Sen. Al Franken shreds the Republican economic theory
Posted: July 14, 2011 Filed under: Politics 119 Comments »Senator Al Franken, speaking to AFL-CIO on Monday, points out the glaringly contradictory schools of thought that define the Republican economic theory:
“So the idea that those at the very top, who now are richer than anybody has ever been; we now have people who are richer than any people have ever been in the history of the world; why they can’t pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes in crazy. Those of us in the Senate who are Democrats, we talk to people who are rich. I don’t know any of them I meet who don’t say ‘I’m willing to pay higher taxes’. I know the Republicans go to these same fundraisers and hear different things from their people, and I respect that.”
Franken goes on:
“But there is no evidence that that works. In 1993, when we had something called the Deficit Reduction Package, President Clinton said, ‘let’s raise the top two levels’ [a 2% tax increase for the top earning 1% of Americans]. Every Republican voted against it, every single one. It passed by one vote in the House and one vote in the Senate. Every Republican, well not every Republican, but every Republican who said anything said this will cause a recession.”
After taking a jab at Newt Gingrich, who said this would be the “Democrat recession”, Franken continues:
“It worked. We had the longest period of uninterrupted expansion of our economy in our history when we increased the marginal rate on the people at the top. So it worked. And not only that, but it turned a record deficit into a record surplus, which he took from one Bush, a record deficit, and turned it over to the next Bush, a record surplus.”
And then it gets interesting:
“Five days after George W. Bush became president, Alan Greenspan testified to the Senate Budget Committee, and said ‘we are in danger of paying off our national debt too fast. We have a projected $5 trillion surplus going into the next ten years and we very well may pay off the debt too fast, the federal government is in danger of having too much money.’ He said, what would happen as a result of that is, we will have to take our excess money and invest it into private equities and that could disrupt the market.”
Franken continues:
“Now I don’t get their economic theories. If you cut taxes it will automatically raise revenues. They always say that, you hear it all the time. Watch Fox sometimes, ‘every time we’ve cut taxes we’ve doubled revenues.’ That’s Sean Hannity, he says it everyday, just google it.”
Here comes the contradiction:
“Then they also tell us ‘you have to cut taxes so the government doesn’t have too much money to spend’. Reagan said it in 1981, ‘you can tell your kids all you want, not to fritter away their allowance, but the only way to do it is to cut their allowance’. He said this, you can look it up. So in other words, his thing was, you’ve got to cut taxes so you cut the revenue so their not going to spend the money. So understand, their theory is based on two mutually exclusive contradictory theories.”
So does cutting taxes double revenues or decrease them? Which is it? Franken explains:
“Every time you cut taxes, you increase revenues. And every time you cut taxes, you decrease revenues. That’s fun to hear. And then Bush of course came in and said, ‘we’re in danger of having too much money, and it’s your money so let’s cut taxes, because it’s your money. And we’re running a surplus, let’s cut taxes’.
So we cut taxes because we had “too much money”, because the economy was good. But what did Bush do when the economy soured?
“Then as soon as we started losing jobs and we’re in a recession, Bush said, ‘well we’re in a recession, we need to cut taxes because the economy’s bad.’ So in addition to ‘every time you cut taxes you increase revenue’ and ‘every time you cut taxes you decrease revenue’, there was also, ‘every time the economy’s doing well you have to cut taxes’, and ‘every time the economy is doing bad you have to cut taxes.’”
Are you starting to get the point? Because Franken has more:
“This is the most incomprehensible economic theory I’ve ever heard. And then, when it needed one more element to become absolutely dangerous, and Dick Cheney provided that. Cheney said, ‘Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter’. So Bush takes the biggest surplus in history and turns it into the biggest deficit in history, hands off a $1.2 trillion projected deficit to Obama, and an economy, here it is, I’ve done my job, we’re shedding 750,000 jobs a month.”
Franken continues:
“I can’t believe these people have actually paid any attention to anything, my colleagues. And so now we have all this money sitting on the sidelines. We did this after World War II. We invested in the right things. We invested in science and technology and education. I was a Sputnik kid. In 1957, when Sputnik was launched, I was six years-old and my brother was eleven. My parents were scared to death, because the Soviets were ahead of us in space, and they had nuclear weapons. My parents took us into our living and said, ‘boys, you are going to have to study math and science to beat the Soviets’. And I thought that was kind of a big burden to put on an eleven year-old and a six year-old. But we were obedient sons, so we studied math and science, and we beat the Soviets, my brother and me.”
Franken concludes his speech with this:
“Senate Republican leadership has said that their number one goal is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president. They didn’t say it’s to put people back to work, they didn’t say it is to get our kids educated. They didn’t even say it’s to balance the budget. They said it is to see that they win the next election. This was immediately after the last election. This is not what the American people want from us. They want us to work together. They want us to work to improve their lives. They want us to ensure that there are jobs.”
Franked is always good for a comedy routine.
He didn’t make me laugh, but you did. Nice post! Will follow.
You, however, are not.
That’s why good comedians are usually Democrats; the Republicans make for good material. Illogical thinking of this magnitude is just funny, deal with it.
Always easy for him when the republiclowns give him the material with which he works!
Where’s Everett Dirkson when we really need him?
I remember Al Frankin from the SNL days. Most people didn’t consider him a comedian. Check out some of his material.
Some comedians are just that; their only job is to make you laugh. Others, like Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, George Carlin and Al Franken to name a few are comedians and social commentators. Sometimes they make you laugh because they are funny, sometimes they make you laugh to keep from crying, but they always make you think.
Add Lewis Black, Jon Stewart, and Steven Colbert to that list too
And you both left out Bill Hicks.
How could you forget Bill Maher.
art, Apparently, you never took Econ 101. The comedy routine is all yours, except we’re laughing at you, not with you.
Who’s Art? If you were referring to Senator Al Franken, I can assure you, he did take Econ 101. How do I know that? Because he’s a graduate of Harvard, as am I, and it’s a required course, that’s how.
Art was the first to leave a comment on this article.
That is because it is better at conveying a message that makes you think. Did Franken say anything wrong in that speech?
No, he didn’t. He got it exactly right.
Isn’t it painful when a gay person with a sense of humor, humorously exposes the ridiculousness policies of Reagan, Bush I and BushII and has the facts to prove it. That’s when one knows how stupid some peiople are. I just love the folly of when “we are in prosperous times lower taxes and when we are in recessions lower taxes”. It does seem to be a strange dichotemy. The definition of stupidity is “doing the same thing over and over and over expecting a different result. Some idiots belong to the Bachman School. You know the swcholl that taught her the Rev, War started in the towns of Lexington and Concord, New Hampshire.
The above comment seems to suggest that Senator Franken is gay. Perhaps you are confusing him with Barney Frank, the Representative from MA. He is openly gay, very smart, and very funny…outrageous, some would say. Franken is not gay, but he is also very smart and very funny. I think you agree with what he says, but your spelling and grammar are so bad, it’s hard for me to make sense of your comment. I believe your heart is in the right place, you just need to reread what you’ve written before posting.
[...] Sen. Al Franken shreds the Republican economic theory (via progressivetoo) By Painfully. Slow. Progress. Senator Al Franken, speaking to AFL-CIO on Monday, points out the glaringly contradictory schools of thought that define the Republican economic theory: "So the idea that those at the very top, who now are richer than anybody has ever been; we now have people who are richer than any people have ever been in the history of the world; why they can't pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes in crazy. Those of us in the Senate who are Democra … Read More [...]
For some reason, and you can hash this out, a lot of comedians have the most frank (haha) and honest interpretations of current political discussion and rhetoric. Franken isn’t wrong. He’s just not taken seriously. Granted. But, really, I don’t think he’s laughing about this.
Al Franken always gets it exactly right and he’s one of the very few who in American government who understands what needs to be done. The Republicans have already proven that they couldn’t care less about providing jobs or fixing the economy. They couldn’t care less if people are losing their homes, their savings and their livelihoods. All they’ve done to date is demonize the Obama administration in a pathetic attempt to make themselves look like the best choice in the 2012 elections. Once they’ve done that, they can finally get back to doing the one thing at which they’ve always truly excelled…
…lining their pockets at taxpayer’s expense.
Franken has the ability to have many brain cells active at once, something most of the far right are clearly in need of procuring.
You are so right! That’s why they don’t want to raise taxes on the rich because the wealthy is keeping their bank accounts loaded!
Perfectly said.
I love what Franken had to say, but where is the reference to this? I’m searching to find a transcript or video of Franken’s actual words and it’s not coming up. Where did you get this?
I watched it on C-SPAN… I did record it if you’d like to see the video…
Author does not feel it’s necessary to reference where he regurgitated this from. So here ya go ;)http://franken.senate.gov/?p=news&id=1624
Signed,
Someone who believes political parties and factionalism is a tool to destroy countries.
The link you provided is not to the same speech that I got the above words from. In your link, Franken is addressing the Senate Floor. In the speech I watched, Franken was addressing AFL-CIO in an informal setting.
In this speech on the senate floor, Franken makes the mistake of equating Social Security payments with other government obligations. Social Security and Medicare are funded separately from the overall budget, they have their own taxes. Of course, those finds have been raided to pay for a plethora of other things, but having a senator, who some people expect to be more educated on the issues than other senators, make the gross mistake of using a Republican talking point in a speech is just disappointing.
Wow AWESOME article. Wish i could have actually heard this and why the hell dont other people listen?
They don’t use their brain for anything other than a windbreak that keeps their ears from clanging together in a strong breeze.
Hairfarms
To be a good comedian you have to be able to recognize absurdities, find comparisons, then point them out in a humorous way. The ones with the best knowledge of what they’re talking about are the funniest because they can make those comparisons and find the absurd instantaneously. The smartest comedians are the funniest. Most comedians who succeed are smarter than most politicians whose only skill need be to keep people scared and compliant.
Somethings never change. The court jesters were the most trusted advisers to the kings and queens of Middle Age Europe.
We always point to change and progress throughout human history, and granted a lot has changed and progressed, but human nature and the nature of its hierarchy do not often change.
Why do all democrats think that raising the taxes was the only reason that caused a surplus? really. Revenues as a percentage of GDP has been average of 18% for the past 60 years. Here’s a real debate question for the idiotic standardized politician with the same standardized answer to every standardized question.
Without using taxation and regulation as a basis of your argument, how would you fix the economy?
Maybe we’ll stop hearing taxation as the sole argument for fixing the economy. gfy.
Well, we could stop the Federal Reserve (which is neither) to cease loaning the money they print to the government and charging interest on it. Congress is supposed to be in charge of the issuance of money. They need to grow some hair and take back the Constitutional Right of theirs.
If we cannot tax the ones who run everything and have manipulated markets in a way that lowers the lifestyle of the entire middle class, and we can’t regulate how they buy out or destroy all competition thus ending what they call “free market” and making workers work in unhealthy and dangerous conditions, then I guess the only other way we can keep them from ruining our country any further is to just get rid of all of them and start over. I think they’d prefer to be taxed. Do they want to be part of this country or do they think of themselves as royalty not to be hindered or questioned? The government really is of all the people. There are a lot more of us than there are the uber-wealthy. They should read some history books to find out what happens when the small small minority that has everything forgets that everybody else wants to be able to feed their families too.
The best way to increase revenues is to have the economy grow and to have the taxes grow with it. Spending doesn’t grow in proportion to a growing economy, so when the economy is growing, as long as you’re pulling in 18-20% of GDP via taxes, you’ll be OK. When unemployment is high, spending naturally goes up and revenue goes down as a percentage of GDP. It’s just arithmetic.
The point is that all the Republicans said the 1993 tax increase would cripple growth. They were wrong. In fact, there was a tax increase, the economy grew, revenues grew and we ended up with a surplus. Oh, and we weren’t increasing defense spending all the time in the 1990s either. The fundamental Republican argument that increasing taxes will stop the economy from growing was definitively proven wrong, and yet you can’t find a Republican who can admit that.
Math — it is a bitch.
The point I’m trying to make is that many use taxation as the “sole argument” for fixing the economy. Even when the revenues currently being collected don’t even make a dent in the deficit or debt. Several other things occurred during the Clinton administration that people rarely realize. Derivative market schemes, housing market schemes, borrowing, manipulation of the money supply to be more competitive with China, reduction in spending (by 2% of GDP), several other bubbles that resulted in malinvestment, unemployment increasing and/or stagnate. People want to blame Bush for the Burst but no one is willing to blame Clinton for creating a Bubble. “yet you can’t find a [Democrat] who can admit that.” I just don’t understand how you even define a surplus when the national debt was increasing. Did you take that into account when you were doing your arithmetic. Hence my question for fixing the economy which you definitely didn’t understand. I want real solutions, not the same repertoire that Democrats and Republicans seem to pull out of there asses.
Nixon also had a surplus but I would assume it was the result of taking the dollar off the gold standard but I’m sure other economists would say otherwise. All he did was meddle with the economy, the same thing Clinton did. Clinton inherited a moderately fair economy too, while Bush inherited a bubble about to burst.
And the debate. Taxation. I’m tired of it. Al Franken doesn’t have a solution. His solution to slam the Republican agenda which is fine with me. but this, “If you discredit the Republican then the only creditable political group are the Demorcrats?” kind of gets old. All it does is take away from the real questions that need to asked.
but if you want to be stuck on this question, using the same answer that has been used for the past 60 years well then that’s apparently your freedom to do so. I was asking how would people fix the economy without touching taxes at all even regulation. (I put regulation because republicans want to de-regulate and democrats want to regulate for whatever cause suits their ideology.)
Most of the revolutions in the course of earth’s history were the result of over-taxation. Agree or disagree?
taxation and regulation are powerful tools. taxation has been at a historical low for since bush II was in office. now that we are debating about raising the debt ceiling, it seems like a decent time to raise taxes (just an itty bit?) on households making more than $250,000 a year. that’s a matter of revenue and our immediate need to get out of our debt hole. you’re right though. not a long term “fix”. taxes need to be played with, up and down, for an economy and a society to stay healthy.
Vehemently disagree. What a load of right wing revisionist crap.
Most of the revolutions in the world were triggered by the gross economic disparity between conditions under which the privileged class lived, and conditions under which the working class lived, or because of people revolting against fascism and tyranny — meaning, literally, the imposition of harsh forms of governance by a monarch or dictator (without representation of the common man).
The American revolution was different, and it did relate, to some extent, to taxation, but it also related every bit as much (or more) to the unfairness of the King and Parliament treating British subjects in the colonies much more harshly than British subjects in Great Britain, in a wide variety of ways, combined with the colonists’ lack of representation in Parliament — including with respect to import taxes and the like — see, e.g., the real tea party — but also in other ways that were every bit as important in terms or prioritizing colonial grievances — e.g., press censorship, seizing property without compensation, illegal search and seizure, etc. It is a right-wing, 21st century “tea party” myth that taxation is always bad, and that revolutions are all about excessive taxation. Marginal tax rates reached 90% during the Eisenhower administration, but there was nothing close to a revolution — Grover Norquist’s head would probably have exploded had he been an adult when Ike was president.
There was actually a time not that long ago when fiscal conservatism was measured by balancing tax revenue with expenditures — balancing budgets and paying one’s bills — and not over reducing taxes. Dubya started two wars without asking Americans to pay for them, he passed a massive unfunded expansion of Medicare, and then he deregulated the financial services market into a banking collapse and 2 year recession that further ballooned the deficit. Most disgusting of all was that he left those wars out of the budget in order to hide his “conservative” expansion of (deficit) spending, the one that turned a $250 Billion annual surplus from FY 2001 (Clinton’s last fiscal year) and over 10 million new jobs added over the 8 years of Clinton’s presidency into a $1.2 trillion deficit in FY2009, the last fiscal year of Bush’s presidency (and the last budget Bush was responsible for) while the economy was shedding 750,000 jobs a month for the three months before and the three months after he left office. So much for tax cuts. great job, Brownie . . . I mean Dubya.
Ike raised tax rates to 90% on the rich because WWII left huge deficits behind, and to him, conservatism meant raising revenue if that’s what you had to do to pay the bills. A 90% marginal tax rate is ridiculously high, in my opinion, but current tax rates are the lowest in a long long time — we anything but overtaxed (and we get a lot more of the way in government services that are taken for granted, and not just social security, which is the single greatest reason why we have all but eliminated poverty among the elderly in this country since after the great depression. In the GOP, fiscal conservatism has been trashed — shredded — in order to make way for very rigid supply side ideology that has ballooned the deficit, grossly increased the disparity between America’s privileged class and America’s middle class, resulted in anemic economic growth, and caused nothing but misery to the working poor. I should point out that every single GOP member in both houses voted against Clinton’s 1993 budget and deficit reduction act — Al Gore had to break the tie in the Senate — and many GOP members at the time warned that a recession, double digit inflation, massive unemployment, and/or stagnant wages, would result from the Clinton tax increase. They could not have been more wrong.
Today’s GOP is anything but conservative. It is nothing short of reckless, or even criminal, to threaten to cause the nation to default in its debts internationally unless the majority accepts the will of the minority, with no concessions of any kind. Nobody who is truly serious about deficit reduction thinks it can be achieved without tax increases. The GOP is not serious about the deficit. And they are not serious about the economy or about jobs (the reason they were supposedly elected, although you would never know it). Actually, they are concerned about one job – Obama’s job. Literally from the day he took office, it has been the GOP’s mission to make sure that he would lose his job in 4 years. It should come as no surprise to anyone that they are screwing that one up too. They are usually very good at the politics, and very bad at actual governance. This time, I think they are committing political suicide, or are being rope-a-doped like they have never been in the ring with someone who knows what he is doing, Either way, we should all be thankful that they are boxing themselves into a one term takeover of the House that is starting to go down in flames.
You define a surplus as funds not required at that point in time. It seems there was some concern about paying down the deficit too quickly. Therefore, it was decided that the people of the country deserved to be paid back for the excess. This is why there was an expiration date. But, two big things happened with that ‘beneficent’ payback:
1. the payback went in a much larger percentage to the upper tax brackets, disproportionate to what was paid in.
and
2. Bush decided to go into two wars, one of which was a war of choice, and he instituted Medicare D, a ‘gift’ to big pharma, all of these were unfunded.
Anyone who has ever balanced a checkbook knows that can’t work.
I define a surplus as the polar opposite of what we have now…
Clinton inherited a moderately fair economy? Just how old were you when Bubba came into office?
Does the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” mean anything to you?
The Republicans have never left office without creating some kind of economic mess for others to clean up, while at the same time making their cronies much richer at the country’s expense.
And why do all republicans think that cutting taxes is the answer to everything. It isn’t. gfy.
Uh, snoobies, for the last 60 years, taxes have been MUCH higher than they are now. For all of the last 60 years, except under Bush. Now Obama’s taxes are even lower yet. So, where are the jobs? Talk about “the idiotic standardized politician with the same standardized answer to every standardized question”… you have just given the same standard answer the GOP gives every time they’re asked the question, even when the facts are staring them in the face. Take your own advice.
So are interest rates. And there are several “facts” out there of how taxes have destroyed economies as well. People are really fixated with taxes. geez. I think only one partially answered my question. I live in a democrat city and they continue to raised taxes and surprisingly year after year it hasn’t fixed anything. Another new program is in need of some cash flow.
Alright, I’ll take a dab at the question.
How would I fix the economy without touching taxes or regulation?
1. Not pay the fictitious interest owed to the Federal Reserve since they had to fictitiously print the money out of thin air.
2. Partial repudiation of the debt. We don’t have to default on the whole amount. We can simply pay a percentage using %80 of treasury bills to do it.
3. Bring every single troop home from all over the world.
4. Local, State, and Federal governments can sell off the land/assets to any American that wants to buy it.
5. Sell the patents acquired through governmental research programs? (build newer tech companies…)
6. Cut off any finances to the IMF or World Bank.
7. Freeze on government.
8. Consolidate Government programs. GAO have already indicated there are so many programs for education, medicare, and even military that they can be consolidated to save the US billions.
How would I fix the economy without touching taxes?
1. Legalize legal tender laws. Allow competing currencies to exist.
2. Increase Federal Reserves interest rates.
3. Give the ability for all citizens to opt of government programs. (If there were good business plans, then they wouldn’t need to be subsidized.)
4. A freeze on government. It can not buy any land/assets on foreign lands.
5. Cut all foreign aid. (doing this to be “green”. How can other countries be sustainable if they are incapable of learning what it is and our country is continuously bailing them out as if there are a mega-corporation. join keva if you want to help other countries)
6. Get rid of Freddie and Fanny.
7. Decriminalized drugs and leave it to the states. Several articles have said this would save billions of dollars on the government.
8. Get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank bills.
9. Get out of UN (Since they are always getting us into more wars than actually helping other countries)
10. From this day forward no bank, business, or entity will be bailed out.
11. Cut the salaries of every Congressmen and Senator. Several politicians are worth millions. Remember when the CEO from AIG said he will only be receive a one dollar salary for the year until AIG finances are in order. How about make those million dollar politicians commit to the same thing until the US economy is back in order.
It’s not perfect. I know. but I tried. I TRIED. Some can be re-arranged I’m sure and some are arguable.
How about we end all government subsidies to business, cut out every vestige of corporate welfare, start collecting bigger fines from corporate wrongdoers, including recovery of every last dime of ill-gotten gains.
You wanna talk about creating big government? How about the creation of DHS? You conservatives nowadays are desperately out of touch with the conservatism of Burke; you’ve become nothing but playback machines repeating failed economic theories thinking you’re smart while smugly showing your ignorance every time you parrot the party line.
If Cheney was so fleecy in saying deficits don’t matter, why are your corporate puppets in DC using the budget deficit to dismantle the safety net?
You can’t have it both ways.
Snoovies: I agree with #1, #3, #5 & #8 of your first bit, fixing the economy without touching taxes or regs. I agree with #2, #3, #7, #10 & #11 of the second bit.
Your insistence on freezing the government is unrealistic at best. Taking hard lines is rarely productive. There needs to be wiggle room in all aspects of life to handle emergencies and catastrophes.
Selling land to any who wish to buy? That requires money, and few individuals will have that kind of purchase power. So we’d end up with all public lands being owned by corps, and we’d have to pay to access as well as follow corporate dictates on usage. Are you really that opposed to public lands, parks, etc? Really, do you think that Mt. Rushmore should be owned by GE? The Statue of Liberty to be owned by Exxon?
Cutting all foreign aid: So if some group of people is wrecked by a hurricane or other natural disaster: tough! If a government is mowing down it’s citizen’s who disagree with them, too bad? We are no longer citizens of the world, we’re just selfish b*stids. Besides, don’t you know that all aid to foreign countries benefits some business here in the U.S.? It would be good for you to read “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”. It’s a real eye-opener.
Eliminate protective laws for our own citizenry? So we go back to ‘let the buyer beware’ (which is not a bad idea, but somehow unattainable by many who do not have the resources or funds, or intellect to do due diligence, so they are routinely victimized). We legitimize companies who lie and do harm in the interest of their bottom line? Additionally, corporations have always proven that if they have the opportunity to cheat with impunity, they will. That’s exactly why the laws are on the books in the first place. Have we learnt nothing from this recession?
And you condone selective default on things you don’t feel like paying for. You can’t even do that in private life. You go bankrupt or you don’t. You cannot pick and choose who you want to pay their just due. If I owed you for a purchase I made, how much would you embrace me paying everyone but you?
The bottom line is that we need to raise taxes at least back to Clinton era levels. There’s nothing wrong with the ‘shared sacrifice’ of paying down the debt by taxing those who have reaped the greatest benefit from the laws of the land. And, no, I don’t deny that there could be a lot of cleanup in government spending, but it does not have to effect benefits for those who have paid all their lives for them. We have known for decades that there is wasteful spending, especially in the military. Sweetheart contracts that pay $5K for a toilet, etc. And, what’s up with hiring private contractors? We pay them more than the military personnel on an individual basis, plus the profits for the company and it’s owners. Where’s the efficiency in that? The truth is that the more we privatize, the higher the price tag.
While we’re at it, what exactly has the upper echelons of our country done to share in our sacrifice? What has been the cost to corporations and the wealthy who live off of investments? I understand completely the sacrifice of employees who have had their salaries flat for 30 years, who suffer pay cuts and lay offs. I know that SS recipients have not had an increase in 2 years, while the cost of living has soared. I know that small business is suffering from lack of demand. But what have the big guys sacrificed?
Like I said, it wasn’t perfect.
I never said that we should sell national monuments. I know certain bases across the nation have more land than they need. You can sell bits and parts. You don’t even necessarily have to sell it to corporations. Social Security is a bankrupt ponzi scheme. How about the government give property instead. Just an idea. If people think they can benefit by having land more than the dollar. When I was at the american river in CA some of the roads (to ship the good in their armor trucks) were built by gold mining companies. Anyone can drive through there The only catch was if you panned for gold in someone’s private property, the private property gets a portion of the gold. Everything was pretty accessible.
Having foreign aid to help businesses here in the United States is a form a corporatism. I don’t advocate here in the states nor would I advocate globally. There are several non-profit organizations that provide humanitarian relief to countries. Most of the non-profits works significantly faster and better. That’s why I put kiva.org where you can loan people money from across the world. The problem with government is that we tax, borrow, print foreign aid to other governments in hopes that it will bring prosperity. It’s a very inefficient system because the citizens of these countries most of the time don’t see a dime. Look at the Mubarak issue… Plus with non-profits and today’s technology you can definitely see how your money is being put to use. I get the feel goods that $25 dollars reached some guy in Africa that is trying to build a roof for a school. Our government on the other hand. He’d be lucky to receive a dollar after all the superfluous intermediary governments it has to go through. But I guess that would be selfish of me, because I’m sure people from all these superfluous intermediary governments need people and jobs and money too. You should read the Creature from Jekyll Island. It has several stories of how we’ve bankrupt several societies. However virtuous we want our government, I don’t ever want them distilling to any population on what their definition of virtue is. When countries do go through catastrophic events, the only thing I would advocate is Congress regulating trade to help build up their society. There is nothing wrong in trading with other nations. I just don’t believe in giving them money to buy our products.
I don’t know what you are talking about protective laws. We all have unalienable rights. These rights extend to land, air, and water. People, Unions, and yes even corporations have rights. Governments are supposed to protect these rights. There are supposed to protect us from fraudulent practices that corporations do or anyone. Corporations get away with fraud because they are in bed with these politicians. Why didn’t Obama give back money (campaign 2008/2012) to Bank of America, Goldman or other corporations that got us into this trouble. What did the SEC do for Enron or Murdoch? Nothing. And believe it or not, most of the regulations weren’t created by these government do-gooder politicians. Healthcare laws were create by mega insurance companies. The same can be applied to several other industries. We have definitely given corporation the ability to make the regulations for themselves that only benefits their own self interest, create a monopoly and yes practice business with impunity. Or haven’t you learned anything. This reminds me of when Rockefeller helped create the Prohibition act which definitely hinder Ford from creating a car that can run on ethanol. Surprisingly when the energy consumption standard was monopolized for oil the Prohibition Act was repealed.
A default is inevitable. We can default now or suffer much more severe crisis later. Yes, I’m sure several countries or entities would be upset if the US neglects payment to them. That’s why we have a Congress to make such hard decisions (or so we thought.) Paying the interest on the debt would be a tool to build confidence. The debt has always continued to increased. Why borrow money if our intention is never to pay it back. If we did this we would be put in jail or become indenture servants for the rest of our lives. Why buy something on credit when we don’t care about the debt we have to pay or the interest to that debt. I could only hope you are not advocating such behavior. And when you have idiots like Alan Greenspan or Buffet coming out and saying we would never default because we can simply print the money. Hence the partial repudiation of the debt. We can’t have prosperity if don’t liquidate the debt somehow.
The bottom line is we don’t need to raise taxes. Corporations have dug a grave for themselves. They chose investment schemes to build their companies. But some companies have chose the side of the consumer. To build products for the consumer. engineering companies ran by engineers and not by some money schemer MBA. Granted Bill Gates thinks along the lines you do. Let’s look at it. His only social purpose was to bring the computer into everyone’s home and business. This lead to society’s ability learn information off the web, plan for themselves, build there own portfolio, communicate, run there own business, get advice from healthcare to cooking, and several other things. It definitely built wealth among an average joe. Bill Gates definitely profited from this venture but so did everyone because they were able to prosper from a piece of technology. And yes there are some corporations that have profited at the expense of the consumer.
The cost of living rising isn’t because of corporations solely. It is the fact that our government has printed more money than it should have. You have to understand the business cycle and how the fed has created these boom and bust cycles. Blaming the rich or corporations, to me, is a scapegoat. A hoax to deviate our perceptions of whats really going on. Granted the rich or corporations are on the top of the mess we have to look at the puppeteer and not the puppets. Do often we look at the victim, then we automatically blame the culprit in the form of the rich or corporation without realizing that it could have been some well-intention regulation, do-gooder politicans, quantitative easy, market schemes to provides homes to poor even they can’t afford it but we’ll give it to them even if they might foreclose because the government is backing up all these housing programs.
We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the present crisis of our civilization except one: that the present state of the world may be the result of genuine error on our own part and that the pursuit of some of our most cherished ideals has apparently produced results utterly different from those which we expected.[Hayek]
Snoovies, we need to raise taxes, period. Look at the history of the US, we have always done better and were more dynamic when taxes were higher. Taxes were cut to present levels just prior to the crash of ’29. They were again lowered and we got this crash. Really, why not learn from history? We need money to run the government, and we need a government. Starving the beast also starves the economy.
I don’t have the time right now to argue point by point, and some of your points I do agree with. But I strongly disagree that default is inevitable. We were paying down the debt under Clinton. It is possible to do. And we do need to do it.
As for health care, you are right, the changes were, in effect, written by the offending corporations. Especially, Medicare D. We need single payer, period. This is the only way to affordable health care in line with what others in this world pay. I personally know many people who live in countries with the varying forms of single-payer, and they are VERY happy with their plans. Furthermore, their costs are significantly lower than ours as a % of GDP. And the ‘waiting lists’ are a bold face lie, in most cases.
We’ve defaulted already three times in history. And many and I mean many other things were done in history to solve our crisis besides using taxes. America went through a crisis in 1921. The government decided to liquidate the debt and the crisis lasted ONE year. another one hit us in 1929. Government decided to intervene in the market and the crisis lasted TEN years. And the Fed did lower interest rates too at this time as well. One can make that historical argument about economic crisis and the Fed interest rates. Ben Bernanke has said that crisis would have been diverted if the government providing more quantitative easing back then. He is wrong now and he was wrong about what he believed caused the long depression in the 1930s. I am looking at history. But doing the same thing and thinking it will somehow bring different results is just plan insane. I fail to see how we were paying the debt down during the Clinton administration when the debt never went down at all. Not a dime. Alan Greenspan with all of his other cronies were lying more than the public thinks. This is the same guy that said that the US can never default because we can print the money. I’m really going to believe him now and anything he said in the past.
Well I don’t agree with you on health care but that’s a different debate. Thanks for you comments.
Thanks Snoobies…you’re the only one here that’s made any real sense. The fact is the government has created so much to spend money on that all the taxes in the world won’t pay down this debt. and, raising taxes on the rich is a joke…Yes, they probably would not feel it. But there would not be enough money afterward to decrease the debt much any way. Monetary policy does not apply any more. The interest rates are at the lowest ever. So why are WE NOT investing? Maybe we have grown and expanded to our limits for a while. Why don’t we just raise prices on everything…inflate the bottom lines of every business-large and small-and then tax revenue will increase exponentially…and maybe we will have a surplus again. Then what? No, what we are experiencing is a major adjustment in our business and employment structure in this country..there are no guaranteed jobs in any economy. We will re-tool ourselves and the economy will boom again soon! And, why should the rich have to pay the government more? and, why should the rich be forced to give it away…Buffet and Gates have given nearly all of theirs away voluntarily…And, what the hell is occupy wall street about anyway..except for those who are whining because certain folks have more than they do? Sounds like my 2 young ones, 6 and 7, throwing a fit if one or the other happens to get something the other one doesn’t! If we want to protest, why aren’t we protesting about the way human rights are being destroyed around the globe…or about the way the government abuses education by dangling carrots and then taking them away…there’s lots of worthwhile causes. Occupy wall street is insulting to the labor unions, who at times will protest for better wages and benefits….They are working.!!..
Let’s take your statement at face value. Revenues (I assume government revenues) has averaged 18% of GDP. Well, if we are running deficits the answer is obvious, raise taxes, when the revenues go up due to the tax increase, the GDP will go up too. Problem solved. Now I will admit there may be a lag of 6 months or a year or two but on average 18% of GDP. I’ll take that economic theory anytime.
Put more money in the pockets of those responsible for DRIVING the economy. That is done by putting people back to work and paying them a decent wage. But remember that we are in a unique situation historically. Corporate America has learned to operate leaner. To increase profits while reducing payroll, and so are hesitant to re-hire employees laid off as a result of the economic downturn, fueled primarily by the insatiable greed of Wall Street, and the subsequent collapse…uh…no…would be collapse that was held up by us…the American middle class. So now…you cannot separate economic disparity from the current economy, whatever you’d like.
Not all democrats thing that raising taxes was the only reason that caused a surplus. However, Franken pointed out very nicely and accurately the absurdity that is the republican economic position. The most important thing that could be done would be to seriously discourage companies from sending jobs overseas. The loss of millions of jobs is what has caused a substantial amount of the trouble in our economy.
How about telling your conservative Congressmen to stop using the LOWERING of taxes and the removal of regs as the sole strategy they promote for “growth”, especially now that it has failed so miserably? If today’s R’s had been in power, we would never have sent a man to the moon because it would not be a profitable enterprise. Yet that tax-funded project brought thousands of jobs, as well as advanced technology that was applied to other industries. Today’s R’s are unwilling to fund corporations like Solyndra which will be able to eventually cut our need for fossil fuels because it must be “private” and be profitable immediately. Why are other countries subsidizing alternative energies while we demand that all new technologies must be private enterprises and profitable from the start? These new technologies would provide thousands of jobs and new technologies that would benefit the entire country including private enterprise. Government jobs are taxed just exactly the same way that private jobs are taxed and, therefore, also raise revenue. In addition, government workers also spend money which feeds the economy. The same arguments I’ve used for Solyndra would apply to infrastructure improvements, as well.
Well, Mitch McConnell DID say that last night about the Republicans goal …..which was of making Obama a one term president…soooooo, nothing else really matters to them.
All this bantering back and forth are just talking points made for everyone to feel a little more self-righteous about their positions.
Let’s not pretend for a moment that the Progressive Dems are on any higher moral ground than the Conservative Repubs. They are not. They both spend assloads of money given to their own interests. They both cater to their corporate masters (do note that GE in particular has been very visible in both the GWB & Obama admins), whether they be the Trial Lawyers Association (which drives up Malpractice insurance rates which in turn drives up medical costs) or American Federation of Teachers (who fights at every turn any effort to change the status quo of public education and thinks that a neverending stream of cash is all that is necessary and be damned about the kids) or the Microsofts who adamantly defend to the death to a complicit government their inalienable right to be an abusive monopoly so both can share credit equally for this mess. Lest we ignore the fact that only 22% of Americans actually want to see the debt level increased. Most of us would rather we take our lumps and learn our lesson – rather old school I think.
But a real conservative is not against taxing the rich or taxing corporations. The real conservative wants everyone taxed equally and not in the income redistribution premise behind our current tax code. If we are looking to talk about shared sacrifice, then how is it you can ask a certain percentage of the population to pay in its virtual entirety the services used by a larger percentage of the population? This is what we currently do, and now that times are tough, the Progressive cry is what don’t they pay more?
The actual conservative wants the Bill Gates’ and the Joe Cashiers of the world to pay the same percentage. Once you get into the income redistribution aspect of it, it begs the question: considering that the states and local municipalities take about an additional 10 or so % of ones income, how much should the government take of the wealthy? Assume you have $100 and the state and municipalities take $10-$12 of that $100, how much should the government take? how much is appropriate to “share the burden”? $20? $30? $50? At what point does the income you make; whether you are a hedge-fund manager or a corporate director or even a School Superintendent living in NYC become yours? Those are fair questions to ask – especially of the progressive lot who buy into the idea of higher taxes on anyone who makes more money than themselves?
Along those same lines, it takes both parties of congress to pass all of these corporate tax loopholes but when you have a base corporate tax bracket of 35%, doesn’t it make sense that you would do everything you could to reduce your final bill and/or take that money to another country? It does to me. If my business gets big enough, you can bet your ass that I would use whatever means at my disposal to reduce my tax exposure. And, so would you – despite all of the bloody murder people Obama cries about corporate jets and what have you. You don’t think Oprah or Warren Buffet or even George Soros haven’t hid their money ot reduce exposure? Then you are pretty naive. The same principle applies though. How much is enough?
I’vealways been a fan of flat taxing: same amount for everyone above a certain minimum income level and, do the same for businesses. Lose the deductions. Lose the exemptions. Everyone pays the same. There’s no reason for a 35% corporate tax bracket when a million loopholes if, for example, a 20% bracket with no loopholes would suffice.
Imagine a nation. A nation with no IRS. A nation with a smaller government and smaller social services because people have more money to take home and more money that they gladly give to charity as is charged to us by our various faiths. It is possible. Government created this problem. Government can not fix this problem. Only the American people can fix it. And that is something we have forgotten along the way.
Okay let’s say your flat tax rate is ten percent ; a man making $ 20,000 / year has to pay in
$2000 . one making $ 200000 pays in $ 20000 leaving him $ 180000 to live on , whereas the 1st guy only has $ 18000 . However if u tax #2 at 20% and # 1 at 5% . #2 still has $ 160000 to live on (plenty) and #1 only gets to keep an extra $1000 which to him might allow him to keep the utilities on . The only way a flat tax is fair is if u only tax those whomake at least $50000 or more a year with no tax below that line
So what Mark? Does it bother you that much that income is not redistributed? Then answer the question I posed: How much is enough? Of that $100, how much is enough?
How much do you take from one and give to the other?
How much does one need to pay so that the other does not have to?
If you can get over your hang up of the rich are to blame – and that’s obvious you do believe that – for our economic problems you might see the point I make which is that government made the problem (government instituted the permanent income tax, government created the tax loopholes, government implemented the social programs that have become bloated, and government created autonomous monopolistic corporations that have more power than any one million people) and that more government can not help the problem. This isn’t a case of, as rock-icon Sting stated “A big problem that requires big government”
Let me pose even this question, which my own sister in law tried to address in her graduate fellowship at a food bank: is it a successful person’s responsibility help the chronically poor? Those who are year in and year out regulars at the food bank; those who when their kids turn 18 tell them to go sign up for WIC and Welfare and Food Stamps; those who would sink, to whatever level necessary to continue to receive government subsidy? There are studies out there both in the U.K. and in the U.S. that demonstrate a multi-generational affect of people living on welfare their entire lives.
for the record, just so everyone knows: I am a economic conservative but much more libertarian socially. I believe in a small government and fewer taxes. I don’t think that corporations are the be all and end all, and that government has helped them become the monsters that they are. I’ve met Charles Koch (pronounced Coke, by the way) and have found him to have a dizzying business intellect even as an octogenarian, as with Warren Buffet whom I have also met. No, I’m not an acquaintance with either. I just happened to meet and be introduced to them a couple times with companies I have worked for – one of the many who are introduced and then quickly forgotten. BUt i do believe that a smaller government benefits even the poorest in this country. I do think that a flat tax (or even a national sales tax with a change to the 16th Amendment) would lead to more money for everyone. I believe a balanced budget amendment and a partial privitization of SS would be a good thing. And, I do think that getting rid of 100,000 or more bloated government employees at the IRS would really be a good thing
“is it a successful person’s responsibility help the chronically poor?” Yes. Income inequality is a fact of life and it is a zero-sum outcome. Everyone cannot be rich. The successful person’s income is as much the result of his hard work, as it is his luck, maybe machinations and manipulations (i.e. someone might have – or more likely, has gotten screwed in the process of the rich getting rich) and the poor person’s bad luck or lot in life. Don’t be quick to assume that all chronically poor people are lazy and aren’t hard working. A society’s and thus a nation’s power, whether economic, social or military is only as weak as that of its lowest common denominator, and increasing the power of that base ultimately increases the collective power of the nation or society as a whole. Taxes utilized to educate and feed the poor eventually reduce overall poverty. Taxes utilized to improve infrastructure can benefit the rich as well as the poor and the rich can get richer off of that (e.g. people get to work in a more timely fashion, reducing commuting downtime and increasing productivity), but if the poor are taxed to the extent that things like means of transportation are taken away, children must be neglected because of extra workload, etc., infrastructure becomes meaningless. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Steve Jobs cannot successfully make up a nation by themselves, either economically or socially. I am not talking about remaking the system into a Communist system where everyone has the same assets, but the poorest of our nation cannot be allowed to starve and our middle class and elderly cannot be systematically be drained into poverty with no safety net. If that happens, and the prevalence of poverty grows, that has the makings of a crumbling society and a revolution, I don’t want any part of or don’t want my children to have to deal with.
You are absolutely right. The one thing that 3rd world countries all have in common is enormous income disparity between rich and poor. We’ve been headed that way since Reagan was in office. Another thing, people like Carl always think that people who are poor are to blame for being poor. It seems to have never occurred to people like him that not everyone comes into this world with equal abilities and intelligence. A person can be a very good human being, but not intellectually up to the challenges presented by high paying jobs. That does not mean they don’t deserve to have enough food to eat and medical care and a decent, safe place to live. If those of us that are more fortunate can help but are too stingy to do so, it doesn’t say much for us as human beings. I don’t want to live the high life if it means that others don’t get educated and go to bed hungry or have to live in vermin infested housing or in neighborhood where crime is rampant.
Carl, so you’re okay with the redistribution of the wealth to the top, then? Because that is what has been happening for the last 30-40 years. Worker’s wages have remained flat during this time as the wealth continued to drift upwards. I heard no complaints about redistribution then.
The difference lies in who they are “catering” to…You use the term “corporate masters”…The Republican Party votes across the board to screw the environment on behalf of Big Oil, Detroit, and mining companies…while Dem’s vote across the board to protect the environment, i.e. The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, etc…for equality..i.e. the Civil Rights Amendment, The Welfare Act, Social Security, etc….as for your “flat tax” idea…fairtax.org would satisfy most of your arguments and gain the support of most Dem’s as well.
the republicans want us all to suffer
I cant stand them
http://ethicalfutures.wordpress.com
The Republicans are like flopping fish out of water soon to be eaten by their young!
Excellent points, and the last one really drives it home.
In case anyone was wondering where this comes from: http://franken.senate.gov/?p=news&id=1624
I got this by watching C-SPAN and typing what Franken said when he addressed AFL-CIO. I mentioned this in this thread, above…
Dead on. Now if we can have this sort of shredding for the presidential debates next year, I’ll be very impressed.
Another 200 or so comments to this post…
http://dustydionne.newsvine.com/_news/2011/07/15/7090580-sen-al-franken-shreds-the-republican-economic-theory-progressivetoo
What no one seems to realize is this. Republicans know exactly what they are doing. They want the government to go broke, because as the old saying goes….if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. So, let’s put a few facts that we know about Republican politicians, the wealthy few they represent, and the agenda they have, and see if we can’t discover why they are doing what they are doing. I don’t believe Republican Politicians are all stupid, but they are all greedy.
1) Privatization: If the people (government) do not raise enough revenue to pay for things like freeways, prisons, schools, water treatment plants, etc, then those things become broken, and require fixing……solution? Privatization. Result? Spend more, for less.
2) Voter suppression. Keep those demographics that vote at a higher percentage for Democrats from voting, and that way you win….without winning. Democracy? Who cares about that…we want money, and power.
3) Deregulation: Translation….Decriminalization. See Privatization.
4) Bring back jobs: But first, we have to get American workers so close to starvation that they will work for 80 cents an hour, so let’s repeal the minimum wage, close as many plants as possible, it’s okay, because we are still making money, while we starve the enemy into submission.
5) Buy Real Estate at bargain basement prices, so you can house people who you will finally allow to work for you for 12 to a room, you know…to foster community spirit, and shared sacrifice.. Slavery is out…but give Fox News enough time, and they’ll convince people that slavery kept black people employed full time, and it helped keep the family together, and happy….just look at them sing…..nothing like chains to keep the family together.
Republican politicians are many things, but human is not one of them.
Right on! Well said.
Wow. Thank you for that!
Michael Shatz,
Have you read “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature” by Steven Pinker?
You would love this book, particularly the chapter about the utopian vs. the tragic visions.
Thanks for the article.
As an outsider looking in I always laugh at how determined the Republican Party is to screw the USA in the name of patriotism. Lets look at the last 4 Republican Presidents… Ford crashed the economy around 1974. Reagan didn’t crash the economy, he was a Keynesian. Bush senior crashed the economy with the S&L debacle, Bush Junior crashed the economy with the GFC. Why does any citizen of the USA support the Republican Party ? These guys have no credibility as economic managers, but people pretend they do.
Só BY Youthtraumata We Do Have Us Hére A franken…stéin who personally IS Responsible for a Very Cold war And the heritage of globál totalitairy jewfascistregime Criminals?
You’re an idiot.
You’re exactly right Gray. Not stupid, but greedy. Whenever Republicans are doing something that doesn’t seem to make sense, that is the one constant you can fall back on.
Go Go Liberal or is that Go Go Gadget ??
This man was a poor comedian and he is the worst senator Mn has ever had- what a mistake. His logic could be shreded by a kindergartner.
So…….shred it. And give some reasons why he is the worst senator. Just saying that, with no support, makes it sound like you wish it, but can’t back it up.
hmm I think the his logic is quite idiotic as well. When has increased taxes actually increased revenues either. It’s been averaging about 18% for the past 60 years as a percentage of GDP. Several other things were occurring during the Clinton administration such has derivative market schemes, housing market schemes, manipulation of the money supply to be more competitive with china, surprisingly enough spending reduced as a percentage of GDP (a whole 2 points)… yet debt accumulation was increasing. I always like liberals definition of a surplus. It’s the amount of revenues versus the amount of spending the government does. It’s almost like those guys who want to legalized marijuana (agree) and tax the hell out as if that’s the solution when it wouldn’t even make a dent on the deficit nor debt. I guess future entitlement spending would never be on the table like I’m sure Obamacare isn’t going to be considered the burden of government in the future. I still fail to see how Clinton had a surplus if the debt continued to increase. And when Al Frank fails to see this I think all he does is add to the hysteria of a liberal. Alan Greenspan – Too quick to paying off debt. Which debt because the national debt continue to increase?
The truth is that neither logic is completely sound unless you’re a buffoon. Republicans theories aren’t actually conservative but neither are Democrats. Also no one ever brings the previous administrations future entitlement programs. Look at Obamacare. Lets say a republican wins the presidency. I’m sure every democrat is going to blame the republicans even though Obamacare is bit more cumbersome than originally thought and is the reason for our economic turmoil (hypothetically).
He wasn’t trying to display any form of logic. He was merely pointing out how ridiculous Republican Economic Policy truly is…It boils down to this; whenever taxes are increased (with the exception of the Clinton raising he spoke on) it’s raised on workers, via payroll taxes etc. Then when they’re lowered, it’s disproportionately beneficial to the rich, via loopholes. i.e. capital gains tax caps etc…Like he stated…If we have a surplus, cut taxes..if we have a deficit, cut taxes..if the economy is booming…cut taxes…if the economy is in the toilet…well, we HAVE to cut taxes…Got cancer…take two tax cuts and call me in the morning
Good one, take two tax cuts and call me in the morning. That’s “so GOP”! If you have cancer, it’s probably Obama’s fault anyway. Whatever ails you can be fixed with a tax cut. Franken has completely nailed it. The only logic the GOP employs is failed logic.
Not in kindergarten yet, Deb?
I’d like to see you try to shred it. I think it’s entirely likely that you have no clue what it was that he even said. Go back to kindergarten where you belong.
At times I’ve come to believe most ardently that the only thing getting in the way of Democrats is… well, Democrats. They’ve a good message and the Republicans have lost site of their side of the argument in their all-consuming desire to ‘win.’ So why are they not hailed as the good-doers of Washington? Well in part because they’ve not the courage to stand firm to their convictions, but really I believe more because of their simple, foolish and incomprehensible inability to communicate their points (however valid) to the general American people in a succinct and clear manner.
Senator Al Franken has attempted to politely point out the Republican economic hypocrisy without giving a clear indication of what the Democrats plan is that stands in such stark contrast to the mistakes made by their conservative colleagues. I’m assuming he’s attempting to allude to the choices made by Clinton in the 90s might be the best course of action to take once more now that we are again faced with an overwhelming deficit, but whether that is his true intention is left unclear.
Be leaders. I don’t elect my representatives to tell me how the other members of Congress are doing it or have done it wrong, I elect them to lead. I elect them to find answers to hard problems and to do their best to work with their colleagues, on both sides of the aisle if necessary, and to inform me of what logical steps they took to lead them to choose the votes that they make. That’s it. So until there is a speech about the new plan that’s been well thought out and created with the intention to include more members of Congress in the decision making process than exclude based upon the color of their party… I am simply left underwhelmed and most certainly unamused.
It would be nice if they (the democrats) were allowed to lead. The republicans have had enough votes in the Senate to stifle almost everything the democrats have tried to do.
At one point they, the Democrats, held a super majority in the Senate but now they do not. However, being a leader should come before simple finger-pointing and shifting blame. If Democrats or Republicans wish to pass legislation rather than bemoan legislation that stands before our Congressmen today they should go to their constituents to make the case for each vote or cause they wish to pass. Enough school-yard tactics, I don’t care who is to blame for the state our country is in. Republican, Democrat, Independent… just care more about your country than your distaste for whomever sits across the aisle from you. That’s a leader to me.
*sight not site, my apologies. I cannot complain that editors don’t edit anymore if I’m not willing to do the same with my own written thoughts as well.
The biggest problem the democrats have in delivering their message, I believe, is that they see that things are complicated. Republicans do not acknowledge that our problems cannot be solved with a bumper sticker slogan. The vast majority of republican voters are simply incapable of thinking past that bumper sticker slogan, or they are too busy watching the latest reality show to take the time to do so. Bumper sticker slogans are like comfort food, soft and easy to chew and digest, requiring little effort and containing not much nutrition. Reagan was the original master of them. No thought required, just swallow. Being a democrat required independent thought and a grasp of intricate ideas and patience with slow but sure progress.
You make an interesting point, however I would say it is fair to assume that simply dubbing Republicans too stupid or short-sighted to comprehend that some of the complicated problems our country faces also require, at times, complicated answers is a gross over simplification. Not to mention that approach (us versus them, Democrats have it all right and Republicans are just a bunch of bumper sticker loving fools not fit to serve in Washington) is precisely why it’s so hard for the two sides of our Congress to come together to work towards compromise anymore.
Using ad hominems is a fallacious way to go about trying to prove that your point, or even you as a person, is somehow better than someone else’s. Second graders have the ability to deride each other for their differences or their mistakes, I’m not interested in schoolyard taunts or how awful one group’s poll numbers are this week compared to the other groups poll numbers last week. I don’t care about a faceless unnamed Republican running against the President for the 2012 election, these are the sound bites that are good for CNN/FOX/Cable “news” ratings, and that’s all well for them… but I have higher standards for elected officials in Washington.
I want solutions, I want thoughtful answers to our country’s biggest problems, I believe that we as a nation deserve a least their steadfast commitment to honoring their oath to serve our country before their donors alone. Whether they live up to those expectations or not is their business, the natural consequence and beauty of our democracy is the power of casting a vote to elect someone else possibly more qualified, so the high expectations I have for their commitment to serve our country shall not waver even in the face of their childish antics. Regardless of how stupid you or anyone may believe Republicans to be, or how elitist others may choose to believe Democrats are… I am simply uninterested in the popular opinion regarding our nation’s political parties. Somehow I believe that finding answers to our country’s problems is by far more important than finding the time to call each other names.
[...] [...]
Al Franken! HA HA Ha ha ha he hee heh, Minnesota is so cool! Jesse Ventura! HAHAHA!
whooo booy! Good Stuff! Hilarious! Smart, funny, good looking, and doggone it, people LIKE him! AHHH, you’re KILLING ME! To think that you idiots actually elected this doofus brained failed ex-comedian and now America is supposed to suddenly think he is a serious, high minded thinker? A brilliant satirist and social commentator? The Samuel Clements of our generation? The next Mark Twain? ECONOMIST EXTRAORDINAIRE? Beautiful, my sides hurt from laughing so hard, I don’t think you could make this stuff up. Robert Heinlein couldn’t make this up. Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas on acid wouldn’t dream of Al Franken as a Senator! Why not some “B” actor for president? or Governator? Or how about Senator Gopher from Love Boat? What’s next, Jay and Silent Bob save the economy? Awesome!
Really, elect an athlete next time, and let’s get America’s economy on steroids..
next time, look up ‘ad-hominem’ before posting…
I’m willing to bet that Al Franken is a lot more intelligent and hard working than you are.
Franken is a cum laude graduate of Harvard, and I believe his major was political science.
You mean like Ronald Reagan?
anyone who trust Al Franken for any theory whatsoever should seek out counseling.
@ uglygreenmom – perhaps morally, but morality is subjective and that is not the state’s place to decide morality. The state has tried it and has overtime found those laws to be challenged and overturned and they continue to find them to be challenged and overturned. So again, is it the rich’s responsibility to take care of the poor? In your sense of morality, yes, but in mine, no. The responsibility of the state to treat everyone equally, thus the purpose of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, not to make everyone equal or to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity to success. You are right in that people become wealthy for a host of reasons – most often though, it’s because they either inherited it, or they earned it. But you fail to address a basic question, if the state’s responsibility is, as you presume, to ensure that the poor are helped at the expense of the rich, then to what extent is it their responsibility?
See, i’m not wealthy but i do hope that my business will make me thus. Do I think that it is the state’s job to take from me to ensure the well-being of joe-cashier? No. I think that it is my choice to do so. I also don’t think it is my responsibility to pay for social services that he is not paying for. We all have a responsibility to pay for these services, much as we all have a responsibility to pay for our schools.
[...] more economics: Here’s Al Franken on the Republican faith that tax cuts are always the answer. Second, some discussion of [...]
“Clinton paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion — the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.”
http://members.tripod.com/scott_michaud/Clinton-Administration-Record.html
“In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998, the largest debt reduction in U.S. history.”
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/politics/clinton.surplus_1_budget-surplus-national-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
“The repayment of National Debt threatened a real reduction, if not in the Money Supply itself, then in the growth of the Money Supply. Higher taxation of Business Profits actually led to more determined investiture in Capital, in a recognized Need to obtain larger Profit revenues to maintain the same Take-Home funds after Taxation. Business leadership knew they had to hide major amounts of their Profits in their own Debt Service, lest they face horrid (at least to themselves) levels of Tax payments. It created the major source of the Investment of the Era.”
http://laglux.blogspot.com/2007/04/1993-clinton-debt-reduction-program.html
NOTE: “It created the major source of the Investment of the Era.”
Of course, Bush messed that up.
“Democrats say it was because of Bill Clinton. But all that really matters is that the burden of federal spending grew very slowly. Not only was there spending restraint, but Congress and the White House agreed on a fairly substantial tax cut in 1997.”
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-1993-clinton-tax-increase-did-not-lead-to-the-budget-surpluses-of-the-late-1990s/
“What about raw materials prices? During the Clinton years basic commodities stayed cheap by historical standards. Since then, however, food and energy prices have exploded, directly lopping about 5 percent off the typical American family’s real income, and raising business costs throughout the economy.”
http://mises.org/daily/590/Clintons-Legacy
“The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn’t a surplus under Clinton.”
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
I could blame Bush too which I do, but I’m not going to praise Clinton for creating some problems too.
You write, “During the Clinton years basic commodities stayed cheap by historical standards. Since then [i.e. since Clinton left office], however, food and energy prices have exploded,” So now you blame price increases on Clinton that happened in the Bush years? And you acknowledge that the growth of government was historically slow under Clinton. Yet you use mises and cato to prove that was all a mirage. If Clinton had single-handedly wiped out the debt, cured cancer and created jobs for every American with 6-figure salaries, CATO, Craig Steiner and Mises would still deny it. Much like watching Fox News.
I totally comprehend the difference between deficit and debt. Clinton had us on a track to pay off the debt by 2009. That is a fact. And paying off the debt demonstrates that one is NOT operating in a deficit scenario, or the debt would be growing. It did not grow, it went down. And this was WITH the 1997 tax cut.This repayment of the national debt was threatening the money supply, which is why Bush ‘generously’ set a tax cut to expire in 10 years. It was to slow the repayment of the debt so as to not threaten monetary supply. However, Bush had his own way of slowing the repayment of debt: 2 unfunded wars and Medicare D.
The only criticism that I have of Clinton is that he signed NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Both were disastrous decisions.
I’m not blaming Clinton nor am I blaming Bush. From the beginning I said Bush inherited a bubble ready to burst. That bubble wasn’t going to last forever even if Gore was elected instead. cato and mises are reputable resources about economics vs a blog. Clinton did have some things right there’s no doubt about that. My argument from the very beginning that it wasn’t taxes that did it like everyone likes to believe. Cato indicated it was the reduction of spending and showed the CBO budget. But you can’t throw off the table other market factors that Greenspan and Rubin did. That has been the basis of my argument. Can you really blame every single program during the Clinton administration busting because of Bush. How long will this go on? Fed continuously redefines the CPI inflation values. Politicians do the same when it comes to debt, deficit, and surplus to make the booking look better for their administration. I’ve read through the blogs too as well and I rarely see a website that can provide a resource to as where they got that information. It’s like me saying Bush made our country made our education this much better. (Which isn’t true)
even when I go through about 4 articles of blogging that you provided I finally find this.
“Jared Bernstein somewhat mischaracterizes Alan Blinder and Janet Yellen’s analysis of “The Fabulous Decade” when he writes that they were “unable to pin the Clinton boom on deficit reduction.” Rather, they show quite persuasively that the introduction of the legislation played a crucial role in reducing interest rates, as planned, which in turn helped to stoke investment – as planned. They also demonstrate that the legislation gave the Fed more room than it otherwise would have had to pursue an easy monetary policy. As Jared points out, a number of fortuitous forces also helped to produce the remarkable economic performance in the second half of the decade – which raised real incomes across the board for the first sustained period since before 1973. But the 1993 budget agreement clearly set in motion favorable conditions for the boom in investment that occurred, which was the overriding goal of the legislation. ”
LOOSE MONETARY POLICY! What did Bush do? LOOSE MONETARY POLICY! This has been my argument from the beginning. And most of the blog admit to giving the Fed Loose monetary policy. As if lower interest rates wouldn’t do anything as long as you have deficit reduction plans. Really? That is their argument.
“cato and mises are reputable resources about economics vs a blog”: they are right wing think tanks. Their job is to think up ways to make the right appear correct. Their ‘research’ is questionable at best, not the respectable sources you define them as. You would criticize me if I were to quote Robert Reich, who is a very respected economist, simply because he is clearly left.
Perhaps the bubble was ready to burst, and would have burst under Gore. That’s absolutely true. But Gore would not have invited disaster by going to a country in war that had done nothing to warrant that attack. When forced to go to war to defend the country, he would not have cut taxes but instead funded the war.
I’ll give you that Clinton had some fortuitous forces, one was that he had a Congress that did not fight every breath he took, but rather worked with him for the most part. And, I’ll give you that Bush had unfortuitous forces at work. But Bush had a favorable congress, too, except for the last 2 years. And when the winds of change blew, neither he nor his congress altered any of their priorities to accommodate the change.
Taxes added to the problem, I never said they were the single cause. I have been very specific of the causes: 2 wars, unfunded. Medicare D, unfunded, tax cuts unfunded. And there was an expiration date set on the tax cuts for a reason. It was INTENDED to be temporary. The budget will never balance without tax increases, the deficit will continue due to our lust for wars, no matter how much we cut, cut, cut on the backs of those who have need.
“Can you really blame every single program during the Clinton administration busting because of Bush.” What, of Clinton’s programs, did I blame on Bush? I clearly laid the blame for the repeal of Glass Steagle and NAFTA at Clinton’s feet. And I did not even rub it in that it was a Republican congress that forced those issues. Clinton never should have signed off on them.
Isn’t loose monetary policy part-and-parcel to the wishes of the free market types?
They follow different types of philosophies when it comes to economics is clear. However, to describe them as being left or right is clearly a misnomer as some follow classical liberalism. There’s keynesian, austrian, modern, and classical economics (probably more out there). Each believe in slightly different things depending on your philosophy of government (a government that can simply print the money for any program it see fit or be restricted by free-market forces such as a gold standard or any standard). Krugman is a highly reputable economist that even won a Nobel Peace Prize. Do I have to believe what he says is true. Of course not especially since he’s been wrong continuously. It’s like me saying, “We should all do what Ben Bernanke wants to do even if it brings the utter destruction of our economy.” Some economic philosophies have been wrong continuously and yet we still follow them like keynesian. The free market does not ask for a monopoly in the money supply similar to industries and such. Congress is responsible for the value of the currency. We want a strong national currency. Not a weak one. That’s why we advocate competition in currencies by re-introduction legal tender laws to let the free-market set what has value and what doesn’t have value. With today’s technological capabilities, you think it wouldn’t be that hard… It would put restrictions on the fed as well. Fiat is like a religion – the only value the dollar has is the amount of faith you put in your government.
Clinton was a warmonger as well. In 1998, he order airstrikes on Iraq and he wasn’t even questioned for his actions that much by the public. There was also Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, and Sudan. Regardless of your belief for entering the war, we were still in a war (Maybe not a “US War” but a “NATO/UN War”). Most not even approved by Congress. Bush got congressional approval do pretty much anything (like go to war) even when the democrats took over (continue the war and stimulus). Of course there were a few “symbolic moments” but they were merely to capture votes for the upcoming presidency. American is a warmongering country. It took a neocon for everyone to realize it and for us to do something about it. Vote for an anti-war president again which most people found out not to be true.
And I have followed Robert Reich. Some of his reports are quite compelling but some just don’t hold up in most areas. He also has said that there wasn’t enough stimulus. That unemployment would have been worse if there wasn’t a stimulus which ended up being the opposite. His views are optimistic at best. And he also said Hoover wanted to liquidate the debt in 1929, which definitely wasn’t what happened (he intervened). But like I said Robert Reich is interesting but I would never go to him similar like you would not go to someone like… Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, Hayek, Von Mises. I like the Austrian philosophy on economics but to each their own.
In terms of the Glass-Steagle Act, I think banks should be able to do what they want but they should suffer the consequences of their actions. The government shouldn’t bail them out because the messed up. The greater risk is the FDIC in certain areas…
If banks are allowed to do what they want, and what they want is to take all our money, deceive others into loss, and then park money to the detriment of the country, this cannot be allowed. Banks MUST be regulated, because they have already shown that left to their own devices, they will rape and destroy.
So you state bluntly that “Some economic philosophies have been wrong continuously and yet we still follow them like keynesian.” Where is your evidence? Would you tolerate me making a blanket statement that supply side/trickle down has always failed? I believe it has, and I have reviewed a lot of historical data, which I could provide. But to just make a bold statement as if it’s fact without the support for it is kind of silly, by my lights.
okay I’m registered repub and i know most of you take that to discredit everything i say right now just for that reason alone. but try to listen to what i have to say. i hate bush just like you all so dont use his policies as examples as to why im wrong.
I am not vehemently opposed to raising taxes, i actually agree the rich are taxed too low and more revenue wouldnt hurt. but the real problem is SPENDING! we spend WAY too much. lets get out of every war and stop being a policeman, stop the war on drugs its a failure and legalization could bring revenue plus savings from the war on drugs and prisons. drug use goes down when all drugs are legalized, its proven look at portugal. so both those 2 things alone cut trillions! then we need to repeal obama care and all its regulations, stop the monopolies in the healthcare business and make it capitalist so lower prices are more competitive so everyone stops spending so much on healthcare. then we go to something similar Switzerland’s system that is a different way of structuring health care where doctors arent allowed to make a profit on basic care but can on supplemental programs, it is also illiegal to sue a doctor bringing down healthcare costs, its more complex than that look it up but it works cause it allows everyone to have goo health insurance for cheaper. also we need to regulate the Fed and STOP REGULATING EVERYTHING! let the free market figure out what works, you cant have a simple system control a complex one, it doesnt work, socialism DOES NOT WORK because people are lazy and end up not doing the required work because they dont have an incentive. if we need more taxes temporarily id be willing to do that if disability and welfare and other support systems are made more difficult to get with more regulation ( i know this is contradictory but if we’re going to have these programs then we need to make sure they go to the right people that are at least trying to do something to improve their lives and not lazy freeloaders) social security is pretty much done, it was done ever since it was put into the general fund, so it needs to either be discontinued, which i know is not going to happen, or a different solution would be to dissipate all previous debt in it and start a completely new social security system with its own fund again and make it illegal to do anything differently. i dont know? maybe a possibility? so with all those real spending cuts and increased taxes we might be able to control this debt monster… but giving more $ to the govt isnt going to do anything, they have well proved that they cannot be trusted with our money and suck at distributing it for the common peoples so take it away form them as much as possible except for the necessities
oh yea and make it a fed law everyone can carry a concealed weapon, it is the only option for a country who already has so many guns to reduce crime, people think twice before using a gun when anyone out there could be packing too. lets just go back to our constitution
Not to mention how ending an un-win able war on drugs would knee-cap the Mexican drug Cartels, bolster the Mexican Government and make it possible for Mexican citizens to make a living IN MEXICO! Cut the head off the snake…the violence we see in Mexico and now in the S.W. U.S. is reminiscent of prohibition era Chicago…prohibition doesn’t work…period.
[...] out the glaringly contradictory schools of thought that define the Republican economic theory. (via progressivetoo; thanks to hal). Share this:ShareEmailPrintFacebookTwitterStumbleUponDiggLike this:LikeBe the [...]
One argument that is not made often enough is the fact that tax money gets spent. Every last bit of it. That puts money back into circulation where it can start turning over. Tax cuts for the very wealthy causes money to come to a dead end in a Cayman Islands trust fund.
[...] Read More Cancel reply [...]
I will bring this point up again. Two of the three congressional leaders in the Republican caucus are southerners and the third is from an extremely conservative area of Ohio, which happens to be south of the Mason/Dixon Line.
Are they prejudice against blacks in general and Obama in particular? Either the last 3 years have been because of their prejudice or they don’t care about the American people in general or doing their job which is to do the best for America.
I will immediately grasp your rss feed as I can not to find your email subscription hyperlink or newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please permit me realize so that I could subscribe. Thanks.