (not Algore) have documented that any changes to our climate are not man made, and I'd trust them any day over the opinions of Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore and Algore. There is no climate change without the significant impact of the sun, which we do not control in any way. Climate change is not a crisis, and to go around trying to force communist and liberal socialist agendas on everyone because you want to claim a crisis doesn't make it a crisis. Man cannot and will not ever significantly affect the climate. Not even nuclear war can change the sunspots.
Equality deficit--where in the Constitution does it say that people have to be equal? Maybe our sorry federalized education system and the trillions of dollars we have poured into public education are the real problem. We spend billions annually on public education programs, yet it's never enough for you liberals. We could spend the entire value of our annual GDP, and you'd say it wasn't enough. When will liberals learn that we need to challenge our kids, not dumb them down? If public education in the USA were a private corporation, the failures would have been so badly pronounced that the board or directors would have gone the way of Enron and been fired long ago. Public education, for the most part, is a colossal failure of huge proportions. That's why we need vouchers and school choice.
You want to talk about accountability and the deficit there, but when will you mention that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, public institutions, failed to do their job? Will you mention Franklin Raines, an Osama Obama supporter? Will you mention that ACORN, Osama's right hand "community activist" organization, strong armed Fannie and Freddie and pressured them and other banking institutions into extending loans to minorities and others who could not afford to own their own home? My my, the ACORN never falls far from the tree. Will you mention that Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd prevented an full accounting and review of Fannie and Freddie when Senator McCain attempted it back in 2004?
We do have a trade deficit, but we're sending over $700 billion to the Middle East every year due to a lack of supply of oil and gas products over here. We could unlock our own supply and keep the money and jobs in the USA, but liberals have blocked and filibustered against opening up our own supplies from day 1 and only now it's coming back to haunt us.
I will give you this one on the budget deficit, but have Democrats in Congress ever submitted a balanced budget? Not in my lifetime have they done this. If you want to criticize the war, then pick up a weapon and stand at post instead of paying our military to protect us. I do believe that it is entirely realistic for Iraq to start to pay us back using their vast oil revenue for all of the billions we've spent there. However, you cannot trade our safety here (remember, no attacks on US soil since 911) for money we've spent abroad.
Investment deficits? What the hell is that? There is no problem with New Orleans except that is has been a liberal haven for decades. The entire state of Louisiana has been run by Democrats for generations, and Mayor Willie Ray Nagin has had his "chocolate city" restored. You'd literally have to be a fool to want to go back to New Orleans and live in a city that's below sea level. What idiots would knowingly do this? So you're saying that the "investments" in things like public education, social security, housing issues and other wasted government programs are so good and worthwhile? What a joke.
Of course Bush isn't the cause of all your problems. His actions has just made it blatantly obvious that something is wrong with your system. The cure I do not have, but the root of the problem is that you are spending money you don't have. When consumerism is based largely on credit/loans and someone pulls the plug, everything of course will collapse.
I have no doubt the US will get back on it's feet eventually and I wish y'all good luck.
Look to Norway :)
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
But our social expenditures are already so bare-bones that there is little to spare. Indeed, we stand out among the advanced industrial countries in the inadequacy of social protection. No country spends more monies on social welfare then the US. Joseph when was the last time you had a real job?. Got laided off or had to produce a timely qualitative Service? I just wish you have to live the "change that you rant about" But then your exempt A-Hole
Oh they are, poetrylark, they are. The effects are small as yet, but Greenland's melting glaciers give us a taste of things to come. They are melting faster than anyone thought they would -- even the most fearful of us. And they are far from the only ice that's melting. Temperatures are rising in Alaska and Siberia, threatening to release millions of megatons of methane that's trapped in the permafrost. Methane is MUCH more effective at "greenhousing" than is CO2.
