... and I regret nothing. Sometimes the skewed priorities of economic conservatives are so infuriating that I can't feel any remorse when I give them a tongue-lashing.
Matthew Rozsa
If you want to understand why the economic policy propounded by the "experts" in power displays such a shocking lack of sensitivity to the needs of the working class, just read Paul Krugman's latest editorial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/opinion/31krugman.html
Tiguhs OndaBayou
Guess he missed the news that Spain lost it's AAA rating... truth is we got some scary fiscal imbalances that are rooted in unsustainable entitlelment programmes, one day push is gonna come to shove
Matthew Rozsa
Arguments like yours, Tom, remind me of an important quote by Franklin Roosevelt:
“Our Republican leaders tell us economic laws — sacred, inviolable, unchangeable — cause panics which no one could prevent. But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings.”
Sadly, the primary difference between the America of 1932 (in which FDR uttered this line) and its 2010 counterpart is that today, far too many Democrats are becoming gelded echoes of deficit hawks, laissez-fairers, covert plutocrats, myopic shills of Wall Street (such as yourself), and other birds from the Republican economic aviary.
No one is denying that our budget deficit and national debt pose a great threat to our country's fiscal soundness, and that both will eventually need to be addressed. That said, our priority right now must be to alleviate the great human suffering that has been caused by the economic calamities of the Bush years - rising unemployment, stagnant or declining incomes, a deterioration of our education system, and a dwindling of our national competitiveness with other nations in the industries of the future. These are not problems that can be solved while simultaneously trying to fight the budget deficit and reduce our national debt. Therefore, we need to temporarily accept three hard truths about what our policies need to be:
1) We will need to drastically increase spending, and with it the deficit and our national debt, until the aforementioned side effects of this economic disaster have subsided.
2) To offset the deleterious impact those spending increases will have on our deficit and national debt, we will need to make dramatic cuts NOT in social programs, but in the military-industrial complex and war on drugs (such as by legalizing marijuana and de-criminalizing a host of other drugs), as well as raising taxes on the wealthy back to Eisenhower-era levels.
3) After unemployment is down, wages are up, and investments in our economic future (education, job training, growing industries that will improve our competitiveness with China, India, Japan, and so on) have all been put in place, we will then need to tackle the problem of the deficit and debt by raising taxes. Walter Mondale put it best in 1984: It needs to be done. A good politician will try to conceal this fact; a good leader will explain to the people that, unsavory though it may be, it is a necessary evil, one that will prevent a far greater one in the future.
Tiguhs OndaBayou
Cliff notes?
Matthew Rozsa
Oh come now, Tom. It isn't that long.
Tiguhs OndaBayou
1960 percent of total spending:
49.5% national defense
2.9% Health (incl. Medicare)
13.4% social security
2004 percent of total spending
20.5% national defense
24.2% Health (incl. Medicare)
17.6% social security
Tiguhs OndaBayou
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
Matthew Rozsa
I fail to see how your response - which consists of comparative cost percentages from the national budget, with the most recent example you cite being about half-a-decade out-of-date - in any way rebuts my initial argument.
My assertion is that, in order to offset (not entirely resolve, but at least temporarily address) the budget deficit and national debt crises, we should cut spending on the military-industrial complex and the drug wars, while simultaneously raising taxes on the wealthy. That said, we also need to acknolwedge that the deficit and debt WILL have to increase, at least temporarily, until the human suffering caused by the Great Recession is alleviated. Once that problem has been solved, we should THEN focus on raising taxes in order to pay off the debt.
Tiguhs OndaBayou
You raise taxes on the wealthy, the wealthy will setup shell corps to protect their income/expenditures from the govt.
Tiguhs OndaBayou
human suffering? lol, let's be real Matt, poor people in the US are fat!!!
Matthew Rozsa
That is why the government needs to enact laws - perhaps through Executive Orders, if Congress is uncompliant - to make it illegal for American citizens to move their assets in such a way as to immunize them from their tax obligations. The people who have for years been benefiting by their citizenship in this country have no right to find clever loopholes so as to avoid paying their fair share for the privileges of being in this great country.
Matthew Rozsa
Your second commment is beneath contempt. If you had any sense of decency, you would be ashamed of yourself for writing it.
Tiguhs OndaBayou
I'm all for cutting military spending and ending the war on drugs, neither are near the radar screen of what's on the agenda though.
Are u simply making a policy wish list?
Tiguhs OndaBayou
It would cost more to enforce such a financial regulatory regime than it'd get back. It's easy to hide money and you cannot reign in the transnational liberation of capital flows in any practical manner
Matthew Rozsa
I'm creating a list of policies that I believe would solve our economic problems. The fact that the two major parties do not propose these solutions - with the Republicans being entirely in the pocket of big business and Wall Street, and with Democrats being co-opted by the DLC and other so-called "centrist" groups - doesn't mean that they aren't valid. It's simply a sign that the Democratic Party of which I am a member - the one of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and George McGovern - has been corrupted by the party of Max Baucus, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln.
Part of the blame for this lies with President Obama. While I suspect his heart is with the party of FDR, he is a weak leader, and as such has allowed the Baucuses to exert undue authority. The price for this unwillingness to use the bully pulpit of the presidency is one that the entire country is paying.
Matthew Rozsa
1) It would not be that expensive to enforce such regulatory mechanisms. In fact, many of the existing organizations could easily do this work, thus significantly reducing costs.
2) It is indeed easy to hide money, and transnational capital flows are hard to control. That doesn't mean that it's impossible. It just means you'd need a president who had the balls to stand up to the financial powers-that-be. We've had them before (see the Roosevelts), and we can have them again.
Tiguhs OndaBayou
So you're upset about the leverage the mod dems yield? certainly an impediment but politics is politics, as someone waiting for c&t to pass, I share your frustrations.
Tiguhs OndaBayou
We'll have to agree to disagree on the financial oversight bit. Read the Black Swan man, it's not so much related to any of the above and doesn't have an ideological angle, more philosophical/emprical. I think you'd enjoy it. At least look it up on amazon and read the reviews :)
Matthew Rozsa
I think we can end this debate on that note. It's about as close to friendly as this thing is likely to get. lol ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment