The stimulate China's economy, cause Democrats to lose act of 2009

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 13:43


As posted last night in Quick Hits by Daniel de Groot, the Obama administration want to use leftover TARP funds to pay down the debt.  I guess the idea is that China's economy needs more stimulating than our own:

The Obama administration, under pressure to show it is serious about tackling the budget deficit, is seizing on an unusual target to showcase fiscal responsibility: the $700 billion financial rescue.(...)

The Treasury Department said about $210 billion in TARP funds remains unspent, including about $70 billion returned from financial institutions. A further $50 billion is expected to be repaid in the next 12 to 18 months.

This is a terrible, terrible idea.  There are times when paying down the debt is prudent--like the early part of this decade--but right now we need that money to create jobs.  Immediately.

Paying down the debt now would just send the $210 billion left in the TARP funds to China and other countries to who we owe money.  A much better use would be for it fund a $200 billion jobs package that Congress is looking to move over the next one to three months.

Unfortunately, the administration's idea of using the remaining bailout money to pay down the debt is already catching on with Blue Dogs and Republicans.  Anti-health care, pro-coathanger, Representative Larry Kissell has introduced, and is gathering cosponsors for, a bill in Congress to match the Obama administration's plans. Here is a Dear Colleague letter he is circulating in the House right now, trying to gather more co-sponsors on top of the four Republicans, four Blue Dogs, and freshman Ann Kirkpatrick who have already joined up:

(The letter Kissell is sending to other House members can be found in the extended entry.)

Chris Bowers :: The stimulate China's economy, cause Democrats to lose act of 2009
Support the Repaying the American Taxpayer Act of 2009

Co-Sponsors(9)*denotes original cosponsor: Bright, Foxx, Griffith, Coble, Lummis, Myrick, *Kirkpatrick, Minnick, Kratovil

Dear Colleague:

When the first allocation of hundreds of billions of TARP dollars was used to buy preferred stock in hundreds of financial institutions, our constituents were assured this was necessary in order to free up lines of credit for everyday Americans who needed to buy a car, a home, or pay their bills.  Instead these banks horded the funds rather than put them out on Main Street as available credit. Many continued to award obscene bonuses to their executives in order to "retain" their expertise.  Meanwhile, those everyday Americans who were assured their tax dollars were going to a good cause have continued their struggle to get a small loan or a credit card.

I was not in Congress when the first half of TARP funds were voted on but I joined a majority of my colleagues in opposing the second half of funds.  Due to the initial lack of oversight and accountability, TARP has been a mismanaged program from the beginning. Furthermore, Americans were sold on the promise that revenues from the sale or return of TARP related assets would be applied toward the public debt.  What the American people were not told was that as long as the U.S. is running a deficit, the revenues from TARP related funds would simply return into the Treasury's general fund.  That is why I introduced H.R. 3020, the "Repaying the American Taxpayer Act of 2009."

Specifically, H.R. 3020 would amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to require revenue from the sale of TARP related assets to be directly paid toward the national debt while simultaneously reducing the debt ceiling for every dollar of TARP money returning to Treasury. Only by lowering the debt ceiling accordingly can Congress truly prevent Treasury from turning around and immediately borrowing more money. This bill would also insert language requiring that dividend payments received off the preferred stock the government owns in public companies be treated under the same rules.  Finally, this bill would require the Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP) to include in the SIGTARP Quarterly Report to Congress, a section outlining confirmation of these transactions and subsequent lowering of the debt ceiling.  I understand enactment of this bill may require Treasury to return to Congress earlier to ask that the debt ceiling be raised; however, I believe money for the purchase of TARP related assets was money that never should have been borrowed in the first place. Accordingly, it shouldn't be treated as revenue when it returns to the Treasury's general fund.

If you would like to cosponsor this bill, please contact XXXXXX at XXXXXX or via email at XXXXXXXX.  I look forward to your support.

Sincerely,
Larry Kissell
Member of Congress

Yeah, that's right, support hardworking Americans by sending their tax money to China, instead of to create jobs. Good friggin' plan.

