Skip to main content

train wreck
Train wreck
One of this biggest economic stories of the past week was this:
The 17-country eurozone risks falling into a “severe recession,” the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned on Tuesday, as it called on governments and Europe’s central bank to act quickly to keep the slowdown from dragging down the global economy.
Just six months ago the OECD considered a 2 percent European contraction the worst-case scenario, but it now sees that as close to happening.
The report forecasts Europe falling further behind other countries, particularly the United States, whose economy is expected to grow 2.4 percent this year and 2.6 percent next.
Let me repeat: Europe's economy is contracting, while the U.S. economy is growing. Europe's economy is in imminent danger of contracting at the rate that just six months ago was considered the worst-case scenario, while the U.S. economy is expected to grow even more next year than this year. And just outside the Eurozone, this past week also saw England's double-dip recession reported as even worse than had been thought. In other words, as the world continues to attempt to dig itself out of the economic collapse that was caused by the banking meltdown, the United States is slowly recovering. Europe isn't.

While Europe elected conservative governments at the worst possible moment, and then embraced the cruel stupidity that is economic austerity, the United States took a different path. The United States should have embraced a much more aggressive growth policy, but at least it didn't slash and burn government spending the way Europe did. Europe's economies and Europe's people have been devastated by economic austerity while the tentative Obama stimulus package has stimulated tentative economic growth. Stimulus works, austerity doesn't. Until the economy is fully back on its feet, more stimulus would be the best economic policy. Austerity would be the worst economic policy. So what do the Republicans want to do?

Mitt Romney would have let the auto industry go bankrupt. Mitt Romney thinks unemployment insurance is a disaster. Mitt Romney wants to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits. Mitt Romney wants to cut benefits on just about everyone who needs them in order to finance even more tax cuts for the extremely wealthy— people such as Mitt Romney. In other words, Mitt Romney wants to impose austerity on pretty much everyone other than the very few who are in the economic class of Mitt Romney. In fact, Mitt Romney's economic program is so unfair, and it so favors the very few who are in the economic class of Mitt Romney, that he doesn't even want us to know its details. And that gets to the core of why Mitt Romney is unfit to govern.

The problem with Mitt Romney is not only that he doesn't want us to know the details of his economic agenda, which suggests that it's even worse than what we do know, and what we do know is bad enough, but Mitt Romney also doesn't want us to know any details about Mitt Romney. Breaking with the tradition that voters should know as much as is possible about presidential candidates, Mitt Romney won't release his tax returns. What is he hiding? Breaking with the tradition that voters should have at least some idea about a presidential candidate's positions on major issues, Mitt Romney has flip-flopped so many times on so many issues that even one of his top campaign advisors openly admitted that Romney's stands can be erased and rewritten without notice. Does he even have any principles or values, or is that he doesn't want us to know what they are? What is he hiding? Mitt Romney has taken so many stands on so many issues that even he can't remember where he is supposed to stand on them on any given day. Maybe what Mitt Romney is hiding is that there is no Mitt Romney at all.

For their part, Republican congressional leaders want to repeal the Obama health care law, which would explode the national debt. Republican congressional leaders offer nothing to replace the Obama health care law. House Republicans voted to end Medicare. House Republicans want to decimate health care spending. House Republicans want to take away a million Pell Grants. House Republicans want to punish low income Americans. House Republicans want to punish senior citizens. House Republicans want to punish women. House Republicans want to drive even more Americans from some semblance of food security into poverty. The House Republican budget leader wants to drive even more children into poverty. Whatever they may say they want to do, the agenda of congressional Republicans would be devastating for tens of millions of Americans.

Unfortunately, being wrong— even stupidly wrong— is not in itself proof of unfitness to govern. As the Bush-Cheney team proved, it is in fact now a prerequisite for any Republican aspiring to national office. But the destructive policy agenda of congressional Republicans is not even remotely the worst of it, because in order to impose these policies they have resorted to tactics that are nothing more than political extortion, and government cannot function by extortion. It cannot function when hard fought agreements are blithely broken for the purpose of further extortion. And that's what the Republicans now are about. They operate like criminal thugs and they cannot be trusted to keep their word. And it's not merely a game of daring high stakes brinksmanship, for merely playing the game is itself dangerously destructive.

