Monday, November 17, 2008

Debt is poverty! Alan Maki is right.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008114616/prepare-great-battle-2009#comment-9452

Before I go any further, I want to say something to my progressive friends on the left, and those more liberal than left, who were so adamant that we should all fall in line and give our uncritical support to Obama; and then go on to say in the face of Obama lining up what is obviously a pro-war, anti-democratic, anti-labor cabinet completely complicit in the repressive measures we have seen ranging from taking away signs from those attending Obama campaign rallies saying, “End the wars now!” to “We want health care not war fare; single-payer universal health care now” to remaining silent as black-suited police riot squads attacked people peacefully demonstrating their concerns during both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions:

Where are you now when things like this are being published? What has happened to your voices now that you know the economic facts were intentionally skewed and hidden from the American people and we were lied to about the economy by Obama and the Democrats the same way Bush lied about the wars? You must take us all for complete fools when you sing “Give Obama a chance.” What has happened to the great progressive sea-change of epic historical proportions? Where is that fight-back you promised? What has happened to the struggle for peace and social and economic justice you promised to participate in “after Obama gets elected?”

Where are your voices in response to these kinds of things being dished out not by the day, but by the minute from those who will do and say anything to save the Democratic Party from a real working class led challenge.

In not responding to these pieces you obviously have given up any hope for real progressive reforms like single-payer universal health care.

You wrote so eloquently and passionately condemning those of us who wanted no part of your Obama campaign; now you remain silent as these capitalist sooth-Sayers ply their trade, again, under the guise of “liberalism,” “progressivism” and even “socialism.”

Where are the Tom Hayden’s, the Carl Davidson’s the Eric Mann’s now that their voices are really needed in defense of working class interests. Where is that big-mouth labor leader Leo Gerard who boasted that he got ten-thousand steel workers out for Obama. We know where Ron
Gettelfinger is, holding up the dumb donkey’s tail begging for the sparrows to leave something behind for auto workers.

Just like these people always do, talk big and run for cover when their voices are needed.

Just a few days ago Leo Gerard wrote to Obama, “We are with you.” What did Leo Gerard mean, that he was with Obama in driving down the standard of living for the entire working class because if Obama gets away with these trillion dollar schemes, working people in the United States will be no better off than any poverty wracked country in Asia, Africa or Latin America.

DEBT IS POVERTY!

After I posted the response to this guy (see very bottom), I started thinking and I couldn’t help but add this:

By Alan Maki | November 17th, 2008 - 1:25pm GMT

You know, you people who boosted Obama act like you didn't know how bad the economy was or where it was headed.

If you really didn't know, why should anyone take your advice now?

The capitalists have become rich by creating all these problems as a result of stealing the wealth created by the working class… leaving working people with nothing but poverty and a mess to clean up.

And now you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that we should give up our future, the future's of our children and probably our great grand children to save this rotten capitalist system.

Barack Obama should have considered being more honest with the American people with where this economy was at while campaigning.

On numerous occasions he was asked how he was going to pay for that pitiful little social programs he advocated with the economy going belly-up.

At no time did Obama nor any of you who so enthusiastically supported him bother to inform the American people how bad the economy was... instead, you chose to plug along talking about what a great progressive "sea-change" was at hand.

And now we find that the only thing Obama is going to do is try to save this rotten capitalist system.

It looks to me like you and Obama have used up whatever goodwill and trust you gained by deceiving the American people as you have.

If Obama did not know the seriousness of the problems he should resign right now because he obviously isn't going to know what to do as far as solving the problems in the interest of working people he claimed to represent.

The Great Battle of 2009


Campaign for America’s Future STAFF

By Bernie Horn

November 16th, 2008 - 11:13pm ET

What will be the top priority for the Obama administration at the beginning of 2009? Enacting health care for all? Pursuing energy independence? Rewriting NAFTA?

None of those (I’m sorry to report).

The great opening battle—the one we absolutely have to win—is enactment of an economic recovery program of unprecedented size and scope. Without this, our economy will fall into a deep recession, putting all of our progressive goals in serious jeopardy.

This week's lame-duck Congress will do little or nothing to address the problem. January will find us facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Unemployment, foreclosures and bank failures are already going through the roof. The stock market, home values and consumer confidence are already going through the floor. And things will get worse.

Here’s the politically painful truth: The only way to save our economy is to commence a massive increase in federal spending—requiring as much as $1 trillion in deficit spending over the next two years.

Leading economists like Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker—and even the great majority of economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal—know that economic recovery will be expensive. But Americans don’t even know this issue is coming because it went unmentioned during the election campaign. That’s a political problem because deficit spending is widely unpopular.

Americans assume that deficits are bad and balanced budgets are good. One post-election poll found that 61 percent say “reducing the federal budget deficit” should be a “top priority” for the new president, and another 31 percent say it should be “important.” But in a severe recession, that’s bad economic policy. In fact, trying to balance the budget during a recession is the recipe for depression—it was Herbert Hoover’s recipe, to be precise.