Even in Antarctica, it's happening. The circle-wall of anti-polar winds over the southern sea has kept that continent cold thus far, but the temperature of the sea (that also abuts Antarctica, duh) is rising, and ice shelves are popping off the main sheets like toilet paper off a roll.
Can only go on so long this way, and then we see what major melting ice does to the sea levels. And as the southern sea warms, it will start to affect those protective winds, too. When/if those winds lose their determination, we'll see what warm air and water do to ice plates, as we're now seeing it in Greenland.
Kinda poetical, huh? So is burying your head in the sand, poetical.
1.NAFTA was championed by President Clinton and that singularly has led to the spreading of the wealth to the world and has dilluted ours
2. Predident Clinton failed to protect America many times which led to many lives lost both on this soil and abroad. He stands responsible for 9/11
3.President Bush inherited a recession from President Clinton.
4. Deregulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started under President Clinton
5.The past 2 years congress has been controlled by the democrats and they chared the various committees that had oversite on Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac
6 The definition of crazy is doing something over and over and expecting a different result and that's what happens when you vote in democrats and republicans over and over again. Think America both parties are rotten to the core. Next time vote real change vote both out
Europe - "old Eurpoe" is not "successful by any commonly accepted definition of economic success, unless you consider high unemployment, low job creation and hugh budget deficits to be a sign of "success"...Where Eurpose is succeeding is in countries like Ireland and Poland that have instituted low tax policies that
I am sorry to call off your bluff. Those 31000 included anyone with Bachelors in science or how about this, PhDs in any field. example given of signers- Hub Hougland, a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. So how did the dentist in Indiana come to know there is no evidence of global warming? And those BSs are now climatologist.
Get this. This was a website collecting singature and not a study. Now there are other things such as sunspot which can obfuscate reason for warming. But don't tell that there is no warming going on. Don't tell that to people in Maldives island whose island is shrinking every year. Don't tell us we don't hear news of new artcic glaciers melting. Don't tell Indians and Tibetans that rapidly melting glaciers of Himalayas are myth. Don't tell me that 30 years back in my native place in north India February used to be summer onset. It used to be winter.
Here is the deal, I place the proof of burden on strangely global warming opposing conservatives. Show me new glacier spreads.
Back to that 31000 petition, I read it. It's talking about pursuit of happiness, too much economic cost. Now if this is the platinum scientific study then what does it have to do with economics. Nature is not going to adapt to our avarice.
We are not here to live or impose our ideologies but lead life of common good according to prevailing situation.
Face it, the 2008 election is another brilliant move by Karl Rove--let Obomination fark up the country for the next four years. That's what you libs get for voting in a hipster-doofus with no experience. The country will be clamoring for a republican landslide in 4 years!
mwa ha ha ha
Or can we say last 8 years were brilliant strategy of Democrats.
Of course Republicans will win against an inexperienced Obama 4 years down the lane. But hey what happens to us the heathens, the colored, the educateds. We just seem to keep growing beyond reason.
It's been agreed upn that Democrats have hand in the pie as well but here is the question, who has more and more importantly who is striving to set thing correct.
First on who has more, remember Freddie and Fannie's bailout- $200 billion, There is still $500 billion not going to them. Further, I would say if Freddie and Fannie were pushed to give loans to unworthy that should have helped rest as they suck out all toxic subprimes. That didn't seem to happen. Lehman's still managed to find toxic loans.
Further Republicans are yet to make up mind on regulation for the future. Obviously they are not thinking of solution.
He forgets what a communist country it was during Clintons and how we were put out of that misery by Bush.
Somehow despite their better family lifestyles conservatives in my mind evoke images of Somalia where roaming bands improvise SUVs to fighting mobiles. You find them carrying heavy artillery. Everyone over there is for themselves. Accountable and responsible. Last they had government was in 60s. I wonder if they had version of conservatives and liberals. Must be a distant dream for them.
First, Obama never promised to use public financing. He said he would "seriously consider" it. Evidently he did seriously consider it, and saw that it would seriously hamper his bid -- which is quite a different animal than your stated implication of lawbreaking by his campaign. He also never, so far as I know, promised "to abide by campaign finance reforms." Why would he promise -- or have to promise -- to abide by the law? Don't we assume that people will follow laws? That's why they are called laws.
This is exactly the same as saying that I have "promised" not to rob banks, and broke my promise. First, I've never promised that; second, I've never robbed any banks. Likewise, Obama has not violated any campaign finance laws. Attempts to paint his wise (if unwelcome, from your standpoint) decision in this regard as a violation of law, are non-starters. (Or are you a Faux-head, who'll go to his grave saying that this "story" is "being ignored" by the "liberal" media? -- talk about Orwellian!)
Obama's choice not to participate in the public finance option was perfectly legal, if a bit dissapointing to people who would have liked to see his bid fail. If canny choices such as this are evidence of wrongdoing to you, you may want to hide your eyes for the next eight years to keep your blood pressure down; because there's (a lot) more of that on the way.
The rest of your points, however -- about the lack of true representation in this country -- are well taken. The only mistake you make, is lumping Obama in with the Bohemian Grove types who've taken over the governance of our country. I'm out on a limb here, but I'd say that Obama was never courted for such "perks" as galivanting naked around a bonfire while a bunch of sixty year old white men spray him with watered wine from their bota bags. First, he was too black-liberal to ever be invited to such soires, unless he already had significant power to buy his way into their graces. Second, his rise has been so meteoric that the old boys probably never saw this particular blip on their radar before it was over their heads. Before they even knew who Obama WAS, he was campaigning for president. Besides, only an Uncle Tom like (and here we assideously avoid mentioning any particular Supreme Court Justices) would seek out or show up for such an offer.
To summarize, you seem to have a not-inaccurate view of political reality in our country, but fail to see (hear?) that Obama is NOT one of the usual suspects.
One major feature of prejudice, is that no one who has the condition, thinks they do. It's also a charge that no one (not even me) likes to make. So just do this: give the man six months, and LISTEN to what he says, and means, and intends. Then just relax for a week or two, to bask in the unaccustomed glow of having an honest, dedicated, STATESMAN in our highest office; rather than the twisty-slimy crowd we're used to having to deal with.
And then get serious about making the country over. Because Obama is right; no one, probably not even the Son of Gawd On High Himself, can make our country better without the citizens' wholehearted cooperation.
You are in the unenviable position of trying to defend a politician. I stand by my words: Obama betrayed his promise to abide by campaign finance reforms.
Nowhere did I state that Obama had broken any laws, only his promises.
In January 2007, Obama told Larry King that the public-financing system works.
In February 2007, Obama challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee.
November 2007, Obama answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire:
"My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
In February 2008, Obama said he would aggressively pursue spending limits.
In Spring/Summer 2008, Obama raised record campaign contributions.
June 2008, Obama abandoned public campaign financing as "broken" and "compromised by 527's."
His statements were a little stronger than that he would "seriously consider" public campaign financing, as you put it.
I never said Obama was a member of the Bohemian Club, or any other secret society. Perhaps my use of the term "ruling class masters" was confusing. The "Orwellian view" which I mentioned is a sociological conclusion, based upon public facts and data accepted by most mainstream academics.
Finally, Dan, regarding prejudice: it was nearly as "prejudiced" or "racist" for a person to have voted FOR Obama because he would be the first African-American President--thereby ameliorating centuries of mistreatment and institutionalized racism of blacks by whites--as it was to vote AGAINST him simply because he is black.
I don't know your personal demographics, Dan, but I suspect that Obama's race may have played a part in your decision to vote for him.
As for me, I will withhold bestowing the epithets "honest" or "statesman" upon President Obama until he earns them. Does that make me prejudiced?
Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" is a must read for ANYONE concerned with this rapidly evolving police state / one world govt. Wars & financial panics are DESIGNED excuses for expanding govt power and stealing away ever more of the people's power and money.
Just listen to this MP3 and revel in what once was the American ideology of non-intervention, friendship and free trade with the world when America was still the world's beacon of freedom and her own best example. A spine chilling tear jerker of what greatness we once possessed and not just professed.
Govt is just plain parasitic and foul. It massively feeds off producers while producing NOTHING but a lower standard of living for us all. It gives nothing it first does not steal from someone else. It backs it all up with a deadly monopoly of force; don't pay your taxes and see.
Well,... on to revelation, cheers!:
Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" mp3
One of the most penetrating and powerful essays written in the history of political economy. Read by Dr. Floy Lilley.
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/TheLaw_Bastiat.mp3
Or read the book FREE too:
http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf
Ain't mises grand?? The Austrian economics/history site with 7 terabytes free!!!!
In case anyone doesn't get it, Ron Paul is Austrian taught in economics and he and ONLY he in Congress has pegged the FED as the true source of booms & busts this generation that govt tries blaming on the private sector and free markets. Yeah, except America has not had free markets since big biz bought itself the ICC to regulate fat profits for itself and barriers to small competition in the late 1800's. The FED is merely an extension of govt sanction monopolies it creates with special privilege to big biz, like subsidies and wars to protect corp assets abroad, at TAXPAYER expense in money and lives by those who do not fight.
Yeah, ole Stiggy has his nose fully govt browned, and a long history of it too.
Playin it up for that Obama team membership and fame eh Stiggy??? Like Sir Alan who also sold his soul for power too? Even as he, Greenspan, believed, and still believes, in the gold standard as the only way to keep govt honest and spending low?? Hmmmmmm?
Abolish the FED and restore constitutional hard money that govt doesn't control and ALL these problems govt creates will be a bad memory. Our flourishing before and after the 1st & 2ndBanksUS until the creation of the FED are the whole proof - stable prices for decades on end, interrupted by the CW and more fiat S then N, but overall 145 years in length. All the innovations that would have us all millionaires by now Jetson style, have been subsumed by govt, the compounding of that capital the people's opportunity cost.
Put ME on your economic team Obama and America will regain it's supremacy financially and morally in the eyes of the world. Only freedom breeds prosperity for the largest percentage of people like no other, especially those at the bottom.
Yes, get the education govt least wants it's lemmings to have at the Ludwig von Mises Institute @ Auburn.
mises.org will set U free!
now he resorts to contradicting himself, decrying deficits while encouraging entitlement program spending. he complains about the "equality deficit," while ignoring that the bush years brought us the largest entitlement programs since lbj's great society. he should know that our national debt, as a percentage of gnp, is less today than it was in 1996. i wonder how he won his nobel prize, as his articles are ignorant of anything but an ability for bush bashing.
the scary thing is that he would encourage the most progressive tax system in the world to become more like europe!!! in europe, there is no middle class tax relief as we have here, where if obama passes his tax relief, nearly 50% of workers will pay no federal tax. he is ignorant of the fact that europe is in an irreversible decline, and that even now, a 6.5% unemployment rate is a robust economy, and that while they can afford social welfare for everyone, they connot afford a military structure to protect themselves. if we proceed in the direction stiligitz would have us pursue, europe won't even have us to protect them.
and i doubt that china will step up to the job!!
You can complain that Obama bought the 2008 election if you want. But I thought Palin handed it to him as a gift. Bush most assuredly stole the 2000 election.
