Start the conversation
Comment on This Story
Or to contact Money Morning Customer Service, click here.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
We talked yesterday (Thursday) about the debt ceiling debate, and how the GOP is making the most of its opportunity to affect the economy in the run up to the 2012 election.
Well, the Democrats are doing the same thing – except whereas the Republicans are looking to make long-term fixes at the expense of short-term growth, Democrats are doing the opposite.
I'll show you what I mean.
As I said in my previous piece on GOP economic strategy, I'm a firm believer in Public Choice Theory.
And in this battle the Democrats would like to see rapid growth between now and November 2012. More than anything, they want to see unemployment come down sharply.
They don't care so much about whether inflation is ticking up a bit, or whether an over-large budget deficit may cause trouble in the future. If they get elected in November 2012, they can try to sort out problems then – particularly if they can recapture the House of Representatives.
Furthermore, the wish to get U.S. President Barack Obama re-elected is not confined to the president and his entourage. If Obama were to lose in 2012, after presiding for four years over a lackluster economy with high unemployment, this would seriously damage the Democrat brand.
The Republicans would very likely preside over a recovering economy and be re-elected in 2016 on the strength of it. That would give them eight years to write the history of the preceding period and cast President Obama's Democratic policies as a failure. After all, President Carter would be remembered much more fondly if he had been re-elected in 1980 and had presided over the 1982-84 economic upturn; conversely FDR would be remembered as a one-term president who failed to cure a deep depression if he had lost in 1936.
Regardless of their ideological preferences, Democrats are thus very keen to see policies enacted now that will produce a more vigorous recovery in 2012 and lower unemployment.
They don't much care if those policies cause inflation to surge, or leave the incoming president in 2013 with a dangerous budget position. If President Obama is re-elected, Democrats will have the first two years of his second term to take painful actions to control inflation and rein in the budget deficit. Even if those policies don't work exceptionally well, the Democrats would still have a chance in 2016 to blame any failures on the outgoing President Obama and campaign independently of his administration.
So for Democrats – for public choice theory reasons – short-term benefits from policies implemented now are the only benefits that matter.
In the current negotiations, the Democrats have more power. While their majority in the Senate is now too small to pass major legislation (which requires 60 Senators to the Democrats' current effective total of 53), the Democrats still set the agenda and can both block Republican proposals and advance their own. Add to that the enormous advantage of the Presidency's "bully pulpit" and control of the executive branch, and you'd expect them to end up with most of the marbles at the end of this round of the game.
The Democrats don't want spending cuts for two reasons.
First, their ideological preference is for larger government. The government workforce has declined by over 1 million since April 2009, offsetting by more than one-third of the rise in private sector employment.
Secondly, Democrats – being mostly Keynesians – believe that spending cuts have had a depressing effect on the economy as a whole, keeping the unemployment rate unexpectedly high. (Republican supply-siders would suggest that the government employees have to be paid for somehow, and that reducing government redundancies frees up money that often ends up in the hands of small businesses, boosting private hiring.)
To the extent that tax increases would dampen economic growth, the Democrats don't want those, either. For example, temporary cuts in payroll taxes are attractive because they could stimulate economic activity among the modestly paid and would almost certainly stimulate middle-class spending.
On the other hand, tax increases in the longer term – those that would take effect in 2013 or later – are favored, as they would push any pain (and much of the unpopularity) into the next administration while still encouraging the bond markets to believe that the deficit is being cut.
Higher tax increases on the wealthy and on oil companies also are welcome. Democrats think the income of the wealthy tends not to be spent, resting useless in a bank. They don't believe tax rates have a supply-side effect.
On monetary policy, the Democrats want more stimulus. They believe low interest rates stimulate economic activity and they want to make sure that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke buys enough Treasury bonds to prevent the budget deficit from becoming a problem before November 2012.
Democrats don't worry much about inflation. They believe it will arrive fairly gradually, and can be prevented from becoming a big worry before November 2012 with creative accounting at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The bottom line is that the Democrats are likely to get more of what they want in the current negotiations, but they are taking a big gamble.
If Bernanke's monetary stimulus fails to create new jobs (and both theory and evidence suggest very low interest rates encourage companies to substitute capital for labor, thereby destroying jobs), then unemployment may still be high in November 2012, with inflation increasingly a problem.
That would make it very difficult for President Obama to be re-elected – in which case the Democrats' only hope (but it's a substantial one) would be that the eccentric Republican primary system produces a flawed opponent.
News and Related Story Links:
- Money Morning:
America for Sale: Liquidate Assets to Avert Debt Ceiling Crisis, Republicans Say - Money Morning:
GOP Spending Cuts Fuel Readers' Federal Debt Debate - Money Morning:
Obama Deficit Plan Sets Stage for Capitol Hill Budget Debate - Money Morning:
Even on the Brink of a Government Shutdown, Congress Still Doesn't Get it
Are you kidding. Your premise that " After all, President Carter would be remembered much more fondly if he had been re-elected in 1980 and had presided over the 1982-84 economic upturn"; would be laughible if it wasn't so sad. If Carter had been re-elected there would have been no recovery from '82 -'84. Recovery doesn't just happen – measures must be put in place. Carter never had a clue and would have just continued to stumble along, as our current occupant of the White House has, and all at the expense of the American taxpayer. As the President, Ronald Reagan, who helped put those measures in place, back in '82 often stated, "government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem". The economy will never recover or flourish, as long as Big Government gets in the way. The 2 mix about as well as oil and water.
Amazing,
The more we see of government, the more we see how the system is broken, no better way to say it, the two party system is no longer functional. With the obvious issues of a bankrupt country, what is the anwer? The only answer that comes to mind is to dump the whole system and start over for we cannot expect change when a system is totally bankrupt with no way to reverse this situation with the out of control spending and waste we have all seen since the beginning of federal reserve, all we have seen is waste upon waste in government. Sadly, things will get worse no matter if debt ceiling is raised or not, this is a no win situation, and guess who loses most, we do, the citizens, and gov. could care less for it is all about power and greed in a two party system.
What Bob Krause said!!!!
Great minds think alike…..
Just got finished posting on the WaPo site (which is probably going to have a server meltdown!) that the GOP's seeming intransigence is the direct result of a President who thinks he's running a daycare center, not the world's largest economy. With: no deal on the table (IN WRITING, please), the same Party aparatchiks showing up in front of the cameras to say "we're running out of time," plus the states of Minnesota & NC New Majorities getting results just this week overriding their Democrat governors' ignorance of the 2010 election, they run a serious risk of now pulling-down the whole Party in 2012.
Your analogy of how Carter is remembered drives the point home in a way I couldn't articulate, so keep up the great insights.
big government might not solve the problems completely but neither will the privatization of government. I agree that the two-party system is no longer functional as we know it and understand it, but at the moment until enough people see that we need to replace the entire system the two-party system is all we have.
We know what in not raising the debt limit will do, it will cause run away inflation, panic on Wall Street, panic on Main Street, and extreme pain and suffering the most honorable in our society the elderly and the disabled.
On the subject of inflation, inflation is never a good thing like some economists and most Republicans think it is. we've had 30 years of inflation on the price side and stagnation on the wage side. Any of you think that that's okay do any of you think that's fair to any of you enjoy the fact that the majority of people working for a living have lost quality of life while resource holders and those at the top of the economic food chain have enjoyed consistent wage inflation while the rest of have not?
You folks need to think hard before you think that inflation under any circumstance is a good thing. We've all been taught to think that deflation is bad, but if wages stabilize and companies have to lower prices to attract consumers to start buying and we automatically have an increase in quality of life that will jumpstart the economy and restart the whole thing running again at a breakneck pace.
Think of inflation is making money out of thin air, there is no reason for, and it cannot be justified under any circumstance as being beneficial for a stable healthy economy designed to benefit all.
there is some serious waste in government but it's not what a lot of you think. The past couple months it seems like we wasted a lot of money paying virtually every politician in the House of Representatives and the Senate. They've done a lot of talking and done a lot of arguing that they haven't done a whole hell of a lot to benefit anybody but themselves. They used a lot of psychological operations techniques to put a lot of people in fear, they've done even more to threaten those whom they see as useless to society, the ones on Social Security and disability Medicare and Medicaid and welfare, and that would really care if they disappeared or not.
I understand that a lot of people gaming the system and that's not a good thing it's not healthy to and economy either. But let's not stop one person who really needs those essential social safety net programs from getting what they need so that we can spike those who want to game the system. The needs of the few must always equal the needs of the many or we slip down a moral slippery slope that we may never crawl back up again. We spent a long time developing a society, a fair society many of us could be proud of, if not let it slip away back into some feudalistic society that thinks slavery is okay again.
Seems like, all over the place in this comment if you say that you might be right that's because all the stuff is connected together. the social safety net, taxes, GDP, inflation, the debt ceiling, an ineffective government, a wasteful government, all this is connected together. And I don't just blame government I blame an increasingly apathetic populace who just doesn't seem to give a damn about anything but themselves. Look at yourself and ask yourself if you're the type of neighbor you would want to live around any of you would feel comfortable approaching yourself to ask for help without being put down slandered and spit upon.
I said my piece on done y'all have a good morning.
To Amazing: You said it so accurate and there is nothing one could add. Your assessement is correct and there is no way out. With 30 Millions illegals in the US, 40% of the population depending on Government assistance. The Reoublicans will have not much of a chance. All these people who had a free hand out for so long will not agree to a budget cut. They want more and more of the wage earners money. They will vote for those who promise them continuation of this mess. they do not care what will happen in the future, they are only interested in living free.
Nothing will ever get fixed until we get rid of the lobbying and campaign donation system we currently have in place. Each party gets into power and pays off their constituencies. The American people get SCREWED!!!! The Republicans were in total control until 2006 and paid off Wall Street and Oil Companies. The Democrats got in and paid off Unions, environmentalists and lawyers (no tort reform in Obamacare). Until our lobbying and campaign system is designated for what it is (CRIMINAL BRIBERY) and our politicians GO TO JAIL (as any other ciitizen engaging in similar behaviour does) then NOTHING will be fixed. When the politicians who make the laws in this country aren't subject to them (Obamacare anyone – no politician goes out and get medical care under it but they make the rest of us guinea pigs for this), then they are above the law which was not the intent of our founders. Maybe we would not have had the subprime implosion if Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank had read the 1999 and 2003 articles from the NY Times warning them (BY NAME) that if they didn't regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac there would be a subprime implosion. If the NY Times saw this in 1999 and 2003 and Ron Paul saw it in 2004 and tried to regulate these 2 entities, then why didn't Dodd, Frank and Obama? Oh yeah, because they were #1, 3 and 9 on the list of accepting lobbying money from these groups. Obama got 100 MILLION dollars from Franklin Raines (Fannie Mae CEO and his top contributor) to run for President last time. He then voted not to regulate them and then voted to bail them out with our taxpayer money. Now he wants to raise taxes on the American public to pay for his failure to do anything about this mess. It is scary to think who he will be beholden to and what policies he will enact if he gets the 1 BILLION dollars he is trying to get for his re-election. A thorough investigation of his major contributors will show what policy will be next time. The Republicans are no better. When the Supreme Court didn't put a limit on campaign donations they opened the doors to influence peddling by companies and lobbyists and criminal bribery on the part of politicians. This behaviour would get any normal US citizen JAIL TIME but our politicians are above the law and never worry about paying the piper for their behaviour.
Greetings,
It is time to let those hard working politicians show how much they love their country. Put them on the front lines of the nearest war zone with a rifle, so they can protect the country. At the moment, I believe that would be on the border of Mexico. No doubt, a few of them would get killed, but no matter, they can be easily replaced with smarter idiots. Let God sort them out. No, he would not dirty his hands.
Just my two cents worth which would not buy a piece of bubble gum !!!!!
Take care,
Mike
Bob Krause: Don't forget who appointed Paul Volcker and who got the benefit of his hard-nosed economics.
And Free: Don't just throw up your hands. "We" is the government. It's our handiwork.
Hey, Free, what are you wanting? Do you want a one party system, a dictatorship, or a king? We have the best system of government in the world if it is made to work right. What we need is elected officials who have the interests of "the people" (the common citizen) at heart instead of special interest groups and their "fat cat" cronies. The only way to bring back government "by the people, by the people" is to outlaw political contributions by corporations and outlaw lobbing by corporations and "for profit" special interest groups. Keep political contributions from individuals and charitable organizations, but get "big business" out of government. Make it truly government "by the people for the people".
But, wait a minute, How will Senators and Congressmen fund their campaigns? Well, there is something wrong with a system that allows an elected official to spend millions of dollars to win a political office that pays $300,000 to $400,000 a year. If they were truly interested in government office to SERVE their country and their constituents they would not solicit or accept "special" interest money which obligates them to bow to "special" interest group whims. Only then will they realize they were elected to serve the people of the United States of America and not just the rich or their "Party" only. In other words, do what is right for the COUNTRY instead of their "PARTY" or "SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS". Let's bring government back to THE PEOPLE!
This article is about political motives as compared to statesmanlike motives with long term interest at the center. Politics is reprehensible because it about your "club" and not the interest of the nation. Statesmen cannot get elected because the tipping point has long been reached where most look to government for solutions via political action for short term group benefits. Who was the Scottish economist who said "Democracy will last until the electorate discover the keys to the treasury". Every subgroup now smells the money and sees the keys in political action.
The major flaw in the American economy is not necessarily government spending or tax cuts. It is the loss of jobs to outsourcing and automation. Every time that you see reports on the productivity increase of workers, you know someone has lost their job or their wages have been reduced. With current global trade practices, the American worker is on a race to the bottom in wages. Around 40% of U.S. investment money goes to overseas concerns, that is where we are creating the jobs and destroying ours. In the meantime we are slowly bleeding ourselves by importing vast amounts of oil which is largely a result of our selfish inefficiency as a country. As a former petroleum engineer, I can assure you that we cannot drill our way out of that problem except partially through a conversion to natural gas.
As some ideas for solutions, let me propose: 1. vastly increasing the efficiency of or vehicular fleets. Saved money would be spent on consumer goods increasing that sector and decreasing our foreign payments. 2. 50% capital gains tax on profits derived from foreign investments, which would encourage our "job creators" to move back home. 3. Import tarriffs on all imported goods that do not meet our national wage and environmental standards. 4. An end to tax breaks for companies moving overseas and an end to tax haven status for companies that profit overseas. 5. The richest 400 Americans pay around 16% tax rate because of capital gains and dividends, while simultaneously influencing the markets in their favor. Tax all capital gains as regular income. why should someone pay half the tax rate for sittin on their ass as a hardworking electrician out in the sun 12 hours a day. Talk about government welfare programs! 6. Lower the corporate tax rate to 20%, close all tax loopholes, and make up any difference from taxing shareholders (which probably will be zero, since most major corporations avoid taxes or get refunds now).
Jobs are created in this country when individuals invest their own money in their own business or when venture capitalists invest money in a business. Busying stock does not create any or very few jobs, so quit calling stock investors "job creators". By the way, the top 10% of wealthholders in the U.S. hold 81% of the stock, so the other 90% are not benefiting much from the capital gains tax welfare windfall, plus if people of all ideologies do not do their best to repatriate our jobs, then the stock market is doomed anyway.
Summary: decrease imports, move jobs home. country does better.
Great posts kelly and Bob Krause
I have 'two words" that'll fix our government…..TERM LIMITS. We don't need career politicians who get reelected over and over cause they raise more money than their opponents. Our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson I believe, said politicians are servants of the people and should serve the public good for an amount of time. Then return to the public life professions when they got elected. We don't need career politicians because after a time they get this power hungry complex and start to serve their own agendas and not the peoples. The congress voted term limits for the presidency, now we the people need to set limits on congress. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!
Like your analysis better this morning Martin. You have at least cast the liberals and deems in the correct ideological and political light. What's missing is only that they have only failed policies to achieve their desired aims and therefore will have to resort to lying and blaming to convince the sheep that what isn't so is or that it's the republican' fault should the current economy be the same. Thus your comment about who the Republicans select is cogent. It should be Paul Ryan or John Kasich who could dance circles around the boob Obama on economics and have at least as much experience on everything else as Obama had in 2008. Let Obama try to run on his accomplishments.
this is hogwash. "The Democrats dont want spending cuts." On the contrary, Obama has offered deep spending cuts as part of a deal, including cuts in entitlement programs. He is just insisting that pain be shared widely, including by the more affluent, and that unjustifiable tax subsidies (such as tax credit for ethanol) be ended. "The Democrats want larger government." Also hogwash. The Democrats favor spending cuts plus some higher revenues. The Ryan budget plan calls for spending cuts and further tax cuts — ie, more deficits as far as the eye can see.
I have a solution I believe would get wide spread support in Congress because it is fair to the politicians. If we cut the budget 40% across the board, including Congress and gov't employees, the budget is balanced. If gov't is too big cut it.
Some observations – (1) Obama wants to repeal the "Bush" tax cuts – but only partially, for those making over $200,000/250,000 per year. If the Clinton rates were so great, then lets repeal the "Bush" tax cuts for everyone. The pain of higher taxes should be shared as much as I do not like it. (2) "Special Interests" depends on whose ox is being gored. For Democrats "special interests" are the oil companies and big business in general. For Republicans "special interests" are labor unions, Plaintiff's lawyers and conservationists among others. In short, the other side. (3) Finally, spending cuts are always for programs that do not affect you. Show me a doctor or senior citizen that is for cutting Medicare – or a farmer that qualifies for subsidies that wants to cut farm programs or … the list goes on. People want the cuts to someon else's program not their own. My suggestion is that we all look at what we benefit from government programs (and we all do) and suggest cuts to our own programs.
As far as the principle of the thing goes, Obama offered the Republicans lots of what they wanted and they gave nothing back in return. That is not "negotiation", regardless of your own opinion of what the best thing to do is. As for taxes: Maybe we don't have to raise base rates, but many Republicans won't even agree to getting rid of some loopholes and inappropriate distinctions. For example, I wince every time I hear conservatives gripe about 47% of filers don't pay Federal income tax. First, that's misleading becasue they do pay FICA which is still a "tax" regardless of what happens later (and people get less direct benefits from other kinds too.) Second, the biggest reducer of income taxes for most of the middle class is the child tax credit, typ. $1,000 per child for joint income up to 80-100k. That is a big break for them and big burden on other people with fewer or no dependents – and an idea pushed most strongly by Republicans. Why, in addition to public education which I can accept and desperation measures to feed the hungry which I can accept, am I subsidizing the children of people earning more than me?
The second boondoggle is the capital gains tax rate being lower than for earned income. Even Robert Samuelson admitted there is no real excuse for that, it is just a political payoff to the lobby that wants the break. After all, most of that is about trading of assets and we could (and should) separately and specifically reward genuine startup capital.
BTW there should be no need for Obama or anyone to offer a "deal" because the DL can and has been raised many times in "clean bills" just to do that – Republicans voted for them all during Bush's presidency, which shows a partisan political slant to suddenly thinking this extra bit matters more than all the run-up during the last decade. Also, Obama is not trying to prematurely end the BCT extension, he is proposing higher rates for some starting 2013. But again, maybe we can just close some loopholes but the hardest-line Republicans won't even agree to that much. They're in the pocket of the deranged Grover Norquist. REM too that Reagan agreed to raise taxes again later, by today's teaparty "standards" he'd be a RINO.
As commenters note, one reason governance is so bad is the lobby money coming into the elections – and it wouldn't have been so bad if Republican-appointed Judges like Roberts hadn't favored Citizens United after propaganda from flacks like George Will who make the implausible argument that money is "speech" despite pretensions of strict construction (part of SC is adherence to original definitions …)
Finally, those of you here castigating Democrats for not really caring about deficits and thinking the Republicans do: no. The Ryan plan doesn't cut the deficit for years anyway because he and crew would rather enact further tax cuts (weren't the existing Bush cuts, that failed to stimulate the economy, enough of a try?) So that's not even what they care about.
Nothing short of a miracle or massive voter fraud will lead to an Obama victory in 2012.
Geoffrey Hoffman, please use smaller words. You are making me feel stupid. Im not sure who's side you are on. Is it good or bad to be a aparatchiks? What does intransigence mean? Is it good or bad? :-)
David Hume's thinking is as up-to-date now as it was in his day. "Logic," he said," is the the slave of passion." Democrats and Republicans each have their passions, including yourself. Your passions tend to lean to one party and so your logic may not be as objective as it ought to be. Your presentation would be far more persuasive if you included charts and graphs that show the sources of our debt, and when those sources kicked in (with timelines) and under what circumstances. Examples might include wars and legislation that were unfunded, as well as the impact of revenue loss due to unemployment. Such an analysis would lead to knowledge we can act on. Most of what I hear from people of all persuasions is ideology not supported by facts. Give us facts! Anything else comes under the heading of prophecy…like trying to predict the end of the world.
A view from outside. I studied politics in the late 1960's and the American political system is fascinating. I live in the UK, we do not even have a written constitution, and our political system evolved over centuries with new parts co-existing with old tradition.
At least the American founding fathers thought about the separation of powers and designed a system in its entirety. But they seemed to think that lack of revenue raising powers would limit the size and power of government. They were wrong. They might have put in the constitution a requirement that each President must balance the government's books: i.e. spending = tax raised over his 4 year term or be disbarred from re-election. Or something to that effect.
The mission creep of all mission creeps occurred since, with all parts of government conspiring to boost their influence over the economy. This does not seem to be illegal. So, unfortunately, it is difficult to see how it can be reversed since every Congressman and the President is interestied in keeping himself in an increasingly influential job. Unless you can get a Presidential candidate who proposes to insert that amendment into your constitution and abide by it.
Others have already referred to the flaw in unversal suffrage. Claimants have the same vote as taxpayers about how the taxpayer's money is to be spent. Democracy is not the good idea it is supposed to be – for that reason. In many successful voluntary organizations votes are allocated in proportion to the money a person has at stake. That is generally regarded as fair and it may replace the one man = one vote idea this century.
As overseas observer I feel it strange how somebody would side with the GOP in this particular discussion, because it is only few years ago that the finances of the US was well ordered with an outlook to eliminate US debt. It has been GOP policies which have changed the course.
Unfortunately everybody continues to regurgitate comments about problems. You see few suggestions about solutions….
Consider the Fair Tax. Abolish the IRS and the capability of politicians to reward their contributors and supporters. Institute the retail sales tax and almost double the tax base (compared to the income tax). With the retail sales tax in place, jobs could come flooding back from overseas. Go to fairtax.org H.R. #25 and S. 13.
This proposal places the decisions about the size of the federal government in the hands of the people, not the politicians. Each person can choose how much he pays for government. What a novel idea!
It won't be easy to get it done…but it is a way out for this country. It wasn't easy to win our independence in 1776 either.
Love the idea of term limits. Way overdue.
Amend constitution to include balanced budget amendment AND a TABOR as well as making Congress subject to all laws passed. Then the interests of management (using the term loosely) will be aligned with shareholders.
FLAT tax and end all deductions except personal/family deduction for up to 3 kids.
Tort reform. Simplest way is LOSER PAYS. That's how it works in England. Instant tort reform.
Kelly if you're serious then read a book or go back to school. If not then I don't get the joke.
I think that once you start giving large numbers of people easy handouts on a regular basis it is impossible to stop.
They become dependent on the handouts and do not develop the will or ability to look after themselves. They are like baby birds waiting for food to be put in their mouth. They are helpless and very demanding.
This has happened in most developed countries where everything is done for political gain, regardless of the consequences.
Now there are too many baby birds to feed, and too many politicians offering to feed them in return for votes.
The only battlefield I see is unemployment and no future. All the political crap in the whole world is not going to me pay the bills or secure employment. Obama is offering major cutback on spending and is asking for tax increases on those 200k secured taxpayers.
I did not see improvement with Bush's wealth transfer to the rich …no jobs. I have not seen improvement from Obama's wealth transfer repeated. America does not have an emerging industry to provide tax shelters for the rich and make them money, soooo, there just isn't going to be a reduction in unemployment or increases in tax revenue.
I'll ask you a serious question. Does America provide enough manufacturing for its consumers if we were forced to function in a isolation economy? Does America make for her people food, clothing, fuel and jobs if we could no longer import our goods? We have a useless government, both sides of the isle can't make the simple decision. We blame Obama, but he doesn't make budget decisions or wrong branch of government, the republicans (tea party) want to dissolve even our social security checks, where I have paid almost one hundred thousand dollars. I paid, now at 60, am I going to have to work myself into the grave?
Oh, getting back to unemployment, I managed a group of employees at the Atlanta Assembly Plant for Ford, where we saved Ford, sixteen million in four years, could I find work? Hell no! So I turned back to my skills and found work as an electrician earning seventy thousand (that's sixty thousand less than I earned as a manager). Never was allowed to draw unemployment in Georgia. Sold insurance (in the worst economy america has ever known 2008-2010) to keep a home and food on the table. I am thankful I am resourceful. Did government help me…NO. But it has help some disadvantage sickly children, whom I couldn't insure(insurance companies do not insure the sick). I was on CNN twice. Once explaining how an average family guy lived after Ford. The other time I showed that the sick get no help, even when the sick sell health insurance.
So when politician tell they are helping America, watch out. Both sides need to get a grip in Washington. America is watching and we don't share your opinion on the debt, job creation, how you spend our money and get our children out of harms way…you son of bit@#$es. Ten years of war, are you kidding me?
Martin sounds like a political hack on this one. If the GOP is one-tenth as good at governing as you make them out to be, we'd be nowhere near where we've sunk to as a nation. Your assertions are not backed by any kind of intelligent analysis.
The two parties are like two fighters in a ring. Each wants the prize, can't blame them for that. However, it's naive to think that they are trying to give us the best outcome we want. We are spectators and we are not unanimous in what we want. We set lousy rules for this fight, and we we are getting an irresponsible, ugly fight – in fact neither side can afford to play nice and be responsible. It's a race to the bottom and both parties are equally committed to it. Most dangerous part of this two party game is that the winner gets to share the booty with their supporters. That gets everyone committed, with the hope that one would at least get to keep a piece of the wreckage – like having abortion banned, getting guns banned, banning gay marriage, subsidies for energy businesses, etc.
When the winning party has broad powers to make rules that hurt the losers, the rest is predictable: an ugly, long drawn out civil war between the opposing sides until there's nothing left to fight for. The constitution and bill of rights were supposed to restrain the winners from trampling on the losers, but those have been cleverly breached many years ago and there are no protections left. So, the fight is only going to get uglier and uglier, to get what we want and the power to deny others what we don't want them to have.
Political ideology means nothing at this point, we are all going down; the two parties will make sure of it.
"We have the best government money can buy."
The only way to get elected is to prostitute yourself to those willing to give you money and then you are beholden to them.
Until the the "people" are willing to either provide election finanacing or restrict campaigns to 90 days, then this mess will continue until it self destructs.
The people in power have no interest in changing a system that benefits them.
We need a revolution, maybe like in Egypt, etc.