Obama's Tiny Idea For Main Street, A Big Spending Freeze For Wall Street
President Obama yesterday offered a set of proposals for helping America's troubled middle class. All are sensible and worthwhile. But none will bring jobs back. And Americans could be forgiven for wondering how the President plans to enact any of these ideas anyway, when he can no longer muster 60 votes in the Senate.
The bigger news is Obama is planning a three-year budget freeze on a big chunk of discretionary spending. Wall Street is delighted. But it means Main Street is in worse trouble than ever.
A pending freeze will make it even harder to get jobs back because government is the last spender around. Consumers have pulled back, investors won't do much until they know consumers are out there, and exports are miniscule.
In December 1994, Bill Clinton proposed a so-called "middle class bill of rights" including more tax credits for families with children, expanded retirement accounts, and tax-deductible college tuition. Clinton had lost his battle for health care reform. Even worse, by that time the Dems had lost the House and Senate. Washington was riding a huge anti-incumbent wave. Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge. Bill Clinton thought it desperately important to assure Americans he was on their side.
Two months later, Clinton summoned Dick Morris to the White House to figure out how Clinton could move to the right and better position himself for reelection. The answer: Balance the budget.
But in 1994, Clinton's inconsistencies didn't much matter. The U.S. economy was coming out of a recession. It was of no consequence that Clinton's jobs proposals were small or that he moved to the right and whacked the budget, because within a year the great American jobs machine was blasting away and the middle class felt a lot better. Dick Morris was not responsible for Clinton's reelection. Nor was Clinton's move to the right. What reelected Bill Clinton in 1996 was a vigorous jobs recovery that was on the way to happening anyway.
Today, though, there's no sign on the horizon of a vigorous recovery. Jobs may be coming back a bit in the next months but the country has lost so many (not to mention all those who have entered the workforce over the last two years and still can't land a job) that it will be many years before the middle class can relax. Furthermore, this recession isn't like other recessions in recent memory. It has more to do with problems deep in the structure of the American economy than with the ups and downs of the business cycle.
Like Clinton's, Obama's package of middle class benefits is small potatoes. They're worthwhile but they pale relative to the size and scale of the challenge America's middle class is now facing. Obama can no longer afford to come up with lists of nice things to do. At the least, he's got to do two very big and important things: (1) Enact a second stimulus. It should mainly focus on bailing out state and local governments that are now cutting services and raising taxes, and squeezing the middle class. This would be the best way to reinvigorate the economy quickly. (2) Help distressed homeowners by allowing them to include their mortgage debt in personal bankruptcy -- which will give them far more bargaining leverage with morgage lenders. (Wall Street hates this.)
Yet instead of moving in this direction, Obama is moving in the opposite one. His three-year freeze on a large portion of discretionary spending will make it impossible for him to do much of anything for the middle class that's important. Chalk up another win for Wall Street, another loss for Main.

















Sad.
January 26, 2010 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truly a bipartisan president. Talks like FDR and Truman and governs like Hoover and Eisenhower.
C
January 26, 2010 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eisenhower? I think not. Eisenhower was a liberal and real live New Deal Republican.
I'd say Harding is a better analogy for our bumbling so called "leader".
January 26, 2010 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually if only we had a liberal like Ike, and his 91% tax rates on the rich, right now. Obama is to the political right of Ike, much closer to Reagan, especially on the economy.
January 26, 2010 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok Reagan it is.
C
January 26, 2010 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...well there is a narrative 'we can all believe in'. Seriously it is a sad state of affairs, no disrespect to Ike, to say that Ike might be one of the more progressive presidents of the last half century.
January 26, 2010 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I LIKE IKE!
January 26, 2010 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'll hold my breath . . .
In the meantime, while holding my breath I 'll count to 10 and then listen to a little music to sooth the soul. Turn it up!
Square balls were never meant to roll . . .
No ... It's not too emo dude!
~OGD~
January 26, 2010 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. Good one ~OGD~...
:)
January 26, 2010 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish Obama had only summoned some political scum like Frank Luntz to the White House for his turn at Clintonian triangulation. Then the changes would be just words. Instead, it looks as if Obama has been having secret meetings with Grover Norquist and Phil Gramm.