When the Republicans last summer broke bipartisan precedent by threatening the full faith and credit of the United States in order to force the sorts of budget cuts that have shattered the economies of Europe, they agreed to a deal that itself will damage the recovery, but by forcing that deal they also triggered the first ever downgrade in our national credit rating. The Standard & Poor's downgrade was problematic in itself, but S&P was very carefully explicit in its rationale:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.
That brinksmanship was wholly the fault of the Republicans. Under both Democratic and Republican presidents, and with both Democratic and Republican Congresses, no one previously had been so petty and unhinged as to play chicken with the debt ceiling. The Republicans last year broke all precedent. Ownership of the consequences is theirs alone. And beyond revealing how dangerous they are even to have attempted political extortion by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the specifics of the Republican approach to the national debt also was specifically mentioned.
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

Both the Republican policy and the means of imposing the Republican policy were specifically cited. As our own Hunter explained:

Parsing the S&P statement from a partisan standpoint, there are a few things to note. As cited above, the Bush tax cuts appear to be the only non-entitlement-related government policy specifically called out by S&P in their rationale for downgrade, and "Republicans in Congress" were specifically called out for "continu[ing] to resist any measure that would raise revenues." It seems S&P comes down squarely on the side of believing revenues do need to be increased, though it pointedly shies away from suggesting any numbers.

Couple this with their plain and prominent citation of debt ceiling hostage-taking as a prime reason for the downgrade, and it would be difficult to argue any position other than that S&P is blaming recent GOP actions directly for their downgrade decision

All of which would be bad enough. All of which would by itself reveal how dangerous it is to allow such people any means of asserting any level of control over the making of economic policy. But now House Speaker John Boehner wants to play the whole game over again:
In the meeting—a day after a high-profile speech by Boehner in which he called for spending cuts paired with any future debt-ceiling hikes—the speaker told the president that “I’m not going to allow a debt ceiling increase without doing something serious about the debt,” according to the Ohio Republican’s aides.
Which has even his Republican Senate counterpart unenthused. Of course that same Republican Senate counterpart last year said that his single most important goal was to deny President Obama a second term in office. Despite two wars, international terrorism, a still staggering economy, rising poverty and homelessness, an impending climate crisis and a host of other issues on which one would think a national political leader would want to focus, the single greatest priority of the most powerful Republican in the Senate was to ensure electoral victory. And continued Republican efforts to sabotage the economy proved the man's words.

The Republicans don't want to solve the nation's problems, they only want to gain and maintain political power. And in pursuit of that goal they are openly and dangerously reckless. And their new presidential standard-bearer not only wants to impose policies similar to those that continue to devastate Europe, he is a deliberately dishonest cipher, not only about where he stands on issues but even about whether or not he actually has any stands on issues. He doesn't merely disinform, he openly mocks even the concept of informing.

Differences in policy are one thing, and history tends to reveal who was right and who was wrong. For example, the New Deal worked, while austerity doesn't. And it's perfectly fair for Republicans to continue to try to gut the New Deal while promoting more disastrous austerity. That's politics, and if American voters want to swap the current slow but steadily improving economic recovery for the type of economic implosion and social upheaval now crushing Europe, they have every right to vote for the Republicans. They have every right to vote for whomever they want for whatever reasons or lack of reason they choose. But when Republicans shatter precedent by attempting political extortion that by itself endangers the full faith and credit of the United States, when they threaten to crash the economy if they don't get their way, when they consider winning more important than responsible governing, when they consciously attempt to undermine the very concept of an informed electorate, that isn't politics, it's the deliberate destruction of politics. It makes mere thuggery appear relatively benign in comparison. It reveals the Republicans as not only ideologically and intellectually incompetent, but also as dangerously unstable of temperament.