Put in the context of economic recovery, Americans remain sharply divided about federal spending. A post-election poll sponsored by Campaign for America’s Future asked voters if they were “more worried that we will fail to make the investments we need to create jobs and strengthen the economy” or “more worried that we will go too far in increasing government spending and will end up raising taxes to pay for it.” The first statement won agreement from 49 percent; 48 percent agreed with the second. So progressives have work to do.

How do we begin to prepare Americans to support us in the coming battle?

First, keep up a steady drumbeat for an Obama “economic recovery program.” The same CAF poll found that most voters support the general idea.

Second, explain that the recovery program will help “make health insurance affordable and accessible to all Americans,” “end dependence on foreign oil,” and “make job-creating investments in America’s aging roads and transportation systems”—specific goals that are widely popular.

Third, don’t accept the argument that our economic recovery plan is too costly. Even if we spend $500 billion per year, it will still be far less than the cost of letting the U.S. economy plummet into a years-long, severe recession.

Finally, explain to people worried about the politics that while “deficit spending” is unpopular, it’s not a make-or-break voting issue. Voters didn’t punish Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush for their massive deficit spending, and voters didn’t reward Al Gore for the Clinton-Gore Administration’s success in balancing the federal budget.

Bottom line: Barack Obama needs your help. If progressives spend the next nine weeks building support for a robust economic recovery plan, the next president will have a much easier time enacting his top priority legislation.

Tomorrow, the Campaign for America's Future will kick off the conversation with a conference on "Real Investment in America" at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. For more about economic recovery and public investments, see our new Institute for America's Future economy webpage.


The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the recent book, Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People.

By Alan Maki | November 17th, 2008 - 12:46pm GMT

You write:

"Here’s the politically painful truth: The only way to save our economy is to commence a massive increase in federal spending—requiring as much as $1 trillion in deficit spending over the next two years."

First of all federal spending on "bailouts" to Wall Street bankers, coupon clippers and the Big Three is only going to make matters worse.

Who do you propose giving this government dole to?

Do you read the newspapers?

Today the headlines blare out at us:

"This is not your 'garden variety' downturn."

We are in the throes of a classic capitalist depression and "overproduction" is the culprit. This means economic depression has struck because workers cannot purchase back what they have produced because they have no purchasing power.

If you deny this is the case, then prove it.

Where are your proposed trillions of dollars going to come from?

Where are those trillions of dollars going to go?

You are assuming, like Barack Obama, that an economic philosophy has failed when it is the capitalist economic system that has failed.

Getting a trillion dollars (your figure) into the hands of working people to spend will require tax-payers putting up well over 6 trillion dollars because Wall Street coupon clippers skim the cream right off the top everytime this is tried.

Spending in this senseless way pushed the U.S. economy to the verge of a never-ending depression just before World War Two began. If not for the buildup to war we would still be mired in an economic depression and poverty just like most of the rest of the world.

And now you are proposing the exact same failed policy, eighty years later.

We need massive redistribution of wealth in this country and we need it fast. This is the only thing that is going to prevent massive human misery.

Rather than spending enormous sums as you propose... Obama should be looking at doing just the opposite of your "maximum deficit spending."

The first thing should be a drastic increase in the minimum wage to a real living wage. Raise the minimum wage so high it makes these Wall Street pigs squeal.

Raise Social Security three-fold to where it should be... we can pay this fund back as we reclaim our stolen wealth that has found its way into bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.

Implement socialized health care; forget about all other health care reforms... this puts trillions of dollars into the hands of working people almost overnite... real purchasing power.

Tax the hell out of business and let them cry.

In combination, begin the most massive infrastructure maintainance and rebuilding in world history... do it through the federal government public works program by-passing the private contractors who have been feeding at the public trough just like the Wall Street bankers and the greedy military-financial-industrial complex.

This is where the remaining "bailout" funds should be invested, in your proposed public works projects.

An emergency measure: Forgive all student debt... again, this frees up billions without having to go to the tax-payers.

We need to do everything possible to undermine the capitalist economy including letting the banks fail and pave the way for socialism so that we never again end up with this kind of mess.

Two massive capitalist depressions in the 1800's; one big one in the 1900's; now the grand-daddy of them all and you want to shore up a system that has been breeding this kind of massive human misery? And we haven't even considered the long-term, never-ending poverty of most of the rest of the world!

Stop these senseless wars for oil and dope and invest those funds in the kinds of social programs required to provide working people with the kind of decent life they are entitled to for having created such tremendous wealth now being squandered by a bunch of dumb clucks and being turned over to another bunch of dumb donkeys.

Forget about capitalist economics, forget about "free enterprise;" just do what is required for working people to live decent lives free from poverty for a change.

Give socialism the chance to see what it can do; capitalism has failed.

Alan L. Maki

58891 County Road 13

Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432

Cell phone: 651-587-5541

E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

Check out my blog:

Thoughts From Podunk

http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Thursday, November 13, 2008

World leaders to gather on crisis, no quick fix seen

Bush is going to lie and tell more lies right to the end. Does anyone really believe this:

Bush, in a spirited defense of the free-enterprise system, pushed back against the idea that more government regulation was the answer to current woes.

"It would be a terrible mistake to allow a few months of crisis to undermine 60 years of success," he said in New York.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081113/bs_nm/us_financial_summit

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A bid by global leaders to push forward plans this weekend to erect a firewall against future financial crises like the one now threatening the world economy will quickly run into tough political realities that will limit progress.

Leaders from the Group of 20 advanced and emerging economies are being hosted on Friday night and on Saturday by a U.S. president who will be out of office in little more than two months and who is under pressure from Europe to agree to stricter market regulation than he prefers.

Such key questions of global finance were once largely the domain of the rich Group of Seven nations, but the doors this time are thrown open more widely in recognition of the growing clout of other nations.

However, bringing emerging-market members into the gathering carries its own tension as wealthy nations seek a new role for institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which is viewed with reservation by many developing nations.

But as the world sinks into a recessionary funk, political chiefs are under strain to show they at least know why fortunes turned so severely and what must be done to ease the worst financial crisis since the 1930s Great Depression.

U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday sought to keep a focus on measures for spurring growth rather than scrutiny of inadequacies in U.S. regulation, which European officials see as a root cause of crisis.

"While reforms in the financial sector are essential, the long-term solution to today's problems is sustained economic growth," Bush told a New York audience. He said critics were "equating the free enterprise system with greed, exploitation and failure" and objected to it.

"The answer is not to try to reinvent that system," Bush said. "It is to fix the problems we face, make the reforms we need, and move forward with the free-market principles that have delivered prosperity and hope to people around the world."

AIRING DIFFERENCES

Improving regulation is a broad topic for G20 leaders but there are long-standing differences, especially between European officials and the Bush administration, about the degree to which markets should be subject to stiffer rules.

German officials said before the meeting that it will discuss "a new balance between market and state," possibly a more ambitious aim than the Bush administration favors.

At a briefing on Wednesday, the White House's deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, Dan Price, said market turmoil shows the need for "some changes in today's regulatory structures" but within limits.

"We are unaware of any support from any quarter for empowering a single global authority to regulate the world's financial markets," Price said, without referencing where he had heard such a suggestion made.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy sounded an aggressive note on Thursday as he prepared to head for the summit.

"I am leaving for Washington to explain that the dollar, which after the Second World War was the only currency in the world, can no longer claim to be the only currency in the world," he said. "What was true in 1945 cannot be true today."

Bush, in a spirited defense of the free-enterprise system, pushed back against the idea that more government regulation was the answer to current woes.

"It would be a terrible mistake to allow a few months of crisis to undermine 60 years of success," he said in New York.

GLOBAL POWER SHIFT

Among other issues for the participants is how to give key emerging market countries, especially China, which is now the world's fourth-largest economy, more say in global councils.

The so-called BRIC countries -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- said at a meeting in Sao Paulo, Brazil, last weekend that they wanted more say in global policy-making to supplant the dominance of the Group of Seven industrial countries.

"The G7 can no longer be a little club on its own," said South Africa's finance minister, Trevor Manuel. Manuel was scheduled to attend the Washington summit as well.

This weekend's summit is intended as the first in a series, with another possible in next year's first quarter. It will produce a communique indicating some agreement on causes of the current crisis and possibly some specific actions for countries to apply within their national economies.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown claimed on Wednesday there was growing support for increased fiscal measures globally to help weather the crisis and indicated he might press that theme at the summit.

Another area scheduled for discussion is how to step up the role of global institutions, especially the IMF, as monitors of financial system activity and lenders to nations when they get in trouble.

But countries from Asia to Latin American countries have some bitter memories of when the IMF imposed stiff conditions on receiving its help. It is unclear whether countries that have large shares, or quotas, in IMF governance will yield to let emerging-market countries take a bigger stake.

Canada's finance minister, Jim Flaherty, wrote in the Financial Times on Thursday that "dynamic new economic players ... must be full participants at the global table" and said Canada had given up some of its quota share.

Flaherty left unsaid that many regard European countries as holding a greater IMF quota share than they merit, and none has expressed a willingness to let their power wane.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Bailing out the Big Three

For the life of me I can't understand why the United States government would want to bail out General Motors, Ford or Chrysler. In a few months the United States government will be able to buy up the entire auto industry as these corporate stocks plunge to $1.00 or less per share.

Why should tax-payers bail out the Big Three when we can own them for a real bargain and end up with the complete control of the wealth that comes with ownership?

Why should we tax-payers subsidize when government ownership is the real solution.

What do we need these thieving capitalists for? They certainly don't work.

Workers create all the wealth. Why should tax payers bail these corporations out and they get all the profits?

Monday, November 10, 2008

Election results

I wasn't very thrilled with our choices at the polls. I was glad to see Barack win but it looks to me like he isn't much different from the rest. The best part of the campaign was finding out about Rev. Wright. He made more sense than all the politicians put together. Sometimes I go to the casino in Windsor and I hear people talking about the New Democratic Party. Labor is a powerful force in Windsor it seems. The Canadians have health care and I never hear complaints. We could use a similar system. Maybe Congressman Conyers will make some improvements with his single-payer universal healthcare. Lots of my friends are for it. I don't understand why more politicians don't support H.R. 676. That is about all I have to write for my first blog.