Obama is panicking, and the low and middle class will pay the price.
January 26, 2010 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And of course the spending bill exempts the Pentagon because we're at war. If we have to cut domestic spending to fund our military adventures then maybe we need to rethink being at war.
January 26, 2010 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well . . .
That's been obvious need for nigh on 50+ years . . .
Maybe you can get that chisel-chested, shirtless fella in your avatar to go whip the military industrial complex into a figure four leg lock.
~OGD~
January 26, 2010 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whooo!
January 26, 2010 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think that a tele-prompter can think?
January 26, 2010 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over half of our discretionary budget goes to the military/industrial complex. Sitting at my kitchen table looking at my budget and seeing that over half of it was going to one entity, I think I'd think long and hard is-this-really necessary?
Apparently Obama has never sat 'at a kitchen table.'
January 26, 2010 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well --
You may be willing to take the chance of missing out on getting Osama all because you're too cheap to spring for something better than this outdated fighter. I'm certainly not.
January 26, 2010 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
How dare we touch the money that fund the military-industrial complex.
January 26, 2010 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Help distressed homeowners by allowing them to include their mortgage debt in personal bankruptcy -- which will give them far more bargaining leverage with morgage lenders."
Not clear on this.
Someone filing a Chapter 7 can discharge mortgage debt in a bankruptcy.
Do you mean a mortgage cramdown on the principal owed when the value of the property is less than the principal?
January 26, 2010 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe he means the latter.
January 26, 2010 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tiny minds come up with tiny ideas...and on the economy the administration is a collection of tiny minds, unchallenged by the realities of Main Street, comfortably ruling from their luxurious furnished Potomac castles. Too clueless to read the real source of the populations anger. I can hear it now, as they discuss what's next...Yes, yes people want us to spend less on the rich when it yeilds no return so let's cut the money we spend on behalf of the people. Way to go guys great idea!!!
January 26, 2010 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey now . . .
Are you trying to say there's a bunch of idiots in the swamp on the banks of the Potomac?
Whores ... oops, I mean horrors . . .
~OGD~
January 26, 2010 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that they still think Business is Good.
C
January 26, 2010 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or is that God. I get confused sometimes.
C
January 26, 2010 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
By jove I think you've got it C. And the rest of us are just the unwashed masses who would have nothing if it weren't for the grace of 'God'. Let 'em (us) eat cake...
January 26, 2010 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I likes cookies.
C
January 26, 2010 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cookies? Uh oh...you might go hungry.
January 26, 2010 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge."
You need scare quotes around the word "populist," unless populist now means the best friend corporate America could ever want. But, then again, your political radar is pretty maladjusted anyway, so maybe you do believe Gingrich was a populist.
I'll hold my fire until I see the actual cuts. If Obama's proposing cuts to corporate subsidies, and the Repubs and the DINOs want to fight him on that, I could see this playing out to our advantage. It's not like anything remotely progressive is getting through the current Senate anyway.
January 26, 2010 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes -- "populism" would have been a better choice than "populist."
Was House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich a "populist"?
January 26, 2010 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose they both (Kasich and Gingrich) were in one sense populists, the George Wallace/David type railing aginst the pointy-headed liberal "elite." But since their true priorities were primarily to advance the interests of the corporate elite and the investment class, they don't really fit the more traditional, 1880's definition.
January 26, 2010 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wikipedia is surprisingly good:
January 26, 2010 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about:
populism: an ideology which identifies widespread, out-of-control, systemic corruption and injustice in the extraction of taxpayer dollars and legal license to screw working-stiff employees, consumers, communities, our environment, and the future by unaccountable, sociopathic, wealthy organized interests from timorous, out-of-touch, clueless politicians dependent upon their acquiescence for remaining in office.
Seems to fit in the USA, 2010.
January 26, 2010 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the key word that you miss is "homogeneous".
This is the secret door through which corporatism enters and abducts populism.
January 26, 2010 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing it was all good to you in the years prior to 2010, or are you new to this country?
January 26, 2010 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly. What is your point? That because these problems didn't develop overnight and cannot be fixed overnight I should not expect better than I've seen so far over the past year?
January 26, 2010 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except Kasich made common cause with Ron Dellums (cancel the B2 bomber) and Ralph Nader (end corporate welfare).
Early on Gingrich decided that Kasich's "revolution" would have to take a backseat behind DeLay's drive to create a Republican majority -- forever.
January 26, 2010 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans developed their "permenent majority" by ignoring the wishes of the voters and getting in bed with the corporations who were the biggest Congressional bribers (Campaign donors).
It was a disaster for the Republicans.
The Democrats have adopted the same strategy with the same results.
When will either party realize that giving good government to "We the People" is the only way to develop any kind of permanence to any majority?
.
January 27, 2010 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll hold my fire until I see the actual cuts.
Why do I have the premonition that when you'll see the actual cuts, you'll find another reason to hold your fire?
January 26, 2010 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got any better ideas? Because you're about as disconnected from political and economic realities as they come.
I'm stil waiting for you to explain how you survive in a capitalist society without being a wage slave, a trust funder, or an exploiter of the working class yourself (i.e., an employer/oppressor).
Until you can answer that question, you'll excuse me if I don't take anything you say seriously.
January 26, 2010 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll excuse you.
January 26, 2010 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a clever comeback. Goes straight to the bone. You should try this one too.
Hey, Evildude, I bet you are against smog laden with poisonous pollutants covering our cities too. If you are you should just stop breathing until the inversion clears up.
Meanwhile, stay off the brew, man. It makes your mind go all fuzzy.
January 26, 2010 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm gutted. i feel physically sickened by this administration's constant capitulations to a right-wing that will NEVER cooperate with anything he proposes.
between this, the neutered ARRA, the death of the public option, and the rumor of the dems taking out the preexisting conditions ban, Obama reminds me of a battered wife trying to please an abusive husband (and a pint-sized one at that - think begbie from "trainspotting"). it's embarrassing and pathetic.
the democrats control - well, have majorities in - both houses of congress and they control the executive. yet they're acting like whipped puppies. it's maddening! a part of me hopes they do lose in '10 and '12. if they can't govern, maybe they don't deserve to.
January 26, 2010 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. I heard some Repub senator say this morning that something Obama recently proposed he was in agreement with but since Obama only proposed it for "political" reasons the senator was now against it.
The question that continues to loom is, is Obama listening to this clap-trap? Does he realize that the entire Republican bloc is suffering from a severe case of schizophrenia? And one doesn't depend on schizophrenics to make rational decisions?
January 26, 2010 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has there been any bad news for Republicans lately? Is it time to fold the tents and watch reruns of Star Trek? There were more Progressives writing that show than in this administration.
January 26, 2010 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
In your kiss and tell book, you whimper about how Clinton blew you off and wouldn't meet with you or give your disastrous Keynsian ideas any serious consideration. You had to stoop to the level of slipping secret messages to Hillary in hopes that Clinton might read them. Face it, Dick Morris helped Clinton get reelected by working WITH the Republicans and their "Contract with America" and that galled you.
You try to pretend like you saved the economy and that just isn't so.
A year ago, you were claiming that the public spending in the Stimulus package had such a high multiplier that by now the Economy would be roaring. How did that work out for you?
On your two "Big" ideas, Stimulus II is a cyanide trifecta. It is Political, Economic, and National suicide. Have you ever heard of the first rule of holes? And your mortgage idea? ...again, do you not learn lessons. Throwing more uncertainty into the mortgage market when Bush's TARP has finally stabilized housing and will end up costing us as little as $42 billion after paybacks. Why slice open a resuscitating patient?
What Clinton introduced to the economy by joining the conservatives was predictability and certainty, which your ideas will inherently destroy. That's why he was smart to give you the mushroom treatment.
Your attempt to rewrite history is delusional.
Obama's spending freeze, affects only a sliver of the budget, so it is nothing but a propaganda gimick intended to provide a flag of fiscal responsibility for his media sycophants to wave while he quietly pursues more big spending ideas that will live off the Stimulus slush fund until the political clouds dissipate and the porkulus spigot will be open once again.
And the clincher of your rewriting of history is the fact that Fox News did not exist in 1994, It was created in the late 90s and even then did not have access to most major markets or any real viewership until Clinton left office.I can summarize your article this way.
Don't worry. The spending freeze is fake. Obama will continue to pursue his suicidal, bankrupting spending fest for at least another year until he gets kicked to the curb in this years mid terms.
January 26, 2010 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHA...is that the treatment you are on? The hallucinogenic one? If you think Clinton in working with the R's by helping implement their "Contract on America" helped the economy you are delusional or tripping. It set the stage for where we are at right now. And if Obama works with the current group of R's all he is doing is setting the stage for yet another future redux of what we are going through right now...if not worse. And Bush's TARP helped 'stabilize housing'? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Foreclosures in 2009 were the highest ever!!! Another tiny economic mind heard from...
January 26, 2010 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spend some serious time with TJ, Libertine, and you will be shocked and awed by the shlock this guy passes off as certain fact. Simply a propagandist for his team--and not a very convincing one. Here's one example: GWB's invasion of Iraq is analogous to, and similarly justified as, the Allies's landing in Morocco in WWII. I'm sure he'll be willing to explain it to you--I can't listen to it again, though, so if you ask, you're on your own.
January 26, 2010 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you Tintin. I have read some but didn't feel it warranted commenting on it, on its lack of merit and all. LOL...in his/her (not knowing TJ's gender) Iraq was morally comparable to WWII? Yeah, 'nuff said...
January 26, 2010 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one example: GWB's invasion of Iraq is analogous to, and similarly justified as, the Allies's landing in Morocco in WWII. I'm sure he'll be willing to explain it to you--I can't listen to it again, though, so if you ask, you're on your own
Oh is it? You are the one who brought up WWII. You are teh one that brought the Nazis as an analogy and claimed that we did not invade other countries to fight Hitler and I merely gave numerous examples of the falsity of your statement. Rather than admit that your broad and erroneous statements are false, you try to misrepresent what I said. If you don't want to hear it again, then refrain from commenting on my remarks and I will stop demonstrating how ridiculous your statements are.
The topic here is economic and you consider Krugman and his disastrous ideas as cutting edge, so its obvious why you would try to go off topic and dissemble.
January 26, 2010 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . Bush's TARP has finally stabilized housing . . . . TJKING
TJKING is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
January 26, 2010 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And is also residing in Bizarro World. There is some impressive brain power on display around here Ellen. And while there are many who are probably way smarter than I, TJ makes me look like Stephen Hawking.
January 26, 2010 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish the left could make up its mind.
In December, Obama was trying to claim credit for TARP's having prevented a collapse of our financial system, stop the bleeding and stabilize the Housing market.
He and his staff were trying to sell the idea that TARP had done what it was supposed to do at a cost much lower than had been predicted and the funds were no longer needed for its initial purpose. Why? Because he saw the paybacks rolling in, a remarkable 75% of what was paid out, and he wanted to get his hands on it.
This was a difficult tightrope for him to both claim it was a success, but demonize the "bankers" as misusing the funds. When he realized the legal difficulties in getting his hands on the funds, he went back to plans to go after bankers.
Here is what he said in December.
“There has rarely been a less loved or more necessary emergency program than TARP, which as galling as the assistance to banks may have been, indisputably helped prevent a collapse of the entire financial system,” Obama said.
He voted for it in Oct 2008. As President elect he asked Bush to modify it, which Bush complied with and when all is said and done, out of the $700 Billion, only $42B will be left outstanding....and we avoided a total "collapse of the entire financial system"(Using Obama's own words).
If you want a perfect Housing market with no foreclosures, then maybe you should talk to Obama about spending the entire $700B, which I think would be a mistake. When he voted for it, he claimed it would stabilize the crisis and we would get our money back or maybe even make a profit. I referred to the housing market as a resuscitating patient, not a triathlete. So I stand by my remark that the housing market has stabilized.
So which is it? Does Obama want to take credit for staving off a free fall of the housing market and a total collapse, or put all the responsibility on Bush for TARP and let Bush take credit?
One thing is clear, TARP did better than expected and Obama's Stimulus package did worse than expected. There is no doubt who is to blame for the failure of his Stimulus package. It is Obama's baby.
And Oh, by the way, the Bush deficit Obama keeps complaining about is by and large based on TARP and legislation Obama voted for. Now that it is being paid back, I think he should reduce that Deficit number, pay back whats left of TARP and admit that he is the King of all deficits.
But he won't and that is what makes this so called "Spending freeze" a joke.
January 26, 2010 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . TARP . . . indisputably helped prevent a collapse of the entire financial system. President Obama 12/8/2009
. . . Bush's TARP has finally stabilized housing . . . . TJKING
While I disagree with the President's characterization ("indisputably"), I see nothing in his remarks suggesting he thinks TARP "stabilized housing."
January 26, 2010 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way --
Isn't it the case that "TARP did better than expected," because not a single dollar was spent in carrying out the intent of the program as passed by Congress -- that is, the purchase of toxic/troubled assets from the banks?
We on the left recognized within 24 hours of its publication that the Paulson (Bush had nothing to do with it) plan was idiotic and ridiculously expensive. Apparently, once he got his hands on the money, he agreed with us.
January 26, 2010 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans trying to justify our current economic condition based on their policies is like Nazis justifying the Holocaust on Germany's esteem during WWII. Or Stalin's purges on the stabilization of the population.
C
January 26, 2010 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think its pretty obvious you want to play word games, Ellen.
Obama called TARP a "necessary emergency program" that "indisputably helped prevent a collapse of the entire financial system"
Do we have to break out a dictionary or encyclopedia here?
TARP is described as "the largest component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis."
There was a thing called the housing bubble and another thing Obama called on the campaign trail the "housing market meltdown". This was a financial crisis caused by an "emergency" in the "housing market meltdown".
Here is a link to Obama's housing plan during the campaign talking about "housing", "housing market", "Housing market meltdown"
http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/442008_Obama_Housing_Plan.asp
Are you trying to argue that the Housing market already completely melted down or is melting faster now than the day Obama took office. Are we still in a "housing market meltdown" or are you arguing that what was called the "housing market meltdown" was not related to the "Emergency" Obama claimed he was addressing in September of 2008 by working on TARP?
If you are going to play word games here, it is obvious you are going to evade responsibility.
These "Toxic assets" were,.... ummm,....maybe....Houses?
This brings me back to my original question, that you have failed to answer,... Who takes responsibility for TARP? Bush or Obama?
Before Obama voted for it he was emphatic that it was not just to stabilize banks, it was to prevent a further meltdown and total collapse of the Housing market by helping average Americans stay in their homes.
Did the housing market totally collapse in recent months? Did our financial system collapse? can one occur without the other?
I can't believe I have to explain these things on such a simple level, but if you want to play semantics, what can I do?
If you can't bring yourself to address these points, at least tell me who is responsible for TARP, so next month when you start talking about it, we will know who to blame or who to applaud.
When you claim Bush had nothing to do with "it" and then turn around and claim Paulsen agreed with the left, It seems you are trying to have it both ways. You claim TARP didn't work when it is attributed to Bush, then later claim Bush had nothing to do with it but imply that Paulsen morphed it into something that you are willing to take credit for.
Which is it?
January 26, 2010 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you ever pass Eng 101? Did you even take it?
I ask because your comments in reply to others suggest that when it comes to reading comprehension, your skills are severely compromised.
January 26, 2010 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, reading miscomprehension is the least of TJ's problems. Mendacity is another one. And simple mendacity may be a cover for deeper issues. For example, he seems to think that Sarah Palin is an upright politician who did NOT LIE about "death panels." His long, self-justifications are his "tell," however. The more he writes, the further from the observable truth he gets. Keeping it pithy--your forte--is the best way to deal with him. Dilation only enflames him.
January 26, 2010 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, it is obvious I touched a nerve with you, because it is not good enough for you to lose a debate. Now you follow me around and drop little lies about discussions you and I have had that you humilated yourself trying in vain to defend. It is obvious to anybody that you are wounded and angry. If you would like to engage in debate again, I can remind you of the threads that you walked away from and we can pick up where we left off. Your call.
January 26, 2010 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see.
So you are going to run away from your original premise.
I can see why you don't want to take a stand one way or the other on who is responsible for TARP.
TARP was a success as Obama said. It did stabilize the housing market and kept it from a total meltdown. ...and if you are too afraid to put responsibility on either one, I am not. I credit Bush for the success.
Since you have had several chances to disprove this or to even state who you think IS responsible, I will accept that you forfeit the point.
And regarding your popping up and using your colorful metaphor to attempt to denigrate me, I think it is clear that I gave you every chance to prove how "sharp" you are, and you failed to defend your argument.
January 26, 2010 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still find this idea that any president truly cuts spending - republican or democrat - to be totally out of line with the historical record.
Our debt and deficits have been spiraling out of control for at least the last 30 years, increasing by orders of magnitude each and every year.
Doesn't matter what color hat the crew chief is wearing.
January 26, 2010 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is not going to "cut spending". That's the spin he wants put on it. He's going to freeze discretionary spending ex "defense." a big difference.
January 26, 2010 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is usually called spending cuts is a cut in the rate of spending, but as you note,...Real expenditures in the last 30 years go up and up regardless of the crew chief.
January 26, 2010 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure does. It has to do with the American financial sector, through lobbying and outright corruption, getting free rein to fine-tune government rules and regulations so they benefit solely their side of every transaction. American consumers are stretched by loan-shark interest (which Congress legalized), and adjustable interest rates on loan that assure they'll never repay until every spare penny is drained from them (again, at Congressional authority). They are literally extorted by threat of credit reports, a gamy system thoroughly run by the industry and used to cudgel and intimidate the lowly.
It is systemic. It will not change - not with the set-up and not with the players we have now. Maybe Obama is doing the best he can with what he's got. Look at it this way - there's between $230 and $370 trillion in derivatives, hedgefunds and over-leveraged investments out there. Nobody really knows for sure. In 2008, the American Gross Domestic Product was about $14.5 trillion. Who's gonna cover all these scams? There isn't enough money in the known universe to cover it all. Right now... we're whistling in the dark.
January 26, 2010 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the problems are deeper yet.
Technology is making it possible for fewer and fewer people to do the world's NECESSARY work; to produce food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and a bit of entertainment. Supposedly, human desire can never be quenched. There's always an appetite for new things. But, in practice, it appears the Luddites weren't really wrong.
Globalization further exacerbates our problems. Increasingly American jobs are being exported abroad. And, it appears, THERE'S NO REALISTIC WAY TO STOP THE PROCESS.
So we've resorted to bubbles, currency manipulation, outright criminality, whatever we can think of to sustain an unsustainable standard of living.
If peak oil and environmental degradation turn out to be real the situation will become even uglier even faster.
Can you think of any way to turn things around? I can't. Not any humane way, at least.
January 26, 2010 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Moore: "Continual and Historic Failure of the Democratic Party"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viUokrVXwPg
We need a "True Democrats against 'Centrist' Barack Obama" started ASAP. We have to scare him into acting like a Democrat. As it is, he's been a complete and total failure.
January 26, 2010 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you or anyone else has done research which definitely establishes the truth of one contention or the other. I think you talking heads are nothing but immoral propagandists - unworthy jackasses - who'll say anything to gain power. Even if you aren't worthy possessors. Especially, if you aren't.
January 26, 2010 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, a few more days like today and I'm going to have to start giving credence to the paranoid notion that Obama is a stealth Republican - a clandestine "Yuri" planted reared and trained by Republicans to look like a Democrat while enacting a Republican agenda. For years, the Republicans connived to engineer a "fiscal train wreck" that would finally force the Congress to cut entitlements. And now here comes Obama, right on cue, exploiting the economic calamity as a rationale for cutting entitlements while letting defense spending race upward. I'm sorry, but this is just mainline Republicanism.
Following Massachusetts, Obama is apparently listening to some of the populists. But it appears he is only listening to the right wing ones. What on Earth is going on inside that White House?
January 26, 2010 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Presumably, we'll find out tonight.
January 27, 2010 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
this really suck's what Obama is doing, I'm tired of the Democratic Party.
I may not be wealthy yet, but I'm a Conservative Republican all the way. I'm tired of Obama, Wall Street got us into this mess anyway, not main street. The spending freeze is a wrong move. Most of that discretionary spending is domestic any way.
January 27, 2010 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, but dude --
You are one strange "Conservative Republican."
January 28, 2010 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not thing this is good at all. If the government is not spending it is not creating jobs which is not good. I do not think this freeze is good at all.
buy tadalafil
July 1, 2010 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink