A Question About Doom And Gloom
There was a theme to this weeks Republican debate. Doom.
We are doomed because of Obama.
Our economy is doomed.
Medicare and Social Security are doomed.
Our grandchildren are doomed.
Gays will doom our military and our marriages.
And on and on it went.
So here’s my question… Can someone be elected President on negativity alone? Is shouting “doom” and answering with “austerity” a winning combination?
Elected? No I don’t think so.
Re-Elected yes. Bush II was proof of that
It depends on whether Dems are willing to provide contrast or not. An austerity budget passed by Dems will validate the insanity of Republican austerity proposals. A jobs and investment budget, or at least a serious fight for one, will be a winning message for Democrats.
Enough with the supply side policies of putting more money into the hands of business. What business needs is customers. Put money into consumer hands and make business chase it.
If Dems buy into the austerity message (and they are, in spades) then the Republicans will (probably successfully) try to turn the election into a contest on who is offering the biggest spending cuts.
Both Dems and Repubs already agree that “deficit reduction” means spending cuts to social insurance, and tax increases are off the table. So Dems have already surrendered half the battle on austerity before it has even begun. One of the biggest cheese-eating surrender monkeys is right here in Delaware, and we voted for him.
Sure we need spending restraint, but more importantly we need to raise taxes on the wealthy so that they can return to sensible patterns of hiring and investment.
America’s wealth has not disappeared. It is sitting in corporate balance sheets, and in the pockets and portfolios of the wealthy. We have been funneling ti there for ten years, and to be fair it started in the second Clinton administration.
America is not broke – its middle class is. We know where the money is – we just don’t have the political will to go get it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110614/bs_yblog_thelookout/workers-share-of-national-income-plummets-to-record-low
“An austerity budget passed by Dems will validate the insanity of Republican austerity proposals.”
Unfortunately, the Republicans have convinced the media the deficit is an actual problem. Except for Krugman, nobody is pointing out that austerity budgets in Britain and Germany have put their economies back into recession. In short, the deficit is a long-term problem, and unemployment is a short-term problem, and the solutions to each are at odds with each other. Color me nuts, but I think we should solve short-term problems before long-term problems.
There was a way to win on austerity, but Democrats botched the messaging from the beginning of the Obama administration.
In 2008 obviously we needed increased spending for stimulus and for temporary swelling of safety net programs. But we failed to make the case that it was temporary spending. This gave Republicans justification to attack Dems for spending for spending’s sake, and seeking to increase the size of government.
It would have been a beautiful thing if Obama had clearly articulated a policy of temporary increases in Relief and Recovery spending (with the differences clearly defined in the legislation), while also pursuing a real policy of cutting the core costs of government, raising efficiency, and “reducing the size of government.” That would be a bipartisan policy (and a political strategy) I could get behind.
FDR’s emergency programs were cleanly separated into Relief and Recovery, and were sold as temporary. And in 2008 we were confronted with a similar situation, but Dems failed to use the bully pulpit to make the distinction. The design of ARRA didn’t help either, being all mooshed together. Republicans also were sleazy enough to take political advantage of Obama’s putting the wars back on the budget, claiming it was all a massive increase in “big government.”
I think that’s a good analysis, Puck. I think they failed to realize that fixing health care is a long-term problem, not a short-term one, and that it should have been put on the back burner in favor of economic stimulus.
fixing health care is a long-term problem, not a short-term one, and that it should have been put on the back burner in favor of economic stimulus.
That was a tough call. One thing I learned during the HCR debate is that you can only do reconciliation once per year.
Bill Clinton chose to use his shot at reconcilation to pass his economic plan rather than health care, and as a result he got a decade of jobs, prosperity, and a balanced budget.
Obama chose to use his shot at reconciliation to pass health care rather than his economic plan, and as a result he is getting the economy we have now.
There were some who said passing HCR even in its final weakened form was a once-in-a-generation opportunity that was worth giving up other priorities.
Was it?
For me, no. I understand that this sort of half-step was probably the only way to an eventual single-payer system, but I can’t work up enthusiasm for something if I don’t have any natural enthusiasm for it. And it’s hard to campaign on half-measures. If what we had passed was Medicare for all, Republicans trying to kill Medicare would be running on an unwinnable issue.
Watch HBO’s “Too Big to Fail”, and see why Obama was caught up in a financial mess along with Geitner and Bernacke. All that money given to the banks was for them to lend out to small commercial banks and get the economy rolling. Instead they took the money, gave themselves big bonus and golden parachutes, and began investing it overseas in China, India and elsewhere. They consider US citizens to be a “credit risk” after they were responsible for taking down the economy. Greece is a clear example of what the international banksters and the Bilderbergs have in store for the world. They are going to decide what country gets bailed out and which are going to immediately be privatized. The privatization of Greece right now is abhorent to the Greek people. They know they were sold out to the international banking cartel. Ireland, Portugal and Spain will follow. There plan is to privatize every country they can..and US is now in those crosshairs. Listen to the repukes and what they will do if they get power! Privatization has already begun in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and NH. The Bilderberg Conference is coming up and already there have been leaks about their past meetings…they are the shadow government.
Hi Guys have not talked to you guys since early election night 2010, after chris coons was declared a winner. My recomendation at that time was for you guys to go to bed before the rest of the results across the country were in. Hope you took my advice, if you did not, I bet you went to bed, but I doubt you got any sleep.
Anyhow, Our current economic situation and our Current President remind me of some lines from the movie the grapes of wrath. When Henry Fonda first arrives home, and talks to Casey, and Casey tells him he is not a preacher anymore. Henry Fonda ask why, and Casey says cause a preacher has to know, and I don’t know. That is how I feel about this current dem jobs tour where they are asking opinions of what to do. And so is the President. He just does not know what to do. So to me, he is like Casey, he just can’t be President anymore. But fortunately there is someone who does know, and he is riding in on trigger to get the country moving again, and fortunately for you guys and gals, whether you realize it or not, (and I don’t think most of you can see it yet), Mitt Romney is riding in to help make the country super prosperous again. Not just the wealthy, not just the middle class, but everyone that is willing to work hard and perform. But I believe the people who are going to complain the loudest are the ones who are not going to be willing to work hard. They have been pampered to long. It is going to happen, you can’t stop it now, so the best thing you can do is prepare. I am preparing my self over the next 18 months, so I will be in the best postion to work hard and prosper, after the next election, and for the next 8 years.
I really mean this, I hope you don’t take this the wrong way. And if you do, It is your loss, not mine, I am just trying to help you, really I am, Thank you
Grapes of Wrath is a book. I know it is against teabag dogma to read anything not written by Beck or St Sarah, so it’s ok Hopefully one day you will be free to access the knowledge of the world. my prayers are with you.
BUt i agree with you. Im sick of all those pampered ass holes who are living on the streets, or have now been unemployed for over a year because their kind hearted company, try as they might couldnt take the unreasonable demands of paying them a livable wage AND giving out giant exec bonuses. Luckily there is a land of salvation where you dont have to pay workers a livable wage or health insurance, or have safe working conditions or make a safe product. May Mitt lead us to this fabled land.
sorry cant leave this one alone. Mitt Romney is proposing the EXACT SAME economic policies that have made ONLY the super rich prosperous. The past 10 years….. since Ray-Gun really, we have been tod that if we just cut taxes and let business do business, we will all prosper. It has failed time and again. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets smaller. You cant deny facts, you cant deny reality. The republican model is a huge failure and the people who still advocate for it are wither ignorant, or malevolent liars. The worst are the ones who say “we are just trying to help”
Bull. It hasnt worked, it never will work. Make the rich pay their fair share, stop demonizing people who are victims of the system.
But I believe the people who are going to complain the loudest are the ones who are not going to be willing to work hard. They have been pampered to long.
What will all those Wall Streeters do for a living then?
What is required is tax hikes and more stimulus. Obama can’t do it because people like Rusty refuse to acknowledge the value of economic policies that have proven their worth. They prefer the voodoo economics of the Austrian school, which they accept on faith. They have to, because their prescriptions have put us exactly where we are today.
What is required is tax hikes and more stimulus.
Agreed… but to put a finer point on it, we can’t afford a repeat of ARRA, two-thirds tax cuts and the rest unmemorable payouts for God knows what.
This time, stimulus needs to be direct job creation – WPA, CCC, whatever. Get the job application forms out before the end of the year. And no high-speed rail boondoggles. And no road-building until we get the damn long-haul heavy trucks off the road and onto upgraded freight rail.
And there needs to be a separate Relief bill to fund the increased enrollment in safety net programs for the duration of the downturn. Couple it with whatever cost reductions you can come up with that don’t reduce benefits or eligibility.
Bring the troops home and give them a foreclosed house for cheap, and send them to college.
All of this expense should be offset by the expiration of the Bush/Obama tax cuts on the wealthy, plus a special temporary surcharge on the wealthy to start digging us out of the hole they got us into.
Not really realistic, but hey, that is the high price we pay for creating an enthusiasm gap and losing the House.
And I hate to say it, but I’m for a strong employer sanctions law on companies that employ illegally. That will free up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans, and will bring jobs back into compliance with labor law and workplace safety. An investment should be made in upgrading the e-Verify system and implementing a national employer sanctions law similar to Arizona’s (that’s the employer sanctions law, NOT the round ’em up law).
And also let’s make it clear to the John Carneys of Congress – cutting the employer contribution to Social Security is NOT job creation.
I wouldn’t mind cutting both sides of Social Security, employer and employee, if we also removed the ceiling on contributions to make up the difference. I think that would be better for the economy in the long run.
AS for the employer sanctions law, I don’t think it will change a thing on the unemployment front. I wouldn’t work in a slaughterhouse no matter how much it paid.
AS for the employer sanctions law, I don’t think it will change a thing on the unemployment front.
Sure you wouldn’t work in a slaughterhouse. Don’t worry, they wouldn’t take you anyway. At least not as an employee 🙂
It’s hard to argue this without data, but I think the effects of an effective national employer sanctions law would be greater than just freeing up any jobs that were vacated.
The point is once workplaces are brought into compliance with the law, employees will have legal protections and rights. They’ll have OSHA, unemployment and workers compensation, and won’t be pressured by the threat of being replaced with an uncomplaining illegal. Suddenly employees will have more bargaining power for wage increases, whether they are union or not.
So working conditions for everybody will be improved in all low-end jobs. Wages too, probably. Not just in slaughterhouses, but in all difficult workplaces. It’s not just slaugterhouses – there are lots of illegal employers in good blue collar jobs like construction and trades. And unions will be strengthened by taking the army of illegal replacement workers out of the game.
I disagree with the position of increasing taxes on the Wealthy. And here is why. If tomorrow, we increased taxes on all the wealthy, temporarilty we would solve some budget short fall problems. And there is no doubt that the wealthy could afford it, and it probably would not affect their lifestyle very much.
But here is the flaw in the argument of penalizing the wealth with an extra heavy tax burden. Most of the wealthy were not always wealthy. Many of them made them self’s wealthy by innovating and creating, ie Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet. These people were not always wealthy. So If we start putting an extra heavy tax on the wealthy, you are penalizing the most productive smart creative people in our society. The people who’s idea’s have created huge companies, given high paying jobs to hundreds of thousand of people. Actually in the case of microsoft and google, actually made thousands of their employees millionairs. So if we start placing a heavy tax burden on the wealthy, we take a big part of the incentive away to invent, innovate, and create. We will lose the strong incentive that this great country has always offered its people. If you are productive and create, in this country you have the opportunity to get ahead. We do not want to penalize these people with an extra heavy tax burden and risk taking their creative incentive away. I am for a flat income tax rate, where everyone pays say 17% of their income. The guy that makes $1,000 per year, the guy that makes $100,000 per year, and the guy that makes $1,000,000 per year. Everyone pays the same flat 17% rate. In that way there is no penalty for the high earning people, and no advantage for the low earner to earn less. There is nothing more fair than this. But making the most productive members of our society pay a tax penalty to help the least productive members of our society is wrong. In this tax system, if you make 10 times more money than me, you pay 10 times the taxes, what could be more fair than that.
“there are lots of illegal employers in good blue collar jobs like construction and trades. And unions will be strengthened by taking the army of illegal replacement workers out of the game.”
Yeah, I know the theory. I just think it’s heavily oversold. Most of the construction jobs are low-wage laborer jobs — drywall hangers, for example. In restaurants, immigrants are typically dishwashers. And so on. They are the lowest-skill, lowest-wage jobs available. Slaughterhouse workers are an exception; theirs are just some of the most horrible jobs imaginable. They won’t be paid any better than the immigrants are today. In fact, many of those jobs are off the books, so they won’t be heavily affected by laws anyway.
What we are hearing now that in Alabama where they just passed a law even harsher than Arizona’s, the crops are not being picked. I guess Americans aren’t taking these jobs yet.
Pandora,
In my experience the pessimistic candidate doesn’t usually win.
crops are not being picked. I guess Americans aren’t taking these jobs yet.
That’s because the farmers still have to compete against illegal employers in other states, and can’t raise prices to attract legal employees. That’s why a national law is needed.
If I were unemployed I’d probably turn down a job in an illegal workplace too. My days would be better spent looking for a real job.
I’d even say that annual legal immigration quotas should be tied to the US unemployment rate. With unemployment at 9% and holding, immigration should be throttled to a trickle until the US is at least generating enough jobs for its own population growth.
You couldn’t be more wrong about crops. They’ve been picked by immigrants, and not mainly illegal ones, for generations. Or perhaps you’re unaware that farm workers are not subject to minimum-wage laws?
Seriously, you sound as pie-in-the-sky deranged on this subject as conservatives are on most subjects. Do some research and find me the times in American history — and I stress American, rather than European — when “throttling” immigration either a) worked and/or b) led to higher wages. You’re just dreaming.
Geezer – Picking crops is a different ball game. Don’t mislead by switching the focus to crop-picking. What portion of our illegal population is engaged in seasonal picking? Or more importantly, how many wage dollars paid illegally are for picking vs. non-picking jobs? I don’t know either but I doubt it is more than half.
I’m all for expanding legal programs for migrant crop picking. The key word being “legal.” What I’m opposed to is looking the other way on illegal employers as a foundation of our economy. That drags down wages and working conditions for all low-wage employees.
It seems self evident that requiring employers to hire legally will make more jobs available to Americans and raise standards in all workplaces. To claim otherwise is just innumerate. So the burden is on you to prove that it won’t.
Loose immigration policy has worked well for America in the past during times of labor shortages, high need for unskilled labor, and low worker mobility. But history offers no comparison to the present economy.
“It seems self evident that requiring employers to hire legally will make more jobs available to Americans and raise standards in all workplaces. To claim otherwise is just innumerate. So the burden is on you to prove that it won’t.”
This is the equivalent of a conservative saying that “paying lower taxes will make more money available…etc. The burden is on you to prove that it won’t.”
No, it’s not. This isn’t a game. There are literally thousands of studies of the effects of immigration, legal and illegal both, on wages in host countries the world over. Thousands of researchers have tried to prove what you claim is just obvious. Not many have been able to, or more accurately, for every claim that it makes a difference, there’s one that says it doesn’t. And those results don’t break down by political leaning. Don’t believe me, look it up.
Don’t believe me, look it up.
So I did. Didn’t find what you are claiming. Lots of pro-corporate “studies” from Cato though.
It is you who is advancing a magical theory, by claiming that allowing employers to fill millions of jobs illegally somehow does not harm American workers.
I don’t think there is enough data out there for either of us to find proof, but I sure would like to know what kind of theory you are using to make your claims. As for me, I am sticking with basic arithmetic.
Why wouldn’t workers benefit by bringing low-paid jobs within US law? And why wouldn’t low paid Americans benefit by no longer being forced to compete with an army of exploited replacement workers?
Do you have some kind of Laffer Curve that shows how replacing American workers with illegals floats all the boats?
I really am opening to your line of reasoning how this would work, if you can just explain it.
The point is that there are too many variables for the theory, either way it is expressed, to be proved beyond doubt. Many jobs — think of all those lawn services — would simply disappear if the price goes up, as it would if the cost of labor went up. People would go back to mowing their own lawns. Teenagers would rejoin the work force — you might have noticed that immigrants have displaced all the teens who used to work at fast-food restaurants. They’re paid the same thing, but students have their hours limited by law, which has made the immigrants a preferable work force.
The only jobs we can be reasonably sure would be filled are those in the unskilled construction labor force. I don’t think the wages of non-unionized unskilled laborers are going to change much either way, as most employers I know prefer the immigrants not for the wages they’ll work for but their willingness to work longer hours without breaks.
In short, you are the one positing a rosy scenario of “higher wages” when there are a wide varieties of other possible consequences. And if you look up enough studies — there are literally thousands — you’ll find that the only way wages rise is when the work force is truly limited. We don’t have enough border security for that.
So what jobs would we gain? Fast-food jobs? That might make the unemployment rate look better, but those folks will still occupy the lowest rung of the economy, and will still qualify for all sorts of poverty-relief programs.
Here’s the clincher, though: We have had two years now of declining illegal immigration. Seen any wage increases? Didn’t think so.
Add to that the extra costs involved and the prospect that the native born will somehow benefit from cracking down on immigration vanishes like mist. The costs of doing something are almost always greater than the costs of doing nothing. Without a clear benefit, I’ll choose the latter. And there is no clear benefit here — just your “reasoning” which, as with all reasoning conducted without all the facts in hand, is pointless.
Many jobs — think of all those lawn services — would simply disappear if the price goes up, as it would if the cost of labor went up. People would go back to mowing their own lawns.
So what’s the down side?
The price of services would finally reflect its true cost, which ultimately is better for the economy, rather than masking the costs with illegality.
Those who could afford the services will still purchase them. And workers in those service industries would work under the protection of US labor law and the court system (such as it is).
I’ll agree with you on those points. That means I won’t bring up the difference in air pollution between a lawn service’s more efficient mowers and every homeowner’s lawn tractor, or the fact that when money doesn’t change hands, economic activity drops.
I’m just trying to get you to realize that most of your argument is about principles and theory, not the practical reality of employment on the ground. Personally, I suspect that the cost and effort of enforcing our current immigration laws will not be repaid in economic improvements. I can’t prove it, but until I see something that changes my mind, that’s my position.
Now if what you’re really psyched about is watching right-wingers agonize over an issue that splits their yahoo wing from their pro-business wing, have at it. I don’t object to the exercise; I just think political agita for Republicans will be the only real benefit to the rest of us.
Personally, I suspect that the cost and effort of enforcing our current immigration laws will not be repaid in economic improvements.
If you mean laws to harass or round up immigrants, I agree with you.
But employer sanctions would be relatively inexpensive. Four or five big prosecutions, and employers would all start policing themselves. There would probably even be a consulting boom as employers struggled to get legal, just as there was with Sarbanes Oxley and other regulations.
Actually there already is a US employer sanctions law on the books, but there is a safe harbor that excuses the employer if the worker flashes a fake ID at them. That giant loophole needs to be closed with an upgraded E-Verify system. And if the US employment picture starts improving, then we could think about expanding legal immigration again.
you really want to see who is profiting from “illegal immigration”?
here:
http://mycuentame.org/immigrantsforsale/?vic=1
its amaing to think that AZ Senaor Russell Pearce – (behind AZ SB1070 and Gov Jan Brewer – along with other Republicans in SC and GA and MI with new harsher anti-immigrant laws are supported by and have on their advisory staffs representatives of CCA – Corrections Coorporation of America.
Detaining immigrants is a huge multi-million dollar industry…
follow the money Geezer – while we need to reform our laws on immigration puck is essentially correct – the Repubs dont want ot for two reasons
1. big business WANTS to maintain the status Quo
2. and there is a buck in it for them
Its a scandal of EPIC proportions and is growing – the Human and Civil rights abuses in these places is out of control. Deaths, illnesses and pregnancies that should not be happening.
The US is not looking so good in the eyes of the international community for this very issue.
and remember entry in tot country without permission is in many cases NOT a criminal act and in other issues it is not more egregious than a traffic ticket
on other cases is not criminal at all – it is a civil administrative violtaion
SO, when ever I hear “what part of “illegal” dont you understand?” I have to laugh because that statement right there immiediately tells me this is, at best, an un-informed person at worst, an ignornant, vicious bigot.
To the extent that American workers and undocumented workers are in competition, you might see some wage growth if employers saw a reduced pool of workers. Places like landscaping businesses or small contractors or even small restaurants might go out of business (that is where the increased unemployment comes from, since the undocumented aren’t counted). The real question is in certain industries like meatpacking, which used to provide work and wages that supported middle class families and no longer does. By design — employing undocumented workers as a specific strategy to deliver more profits. Read that article — it is enlightening. Agriculture is another question — it is a very big business that has been powered by immigrant labor for a very long time. But you won’t know much about the effects on wages until you remove immigrants from the labor pool and see how the market reacts.
The Obama Administration has been really focused on employers for enforcement actions. They don’t get alot of publicity for this, but while they’ve stepped up border security, they’ve also stepped up employer surveillance. I’ve often wondered if that isn’t about getting the business community to step up and push their wingnut allies to accept a more rational immigration policy.