The global climate is in a warming trend. I've heard nothing from the IPCC to the contrary. Wind patterns did indeed increase the loss of arctic ice during the summer of 2007. But the arctic has been losing ice extent and depth for 30 years _due to global warming_. And the record ice melt in the arctic would not have occurred w/o those 30 years of increasing temperatures. It's easy to cherry pick some data here and there to obfuscate the global warming issue. The global, long-term temperature averages are what is important and those temperatures are increasing on average. We may be in a short-term period of locally cooler temperatures, but these periods typically have ended and warming resumes. Why would you expect a global climate models to predict short-term, local temperature trends? These are meteorological events, not climate. The answer to your question about antarctic ice (you should distinguish between sea ice and land ice) is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is- Antarctic-ice-melting-or-growing.html. If you were really open to finding answers about global warming, you could find them...turn off Rush Limbaugh and read http://www.skepticalscience.com as well as http://www.realclimate.org/. You won't understand, but you'll be staring at the right information. In the meantime, please refrain from misinforming other people. You're a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect wrt to climate change and, one has to assume, everything else worth discussing.
The problem, of course, for the rest of us: these ideas are not new.
In the 1920’s, Andrew Mellon, Treasury Secretary under Calvin Coolidge, worked with Congress to cut taxes for the wealthy because, “…a decrease of taxes causes an aspiration to trade and commerce.”
W. E. Humphrey, Federal Trade Commissioner under Coolidge, denounced Woodrow Wilson’s FTC, which was established to discourage trusts and monopolies, as, “…an instrument of oppression…and injury…to business.” Instead, Humphrey promoted “self regulation of industry.” (Sound familiar?)
Herbert Hoover, Commerce Secretary under Coolidge, sat in secret sessions with industry leaders (like Cheney’s meetings with oil executives) and worked out trade association “codes”, which allowed businesses to set prices and evade anti-trust law. This deregulation (like that promised in the “Contract with America”) allowed men like Sam Insull (the Ken Lay of his day) to set up dozens of shell corporations whose sole purpose was to manipulate stock prices.
The result: In the decade of the 1920’s, profits rose 80%!
But productivity (output per man hour) rose only 40% while wages only rose 8%. The greedy were hoarding productivity for themselves. Because the labor movement and the farm bloc were systematically weakened (much like today), wages and farm prices were kept low. By 1929, the 60,000 richest families had more in the bank than all the 25,000,000 at the bottom combined. Low incomes meant too many folks lacked the purchasing power to enable them to buy the stuff industry was making and keep the economy going. As consumption slowed, the economy did too.
There’s a reason the Grand Party of Calvin Coolidge hasn’t been trusted to run all three branches of government in Washington for 70 of the last 76 years: their policies led to the Great Depression. And there’s a reason they’re in power again: most of those who remember and who lived through the wreckage of their “Grand Economy” have passed away and (in most cases) can no longer vote.
Now, the Washington spin meisters will say, “Oh, this can’t happen today. Things are different!” And they are. Under Coolidge, consumption was about ˝ of the US economy. Today, it’s more than 2/3rds. What happens to this “Grand Economy” when ordinary folks find they can no longer afford enough gas and food and the “stuff” that keeps the economy going?
It only took 8 years for the “Grand Olde Party” of Coolidge to wreck our economy. It’s time to remember what they did, because we may not survive another 2 years on this same course.
I believe it’s important again in ‘08 to remember what the Party of Coolidge did to us in the 1920’s because, though now in the minority, they still hold the power to wreck our economy. The senate minority leader has said, “The Senate is defense!” With the filibuster and the veto, they have the power to stop any attempt by the legislature to fix the mess the Grand Olde Party made during their reign, and have shown they have every intension of filibustering to defend the debilitating, financial-crisis-causing deregulations they put in place when they were in power for the sake of their greedy friends. Though the middle class suffered, the very greedy made out very well in the first years of the Depression, and expect to do even better today. I believe the way to stop them from siphoning off the value from our paychecks and our homes and our pension plans is to do what our grandparents did. Send the votes to Washington on election day that will end the filibuster and save what’s left of our economy before it’s again too late.
Gary AndrewS, author of “No Gods Before Me” (Quotes from Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s “Crisis of the Old Order
My fellow posters have done an admirable job. Thank God Obama is a smart man...and is now learning that if he enacted most of his platform that he ran on, it would be a disaster.
And as for the comment that Conservatives are winning in some elections in Europe, get some "larnin'" youngin'. A Conservative in Europe is like a moderate to liberal Democrat in the right wing USAmerica. I know because I left the US and am now a happy and proud European, so don't even imply that a Conservative here is the same as one there. Yes, there are some Conservatives here that are rightwing social conservatives (the Polish president, for one, who is also very unpopular and will soon be out of office would be a mirror of Dubya) but they are a much smaller minority than in the US and are almost universally repudiated. Most Conservatives in Europe are as much into spending on social programs - or more so - than liberal Democrats in the US.
The EU parliament has a majority of conservative MPs right now, yet evenso it has been able to way outpace the US on environmental policy and regulations and now leads the world, and the EU has strict policies protecting the "social contract" with its people - universal healthcare, civil and human rights, effective mass transit (high-speed rail is everywhere), consumer protection, child welfare and it is illegal to discriminate against gay and lesbian people etc etc. Around 10 countries have same-sex marriage and several others have domestic partnership laws and all without court order and with the support of a majority of their people (86% supported same-sex marriage passed by the Socialist government in Catholic Spain), at the least, without all the religious hatred and prejudice you hear coming out of the "Christian" US (too bad some of these "Christians" don't actually read the words of Jesus and the US wouldn't be such a socially backward and prejudiced place). The Catholic church spouts ugly hatreds here too, but they have earned their low position on the human rights credibility scale over the centuries. The US can't even come close to EU social progress and is falling farther behind. US Conservative policy is to turn the US into a 3rd world country with an oligarchy of rich and powerful men ruling a submissive and much poorer underclass (they probably look at many African countries and get misty-eyed)where there are no regulations on their activities and no responsibilities or taxes on their wealth. Sadly, they've pretty much succeeded and convinced many, like you Jesse, to support them in their looting of the country.
US Conservative political policies are ethically and morally bankrupt and have succeeded in destroying the economy with their failed,unregulated free market (neo-feudalistic) economics. Meanwhile 36.5 million live in poverty (and growing), 47 million working poor have no health care, the taxpayer is left, for generations, to pay of trillions of dollars of debt. At least they have woken us up to the reality that the USAmerican Dream is a myth and the whole world sees that the US is the biggest spreader of state-sponsored terrorism in the world. The whole world is watching you and shaking their heads. Well, at least you're number one in military spending, people in prison, poverty and infant mortality in developed countries, and the widest gap between rich and poor outside of the third world.
No, a conservative Swedish politician is a liberal Democrat in the US. You need to do some serious study, Jesse, if you are going to have any real understanding of the real world. You can't just rely on what you've been told by the conservative spin-masters. They certainly don't have your best interests at heart.
Now how bad was it? That's real question and what if he went ahead for it?
It wasn't really bad. He did not live up to promise. He was tempted by his fund raising capability. You need all of that to encounter slimy negative campaign machinery of Republicans. It's like those terrorists using cheap & dirty tricks and the state has to spend billions to counteract. He wasn't to be stupid giving away money that represented desire of change and react to vile perpertrated by RNC.
Now onto what would have happened if Obama chose public financing. Probably you haven't read news or what but it's a joke. Public financing is intended to decrease the influence of money on election outcome. It limits per candidate spending, but does not limit spending by those 527s or the party. Only criteria being they cannot coordinate their activities with candidate's campaign. What a joke? Two people meet over coffe somewhere in Oklahoma, exchange thoughts and back they are to their side. Who will prove candidate is co-ordinating or not with other parties? And really speaking Republican candidate message doesn't need any coordination. It is built on throwing slimy slingshots. Each shot will take with it another ignorant segment.
Next, had Obama taken the financing, RNC would have had $200 victory fund compared to about $25 million that DNC had. Where is the reduction of influence of money?
And really, if public financing could have been enforced during Republican primary, Huckabee would have been the nominee, not McCain. Clearly monet didn't help Guliani or Romney, but lack of it hurt Huckabee who relied most on free media as his campaign was impoverished.
Now let's come to more important point. Does anyone see mourning McCain' loss? Clinton, Romney, Ron Paul and Huckabee's losses were mourned by many. Heck, I don't even see Palin's loss being mourned by anyone? Whatever happened?
I know odds were against them, still their supporters were supposed believe that they were best candidates to take country forward.
My explanation is that they knew they weren't or more likely they don't care less. Hatred of different views and supreme love of own views is way too ahead of other considerations. 'We First' or 'They Last' should have been the more appropriate motto.
O well, divide and conquer.......
Raise tax rates on the wealthy and corporations, yes, for redistribution of wealth.
How much and what types of intervention and regulation are necessary to optimize free market efficiencies, economic growth, and standard of living?
It is difficult to know how much government intervention and regulation there should be. Too much regulation can impede free market efficiencies, economic growth, and standard of living.
Then many would say if you regulate just enough then you help create economic growth and avoid economic downturns and recession.
But too little regulation can result in market failure and have negative effects—extreme ups and downs in measures of how well the economy is doing, including inflation rate, wages, unemployment rate, rate of economic growth, spending, prices, and so on.
How far left can the government go—how much intervention (including redistribution of wealth through taxes) and regulation can there be before it negatively affects free market efficiencies, economic growth, and standard of living?
Americans are furious with capitalism—not only furious with large corporations, but the federal government’s incompetence and imprudence—too much intervention or, in some cases, too little regulation.
This economic crisis causes Americans to question all sorts of economic, political, and social policies, and rethink issues.
And not only policies, but also question and rethink our economic and political systems.
A lot of Americans are questioning traditional American ideals like free market capitalism and want the federal government to take a more active role and, in some cases, a less active role.
Right now a lot of Americans do not have confidence in the federal government, with a pro-limited government, conservatism for nearly 3 decades—although Obama was elected for this reason—to have the Democratic party take a more active role and govern, intervene, and regulate properly, appropriately.
I found myself rethinking abortion rights—if there is a ban on abortion (with exceptions), would it result in a more traditional society, like in the 40’s or 50’s? Call it retro-traditionalism. Many would consider this progressive, resulting in a more ordered, traditional society, which would most likely result in improved educational attainment, less poverty, reduction in use of public assistance, reduction in crime rates, and so on, all for THE COMMON GOOD (referring to collectivism). Remember, progressive is a non-ideological term—progressive in the general sense—that is to say, betterment of society.
[Other countries like China and Russia limit (either explicitly or implicitly) the number of children per person or couple, but our society would not allow that policy. Banning abortion in the US would have the same effect as the policies of those countries.]
If abortion is banned (with exceptions), there would be a domino effect, for THE COMMON GOOD.
Our country is out of control and must be put on the right track and go in the right direction—who better to do it? The federal government should do its part. And also the American people themselves—group together to make our society better. Our country is so out of control that it is time to forfeit some individual rights for THE COMMON GOOD. Governments and societies have done that throughout the ages, for thousands of years.
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2003-09-03
An excerpt:
“Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Russia's great prophet of our times, once stated: "The strength or weakness of a society depends more on the level of its spiritual life than on its level of industrialization. Neither a market economy nor even general abundance constitutes the crowning achievement of human life. If a nation's spiritual energies have been exhausted, it will not be saved from collapse by the most perfect government structure or by any industrial development."
That is a warning Russia must hear--and so must we. A nation committed to the Culture of Death has forfeited its spiritual life and is headed for history's long list of civilizations in decline. Russians--and Americans--must pray for recovery in our times.”
reducing everyone's mortgage interest rate
to five percent??
First, it would release money into the consumers hands, Second, it would save
businesses about to go under for lack
of customers.
It is not all George W. Bush's fault, it was Ronald Reagan who started this deregulation policy 28 years ago. Reagan created the deregulation bubble and when that bubble bursts, the DJIA could go as low as 2000 because that was its level when Reagan took office in 1980.
An other hypothisis is, maybe Reagan agreed that if the Soviet Union gave up Communism, than the U.S. would give up Capitalism. Afterall, it is hard to believe that all Republicans are bad people who conspired to loot the country.
The ocean level IS rising ... about 3mm annually. That may not sound like much, but ask South Sea Islanders what the effect is.
" You have some balls, Nr. Stiglitz (not to mention a major memory deficit). Of the $52 trillion "mortgage" facing our children and their children, at least $40 trillion can be charged to the accounts of FDR and LBJ (Social Security and Medicare). By comparison, Mr. Bush is a small time player. But you could never admit that could you Joe? "
Once again a "let them eat cake" supply sider points at programs that are simply matters of human decency as being detrimental to our nation. When is America ever going to realize that starving elderly and poor people dying of preventable disease are not admirable goals? The problem is not that we have the programs, which don't even come close to spending on similar items in other developed countries, but rather the blatant refusal to pay for them by the ruling elite.
In an nation that exports it's jobs without penalty and is willing to enslave children and destroy ecologies for a few percentage points of profit we are going to have entire cities and states left in the dust of destitution. If you advocate for leaving these people (American citizens) totally without support then you should become a pariah among decent people. You have had your way in secret behind the doors of your boardrooms and even in the White House, but your time is over. In the light of day you are even uglier and your destruction of our nation is more extreme than we imagined. America will shun and vilify you in the days to come for the havoc you have helped to perpetrate upon our great nation and the world. If America doesn't cast out your kind then the world will cast out America in self defense as a dog shakes off fleas.
it's a monster to dread.
or you'll wake up one morning quite economically dead.
And how about those FEMA camps huh? Inneresting indeed! Fancy vacationing there!
Blaming Clinton for this mess? Where were you when that was going on, as I recall all anybody cared about was where his penis was. It was all conseverative smoke and mirrors so they could push through their anti-FDR agenda
The Bush usurpation in 2000, the arrogance of power of the Neo-Cons, the call for battle after 911, the plain stupidity in attacking and occupying Iraq, the presidential campaigns of 2004 and 2008, the Democrat primaries of 2008, the promise of a Dream Team and the disappointment when that promise failed to materialize, the entry of Sarah Paling onto the political stage, and even the financial crisis that helped to put the Obama campaign back on track.......all of these provided focus to make comments.
Now Obama is the President Elect, Now Bush is trashed, Now that Hope and Change wait to be realized, Now that Christmas and New Year is beckoning for celebrations and frivolities, now that Jan 20 draws closer by the second.....there is a loss of focus. What puzzles most now is what would happen tomorrow....no, not Jan 20 but tomorrow. And, as events (bad news) unfold, there does not seem to be much direction except that of a steeper and steeper plunge in the fortunes of the US, in the fortunes of the most powerful economy in the world, in the fortunes of the one and only Super Power.
No, one should not blame the President Elect. He has done much well before Jan 20. He has reestablished the Dream Team and put the Dream Team at the head of the National Security Team. This time no one is quite sure what is the Dream of this Dream Team is. How does the Team plan to restore American prestige and moral leadership on the global stage when its own house is tittering on the brink of collapse? Before the issue of whether to bail out the Big Three has been settled, the unexpected bombshell of a $50 billion fraud being practised on the investment community exploded. What is $50 billion now that the trillion figure is a much bandied around term. Indeed money, at least American money, does not seem to have much face value any more. How is the next President going to spend out of trouble?
Obviously neither the Dream Team nor the National Security Issue is of paramount concern to the American populace. They are now worried about their jobs in the face of corporate failures, contractions, and ma