On this day we hear that Obama has decided to keep the totally broken BUSH tax system and its horrendous lack of progressiveness. It was also reported that he has decided to allow Mexican nationals to take all the long haul trucking jobs in the United States. This has sealed his fate with yours truly and I wonder if the Democratic party will try to run his Republican ass for reelection in 2012.
He has done the worst job of any president ever in regard to enlightening the public regarding real economics. He has constantly caved in to rightarded pig crap when it was not politically necessary or advisable. The man is totally worthless.
This diary is in response to a diary that seems to take the view that QE2 is yet another hand out to the wealthy, just like the previous handouts.
This, of course, is not the case. As the FED takes on debt instruments that would have been held by the banks, the rich, and the Chinese. The future interest is returned to the treasury as opposed to the financial sector. The interest becomes government revenue instead of government cost.
Dean Baker did a very good job on this already in an article he posted at Huffington Post.
The cold hard fact is that in order to create positive and progressive laws it is necessary to control both houses of congress and the executive. That is true because the forces of the current wealthy and powerful do not want any progress. They want all to stay as it is because as long as that is the case, they will be the wealthy and the powerful and all the rest will be the serfs. "We don't need no stinkin' change."
In the forthcoming situation the House of Representatives can de-fund the progress already made and stop any attempt that the president and the senate might make to take the nation and the people forward. That is also true, as we have seen, if the bad guys own the senate. Any of the 3 bodies can block progress, but the House can actually destroy the government entirely. And that is the real Republican objective.
As much as I would like to see some drastic alterations to Senate rules, it is not likely to happen. The reason I want change is because the cloture rules have always served the Republican lock step party and have never been of much use to the Democrats. Sam Alito is the poster child for my statement. The Democratic party could have and should have kept him off the court. The result of that failure is Citizen's United.
But that is in the past. If the Democrats manage to have 51 seats counting the independents they will lose EVER vote in the Senate because Ben Nelson and Joe the Ho LIEberman will vote with the Republicans every time. Max Baucus will also vote with the Republicans on any bill that would allow a Medicare Buy In or a Public Option, one of which is absolutely essential to control skyrocketing medical costs in this country.
In reading through this post on macro economic stuff I found quite a few things that, while not incorrect, might be presented in a more centrist and truthful light. It is very easy to editorialize and we all do it or we wouldn't be putting up diaries and editorial posts. And we should begin with the fact that Madison and Jefferson opposed the central bank and the Democratic-Republican party of that day, which was Jefferson and Madison, were dead set against most of Hamilton's ideas.
Yet that is probably not important in that what would become the Republican and Democratic parties have swapped places several times since their inception. The latest train wreck was civil rights. I am mostly concerned with the less than full coverage of the depression and the tariffs.
The corn ethanol story is the pick of the litter for oil companies and all other liars that infest the "preserve the carbon owners" lobby. It is that corn is the WORST way to produce ethanol and the only reason it is subsidized is that it is a big vote getter in the midwest.
There are a great many biofuel sources that are economically superior to corn and much friendlier to the planet. But these do not get the votes of the current majority of the farmers who inhabit the midwest. Quite simply, the alternatives do not compete with food crops and it is a double whammy for the midwest framers. Pull the subsidy and the price of corn, wheat, alfalfa, and all the rest go down too. And these guys have a loan at the bank for the new tractor. And the ability to pay was/is based on income from anticipated subsidized prices. OUCH!
I have just finished reading this article here at Kos. And I went to comment and there were over 300 of the dumbest comments I have ever seen. Why is it that outer moonbatia absolutely refuses to learn anything at all about money, and taxation, and actual government. And then when I visit outer rightardia I find people that "know" just about everything (wrongly). Maybe the left refuses to learn economics because they actually BELIEVE the total pig swill trumpeted by the rightarded. After all, the rightarded economists are backed by Heritage, Cato, the Brookings institute, the Hoover institute and countless other studious maximus centers of retardation. The left therefore turns to their on own form of fascism. Much, much easier to just make everything a MORAL issue. For the moonbat and the rightard it most certainly IS about "winning" the righteousness war.
So Here I am again pissing off every person at this site. It is a crappy job but somebody has to do it.
I have got react to this post and the comments thereto.
Polls show that people want the government to address the jobs problem by stimulus and creating new jobs. Somehow, the people here at Kos want to morph that into popular support for extending unemployment benefits. That doesn't actually work.
There is also great concern over the budget deficits and the growing debt. These two things (deficit and debt) are linked at the hip because all the politicians continue to lie about the real economics and how fiat money actually works. The party that tells the truth will probably come out way ahead when all is said and done.
First we have from Bloomberg:
Then we have:
As the bondholders want the Treasury to bail them out at Taxpayer expense. Nothing ever changes with Republicans. "We the people" are here to be raped.
In a commentary last year Paul Krugman coined the phrase "Zombie Economics" and I have not forgotten it. But Krugman was and is more focused on supporting Keynesian economic concepts in preference to other macro theories.
More and more economists are recognizing that Keynes himself is a "Zombie". You see, the idea of Keynesianism is all wrapped up in borrowing in the lean times to support economic stimulus and then repaying the borrowed money when times are good. This infers perhaps tax cuts in bad times and tax increases in the good running times to counter the mythical business cycle. In "Fed Speak" (on the monetary side) it is called "leaning against the wind" and is done with interest rates as opposed to spending and taxation.
But the concept of true fiat money does not seem to intrude upon these wars between the Keynesians and the "Efficient Market Hypothesis" (EMH) people or the Austrians and the Hayekians. And it is a discussion of fiat money that must now come to the fore.
The amendment to break up the "too big to fail" banks was voted down by twenty some odd Democrats who knew that if they went against the banks they would be swift boated in the forthcoming elections. The ruling by the Supremes has, essentially, ended representative government in the United States.
Meanwhile, the actions or inactions of government and the oil barons have insured an extension of the depression by putting millions of people who subsisted off the gulf of Mexico into the unemployment lines.
At a time when we disparately need government control of monetary policy and control of the value of the currency we have lost that control.
I can't help but puke when I see stuff like this article. "Protect the Consumer" is like "open borders" and other Big Rock Candy Mountain crap. I would add some other compassion favs but I've made the point well enough.
What matters in this re-regulation of the financial industry is the limiting of leverage. That is about as short and direct and compact and correct as it gets. All of the crap about handing the "customers" another 5 volumes of reading concerning interest rate escalation and the like is just about worthless as tits on a boar hog. If you want to protect consumers then fix the bankruptcy laws making it the responsibility of the lenders to make sure the loans can be repaid. Financial regulation is another matter altogether.