And that's not all! In the extended entry, I discuss how the White House is pushing for either spending freezes or massive cuts next year, because apparently they are more concerned with avoiding labels than with actually creating jobs. More in the extended entry

Combined with proposed spending freezes and / or cuts, using the remaining bailout money to pay down the debt would be a disastrous move by an administration more concerned with avoid labels than anything else:

The White House is in the early stages of considering what bigger moves it might make for next year's budget. The Office of Management and Budget has asked all cabinet agencies, except defense and veterans affairs, to prepare two budget proposals for fiscal 2011, which begins Oct 1, 2010. One would freeze spending at current levels. The other would cut spending by 5%.(...)

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is pressing for substantial spending cuts to go with any tax increases to try to avoid the "tax and spend" label that has bedeviled Democrats, according to administration and congressional officials.

Avoiding labels will not help Democrats at the ballot box one iota.  Only stimulating our economy and creating jobs will do that.  FDR and Democrats did not win landslide victories in 1934 and 1936 by engaging in a Hoover-like attempt to freeze spending and pay down the debt during a time of crisis.  They spent, and spent big--resulting in Asian Tiger-like a GDP growth of 10.9% in 1934, 8.9% in 1935, and 13.0% in 1936.

If you want to know why Democrats and FDR did so well in 1934 and 1936, it is because they delivered results.  Huge, huge GDP growth.  The Obama administration and Congressional Democrats are not delivering anything close to that.

This is more than a fight over another piece of legislation.  Determining what to do with the leftover TARP funds is going to be a fight for the survival of not only our economy, but of the political future of the Democratic Party.  The remaining $210 billion in TARP needs to be spent to fund a $210 billion jobs bill, or else the entire party goes down in flames as the result of meager job growth next year.

Don't repay Chinese bankers with the $210 billion.  Give Americans jobs.  


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

This is depressing. (4.00 / 1)
I can't believe they would be this stupid.

In fact, I'm pretty sure they aren't. I really hope I'm not proven wrong.


We really do need a third party... (4.00 / 2)
One of the problems that we have with democrats, blue dogs and others, is that we have no way to put pressure on them. I call it the Wynn/Daschle/Clinton retirement plan, where they leave congress only to make more money as lobbyists, or shadow lobbyists in Daschle's case. Right now, the blue dogs are kind of a fifth column within the democratic party. They also remind me of the argument that Ernest Partridge made in the crisis papers where he calls the DNC the Washington Generals party because they're just there to make it look competitive when it really isn't.

Just to repeat my humble 5/25 plan: We should promote independent candidates to run for 5 senate seats and 25 house seats. This way we could have a real progressive block. Not good democrats who can be crushed and intimidated by Rahm every day of the week...(See Jane Hamsher on Donna Edwards...)
We should run them to win and not run "symbolically". That means we raise at least 300000 for a house race and 2 million for the senate race. I think after looking at what Firedoglake and Alan Grayson has raised those numbers are realistic.

Quick platform for the new party:

1. Forgive college debt of students.
2. Cut the military budget by 10 to 20 percent.
3. Take an oath not to take a lobbying job for big business after their terms are over.

The arguments against the two party system have been outlined very well by Sirota, Greenwald and Bowers. We just need candidates and a catchy Third Party name...

Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com



Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com


Not under the Madisonian Constitution (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Could you be more specific? (4.00 / 1)
I assume that's why Bloomberg keeps losing? Because its a Madisonian constitution? What fuels campaigns is money. We can raise money for serious races. I don't want to run symbolically and I don't want to run as a spoiler. I want to win. We can raise the money to win. So let's do it...

Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com


[ Parent ]
How do we not become the equivalent of Hoffman? (0.00 / 0)
I mean, I've started to wonder about this... I realize that Hoffman is a crazy loon, but how would we present a 3rd party liberal as not?  Isn't this what the Green party basically is?

(I'm not saying this as criticism really... I mean this more as a constructive question.)


[ Parent ]
That's why I prefer primaries to minor party/independent challenges (0.00 / 0)
We should be selective about minor party/independent challenges, using them in 1) races where they can actually beat both the Democrat and the Republican and win, or 2) races where we actually want the Democrat to lose, and don't care much if the Republican wins.

Remember, Hoffman was surging and very well could've won; he ended up short by only some 4 percentage points or less.  I think he had a very good chance of winning even if Scozzafava hadn't dropped out.


[ Parent ]
Oh I agree. (0.00 / 0)
You have to be very careful about this. You might not find 25 races that you could comfortably run in. But certainly those blue dogs who voted for the Stupak amendment and against the health care bill anyway would be prime suspects...one more thing: we wouldn't just want to get rid of bad dems. We also want to give people another choice besides the republicans.

Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com


[ Parent ]
The Green Party sux... (0.00 / 0)
I don't consider the Green Party to be a real party. The Green Party to me operates as a spoiler party not as people who are trying to win. I think during the house race against Mike Doyle that the green party was involved in they raised, what, 10 grand? That's not a serious run.

First rule of fight club, I mean, viable Third Party run: you must raise a minimum of 300000 grand  (one Grayson moneybomb) for a house run and 2 million for a senate race (4 Grayson moneybombs). I'm talking about running Jane Hamsher as an independent, someplace, and she raises, well, she could raise about a million dollars for a run. Find candidates like that, which is hard granted (look for pro choice labor organizers)and multiply by 25. Do it five times or more for the senate...

But if you can't raise 300000 grand for those runs or 2 million for the senate runs, then don't run. You're probably not going to win...

One more thing: a third party that you might want to take national is the Working Family's Party in New York. It's a progressive party and they've won some races.

Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com


[ Parent ]
Buy and build some solar homes (4.00 / 3)
American teams in the 2009 Solar Decathlon came from all parts of the country. There are 16 models from 16 universities or teams. Have the Department of Energy contract to build several models with funding for as many as the budget allows. The contest rules vetted their efficiency in several categories, and an estimate of the cost is available for each. What would be great about selecting from each geographic area is that the models are designed for their home-state setting and make use of local materials, such as the unused silos in New York State.

The schools/teams by region: East: Cornell, Penn State, and Boston (Tufts and Boston Architectural College.) Mid-west: Iowa State, Missouri University of Science and Technology plus U. of Missouri, Ohio State, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Minnesota, and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. South: Rice, University of Puerto Rico, University of Kentucky, University of Louisiana at Lafayette and Virginia Tech. Far West: California (Santa Clara University and the California College of the Arts) and the University of Arizona.  


Genius. (0.00 / 0)
After the health care vote and the absurd and evasive email reply she received from him- he "needed more time" to consider ramifications of the healthcare, my Ob-gyn mom stood out in cold rain last night to remove her Kissell sticker off her car. It was worth it- she doesn't deserve the humiliation it now brings.

I'm Going to Get Smacked (0.00 / 0)
But I don't think this is entirely a bad idea.

First, a significant part of the economy is simply how people feel about it. With all of the anger at the debt something like this will calm some of that.

Next, after seeing just what has happened to all major initiatives so far, I just don't see any massive jobs program doing all that much. I'd much rather see dozens of smaller programs where successful and popular can be expanded.

What I would suggest is that profits from the TARP payback go towards new jobs programs, while the initial loan value go towards the debt. By highlighting the profits some of the justified anger at the TARP would be muted.


What will you run on in 2010? (4.00 / 1)
Please tell me that. Because right now we gots nothin'. IN fact, right now, the jobs situation is so bad that its more important than health care, especially the watered down do nothing health care that's being offered by the establishment right now...I just see a disaster without big spending and soon...

Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com


[ Parent ]
That is the point (0.00 / 0)
A massive jobs bill even using TARP will take months to get through congress and be watered down. At the same time it will be attacked in broad ideological terms and picked apart by interest groups reinforcing each other.

Dozens of smaller programs rolled out om a fairly regular basis has the advantage of focusing the debate on the merits of each. They can be set up and implemented faster. They can be paired so that the Senate and House leadership have more control over votes. A continuous roll out of smaller shows active concern and a government that is doing something. Successful programs will build their own constituency and so can be expanded. Unsuccessful programs can be left to die or even better actively killed with little or no downside and a possible benefit (we tried it, It didn't work, lets move on).

If at the same time we can show concern about the debt and take positive steps towards it, that allows a major contrast to what the Republicans actually did.

Using the profits from the returned TARP highlights the fact that there were profits. Muting the anger at bailouts which we are blamed for. Now they can be sold a bit more easily as investments.

The restructuring and long term problems of median income and employment should be addressed in the budget.


[ Parent ]
The Republilcans want a jobs bill too... (0.00 / 0)
...you might as well call it the incumbent protection program. In other words, republican incumbents will want it too although we'll see how or if they try to sabotage it.

You didn't really address my question. As someone who's knocked on over 20000 doors I do not admire the person who sez at the door: "Don't worry about your joblessness in a country that punishes joblessness with death and homelessness. Where's that script Judeling gave me...ah yes 'the restructuring and long term problems of median income and employment should be addressed in the budget'...wha? Door slammed in my face again...?"

Two, as Chris points out, we have a historical example of what to do with FDR And the 30s. It worked then and it would probably work now. One thing I would add, I guess I didn't answer Chris' question, I would immediately start giving aid to the states, or that thing that was traded away during our last awesome "bipartisan" stimulus agreement.

Three, we kind of went over this ground with the first stimulus bill. I, and many people here, sided with Krugman, Roubini, Reich and others who said that the stimulus was too damn small. Right now, Judeling, you're siding with a blue dog talking point and the worst elements of the Obama economic team who were, of course, completely fucking wrong. Well, I'm going with the guys who were right before and who are probably right again.

Four, are you following the Clinton plan? That's the plan where you lose the house in 2010, weaken the senate and then move to the left even though it wouldn't mean a fucking thing because the committee chairs have changed...Obama could say that he wants to do things like China but, shockingly, house republican chairs like Michele Bachmann and Joe Wilson won't move the new Maoist agenda...One of the reasons I never trusted Hilary is that I was never certain that they didn't want the House to trade hands in 1994. It made Clinton the head of the party and then he could run as a true bipartisan president, or a president who never delivers for the republican base....

Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com


[ Parent ]
who never... (0.00 / 0)
delivers for the democratic party base. typo.

Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com


[ Parent ]
Can't Obama spend the TARP money however he wants? (0.00 / 0)
I thought it wasn't subject to Congressional approval...

[ Parent ]
Voters don't give a hoot about the deficit (4.00 / 3)
First, a significant part of the economy is simply how people feel about it. With all of the anger at the debt something like this will calm some of that.

Trust me, if you give the voters a choice between more jobs and less deficit, they'll take the jobs any day.  Forget the deficit.

Not to sound like an elitist, but I'm sure most everyday, non-politically aware people who are "concerned" about the deficit are just repeating what they hear in the media echo chamber or from their conservative friends.  These people never said Word One about the deficit during the Bush years.

What's more, a jobs program is the right thing to do.


[ Parent ]
Absolutely (0.00 / 0)
The Debt/Deficit are merely a focus for anger and fear.

But that anger and fear are real and damaging and need to be addressed if only symbolically.

Until some structural changes are made, smaller incremental and immediate measures need to be applied.


[ Parent ]
Look, you can... (0.00 / 0)
...spout all the pretty theory you want. If someone is out of job then we're not going to get their vote. We have to try to rollout those jobs and fast. FDR did it somehow. We should do the same...what's worse, since we haven't built a third party the only other "viable" choice will be the republican party. That's not good and its way we need a third way...just to give people an option, that's openly contemptuous of both parties, that isn't the brazenly fascist GOP "other".

Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com


[ Parent ]
They are not just parroting (4.00 / 1)
People who respond positively when they are asked about budget deficits have a point, the problem is that the questions are not very good. What people are trying to tell us about is whether government is spending money on the wrong things.

There are two potential issues here - one is that the money is going to enrich the already rich, the other is that is might be going towards the undeserving (and disenfranchised.)

Once you see that, what people are saying makes a lot more sense.  When Republicans speak to those concerns, they do it by saying that Democrats are helping the undeserving at the expense of hard working Americans who play by the rules.  When Democrats speak to those concerns, they do it by saying that we could be promoting economic and social opportunity and security. Republicans have an advantage here, not because most Americans tend to agree with them - which is not true - but because they don't take poll questions like this literally.

That is different from elite deficit hawks, who are truly hypocritical.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
Without any actual data to back this up (0.00 / 0)
I get the feeling that most people who are "concerned" about the deficit believe that the deficit is due to "socialist" programs, and wants those cut.

No one complained about Bush's deficits that were incurred from massive tax cuts for the rich and an unnecessary foreign war.

Polls have shown that majorities of Americans favor increased social spending and less military spending and tax cuts for the rich.  But, contradictorily, they express opposition to active government, and are likely to say so to pollsters, reporters, friends and neighbors.  The concern over the deficit feeds into that because everyone seems to assume that it's due to aid to the "undeserving" rather than being due to aid to the rich and powerful.


[ Parent ]
Most people didn't complain (0.00 / 0)
because they aren't really against deficits.

As far as what programs people want cut, it's clear that they are for ones that are consistent with their expressed desire for government to promote opportunity.

Most people support increased taxes on the rich and corporations, not tax cuts for them. They won't mobilize to oppose them on their own, but that's not the same as supporting them.

Again, it's only contradictory that many people express opposition to government if you read that claim too literally.  

As far as the aid to the poor goes, public policies used to be broad based, thereby producing a politics of solidarity. Today's Democrats tend to try to support policies that help the poor as narrowly as possible, which tends to reproduce a politics of division.

But plenty of teabaggers and other regular folks are pissed about Wall Street too.  If that tends to be less salient, I'd say its because Republicans are far better at mobilizing this anger than Democrats are.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
You couldn't be more right (4.00 / 1)
Something like an Apollo program for alternative energy was promised in the election (by both candidates) no?

Better yet (0.00 / 0)
If you can't start jobs programs in all states, start jobs programs in swing states.

[ Parent ]
Base states (4.00 / 1)
The swing states got a decade of coddling.  Reward the base states.  

[ Parent ]
Clever (0.00 / 0)
Lets base national economic policy on who can help us win elections. Why don't we just raise taxes on all deeply republican states to pay of everything, I mean they're not going to go for us anyways right?

[ Parent ]
No, but we damned well ought to cut their subsidies... (0.00 / 0)
Most of the red states are economic parasites, receiving far more in federal money (mainly in the form of agriculture, mining, and logging subsidies) than they send to Washington in taxes.

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee

[ Parent ]
neoliberal nonsense (0.00 / 0)
paying down the debt is not "repaying" chinese bankers, that's just another myth of neoliberal economics (and an invitation to right wing economic nationalism, please let's not go there)

that said, i agree 110% that the money should be used for a jobs program. the only problem we have now with the fed deficit is that it's not big enough and what it's being spent on (bankster bailouts, mic, etc).


national suicide (4.00 / 2)
the deficit terrorists are asking us to commit national suicide.

[ Parent ]
too late (0.00 / 0)
We've already committed national suicide by our borrow and spend policies.

[ Parent ]
Who cares how ivory-tower accurate it is? (0.00 / 0)
Calling it "repaying Chinese bankers" is good republican-style invective, something we need alot more of.

That's why everybody likes Grayson so much.  

http://attempter.wordpress.com


[ Parent ]
because it's not true? (0.00 / 0)
because it's not true? because it confuses us about our economic choices instead of educating us? and because it redirections our justified anger from where it belongs (on our own leaders) onto the chinese (it has NOTHING to do with the chinese)?

i don't like being the target of false propaganda, regardless of where it comes from. it undermines the creation of an informed citizenry and it is poison for democracy.


[ Parent ]
Are you saying its neoliberal because it's wrong? (n/t) (0.00 / 0)


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
both (0.00 / 0)
it's both neoliberal and not true.

[ Parent ]
Why neoliberal? (n/t) (0.00 / 0)


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
money and debt (4.00 / 1)
neoliberals treat private debt and fed debt as similar. they are wrong, it isn't. i think it's because they don't understand what money is (maybe they are thinking as if we are still on a gold standard or something?).

alternative views, which make a lot more sense to me, as those of the post keynesians. see randy wray, bill mitchell, warren mosel for examples.


[ Parent ]
If you're worried about (0.00 / 0)
things that aren't true, then anything anyone says about the dollar and the debt must drive you crazy, since the whole thing's a ponzi scheme. How do you justify saying anything about health care reform when the whole system is unsustainable no matter what kind of bill they passed?

But if you insist on nominal truth, look at it this way.

Supposedly we're someday going to pay this national debt (stifling laughter, excuse me....);

much of that debt is owed to Chinese bankers;

since cash is fungible, any dollar you spend toward paying down the debt is smeared out over the entire debt;

so this would be "paying off Chinese bankers".

(Unless you think you're going to somehow stiff only them. But presumably that would pose another tactical-moral problem.)

BTW I also don't get what's "neoliberal" about it. If you're so focused on verisimilitude in political language, then calling that slogan neoliberal makes no substantive sense, and neolibs of course have no monopoly on lying, so "because it's untrue" isn't a sufficient answer.

http://attempter.wordpress.com


[ Parent ]
what would be a sufficient answer? (0.00 / 0)
i don't think the neoliberals don't understand (or they are pretending they don't) that it is our fed deficit spending that provides for private sector savings (or paying down private sector debts). paying down the fed deficit means (ignoring the current account deficit for the moment only for the sake of simplicity) less private sector saving and spending (decreased aggregate demand and gdp) OR increased private sector debt if the economy is to grow.

did you read the econ series paul rosenberg did in sept (parts of it touched on some of these issues)?

The One Percent Economy--Part Two: The Why
Three Types of Crazy
What Went Wrong-Krugman And Beyond
The Crash: Who Saw It Coming--And Why

if not, i highly recommend warren mosel's 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds. if you are trapped in neoliberal thinking about money and debt it will blow your mind.



[ Parent ]
Since we've delved this far into this, (0.00 / 0)
then I might as well go all the way with it and say that all "growth" was based on cheap, plentiful oil, and now that Peak Oil is setting in growth is finished.

Of course, there's been no real growth in America in many years. All the potemkin growth of the last decade was simply debt- and bubble-based.

Even without Peak Oil the Western consumer is finished, and globalization's only hope to temporarily "recover" the system is the pipe dream of a new consumer efflorescence in Asia.

Those old wages and benefits the American middle class used to enjoy when there really was a middle class are long gone, and the debt-hallucinated "middle class" of recent decades is now finished for good. As you said, it can't swallow more debt. Yet debt was the only thing keeping it going in the first place.

Even if America somehow miraculously found the political will to try to fix its economy, the energy basis is simply not there. There will be no miracle replacement for fossil fuels.

So that's why all the ridiculous talk about the dollar, deficits, and the debt, neoliberal or otherwise, is just moonshine. It's all a zombie.

The debt's never going to be paid anyway, and the system will just keep binging until it collapses. So I think in terms of, why not at least run up that debt to buy something worthwhile for the travail ahead?

So when I look at any political proposal like single payer I think of it in terms not of solving a system problem, since the system itself is unsustainable; I look at it in terms of setting up something, while we still can, which can help ease the burden as the globe undergoes the vast economic contraction which awaits it.  

http://attempter.wordpress.com


[ Parent ]
limited cheap energy = real economic problem (0.00 / 0)
i agree that limited cheap energy = real economic problem (and by cheap i do not mean $$, i mean energy and other resource balance. how much energy and other physical resources (like water) does it cost to extract, refine and transport?)

but even if we were not constrained by cheap energy, we can not use the hydrocarbons that we have available without destroying the planet as we know it.

definite constraint on our options. and something we need to be planning for now. on that we do agree.

i just think an accurate understanding of money and debt and macro econ in general will help us define our policy space so we can make the best of the choices that face us.


[ Parent ]
I don't think we were ever disagreeing (4.00 / 1)
on fiscal stimulus, or how bogus the "deficit" garbage is.

(Although it's true that enacting all the right policies would probably save money in the end even with a real stimulus program.)

We only disagreed on the use of down and dirty tactics, and I guess we'll continue to disagree there. But as Paul Rosenberg says, we all have different jobs to do.

Once people agree on principles and basic policy, the tactics are flexible, as far as I'm concerned.

(As we've seen, the real problem is those who start out only willing to use timid, conciliatory, appeasement tactics, and who a priori define their principles and goals downward to accommodate those picayune tactics.

That's how we got such a tepid stimulus, and that's how we ended up with this atrocious health racket bill.

I'm not lumping you in with them, but I'd suggest that since the tendency is so epidemic, we should be all the more aggressive and prefer to run the risk of erring in the opposite direction rather than be squeamish about things ourselves.)  

http://attempter.wordpress.com


[ Parent ]
aggressive = good (0.00 / 0)
i'm with you on aggressive. no pre-compromise, no pre-capitulation. fight for what we believe in -- if for no other reason than to make it clear we actually do believe in something. be committed and willing to take some personal risk if necessary. be loud, be confrontational. no meek deference to authority.

i am happy there are diversity of tactics -- a whole rich ecosystems of them. and i agree about different people playing different rolls, etc. and none of this should be an impediment to solidarity when goals are shared.

but i do have some limits, and they are on things i think are wrong (in the moral sense). imo honesty matters and i can't support scapegoating. understand ymmv, but i can't go there.


[ Parent ]
fear of the GOP (4.00 / 1)
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is pressing for substantial spending cuts to go with any tax increases to try to avoid the "tax and spend" label that has bedeviled Democrats

Because that's worked so well for them this year.  Can Rahm really be this stupid?  Do these advisers not realize the GOP will just distort some other set of numbers to make it look like they increased spending even if they don't?  Have they already forgotten how Obama 'cut' the defense budget by adding a few billion to it?

THIS is why left-leaning independents aren't turning out at the polls - elected Dems continually demonstrate a complete lack of conviction in their beliefs and a self destructive compulsion to obtain the approval of the right wing (which will NEVER happen, understand? NEVER.)


Not stupid (4.00 / 2)
Rahm's not stupid.  He's just not working for us.  He's working for the same people that made him rich during his brief interlude from politics.

[ Parent ]
"except for defense" (4.00 / 4)
Unbelievable. If any agency should have its budget cut by 5 percent or more, the DOD should.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

state-level budget cuts (4.00 / 4)
will lead to more job losses and a big drag on the economy, so more federal aid to states would be a worthwhile investment. Much better than paying down a chunk of our debt at this time.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

Jobs, jobs, and more jobs... (4.00 / 4)
I'm not really sure why this needs to be pounded into the heads of Democrats, but this is really what they need to be figuring out how to do right now.  And once we start getting some kind of jobs bill/program brewing, every Democrat needs to talk about "the jobs bill" or "jobs, jobs, and more jobs" bill... Honestly, everyone needs to be absolutely sick of hearing about a jobs bill so that everyone knows that the Democrats are working on it.  And then it needs to actually work.

I'm sure everyone knows people who have been out of work for far too long.  This needs to end.  No more "well, the unemployment number went up, but that always lags" bullshit.  People need to start seeing that number come down, and more importantly, find jobs.

And no, paying off the national debt is not a "jobs" bill.


Taxes, withholding (0.00 / 0)
Change your W-4 forms to stop federal withholding from your paychecks. Keep the extra dollars in your own pocket, make it work for you, and decide what you can afford to pay the country come April 15th.

Maybe if we all incorporate -- if you can't beat 'em, join 'em -- we can level the playing field.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox