Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ya’ can’t make it here anymore.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
flamin lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 09:39 AM
Original message
Ya’ can’t make it here anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTW0y6kazWM

Once upon a time in America
We used to build things. Not just consumer goods but infrastructure. In the 1950s we created the world’s greatest interstate highway system and electrified virtually all of rural America. A decade later we sent a man to the moon and brought him safely back while developing a new technology that would drive our economy well into the 80s. We had the money to eradicate Small Pox from the face of the Earth, remove the scourge of polio and tuberculosis from our soil, give every veteran a college degree and build things, really big things. Now the Interstate is in falling apart, half of the bridges are in need of repair, sewer and water systems are broken, unemployment is at 10%, there is no money to maintain anything and everything we buy or use is made in China. How the hell did this happen?

The making of a perfect financial storm
In 1960 John Kennedy cut the top tax rate from 70% to 50% starting a trend that it seems never ended.
In the mid 70s banks invented credit cards making it possible to go into debt without collateral or a loan application. Then the Supreme Court nationalized bank’s interest rates neutralizing state usury laws. Over the next 35 years consumer spending went from less than 1 trillion to over 10 trillion dollars a year while outstanding consumer debt climbed from $200 billion to more than $2.4 trillion.
The 1980s gave us the Reagan revolution and fast-track free trade agreements that made it easy for corporations to outsource manufacturing so jobs began to flow across our borders into low paying countries without worker protections or environmental concerns. At the same time massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, increased pentagon spending and military adventurism throughout Central America and the Middle East necessitated borrowing from foreign countries to meet day to day expenditures. The deficit and debt exploded.

George H. Bush and Bill Clinton gave the economy a brief respite by raising taxes and spurring consumer spending, the only way to replace the GDP loss from outsourcing manufacturing. For a few brief years we actually enjoyed a budget surplus and a shrinking debt. However, Clinton continued to globalize our manufacturing with more free trade agreements and he signed the Graham, Leach, Bleighly act into law effectively erasing the financial restraints put in place after the Great Depression of 1929.

Enter George W. Bush. In less than three months we lost the surplus to even more tax cuts for the top 2% of incomes and corporations. Then, after ignoring terror threats in the face of blatant warnings from within and without our intelligence agencies, he used the 911 attack to start two wars which for the first time in the history of the United States were financed with foreign money. What few environmental and business regulations remained suffered from neglect and lack of funding. Jobs continued to flow overseas, income disparity increased and the deficit continued to grow and the debt to explode. In late 2000 Senator Phil Graham wrote, and Bush signed, the Commodities Modernization Act simultaneously creating and deregulating derivatives trading. Eight years later the entire U.S. banking industry imploded. The housing industry, the bedrock of our economy, died from bad loans hidden in convoluted mortgage backed commodities rated A+ by unregulated rating agencies. Almost every other industry followed suit.

This is what Obama and the Democrats inherited. So far all they have been able to do is nibble around the edges and it’s unlikely that any meaningful changes will come anytime soon.

What I would if I were King
Tax Reform: Leave income tax as-is up to $350k. Add two new brackets; $350-1,000,000 @ 40% and $1,000,000 up @ 50%. Tax capitol gains at the same rate as earned income (it’s called un-earned income for a reason). Raise or eliminate the cap on Social Security and Medicare. Implement a .01% tax on all stock, bond and commodity trades (Lincoln funded the Civil War with such a tax). Tax inheritance over $1 million/heir @ 50% (they did nothing to earn it so anything they get is a freebie). Change the Alternative Minimum Tax to $500k and adjust it to inflation. Close corporate loopholes that allow corporate headquarters in a P.O. Box in the Caribbean to avoid taxes. Close loopholes that allow corporations to hide profits in foreign branches (corporate tax revenues fell from 5% of GDP in 1980 to 1.4% in 2009). Penalize moving jobs offshore and reward new job creation inside our borders (U.S. corporations created 1.4 million jobs in 2009-all overseas).
Financial reform: Repeal Graham, Leach, Bleighly thus reinstating Glass Stiegel. Outlaw derivative trading and short selling, if it doesn’t exist or you don’t own it you can’t sell it. Regulate commodities trading to reflect real future value changes. Pass a national usury law with the maximum interest rate pinned to individual’s credit history and the Fed interest rate. Much of my other ideas have been implemented or will be by the new Consumer Protection Bureau.

Budget: Reduce Defense spending by 40% (about $225 billion) by closing foreign bases, cutting extravagant weapons systems purchases, phasing out civilian contractors and re-evaluating real world threats and tactics. Internalize all social spending and eliminate any private sector middle men. Enforce Pay-Go with an emphasis on user fees and taxes on those who would benefit where possible.
Domestic policy: Increase Federal R&D spending to 1950s levels. Revamp the GI bill to make it comparable to the one for WWII vets. Restructure the safety net to provide help early before a person loses everything. Find ways to reduce the cost of higher education and increase wages for teachers, paying them commensurate with their value to society (at $70k/year we can pick the very best school teachers). Move to Medicare for All financed by the lifting of payroll tax caps.

Foreign policy: Don’t even get me started . . .

Very little of this can happen short term because of sheer momentum, special interests, and simple Republican recalcitrance but some move toward any of these policies, in my opinion, is a move toward fiscal and social responsibility.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
safeinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Only way to do any of that is
CAMPAIGN REFORM. Take the big money out of politics and policy. I think everyone here is with you on the goals.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
28. +100
Common Cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. But but but ... The Government Can't Create Jobs
I actually heard that out of some FreepTard Ditto Head's mouth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I've seen that asserted here by people with the gall to claim to be liberals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Proving the "Dumbing Down of America"
such a shame
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
42. Yeah...
Sure they were "liberals." I get suspicious of anyone that uses the other sides language and talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. That's what President Obama said, too.
"Now, government can't create jobs, but it can help create the conditions for small businesses to grow and thrive and hire more workers," President Barack Obama said yesterday as he urged Congress to take up new jobs legislation at an event honoring Small Business Owners of the Year. "Government can't guarantee a company's success, but it can knock down the barriers that prevent small-business owners from getting loans or investing in the future."

SOURCE: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=get_back_to_work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. The Pres. might placate RATpubliCON Idiot Logic - but I don't
FreepTards are Morons

The Pacific Railway Act July 1, 1862

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/five/railact.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I watch his walk, and ignore his talk
When the knife wounds in my back heal... maybe then I'll listen to Obama's BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #11
44. Why oh why does he do this?
Everytime I try to lean on some minor accomplishment or look to his best possible motivations he says something stupid like this. Why the hell does he buy into this bullsh!t? Who the hell is advising him to lean this direction. He never said anything like this on the campaign trail nor in the Senate.

Skip Rahm Emmanuel, even he wouldn't suggest crap this stupid. This is starting to sound the the crap that Dick Morris advised Clinton to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
34. actually, major studies here in the EU confirm ratios around 1.5 private jobs lost for each public 1
some food for thought, you can come to your own conclusions

the USA is in a bad position, due to your lack of private labour market protections and the lack of efficiency/transparency in your government sub-contracting processes

our Finance Minister here in Sweden, Anders Borg, http://www.swedishwire.com/economy/7514-anders-borg-among-europes-best-ministers has had tremendous success balancing the 2 areas, our true unemployment rate is roughly 1/3 of the USA (7 percent here, 22 or 23% in the USA, if your country counted the way all EU nations do http://www.shadowstats.com ), our economy grew 6.9% in the 3rd quarter of 2010, and next year we will have a BUDGET SURPLUS, all the while providing total social benefits


here are 2 scientific papers that show the negative net impact of government job creation, one from the Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques (Sorbonne), in Paris, the other is from the Centre For Economic Policy (LSE) in London, both institutions are considered left-center



http://ideas.repec.org/p/mse/wpsorb/v04036.html

This paper studies the interactions between the centralization in wage bargaining and the consequences of public employment for labour market performance. We use a monopoly union model and focus on the fiscal externalities of the wage setting process. Our model suggests that public jobs crowd out private jobs through an increase in wage pressure, only when the wage setting takes place at the firm level. Public jobs Creation entails tax increases. In a decentralized wage setting, the tax increases diminish the marginal value of employment, because each job gives rise to a lower net income. Accordingly, when labour taxes rise, trade unions choose to increase wages at the expense of employment. When the wage setting is centralized, trade unions take into account the government budget constraint when they evaluate the marginal value of employment. In this context, public jobs Creation does not change the trade-off between wage and employment, and thus, does not entail any increase in wages. Empirical evidence from a sample of 11 OECD countries over the period 1960-1995 confirms that the crowding-out effect is statistically significant only in countries in which the wage setting is decentralized.



http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecpoli/v17y2002i34p7-66.html

We explore the consequences of public employment for labour market performance. Theory suggests that public employment may not only crowd out private employment, but also increase overall unemployment if, by offering attractive working conditions, it draws additional individuals into the labour force. Empirical evidence from a sample of OECD countries in the 1960-2000 period suggests that, on average, creation of 100 public jobs may have eliminated about 150 private sector jobs, slightly decreased labour market participation, and increased by about 33 the number of unemployed workers. Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence, however, suggest that the crowding out effect of public jobs on private jobs is only significant in countries where public production is highly substitutable to private activities and the public sector offers more attractive wages and/or other benefits than the private labour market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shandris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #34
50. This little nugget at the end is pretty obvious though
...and has much to do with the 'crowding out' effect: "Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence, however, suggest that the crowding out effect of public jobs on private jobs is only significant in countries where public production is highly substitutable to private activities and the public sector offers more attractive wages and/or other benefits than the private labour market." In essence, what you've said here is that people want to go to the better paying job. This is...self-explanatory. Am I overlooking something intended as a point, or were you simply submitting these for consideration...?

One conclusion I draw from these likewise is that the oft-repeated American Myth (Anything the government can do, business can do better) and its corollary (The government is always less efficient than private industry) are clearly and demonstrably false when the creation of a government job removes more than a single private sector job. Of course...I never doubted THAT part to begin with, having worked in corporate environments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. I think that the crowding out effect will be somewhat stronger in the USA
due to the significantly higher rate of pay in your public sector versus private sector for similar occupations

also, a negative multiplier comes into play as government payroll grows, the demands of increased taxation to pay the increased public labour cost have a deleterious effect on private businesses

we certainly saw this in Sweden, as our private sector stagnated greatly in the 1980's and early 1990's under huge deficits driven by a bloated (even by Swedish standards)

Since 2006, we have had the positive impact of a limited, rigidly-controlled semi-privatization that has allowed tax rates to be lowered
Our unemployment has plummeted in the last year, as opposed to much of the rest of the West.

conversely

I also think that there are many many things that a national government simply has to do, as the private sector simply won't, cannot be allowed to (ie the defense) or cannot do because of scales of economy

Infrastructure would be the first and foremost of these, and the US desperately needs to stop funding the empiric wars, and start rebuilding your nations base as soon as possible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV Whino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. Bravo!
Concrete suggestions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. K&R with one caveat
It's impractical to ban "short selling". Purchasing an option to buy something at a later date is the fundamental mechanism of the commodities market, the point of which is to give farmers some rational basis on which to make planting/harvesting decisions. The commodity market actually works pretty well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamin lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Yes, for the most part, it does. I would hope that speculation on and
manipulation of some commodities (oil most recently) could be curtailed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
safeinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Make them prove they can
take delivery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Oooooo ... I like that idea. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
36. ban NAKED short selling, not covered shorts, we have done so here in the EU
Edited on Thu Dec-30-10 07:40 AM by stockholmer
naked shorts completely distort the price discovery mechanism in commodities markets, just look at the suppressed silver price

http://www.deepcapture.com/manipulating-gold-and-silver-a-criminal-naked-short-position-that-could-wreck-the-economy/

http://www.usaliveheadlines.com/2452/crash-jp-morgan-buy-silver-manipulation-by-hsbc-jp-morgan-by-max-keiser.htm


oil shorts were exposed in the fall of 2008, the price plummeted from $147 to $40 a barrel in a few months, when the financial crisis forced huge banks and hedge funds to liquidate options to cover margin calls (the NYMEX nd the Chicago exchanges, after years of denial, finally admitted that over 90 percent of oil contracts were pure speculation, instead of actual end-user hedgers, they had previously claimed less than 10% were speculative)

btw, speculation on commodities by non-end users was illegal until the 1994 , then Clinton, Greenspan, and Robert Rubin worked with Enron and Kenny Lay, plus Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, et al, to ram this through

they also legalized derivatives, and these toxic instruments exploded under Bush, now under Obama

google Blythe Masters (inventor of many types of derivatives for JP Morgan in the UK) and Brooksley Born (fought derivatives and the repeal of Glass-Steagall) to see the good and the bad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. Flamin Lib....
Did you write the body of this post? If you did... can I steal it? If you stole it from somewhere else, please tell me where.

It is an excellent ... I was going to say rant.... but it's not a rant. It's a plan!

My only question is... all of these ideas seem sound. Why can't the Powers That Be see any of this? "They're in the pockets of the Corporations." isn't a good enough answer. The Corporations don't want this country to fall... to fall...and that's where we are headed unless plans like yours are implemented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamin lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. It is all mine and I would be honored to have you use it in any way you please.
I'll try to pm you with some source info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
12. Thanks for posting my vid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. "No I hate the men who sent our jobs away" (Bush-Clinton)
I like that line.
Great vid!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamin lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. You are most welcome! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. Buncha common sense
Gotta remember this post when the Obama-at-all-costs crew says "well, could you do better? What SHOULD he do?" again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
19. K&R
"The history of America is just like the history of every other country on this planet: It is a history of deception, fraud and corruption. There is nothing to 'return to' for the integrity was never there to begin with. We must move forward, not backwards.

We have to understand that government as we know it today, is not in place for the well being of the public, but rather for the perpetuation of their establishment and their power. Just like every other institution within a monetary system. Government is a monetary invention for the sake of economic and social control and its methods are based upon self-preservation, first and foremost. All a government can really do is to create laws to compensate for an inherent lack of integrity within the social order.

In society today the public is essentially kept distracted and uninformed. This is the way that governments maintain control. If you review history, power is maintained through ignorance." ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPmHaTirnCc">Peter Joseph
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
20. uh, Kennedy cut the top rate from 90% to 70%
It was then 70% for about 17 years. The growth of consumer spending and also consumer debt does not look that significant to me. We want the economy to grow, and the consumer debt, according to your numbers was about 1/5 of total spending in both cases.

Personally, I find credit cards to be very handy, allowing me to move around, even to Europe, without carrying a ton of cash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. Thank you for clearing that up.
Nice to get our facts straight.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #20
35. We need another Kennedy, that's for sure. Because the rent's too damn high!
I was watching some of the whacky characters who ran for office this year, and the guy who ran for Governor of New York on that issue was right, but he will be ignored, too.

Douchebaggery has taken over our political system.
McCain voted against the DREAM Act, for crying out loud, a bill that he co-authored a few years ago!
That's just insane.

Sarah P Leathers is still on tv.
That's just insane.

Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell blamed the media -- the freaking media -- for her losing.
And yet, she gets a book deal.
That's just insane.

So, as 2010 closes out, and the deficit continues to climb, and Boehner continues to cry, and Mitch McConnell lies when he says he is against earmarks, I wonder if anyone in America remembers who drove this bus into the ditch to begin with.
Because, that's just insane to blame it on the Dmeocrats and President Obama!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zax2me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. Agreed but your top tax rates are a little low
Like to see 70%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mommalegga Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
22. The part that I dont get is this....
Edited on Wed Dec-29-10 11:06 PM by mommalegga
We hear that the rich are getting richer and they are not "sharing the wealth"...

I AGREEE with that thought...wages HAVE NOT kept up with inflation, but the "wages" of the rich sure as hell have...

However,

The only solution I hear about is taxing the rich more, which means more money to the govt which then can redistribute it or as it seems to be, waste it as they see fit.

Instead of govt taxing the rich more why not truley force the rich the "share the wealth" by increasing the minimum wage significantly instead? Would this be more in line with "sharing the wealth"? Afterall isnt better for a persons dignity to earn the money instead of waiting for government assistance? Furthermore, with people earning more, there would be less reliance on govt assistance in all its forms.

In fact dare I say, ELIMINATE corporate taxes while increasing the minimum wage and I bet you see manufacturing come back to the states.
Yes higer wage costs would be a negative inducement, but I bet the savings of trying to deal with tax compliance would more than offest that
negative.

Cut back on the military? Yeah I agree with that. Let our "allies" defend themselves. Sugar Daddy cant afford to do it anymore for Europe,Germany,Korea,Japan...One reason they can afford such wonderful social programs is they dont have to defend themselves, UNcle Sucker has been doing it. Get out of Afghanistan too while your at it.

I realize some of what I am saying is heresy, but Im just looking at things with an open mind. Im left of center but far from a idealogue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamin lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Here's how increased tax revenue narrows the wealth gap.
Infrastructure spending creates high paying construction jobs. Spending on R&D creates new technology which creates new products and new high paying jobs. Take NASA for example; Apollo engendered the computer industry and all patents held by NASA became public property spinning off hosts of other businesses and high paying jobs. Without NASA the newest Apple gadget wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be an ap for that or a that to have an ap for.

This kind of spending creates the jobs that close the income gap. Without tax revenue none of this happens. The private sector doesn't do pure research, it needs a relatively safe bet on positive results to justify the cost.

This isn't just federal spending, it's state and municipal as well. Fort Worth, TX is proud of low taxes and tight spending. Only thing is the sewer system hasn't been upgraded in 150 years so every time it rains more than an inch in one day my Arlington drinking water source gets filled with FW raw sewage. Increase taxes, hire people, fix the sewer and I get safe drinking water--everybody's happy.

Prior to 1980 tax revenue was 20% of GDP, today it's 14%. Look at as seed money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mommalegga Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #23
32. What your saying
isnt necessarily wrong, but I do think its overstated. The multiplier effect of a dollar spent on the private sector is greater than in the government sector. Few economist will disagree. A dollar may be spent by the govt as seed money, but another dollar may be wasted on feeding the bureacracy which produces no goods and services.

I do agree our infrastructure is in shambles....but if people were making more $ (increasing min wage), that spending stimulates the economy more vs the rich hoarding it, which in turn ultimately results in more tax revenue from the resulting economic growth. Govt can spend less on entitilements cause less people need it and instead put money into infrastructure.

So to repeat, by increasing the min wage, you give money to people who will spend it (vs hoarding), that stimulates economy(good for everyone), causes more tax revenue (multiplier effect),reduces govt assistance spending(less people need it), leaving more money for infrastructure(which needs $$ bad).

By simply taxing more as you suggest, yes we may have better infrastructure, but that stimulus is relatively short-lived, the working people still getting screwed via lousy wages.

Yeah all ivory tower theorizing I know...but heck that what the op is too right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamin lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #32
40. All of what you say is true for the very short term, however the private
sector does no pure research. If we counted on the private sector we would not have GPS, the Internet, none of the computer based gadgets, no cell phones, no weather satellites, and a long list of other stuff. I go back to NASA and the computer which is still driving worldwide technology and economy.

The private sector doesn't innovate much at all because it's all outcome driven; if you can't be sure of a monetary reward you can't justify the risk.

Currently most of the public R&D is tied up in DARPA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElboRuum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. Important point you made there...
The fact is that unless there is monetary reward, there is no "innovation" in the private sector. In fact, one could argue (so I definitely will) that most of the private sector innovation over the past half-century is the repackaging and refinement, the "bringing to market" so to speak, of technology first developed in public sector projects, the internet being probably the most notable of them.

The fact is that supply-siders always point to the free market as being free such that the "magic hands" of the market encourages innovation. What's often (intentionally) left out of the rhetoric is that this innovation is predominantly nothing more than adaptation of public sector innovation and how little innovation can actually occur in a system which is outcome driven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #32
48. I agree with both statements, though The OP more.
I just don't think the wealthy have an interest in paying more for labor. If they did, every tax cut would have resulted in more jobs created. Increasing pay, without additional regulations to assure against capital flight, would not solve the problem and we would be left with an economy even more service driven than what we currently "enjoy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. The flight of manufacturing has more to do with cheap energy
...much more about energy than taxes. When the Columbia Gorge dam was build during the depression, for instance, it produced a huge surplus of energy which fueled a small boom in manufacturing, particularly aluminum. The dam is one of the reasons Boeing is where it is, but many years ago population and consumption caught up with supply, and now there is no surplus. US oil production peaked in the 70's and has declined every year since. Nuclear didn't pan out, and fusion never happened...we haven't had any surplus energy to fuel any new manufacturing enterprises for a long time, yet we continue to grow population and consumption.

I don't mind the heresy, and I don't especially disagree with the OP, but there are some things missing from the cause-and-effect explanations there, and the outcomes of the suggested actions are unlikely to be entirely what you desire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mommalegga Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #24
31. No doubt..
There are a helluva lot of factors involved in this mess; I will grant you that...but I have always read, and agree, that the principle reason manufacturing moved oversees in order of importance: Labor,Taxes,& environmental regs. Not saying that in some cases energy is a reason, but dont think its a huge one. I guess we will agree to disagree on that ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #31
49. Labor: wage demands based upon lifestyle, monetized based on energy costs
Edited on Thu Dec-30-10 11:25 AM by bhikkhu
...which is one way of putting it. Ya can't make it here because of how and where we live (energy intensive, costly energy), which makes us require high wages.

There is enough slack in the system for some good production, witness Germany, but the bulk of global production still goes to the least-cost workers, without massive government intervention to direct things otherwise.

on edit - well, thinking about it, that's just saying the same thing over again, more or less. But to not simply be argumentative imagine if we in the US suddenly decided en masse that we would no longer purchase the products of foreign labor. As a consumer-driven movement, its not so uncommon or implausible. Immediately there would be great demand for all sorts of items which would be in very short supply; domestic production would ramp up, new small manufacturing start-ups would appear everywhere, and joblessness would disappear. All good...but one of the first things you would notice is that prices would increase, to the fair cost of domestic labor. Perhaps double or triple. All other things remaining the same, higher costs would reduce demand and people would make do with half or a third the material items they had before - a lower standard of living. Another aspect - manufacturing takes energy, and you simply can't build a new manufacturing sector without the energy to run it. There is no suitable energy supply to ramp up rapidly on anything close to the scale needed - nothing. So we would toddle along like Iraq during the war years, on-again off-again inadequate power, until perhaps the only medium term solution - nuclear - could be put online. It would take a government effort and trillions of dollars across the country, but it could be done.

How a government, broke and isolated, would acquire the financing is another issue, but physically it could be done, and it would in the end represent the domestic production of power which formerly we imported, in the form of manufactured goods. In other words, the whole new paradigm would be, essentially, a wash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressOnTheMove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
26. There is still a fair way back but the auto industry shows we will do, IF we keep the President's ..
Edited on Thu Dec-30-10 01:26 AM by ProgressOnTheMove
and use the wisest virtue in the world patience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #26
37. the auto industry is a very poor example of success, GM owes the USA over $45 billion still
GM received over $52 billion dollars in TARP money, of which only 6.7 billion was loans

they paid the 'loans' back, but not the other $45 billion

the US government owns roughly one third of the stock, post IPO (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AP50E20101127 ) , and the price of GM in now around $36 a share

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:GM

this means a market cap of $54 billion, so the government has $18 billion worth of stock

to get to a $45 billion share stake for the government, the price has to increase around 2.5 TIMES what it is now, or $90 a share

then the government has to sell its share, which they never could, as even dumping one third of their holdings would completely collapse the price

good luck getting your money back





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky Luciano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. The US Govt breakeven in GM is $48 per share.
You neglected GM buying back over $2B in preferred shares and the fact that the US Govt got $13.5B from selling shares in the IPO. Net net the US Govt has been paid back $23.1B and holds $16B worth of stock at $36 per share. $48 per share is quite attainable. Far from a slam dunk though of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #41
52. Reuters, etc say $53 a share, break even, hope it gets there, is up over 36 today
the major problem is how to dump one third of a $82 billion market cap (the value of it at 53 a share)firm without crashing it. Slowly, I would have to say :.>

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BE5JL20101215

you guys sure could use some good news!

cheers from Sweden and gott nytt år
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky Luciano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. HappyNew Year to you as well!
Dumping a 36% stake in GM is hard, but doable. A 27% stake in Citi was just unloaded successfully. It is the 90% stake in AIG that the government wants to flood the markets with that I really wonder about! Everyone knows AIG will get dumped on the market, but AIG has gone up a lot recently partly because they were able to access the capital markets again with a $3.1B line of credit from JPM and others. I guess the government wanting to cash put is a vote ofconfidence as well. I will be amazed if the government does not Lise money on AIG. Fannie and Freddie on the other hand...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
27. Ummm...it wasn't Bush.
CLINTON signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. Bush wasn't president in December 2000.

Granted, Gramm slipped it into the 11,000-page budget bill and it got voted on and passed without anyone knowing what was in it...but Clinton didn't need to sign the thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamin lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #27
39. You're right. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 03:18 AM
Response to Original message
29. You have my vote. Now, all we have to do is raise $1 billion to get you into office.
Guess I could take my pocket change down to the supermarket cash machine to raise that.

Oh, yes, one might add to your worthy platform: reverse the Citizens United decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
movingviolation Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 04:28 AM
Response to Original message
30. I don't know if this would be related in any way but,
We need to curb the MIC. There needs to be some kind of global international court where any and all international disputes could be rectified without war. As lawful citizens, we can't just go around killing other people because they have something we want, or just because we think they might be a threat. How is it that large groups of people called countries get away with doing this? Think of all the money that the whole human race could save if we weren't funding wars, armies, and weapons, plus all the damage that war incurs. We as a species have to pull our collective heads out of our ass....or die, taking an entire planet with us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pasto76 Donating Member (835 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
33. The new GI Bill is pretty good
and we can thank democrats for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
38. 5 POINT PLAN-30 MILLION PRODUCTIVE JOBS TO REBUILD US INFRASTRUCTURE, INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURE
http://tarpley.net/five-point-program.pdf

The US and the world are gripped by a deepening economic depression. There is no recovery and no automatic business cycle which will revive the economy. This bottomless depression will worsen until policies are reformed. The depression results from deregulated and globalized financial speculation, especially the $1.5 quadrillion world derivatives bubble. The US industrial base has been gutted, and the US standard of living has fallen by almost two thirds over the last four decades. We must reverse this trend of speculation, de-industrialization, and immiseration. Current policy bails out bankers, but harms working people, industrial producers, farmers, and small business. We must defend civil society and democratic institutions from the effects of high unemployment and economic breakdown. We therefore demand:


1. Measures to reduce speculation and minimize the burden of fictitious capital: End all bailouts of banks and financial institutions. Claw back the TARP and other public money given or lent to financiers. Abolish the notion of too big to fail; JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other Wall Street zombie banks are insolvent and must be seized by the FDIC for chapter 7 liquidation, with derivatives eliminated by triage. Re-institute the Glass-Steagall firewall to separate banks, brokerages, and insurance. Ban credit default swaps and adjustable rate mortgages. To generate revenue and discourage speculation, levy a 1% Tobin tax (securities transfer tax or trading tax) on all financial transactions including derivatives (futures, options, indices, and over the counter derivatives), stocks, bonds, foreign exchange, and commodities, especially program trading, high-frequency trading, and flash trading. Set up a 15% reserve requirement for all OTC derivatives. Use Tobin tax revenue and a revived corporate income tax to provide immediate tax relief to individuals, families, the self-employed, and small business by increasing personal exemptions and standard deductions. Stop all foreclosures on primary residences, businesses, and farms for five years or the duration of the depression, whichever lasts longer. Set a 10% maximum rate of interest on credit cards and payday loans. Re-regulate commodities markets with 100% margin requirements, position limits, and anti-speculation protections for hedgers and end users to prevent oil and gasoline price spikes. Enforce labor laws and anti-trust laws against monopolies and cartels. Restore individual chapter 11.

2. Measures to nationalize the Federal Reserve, cut federal borrowing, and provide 0% federal credit for production: Seize the Federal Reserve and bring it under the US Treasury as the National Bank of the United States, no longer the preserve of unelected and unaccountable cliques of incompetent and predatory bankers. The size of the money supply, interest rates, and approved types of lending must be determined by public laws passed and debated openly, passed by the congress and signed by the president. Stop US government borrowing from zombie banks and foreigners -- let the US government function as its own bank. Reverse current policy by instituting 0% federal LENDING with preferential treatment for tangible physical production and manufacturing of goods and commodities, to include industry, agriculture, construction, mining, energy production, transportation, infrastructure building, public works, and scientific research, but not financial services and speculation. Issue successive tranches of $1 trillion as needed to create 30 million union-wage productive jobs and attain full employment for the first time since 1945, reversing the secular decline in the US standard of living. Provide 0% credit to reconvert idle auto and other plants and re-hire unemployed workers to build modern rail, mass transit, farm tractors, and aerospace equipment, including for export. Extend 0% federal credit for production to small businesses like auto and electronics repair shops, dry cleaners, restaurants, tailors, family farms, taxis, and trucking. Maintain commercial credit for retail stores. Create an unlimited rediscount guarantee by the National Bank for public works projects to provide cash to local banks for bills of exchange pertaining to infrastructure and public works. Repatriate the foreign dollar overhang by encouraging China, Japan, and other dollar holders to place orders for US-made capital goods and modern hospitals. Revive the US Export-Import Bank. Set up a 10% tariff to protect domestic re-industrialization. Nationalize and operate GM, Chrysler, CIT, and other needed but insolvent firms as a permanent public sector. Maintain Amtrak and USPS.

3. Measures to re-industrialize, build infrastructure, develop science drivers, create jobs, and restore a high-wage economy: state and local governments and special government agencies modeled on the Tennessee Valley Authority will be prime contractors for an ambitious program of infrastructure and public works subcontracted to the private sector. To deal with collapsing US infrastructure, modernize the US elgeneration, pebble bed, high temperature reactors of 1,000 to 2,000 megawatts each. Rebuild the rail system with 50,000 miles of ultra-modern maglev Amtrak rail reaching into every state. Rebuild the entire interstate highway system to 21st century standards. Rebuild drinking water and waste water systems nationwide. Promote canal building and irrigation. For health care, build 1,000 500-bed modern hospitals to meet the minimum Hill-Burton standards of 1946. Train 250,000 doctors over the next decade. The Davis-Bacon Act will mandate union pay scales for all projects. For the farm sector, provide a debt freeze for the duration of the crisis, 0% federal credit for working capital and capital improvements, a ban on foreclosures, and federal price supports at 110% of parity across the board, with farm surpluses being used for a new Food for Peace program to stop world famine and genocide. Working with other interested nations, invest $100 billion each in: biomedical research to cure dread diseases; high energy physics (including lasers) to develop fusion power and beyond; and a multi-decade NASA program of moon-Mars manned exploration, permanent colonization, and industrial production. These science drivers will provide the technological spin-offs to modernize the entire US economy in the same way that the NASA moon shot gave us microchips and computers in the 1960s. These steps will expand and upgrade the national stock of capital goods and enhance the real productivity of US labor. Return the federal budget and foreign trade to surplus in 5 years or less.

4. Measures to defend and expand the social safety net: Restore all cuts; full funding at improved levels for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, jobless benefits, WIC, Head Start, and related programs. Offer Medicare for All to anyone under 65 who wants it at $100 per person per month, with reduced rates for families, students, and the unemployed. Pay for this with Tobin tax revenues and TARP clawback, and by ending the Iraq and Afghan wars. Seek to raise life expectancy by five years for starters. No rationing or death panels; savings can come only by finding cures. Quickly reach a $15 per hour living wage. Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act and affirm the right to organize. Pass card check to promote collective bargaining.

5. Measures to re-launch world trade and promote world recovery: Create a new world monetary system including the euro, the yen, the dollar, and the ruble, plus emerging Arab and Latin American regional currencies, with fixed exchange rates and narrow bands of fluctuation enforced by participating governments. Institute clearing and gold settlement among member states. Replace the IMF with a Multilateral Development Bank to finance world trade and infrastructure. The goal of the system must be to re-launch world trade through exports of high-technology capital goods, especially to sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia, and the poorer parts of Latin America. Promote a world Marshall Plan of great projects of world infrastructure, including: a Middle East reconstruction and development program; plans for the Ganges-Bramaputra, Indus, Mekong, Amazon, and Nile-Congo river basins; bridge-tunnel combinations to span the Bering Strait, the Straits of Gibraltar, the Straits of Malacca, the Sicilian narrows, and connect Japan to the Asian mainland; second Panama canal and Kra canals; Eurasian silk road, Cape to Cairo/Dakar to Djibouti, Australian coastal, and Inter-American rail projects, and more. American businesses will receive many of these orders, which means American jobs.


This program will create 30 million jobs in less than five years. It will end the depression, rebuild the US economy, improve wages and standards of living, re-start productive investment, and attain full employment with increased levels of capital investment per job. Most orders placed under this program will go to US private sector bidders. Because of the vastly increased volume of goods put on the market, inflation will not result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #38
54. ...and the Sixth Extinction marches on.
Even if we could grow our way out of problems which are essentially resource constraints caused by excessive rapid growth, all of the vast production and consumption (and inevitably emission and pollution) increases you suggest would lead to a dead planet, perhaps in my children's lifetime.

I don't really mean to sidetrack a well-intentioned thread about jobs and reform, but everything is truly connected - we absolutely cannot grow and consume our way out of the current situation, without creating worse situations for our children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. this article may address many of your concerns
http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/the-new-economy-challenge-implications-for-higher-education?b_start:int=0&-C=

a snippet:

The emerging change strategy features three elements:

1.Change the defining stories of the mainstream culture. It is a simple, but rarely noted truth. Every transformational social movement begins with a conversation that challenges a prevailing cultural story with a new story of unrealized possibility and ultimately displaces the old story. The civil rights movement changed the story on race. The environmental movement changed the story about the human relationship to nature. The women’s movement changed the story on gender. Our current task is to change the prevailing stories about the nature of wealth, the purpose of the economy, and our human nature. Examination of our old and new versions of these stories should have a prominent place in the curriculum.
2.Create a new economic reality from the bottom up, as millions of people the world over are doing in their efforts to rebuild local economies and communities. They are supporting locally owned human-scale businesses and family farms, developing local financial institutions, reclaiming farm and forest lands, changing land-use policies to concentrate population in compact communities that reduce automobile dependence, retrofitting their buildings for energy conservation, and otherwise working toward local self-reliance in food, energy, and other basic essentials. This is the work, for example, of the Transition Towns Movement. In the United States, I serve on the board of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE), which is building a national support system for such efforts. People involved in these efforts are learning to create the institutions of the New Economy by doing it. Our universities should develop the capability to facilitate this process through the creation of community-based social learning centers.
3.Change the rules: Current law and public policy largely favor the self-serving and deeply destructive corporate-led global economy. That works well for the interests of big money. People and the planet are better served by rules and policies that support local control and protect community interests. University programs in public policy can and should develop public policy programs that address this need.



also, Joel Kovel's book "The Enemy of Nature- The End of Capitalism or the End of the World?" offers a brutal critique

http://books.google.se/books?id=W-eavh4NQcwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=enemy+of+nature&source=bl&ots=iqR9PaX43y&sig=A6z644EjDc1T7IYklecw6tgehh0&hl=en&ei=b7EdTYPQA47ssgby8uX5DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
43. Returning vets from closed bases overseas?
How would you find them work??? Closing the bases and cutting back on the military would exponentially increase unemployment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamin lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. Ya' don't . We still need a standing army. There are still bases here
but not enough housing. We'd have to build some. It's called infrastructure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
46. K&R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badtoworse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
47. The country is competing in a global marketplace
We need to make the US a desirable place for companies to locate manufacturing and service facilities. How will anything you have posted improve our competitive position and entice business to locate here?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC