OK, so we have seen the Republican slash and burn approach, that is costing us essential services for education, firefighting, disability, elderly, sick, reducing us from a civilized nation to a nation resembling third world conditions. And no mention of increasing revenue through restoring tax levels for the ultra-wealthy to pre-Bush levels.
But what would an approach like that of FDR and Harry Truman look like?
Jan Schakowsky Announces New Budget Plan With Focus On Jobs
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, announced on Wednesday that she will introduce a progressive-minded budget outline aimed at putting more than two million people to work.
Titled the “Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act,†the plan would cost $227 billion and would be implemented over two years. It would be financed by separate legislation introduced by Schakowsky called the "Fairness in Taxation Act," which would raise taxes for Americans who earn more than $1 million and $1 billion. It would also eliminate subsidies for big oil companies while closing loopholes for corporations that send American jobs overseas.
The congresswoman said that her plan would create 2.2 million jobs and decrease the unemployment rate by 1.3 percent.
"If we want to create jobs, then create jobs," Schakowsky said in a press release. "I’m not talking about "incentivizing" companies in the hopes they’ll hire someone, or cutting taxes for the so-called job creators who have done nothing of the sort. My plan creates actual new jobs."
Schakowsky’s proposal reads more like a progressive wishlist than legislation likely to be signed into law. But it does provide a template of sorts to help Democrats frame their budget argument as lawmakers enter the high-stakes super committee negotiations.
Under her plan, the following policies would be implemented:
•The School Improvement Corps would create 400,000 construction and 250,000 maintenance jobs by funding positions created by public school districts to do needed school rehabilitation improvements.
•The Park Improvement Corps would create 100,000 jobs for youth between the ages of 16 and 25 through new funding to the Department of the Interior and the USDA Forest Service’s Public Lands Corps Act. Young people would work on conservation projects on public lands including the restoration and rehabilitation of natural, cultural, and historic resources.
•The Student Jobs Corps would create 250,000 more part-time work study jobs for eligible college students through new funding for the Federal Work Study Program.
•The Neighborhood Heroes Corps would hire 300,000 new teachers, 40,000 new police officers and 12,000 new firefighters.
•The Health Corps would hire at least 40,000 health care providers, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, and health care workers to expand access in underserved rural and urban areas.
•The Child Care Corps would create 100,000 jobs in early childhood care and education through additional funding for Early Head Start.
•The Community Corps would hire 750,000 individuals to do needed work in communities, including housing rehab, weatherization, recycling, and rural conservation.
In addition, the bill would give priority to the longterm unemployed -- the so-called "99ers" who have exhausted both their state and federal unemployment benefits. Federally extended unemployment benefits are set to expire this year, even though nearly 14 million Americans remain out of work and it takes the average worker nine months to find a new job.
“The worst deficit this country faces isn’t the budget deficit," Schakowsky said. "It’s the jobs deficit. We need to get our people and our economy moving again.â€
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/jan-schakowsky-jobs-to-restore-american-dream-act_n_923899.html
I also think this outline exemplifies a major difference in thinking about the role of government............it isn't just to stimulate and incentivize business, it is forcing accountability on business.
Two examples of failed incentivizing legislation come to mind:
1. the HOPE act, which incentivized banks to reduce principal balance on homes that were underwater and facing foreclosure. Banks declined the incentives and homeowners weren't helped.
2. Department of Defense's Homeowners Assistance Program, or HAP, a program that reimburses qualifying service members for part of their losses from their home sales, if they don't have funds from a sale to pay off their mortgages. http://www.inman.com/buyers-sellers/columnists/maryumberger/military-families-battle-real-estate-distress (http://www.inman.com/buyers-sellers/columnists/maryumberger/military-families-battle-real-estate-distress)
The idea behind this one was........why would a military person being forced to transfer to a new place of duty have to bear the credit downgrade of a forced short sale or foreclosure due to the real estate bubble bust.
Neither program has worked because banks don't "voluntarily" cooperate, despite the "incentives"
This is where government has the duty to protect consumers from being duped by the banking business, and FORCE banks to play a productive role in rectifying their misdeeds.
And yes, I know Republicans claim we need "small overnment," but really, do they really believe that our complex society can survive the way a primitive society can with "small government"?
So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time.
This deficit thing has become quite a distraction. It is jobs and the economy that should be priority. We enacted some cuts balance that with some revenue enhancement and move on.
QuoteSo, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time.
Then you change (amend) the constitution... you (we) dont just ignore or (get off) the constitution.
I agree BT if we think something needs to be done that does not meet constitutional criteria we have to amend before we do it.
Agreed Jeffrey... in fact I will go a step further. We all agree that the founders were a pretty bright bunch of guys... so bright that even they recognized the need to update and amend the constitution and provided a mechanism to do just that. We have done so in the past... and I would welcome efforts to do so in the future.
"So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time."
Faye, the US Constitution is the guiding document of our way of government. We are a nation of laws and we can't "get off" it.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Bill of Rights in the National ArchivesThe Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people."
So in our modern society, the STATES can take the actions that you suggest. I'll keep the Constitution thank you.
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 11, 2011, 09:52:34 AM
I agree BT if we think something needs to be done that does not meet constitutional criteria we have to amend before we do it.
But who would have thought the Republicans would have made a big stink over the constitution as a huge distraction, at the time we can least afford it? Like NOW. That should have been done in the 50's when we first started dealing with a more complex and prosperous society where a laisez faire approach of "small government" doesn't work anymore.
Quote from: stephendare on August 11, 2011, 10:40:05 AM
Quote from: NotNow on August 11, 2011, 10:35:33 AM
"So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time."
Faye, the US Constitution is the guiding document of our way of government. We are a nation of laws and we can't "get off" it.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Bill of Rights in the National ArchivesThe Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people."
So in our modern society, the STATES can take the actions that you suggest. I'll keep the Constitution thank you.
unless of course it means cancelling the writ of habeus corpus, institution of the doctrine of the Unitary Presidency, and lying to congress about the reasons for going to war, right?
Please. Of all people. Don't pretend you give two figs about the constitution. You stood by and cheered while W raped it in front of you.
Don't really have anything useful to add to the conversation, huh?
Quote from: NotNow on August 11, 2011, 10:46:09 AM
Quote from: stephendare on August 11, 2011, 10:40:05 AM
Quote from: NotNow on August 11, 2011, 10:35:33 AM
"So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time."
Faye, the US Constitution is the guiding document of our way of government. We are a nation of laws and we can't "get off" it.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Bill of Rights in the National ArchivesThe Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people."
So in our modern society, the STATES can take the actions that you suggest. I'll keep the Constitution thank you.
unless of course it means cancelling the writ of habeus corpus, institution of the doctrine of the Unitary Presidency, and lying to congress about the reasons for going to war, right?
Please. Of all people. Don't pretend you give two figs about the constitution. You stood by and cheered while W raped it in front of you.
Don't really have anything useful to add to the conversation, huh?
Stephen actually showed that your concern for the constitution is moot if you weren't ever concerned about :
cancelling the writ of habeus corpus, institution of the doctrine of the Unitary Presidency, and lying to congress about the reasons for going to war
I agree with Stephen.
Quote from: FayeforCure on August 11, 2011, 10:40:40 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 11, 2011, 09:52:34 AM
I agree BT if we think something needs to be done that does not meet constitutional criteria we have to amend before we do it.
But who would have thought the Republicans would have made a big stink over the constitution as a huge distraction, at the time we can least afford it? Like NOW. That should have been done in the 50's when we first started dealing with a more complex and prosperous society where a laisez faire approach of "small government" doesn't work anymore.
I know and I like the plan but let's not ignore the constitution just because we believe the Reps do.
Quote from: stephendare on August 11, 2011, 10:59:23 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 11, 2011, 10:53:55 AM
Quote from: FayeforCure on August 11, 2011, 10:40:40 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 11, 2011, 09:52:34 AM
I agree BT if we think something needs to be done that does not meet constitutional criteria we have to amend before we do it.
But who would have thought the Republicans would have made a big stink over the constitution as a huge distraction, at the time we can least afford it? Like NOW. That should have been done in the 50's when we first started dealing with a more complex and prosperous society where a laisez faire approach of "small government" doesn't work anymore.
I know and I like the plan but let's not ignore the constitution just because we believe the Reps do.
no one is considering ignoring the constitution. Its just the usual claptrap from Right Wing McGillicuddy and the Barnstorm Boys of Nabobbery. Faye unfortunately tries to respond to them.
Actually... it is unfortunate that I responded to her. Perhaps I misread what this sentence means...
Quote"So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time."
Quote from: FayeforCure on August 11, 2011, 10:50:39 AM
Quote from: NotNow on August 11, 2011, 10:46:09 AM
Quote from: stephendare on August 11, 2011, 10:40:05 AM
Quote from: NotNow on August 11, 2011, 10:35:33 AM
"So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time."
Faye, the US Constitution is the guiding document of our way of government. We are a nation of laws and we can't "get off" it.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Bill of Rights in the National ArchivesThe Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people."
So in our modern society, the STATES can take the actions that you suggest. I'll keep the Constitution thank you.
unless of course it means cancelling the writ of habeus corpus, institution of the doctrine of the Unitary Presidency, and lying to congress about the reasons for going to war, right?
Please. Of all people. Don't pretend you give two figs about the constitution. You stood by and cheered while W raped it in front of you.
Don't really have anything useful to add to the conversation, huh?
Stephen actually showed that your concern for the constitution is moot if you weren't ever concerned about :
cancelling the writ of habeus corpus, institution of the doctrine of the Unitary Presidency, and lying to congress about the reasons for going to war
I agree with Stephen.
The fact that you and StephenDare! consider my opinion on Constitutional matters "moot" because of your political partisanship says much more about the two of you than it does me. While I don't believe that any citizen is "more" qualified than any other for any reason, it also strikes me that the two of you are almost always critical of our nation. I also believe that I...and any other veteran, have earned the right to offer my opinion on the Constitution that I risked my life for. So to sum up, screw what you think of my opinion.
Quote from: stephendare on August 11, 2011, 12:04:01 PM
meh. anyone who has travelled to other countries since your political opinions on the conduct of the war, and the writ of habeus corpus and torture became US policy risks their lives. So thanks for trying to establish why your opinion on the constitution is more valuable on one hand and claiming that everyone has an equal right to an opinion on the other hand.
Your opinon, while you obviously have the right to have it, is in fact moot. Because it is logically inconsistent. Having the right to an opinion doesnt give you the right to have that opinion taken seriously be anyone, you know.
Please tell me your one of this people Dare that puts a Canadian flag on his backpack so u dont have to claim your a American? I have traveled all over this world and have never experienced or felt my life was being thretened. Everyone always wants to talk about Obama and asks why are we still in a war that he said he would get us out of. Just got back from Indonesia (a Muslim country) and everyone was so nice, everyone asks where are u from when u say America they thank you for all the help dished out by our government, and they may give you a slightly steeper price on something u want to buy. Lol! The only people I have run into that don't like Americans are Canadians and Mexicans traveling abroad.
Your opinion of military service is well known, and although you are quite wrong you have the right to express it. You apparently have no inkling of how you hold that right.
As for your idea of "logic", I will simply say that I will place my statements and my history against yours anytime and I feel quite comfortable with the comparison.
No one's opinion is "moot". Your desire to declare it so in itself indicates your lack of logic and facts as well as your fear of the truth.
Quote from: Pottsburg on August 11, 2011, 02:15:00 PM
The only people I have run into that don't like Americans are Canadians and Mexicans traveling abroad.
you forgot other americans. we all seem to hate each other.
A rephrasing of guiding statements to reflect a more complex society rather than the primitive society we had when the constitution was written (remember mega corporations didn't really exist back then):
QuoteNow let's translate the Founders (doing a simple word change):
A corporation, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. -- Thomas Paine
It is error alone which needs the support of the corporate media. Truth can stand by itself. -- Thomas Jefferson
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in our corporations, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin. -- Samuel Adams
Like fire, the corporation is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. -- George Washington
When you understand who today's powerful elite really is, many of the Tea Party's favorite Founder-quotes don't need any translation:
The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite. -- Thomas Jefferson
All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree. -- James Madison
There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison
So true, James. Little by little we are losing our privacy, our access to information, and even our political system to the corporations.
And in spite of the economic collapse Wall Street's machinations have brought upon us, how do we explain the market-worship we see all over the corporate media? The 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat had that one nailed:
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
I got that from the Venango County Tea Party Patriots. Again, no translation is necessary once you know which way to look.
But that's the real problem with the Tea Party rank-and-file: Like the guns of Singapore, they're facing the sea when the attack comes over land. They know they're under somebody's thumb, but they're confused about whose thumb it is. So when they strike back, they swing at the wrong guys.
If any Tea Partiers have read this far, I'm sure they think I'm the one who has it backwards. But I ask you, as you run free and clear towards the goal line: Whose goal line is that? Look up in the stands and see who's cheering for you: The billionaires. The CEOs. The traders on the floor of the big exchanges. The investment bankers.
Isn't that just a little strange? Have they all suddenly started rooting for everyday middle-class Americans?
Or are you running the wrong way?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/15/1007145/-One-Word-Turns-the-Tea-Party-Around?via=siderec
Now we can all be on the same page, and blame government primarily for their role in enabling the abject power of mega corporations that is destroying the American way of life.
dailykos :o ::)
Thank you! :)
I have an idea...to put us back in good standing with the american people..we need jobs right?..how about a phased out time period of 10 years without imports...any imports...then a phasing back of world trade. Not until we start buying and using things produced here will we be a self sustained entity...we bitch and moan about our economy yet i see corporations filling the isles of everystore in america with chinese goods..I say stop the whole damn system for 10 or 20 years....maybe if we made what we used things would be better. The american dream is gone..there is no middle class and the wealthy have taken us down a very dark road. If those tax breaks were to have been put to work here maybe they'd be worth it..but...alas...nothing.
Quote from: Garden guy on August 16, 2011, 12:05:42 PM
I have an idea...to put us back in good standing with the american people..we need jobs right?..how about a phased out time period of 10 years without imports...any imports...then a phasing back of world trade. Not until we start buying and using things produced here will we be a self sustained entity...we bitch and moan about our economy yet i see corporations filling the isles of everystore in america with chinese goods..I say stop the whole damn system for 10 or 20 years....maybe if we made what we used things would be better. The american dream is gone..there is no middle class and the wealthy have taken us down a very dark road. If those tax breaks were to have been put to work here maybe they'd be worth it..but...alas...nothing.
i agree with you in spirit, but i'm not willing to give up my japanese booze and sodas.
It makes sense but i'm sure the rest of the world would fall apart if we cut them all off...but a good diet from imports will help...rations? no oil imports? could we live?..everyone is talking about a radical approach to our economic woes....i'd say a ban on all imports for 15 years would do it...
What about exports?
As much as possible...everything but jobs.....zero...that's means zero jobs sent off shores...
Soooo... you want to ban imports... but think the countries we are banning imports from will allow our exports?? This is clearly your "most special" suggestion yet... :)
Well whatever they want to think...this is one of our many issue...we need to stop worrying about others so much and start doing something about our own problems...if it hurts others for a while...oh well....extreme measure must be taken in order to right this ship called america that has been tossed to the depths by the republican party...it's time to heal...they caused a big gash..it's going to take many many years to heal this wound...remember???? Al Gore told us all of this doo doo was going to happen.
Nothing like a trade war to stimulate the economy... :o
usually any kind of war will stimulate an economy except one that makes no sense..was unfounded...and a complete waist of money....but a trade war...why not...maybe more countries will start standing on thier own two feet.
Quote from: Garden guy on August 16, 2011, 03:41:07 PM
i'm sure the rest of the world would fall apart if we cut them all off
what the hell do we export that's so precious and can't be made elsewhere?
ummm.....ummm....jack daniels?
My two cents in list form:
--I sure hope these "jobs" created by this plan aren't like those stimulus jobs that came up in 2010. Those were a joke, especially for the reason there was a rule that only people with children could apply.
--One could interpret the Constitution as saying that certain laws promote the general welfare and regular commerce. Commerce these days in our "nonprimitive" society is about more than moving truckloads of stuff over state lines. Sometimes it's folks sitting at computers clicking away.
--I think it's true that we had a Republican government do some very embarrassing things against the Constitution. I would welcome a government of any party reversing that crap.
--I think it's a joke the notion that Republicans want "smaller government". Maybe they do when a Democrat is president! Whenever any politician says "Government is not the solution, it's the problem!" I wonder why they are running for office in that same government.
--I think our imports are a lot more than "Chinese crap" for Wal-mart shelves. There's a lot of raw materials that we import here to make other things that we export elsewhere. One can dream though. ;D
--In my views, I feel like that the government only exists to protect people in the society from harm. Sadly harm comes from a lot more than getting mugged in the street.
The Economic Delusions of the Political ClassesQuote[/qThe New York Times recently ran an "analysis" article entitled, "Debt Problem's Sure Cure: Economic Growth." This is something that falls into the category of "Gee, why didn't I think of that?" All you need is growth, so let's go get us some growth! That will take care of everything!
Journalist Catherine Rampell asserts,
There is, in theory, a happy solution to our debt troubles. It's called economic growth. No need to raise taxes or cut programs. Just get the economy growing the way it used to.
Rampell admits that this is a dicey proposition. She holds to the belief that if we actually cut back on government spending and stop these "stimulus" projects, there will be a short-term "shock" that will drive down the economy. Of course, the short-term "shock" then will go long-term, so if we cut spending now, we will drive ourselves back into a deeper recession.
At one level, she is correct. Assume, for a second, that sanity were to prevail in Washington and Obama were to make an admission that his "green-energy" projects are a vast waste of resources. One could imagine a speech like this: "My fellow Americans, it is time we gave up the charade that we can replace, by force, our current energy systems with ethanol, windmill farms, and solar power. I am going to ask Congress to get rid of the energy mandates and unsustainable goals for producing 'green fuels,' and I will also review many of the EPA's regulations. I have come to realize that we cannot subsidize and mandate a depressed economy into recovery, and that our 'green initiatives' have only made things worse. We already have a dynamic energy industry, and we have to stop destroying one of the few semihealthy sectors of our economy."
One can imagine that a number of things would follow:
The outcry among the greens and their political, academic, and media allies would be shrill; cries of anguish would run from one coast to another. Second, assuming he and Congress actually carried out these directives, another cry of anguish would come from people tied to the production and sales involving the "green-energy" apparatus.
There is no doubt that whole ethanol and electric-windmill plants would stand idle, and the countryside would be dotted with now-useless windmills. Lots of people tied to this whole infrastructure would lose their jobs, and there would be a spate of media stories about the personal troubles tied to their unemployment.
Like the ignorant bystanders in Bastiat's broken-window fallacy, many commentators simply are unwilling and intellectually unable to comprehend that their employment and production schemes are based on the fallacy of composition, in which it is assumed that what might be good for a select few always is good for the masses, and what is harmful to that select few also is harmful to society overall.
It's fine to endorse "economic growth," but we also need to know how economies actually grow in the first place. Unfortunately, the very things that this economy needs to grow involve repealing programs and laws that government and its interests like.
The idea of allowing entrepreneurs to move resources from lower-valued to higher-valued uses (as ultimately determined by consumers and discovered by entrepreneurs in a free market) is considered to be so repugnant that it is imperative that government impose an alternative "solution." So, instead of real entrepreneurship, we are left with windmill farms, ethanol, and a whole host of unsustainable schemes that so distort the economy that huge numbers of people are made worse off.
Why is real, free-market growth so hated by the political classes? There are three main reasons, the first of which is the reluctance of people to accept that consumer choice really should be what directs resources. For example, consumers by their selections have demonstrated that they prefer gasoline-powered automobiles and electricity that comes mostly from coal-fired electric generators.
"The political classes may be a lot of things, and they believe themselves to be many things, but one thing they will not accept under any circumstances is being irrelevant."It is not that consumers don't want other forms of transportation that might use less fuel, or that they hate windmills (although a lot of people living near windmills really do hate them). Instead, given the opportunity costs of fuels and transportation, as well as the way that these particular entities perform, consumers are showing their preferences for better, cheaper fuels.
Such thinking is anathema to the political classes, and so people associated with them hold that consumers need to be forced by state powers to make other choices. In a recent speech in Iowa to the Renewable Fuels Association, Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, not only gave his undying support to corn-based ethanol, but also said that the US government needs to mandate that consumers purchase "flex-fuel" cars. To put it another way, if consumers will not spend their money the way that a political insider like Gingrich would like, then the consumers need to be forced to do what Gingrich and his allies want.
Another reason is that the political classes refuse to see profits (and losses) in a free-market system as being a good thing. Instead, we hear constantly that profits are an unjust extraction of wealth from "the people," while losses are tragic and should not be permitted. When one explains that profits reflect the free movement of resources from lower-valued uses to higher-valued uses, such an explanation is ignored.
Third, and perhaps most important, a successful free-market system can operate without any help at all from the political classes. In fact, it works better when politically connected people are not involved in the economy at all, or at least as policy makers. The political classes may be a lot of things, and they believe themselves to be many things, but one thing they will not accept under any circumstances is being irrelevant.
Yes, economic growth would be a good thing for the US economy and other economies. However, because such growth can occur only within the bounds of a free-market system, the political classes will do everything they can to make an end run around markets and impose something that would make Rube Goldberg proud. In the end, they force the economy into depression and then place the blame on everyone but themselves.
uote]
http://mises.org/daily/5534/The-Economic-Delusions-of-the-Political-Class
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on August 16, 2011, 05:41:47 PM
Quote from: Garden guy on August 16, 2011, 03:41:07 PM
i'm sure the rest of the world would fall apart if we cut them all off
what the hell do we export that's so precious and can't be made elsewhere?
The US does about 175 billion per year in exports...
i don't doubt that, but if we stopped importing so the rest ov the world wanted to stop accepting our exports, i'm sure there are other sources for the things we export.