As we all know even former Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said that "we must enter an era of austerity" showing that the Temerity of Democratic Party's Austerity is here. Sure the temerity of austerity is real, regardless of party, but it’s even worse when it comes from Democrats who claim to admire and adhere to the New Deal as sacrosanct. Many pretend it’s what they still stand for via Modern Liberalism which basically changed the definition of liberalism altogether (why many until recently were proud to be called liberal in the Democratic party) as it used to be known as Classic Liberalism which is entirely different in the mold of Adam Smith and a laissez-faire philosophy.
Little did we know, apparently by what they are saying, Our Democratic Leaders in the House and Senate only liked one year of the New Deal: 1937
We all know FDR’s blunder there, but the more damaging aspect is that BS artists otherwise known as "historians" like Amity Shlaes are then able to fool enough of the public into thinking the New Deal failed. Of course we all know Paul Krugman and Eric Rauchway (one of the best I have read) basically set the record straight, but what good does that do when we have a President and a Democratic party more in line with her kind of thinking? You know, spending and deficits make the market Gods unhappy and so we must make cuts even during a jobs crisis and a crisis of demand. It’s embarrassing for a Democrat who ran on the Democratic Party Platform to embody this kind of thinking.
Who knows if this debt ceiling debacle will come to a head? It was entirely predictable and entirely avoidable and many here including I, warned this was going to happen. But still, excuse after excuse poured in for not including the debt ceiling deal back with the tax cut deal. The Republicans would not have gotten their extension had they refused and there wouldn’t be as much leverage debt wise to play into their foolish games of deficit hysteria.
The president either needs to invoke the 14th amendment and make the courts stop him(as Bill Clinton said he would do which was good), look into coin seigniorage, or something. If there’s anything we know, the president does not have control of this situation and he refuses to take control or lead and time is wasting. Wall Street might be able to prod the Legislature it owns to raise the debt ceiling(I'm thinking it's going to happen, but I could be wrong) but if not there might be an actual default.
And what does that mean? It means jumping back into a greater great recession when the so called recovery, a net jobless recovery is already feckless and hasn’t arrived at Main Street. It has not arrived for those most affected by recession and depressions suffering a huge racial disparity in the wealth gap(more than usual) getting worse under this administration. I've heard some people laughingly say that falling housing prices actually help poor households which is pretty clueless.
Fact is when people can’t use their homes as ATMs anymore and are drowning in mortgages that are more than what their house is worth, they actually don’t go out and buy things. Imagine that. Falling household wealth matters especially when it comes to the least among us who offer the most to the economy because they spend their money if they are able to. I know some don’t like to hear reality and criticisms of this president or Democrats in general. They stress that it’s somehow immoral even though it is our civic duty. However, before you criticize critics for doing so, it helps to have a moment of clarity and self reflection.
For instance, what is hunger? What are hunger pangs? Though this is a worldwide problem how does this affect the United States? What does it have to do with what’s going on right now in the debt ceiling battle?
The Meals On Wheels Association of America Foundation (MOWAAF) has found that hunger is a serious threat facing millions of seniors in the United States, and that understanding the problem is a critical first step to developing remedies. In 2007, MOWAAF, underwritten by theHarrah's Foundation, commissioned a research study entitled The Causes, Consequences and Future of Senior Hunger in America.[9] The report was released at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging in March 2008 in Washington, D.C.
The study found that in the US, over 5 million seniors (11.4% of seniors), experience some form of food insecurity (i.e., were marginally food insecure). Of these, about 2.5 million are at-risk of hunger, and about 750,000 suffer from hunger due to financial constraints. Some groups of seniors are more likely to be at-risk of hunger. Relative to their representation in the overall senior population, those with limited incomes, under age 70, African American, Hispanic, never-married, renters, and seniors living in the Southern United States are all more likely to be at-risk of hunger. While certain groups of seniors are at greater-risk of hunger, hunger cuts across the income spectrum. For example, over 50% of all seniors who are at-risk of hunger have incomes above the poverty threshold. Likewise, it is present in all demographic groups. For example, over two-thirds of seniors at-risk of hunger are Caucasian.
Which group here or in real life is more likely through what they advocate to stop actual hunger pangs for the most amounts of people? Is it those that advocate and spend their time researching ways to fight the austerity narrative and policies that now includes cuts to seniors and the way their SS benefits will be calculated in the near future? Or is it those that spend their time finding creative ways to excuse SS/Medicare cuts because it’s what their favorite politician advocates for? After all, every other debt ceiling raise was able to be procured by every other president with no problem.
It’s a moral, analytical, and scientific question when looking at the prospects of seniors starving or facing malnutrition, not to mention cuts to Medicare they will have to face fighting these effects. Social Security is currently estimated to keep roughly 40% of all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty so cutting this income will hurt the health and well being of all seniors. These are facts and paying attention to facts is the way to find out who is actually right in this fight on this site. It puts into perspective who advocates the right policies in their politics and who has principles and who does not. It also surveys the damage done by those that want to stifle dissent.
We the critics don’t excuse a stimulus with its weak multipliers via 1/3rd tax cuts and not a big enough dollar amount to cover the demand gap. We the critics are outraged by SS benefit cuts. We the critics are not only morally right here; we are statistically right on the data. Pushing austerity hurts the economy and the least among us the most. Those who are at risk for hunger offer the most bang for stimulus buck put back into the economy through food stamps which is the best stimulus.
Sorry, the politifact Obama achievement list is not going to change these dynamics. Because you know what? Democrats are not talking about stimulus. Our Democratic leaders are talking about the right way to pursue austerity. During these times, there is no right way. It's wrong. Those that defend it are wrong. Those that defend it are clueless about our economic problems, how the federal budget works, and what's the politically moral and responsible route to take in what they advocate when it comes to what they ask of our Representatives at all levels.