With the modern Republican Party, the danger isn't merely that they will succeed in imposing more disastrous policies, the danger is that even allowing them to have any influence at all on the process of making policy can and will be abused, with potentially disastrous consequences. Modern Republicans are not merely lousy at governing, they are unfit to govern.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Now How to Express This in a 30 Second Viral Vid. (62+ / 0-)

    The main points can easily fit.

    Every syllable would need to be chosen carefully because the scary deficit meme is so entrenched even here that we remain in serious danger of electing an open-throttle austerity government.

    We need to reach a LOT more people than those who'll study an 1800 word article with links. This is great work, we just need the other as well.

    You'd think a party that represents so many artistic types would have the inter tubes flooded with snappy takeoffs of this kind of reporting which is excellent for the audience it does reach.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:09:28 PM PDT

    •  Here is a start: (25+ / 0-)

      They win, when government loses. You see, government's are elected by the people, and the people sometimes get in the way of unpatriotic international corporations who owe no allegiance to the United States. They get in the way by making BritIsh Petroleum clean up its mess; by making Banks quit taking ridiculous risks and then  asking the taxpayer to bail them out when they lose.

      When these people talk about getting government out of the way, what they are really saying is "People of the United States: Step Aside".

      You are the government. Stand your ground.

    •  Do you want the policies of Hoover or FDR? (13+ / 0-)

      Republicans boldly embrace Hoovernomics, which not only current European events but also our own history show are disastrous.  Obama is no FDR, but if he ever puts out a policy agenda for his second term it would be nice if he stole a page or two from the greatest president of the last century.  A jobs program, paid for by increased taxes on the wealthiest, would be a bold and stark contrast to the self-interested policies of Romney and his billionaire sponsors.  

      If only we had a party that could credibly run that ad.  Will the president's desire to be re-elected trump his fear of offending Wall Street?  The road to victory is clear.  The president just has to take on the same enemies FDR cheerfully challenged in his first re-election campaign.

      When Free Speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have Free Speech.

      by Dallasdoc on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:13:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately, the GOP has (8+ / 0-)

        succeeded in making sure that people are so dumb, that I'm not sure a lot of them know about either Hoover or FDR.  The exception to that might be that they have done a pretty good job of making FDR some kind of monster in the eyes of their rabid base.    I doubt that too many people younger than I (62) have heard of Hoovervilles or really understand how awful the Depression was.

        -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

        by luckylizard on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:27:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't believe that (14+ / 0-)

          Even stupid Americans know FDR was a great president.  Most Americans want taxes raised on the wealthy, and Mitt wanting to cut his own already risible taxes is a vital campaign point.  Republicans will screech about hitting the
          "job creators" but Democrats have been far too slow in demolishing that particular lie.  It's high time they did.

          Tax the rich and spend the money on infrastructure repair and enhancement.  Employ Americans.  If Democrats can't win on that platform, contrasted against cutting taxes on the wealthy and destroying Medicare, then they're even more hopeless than I think they are.

          When Free Speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have Free Speech.

          by Dallasdoc on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:31:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is a difference between (8+ / 0-)

            "knowing" FDR was great and believing that everything he did has led us to this catastrophe.  So many of the programs that began or were strengthened under FDR are considered socialist and evil by that segment of folks who really believe the GOP crap.  It was only recently that even mentioning Social Security would be a death sentence for a pol.  Now, people in both parties seem to be sanguine about screwing it up.  Granted, the GOP is much more on-board, but there are also a few Dems who are willing to sell out on it.

            I totally agree with the gobsmacking messaging deficit of the Dems.  I cannot believe that they don't see how polls improve when they merely threaten to be a bit liberal.  Our values and our policies are popular, yet the Dems can't sell them.  There is a huge opportunity in WI to send a signal to the country and the world that this austerity and anti-worker stuff won't fly, and the national party just ho-hums.  It's enough to make a preacher swear and I have no idea how to fix it.

            -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

            by luckylizard on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:47:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You have to believe in a message to sell it (8+ / 0-)

              There are proud, unapologetic liberals running for office in the Democratic party, and they're being targeted by billionaire Super-PAC's.  Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren are perhaps the most prominent examples, although Tom Barrett is the cause du jour.  (I'm not sure how much of a liberal he is, though.)

              As long as liberals are a minority in the Democratic party, the oligarchs will try to pick them off and put their heads on pikes as a warning to others.  Oligarchs like maintaining control of both parties, and don't want one going off message.  That's the real problem with Democratic messaging, I think:  a combination of carrots and sticks from the ruling elite that is meant to prevent the party from returning to its New Deal roots.  

              We can't afford that kind of manipulation and control in our politics, not in these times.  Ordinary Democrats have to stand up and demand better from our party, otherwise the risk of a Romney presidency is simply too great.  A strong populist campaign would annihilate the Republicans, if Democrats were brave enough to present an united front and wage one.

              When Free Speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have Free Speech.

              by Dallasdoc on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:56:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Obama has been horrible at messaging. Tom Friedman (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                boofdah, Dallasdoc, Minnesota Deb

                often gets things quite wrong, but every once in a while nails it. His column today was one of those times:

                Obama Should Seize the High Ground

                ...Barack Obama is a great orator, but he is the worst president I’ve ever seen when it comes to explaining his achievements, putting them in context, connecting with people on a gut level through repetition and thereby defining how the public views an issue.

                ...two years after Obama’s health care bill became law, how many Americans understand that once it is fully implemented no American with a pre-existing condition will ever again be denied coverage?

                ...Obama didn’t just save the auto industry from bankruptcy. Two years later, he also got all the top U.S. automakers to agree to increase mileage for their vehicle fleets to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, from 27.5 m.p.g. today. As Popular Mechanics put it, this “is the largest mandatory fuel economy increase in history.” It will drive innovation, save money and make America less dependent on petro-dictators. Did you know Obama did this?

                ...how did Obama ever allow this duality to take hold: “The Bush tax cuts” versus the “Obama bailout”? It should have been “the Bush deficit explosion” and the “Obama rescue.”...

                We can't blame Fox news for everything. Let's hope that it's not too late for Obama to define and sell his accomplishments, rather than allowing the Republicans to rewrite history even as it's happening.

                "But there is so much more to do." - Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

                by flitedocnm on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:55:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Do you think that (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pengiep, Dallasdoc, Minnesota Deb

                Wisconsin could be a catalyst for such a populist campaign?  I'm not really to concerned with whether Barrett is a real liberal or not.  I am worried that a Walker win would cause terrible damage and/or demoralization in the rank and file.  

                I guess I'm just so frustrated with the party.  You've named a few good individuals, but the party has to be engaged in the fight, as well.  We can buck a Blue Dog or two, but not the bulk of the party.  I always kind of liked Wasserman-Schultz, but I'm quickly becoming disillusioned...  

                -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

                by luckylizard on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:00:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Oh great.. FDR had 14% to 19% unemployment (0+ / 0-)

        Yes.. that was down from 25% when he took office.. but, c'mon.

        No one knows what Hoover's policies would have done.. FDR led the country in a terrible economic time, but with all the myriad government jobs programs, he was only able to get unemployment down to 14% in 1937, and then it shot back up to 19% in 1938.

        Happy days are here again!  Wooo hooo!  That's the message!

        His policies helped some.. that's the best that can be said about them.  They never got the country out of the deep economic mess it was in.. nothing could do that until WW II came along.

        •  Well... (14+ / 0-)
          No one knows what Hoover's policies would have done.
          Actually we do. FDR took office in 1933. The Great Depression started in 1929. Hoover had four whole years to implement his policies... austerity all the way. The result was that 25% unemployment rate you mentioned.
          •  Addendum (8+ / 0-)

            And with regard to WW2 ending the Great Depression, let's avoid talking about it like it happened in a vacuum... like the economy saw WW2 starting and was like "OK the depression can end now."

            What was it about WW2 that made the depression end?

            WW2 was government spending on a massive, massive scale. The US paid for trucks, tanks, guns, airplanes, ammunition, combat fatigues and parachutes. Automobile factories were retrofitted to build bombers and fighter planes. Textile mills worked around the clock. Millions of people were hired to do this stuff.

            Unprecedented amounts of Stimulus ended the Great Depression. The reason for that Stimulus was WW2.

          •  Hoover's policy was not that of austerity (0+ / 0-)

            The large infrastructure and jobs programs started under Hoover.  See my comment http://www.dailykos.com/...

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:27:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Down from 25% to 14% isn't good enough? (8+ / 0-)

          That's a lot better, proportionately, than what Obama's been able to achieve.  We know what Hoover's policies did, because they were in effect for 3 1/2 years after the Crash of '29.  They caused the Great Depression, in large part.  FDR's acquiescence to the deficit peacocks of his day in 1937-38 provided a reminder of that lesson, as the Depression came roaring back.  Europe is providing yet another timely reminder of that historical lesson right now.  

          Stimulus vs. austerity should be a political no-brainer.  The fact that Democrats won't seize that clear distinction with Republicans does not speak well of the party's collective IQ these days.

          When Free Speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have Free Speech.

          by Dallasdoc on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:00:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  FDR took some significant measures to see that (9+ / 0-)

          the financial meltdown wouldn't recur.  Those measures were undone by the GOP and Clinton, and, well, here we are.  And guess where we're going with the weak and possibly soon to be eliminated Dodd/Frank Act?  FDR grappled with the nation's financial and war problems at every turn and did not flinch no matter the attacks from Republicans.  WWII required even more government spending, which is what dug us out of the Depression.  It was not austerity.  People were austere and saved things like metal, paper and wood, but the government had to spend.  And we did.

          Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

          by judyms9 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:01:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Am I the only one old enough to remember (8+ / 0-)

            those college econ classes when the conventional wisdom at that time was that a Great Depression wouldn't ever happen again because 1) governments knew how to add stimulus when needed and 2) regulations were put in place to keep risky business practices in check.  Relatively speaking it sure didn't take long to nullify all that CW.

          •  And he has had 4 years to put those protections (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldhippie

            back in place.

            You are correct Clinton and the GOP along with quite a bit of help from some Dems tore apart the regulatory structure that allowed some of this mess.

            But, after the mess, Dodd/Frank was a joke.  After the second biggest financial meltdown in history, and after months of negotiating, we got Dodd/Frank, which is essentially worthless.

            Dodd/Frank should have brought back Glass-Steagall.. should have split up the to-big-to-fail banks.  It should have punished those responsible - instead it rewarded them.. That was all on Obama's watch with a Dem House and Senate.

            Now, in the past few weeks he's calling for more reforms? Sorry.. you had your chance to do it right the first time.

        •  Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover (0+ / 0-)

          again.

          There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

          by upstate NY on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:10:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  what you ignore (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          METAL TREK

          is that in 1937 fdr bought into the deficit worries and cut spending. he returned to a keynesian approach and things once again began improving.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:49:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Most here would be shocked at Hoover's policies (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hmi, wsexson

        and how FDR criticized Hoover in the 1932 campaign.  It is shockingly different than most imagine.

        Hoover increased taxes on the rich with the largest tax increase in US history to that time; Imposed a transaction tax; put in large jobs programs, including the Hoover dam.

        FDR campaigned against Hoover in 1932 for excessive spending, taxing too much and increasing the Federal debt.  However, much of what FDR did in office were extensions of Hoover's policies.

         From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        Prior to the start of the Great Depression, Hoover's first Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, had proposed and seen enacted, numerous tax cuts, which cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24% (under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge). When combined with the sharp decline in incomes during the early depression, the result was a serious deficit in the federal budget. Congress, desperate to increase federal revenue, enacted the Revenue Act of 1932, which was the largest peacetime tax increase in history.[73] The Act increased taxes across the board, so that top earners were taxed at 63% on their net income. The 1932 Act also increased the tax on the net income of corporations from 12% to 13.75%.
        The final attempt of the Hoover Administration to rescue the economy occurred in 1932 with the passage of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, which authorized funds for public works programs and the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). The RFC's initial goal was to provide government-secured loans to financial institutions, railroads and farmers. The RFC had minimal impact at the time, but was adopted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and greatly expanded as part of his New Deal.
        Economy
        To pay for these and other government programs and to make up for revenue lost due to the Depression, Hoover agreed to roll back several tax cuts that his Administration had enacted on upper incomes. In one of the largest tax increases in American history, the Revenue Act of 1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Also, a "check tax" was included that placed a 2-cent tax (over 30 cents in today's economy) on all bank checks. Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin,[74] conclude that the check tax was "an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction." Hoover also encouraged Congress to investigate the New York Stock Exchange, and this pressure resulted in various reforms.

        National debt expressed as a fraction of gross national product climbs from 20% to 40% under Hoover; levels off under FDR; soars during World War II. From Historical Statistics US (1976)
        For this reason, years later libertarians argued that Hoover's economics were statist. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the government dole. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible."[75] Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[76]
        Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[77] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:37:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Mitt Romney from the 80's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orlbucfan, Matt Z

      •  You're raining on my parade. :-) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        I've been calling Romneybot Max Headroom since this campaign started. Only diff: Max was a blond cartoon; Romneybot is a dark-haired for-real human (unfortunately).

        Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

        by orlbucfan on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:50:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You are absolutely right. It is all about power (26+ / 0-)

    rather than governance. And it is about the ability to use that power to enrich their benefactors at the expense of everyone else. It is more like the mafia than a political party.

  •  It just ain't that easy to diagnose (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, Amber6541, boofdah

    a.)  Republican train wreck- YES.
    b.)  Banking train wreck- YES.
    c.)  Unsustainable growth- YES.

    In plain language, until "sustainable" and "growth" can be used in the same sentence, things will only get worse.  The next bubble will hopefully go in the direction of sustainable growth.  The divine rights of kings and the divine rights of capitalists have little place in the decisionmaking process from here on out.  Power to the people!  May our choices be wise ones.

    Call exploitation and debt slavery whatever you want.

    by jcrit on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:17:54 PM PDT

  •  Excellent. I agree with Gooserock... (28+ / 0-)

    ...that we need a 30-second radio and television version of this in which every word (and image) is carefully chosen for maximum impact. The following words from the diary are not the right words for such an ad, but they are the reason for them:

    With the modern Republican Party, the danger isn't merely that they will succeed in imposing more disastrous policies, the danger is that even allowing them to have any influence at all on the process of making policy can and will be abused, with potentially disastrous consequences. Modern Republicans are not merely lousy at governing, they are unfit to govern.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:18:39 PM PDT

    •  Basically you show the Mitt saying what (7+ / 0-)

      he thought when he was running against Kennedy, then cut to what he said when he was governor, cut to what he said as a candidate in 2008, cut to this year's primaries and then a final cut to what he is saying right now. This can be done in 30 seconds easily. At the end put up the words: "Mitt Romney, what does he really think?"with a voice over saying the same. This should run good even in red states and even anger tea party types who don't really trust him. One spot can be made on health care, another on Detroit, another on LGBT rights, etc.

      •  That's good but even BETTER would be one of Mitt (0+ / 0-)

        saying foreclosures should continue & Detroit should go bankrupt...and that would be easy & CHEAP since there is video of Mitt saying exactly that.

        A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

        by METAL TREK on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:42:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  One thing I think has been happening (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe wobblie

      is that Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve have simply allowed the money supply to expand to whatever the banks that create the money want it to be.

      This has two benefits that I can tell:
      1.  The business firms that need money  to operate and to expand can get it at extremely low interest rates, and
      2.  It is happening outside both the political "system" and outside the awareness of the conservative propagandists. They'd stop it if they knew it was expanding the economy.

      A possible third benefit(??) would be that the Wall Street Banks are making money like they own the mint and printed the bills for themselves. Not the most deserving SOB's, but possibly some quite useful ones. For now.

      I don't think this is happening in Europe because they have no central bank capable of performing the financial manipulations that the Fed is using.

      Had the feds not bailed out  the Wall Street Banks, this manipulation would not have been possible. As it is, as best I understand it, this is a manipulation that Ben Bernanke as an expert on the Great Depression postulated could have been used then but was not.

      I do not know for a fact this has been happening, but I've read hints that suggested it - and I most assuredly do not know exactly how it would work. But it is a money-supply manipulation.

      Just consider this barely partially informed speculation. Other than the nature of the SOB's, of course. No speculation there at all.

      The US Supreme Court has by it's actions and rhetoric ceased to be legitimate. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

      by Rick B on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:48:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rpublicans don't want (24+ / 0-)

    to govern. They want to pillage.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:21:14 PM PDT

    •  Is that why (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe wobblie, Eric Nelson

      they tend to have a picture of a feudal warrior/bandit on one wall and of a viking sea captain on the other? Mentors in pillaging?

      When I was stationed in Germany the castles on the islands in the middle of the Rhine River used to fascinate me. In order to get past any one of them the river merchants had to pay a tax to the local lord of the manor. Traveling any distance along the Rhine quickly became very expensive, which is why the sea ports were more economical.

      The US Supreme Court has by it's actions and rhetoric ceased to be legitimate. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

      by Rick B on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:55:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They want to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, wsexson

      rule over us.

      liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

      by RockyMtnLib on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:20:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And yet the overwhelming consensus (14+ / 0-)

    in the establishment media and punditocracy is that Obama & Dems are making a big mistake in being too hard on Romney, the GOP, private equity and the policies that have done so much obvious damage to the country over the past 30 years.

    And this is so because the establishment media is owned by and clearly reflects the views, biases and interests of the very same entities who are responsible for these policies, namely corporate America and Wall St. And anyone who wants a future in the establishment media knows that they have to either play ball or find another job in the alternative media. Rachel Maddow is one of the few exceptions and even she has to play by the rules to a major extent (when was the last time she reported on the media and its RW business biases?).

    It feels like an echo chamber here. We're reporting what we already know to ourselves. How much is actually making it to the people who most need this information, centrist swing voters who helped put the GOP back in power?

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:22:02 PM PDT

    •  There are a few "concerned" kossacks (5+ / 0-)

      who parrot the same austerity one-percenter bullshit here.

      What useful purpose is served by this is up to the reader.

      "What have you done for me, lately?" ~ Lady Liberty

      by ozsea1 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:27:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Most Americans consume news without (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ozsea1, pengiep, boofdah

        processing it properly, if at all, they way they scarf down cheeseburgers and brats at a tailgate party. What they hear and read in the establishment media is what they believe, because they're too lazy and self-absorbed to care and stupid and undereducated to know better. If we leave this up to them, we're screwed.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:32:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  When you can borrow at less than zero intrest rate (8+ / 0-)

        it is time to borrow and create a business. But you have to know you have a market, which is where the government needs to be stepping in. Only the Republicans stop that kind of government action.

        Repair the infrastructure and with zero interest rates (less than zero when the likelihood of inflation is factored in) the economy will start growing even more rapidly than it is now. Let that happen and then start paying down debt when tax revenue has started climbing and it is possible to both repair infrastructure and to pay down debt.

        Seems simple, no? You'd think the Republicans WANT the American economy to stagnate. Especially Mitch McConnell.

        The US Supreme Court has by it's actions and rhetoric ceased to be legitimate. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

        by Rick B on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:03:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course this would work (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ozsea1, Rick B

          In fact it's the only thing likely to work. Which is why Repubs won't let it happen if they can do anything about it, because it would be their political demise. Well, at least these Repubs. I'm sure that better ones would rise to replace them, but they don't want that to happen either.

          This is political tribalism combined with special interest manipulation.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:22:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  So? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RockyMtnLib

    Obama's black and his father's from Kenya, what other evidence do we need that we need to get him out of office?

  •  tipped & rec'ed but someone votes for them (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laserhaas

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:25:08 PM PDT

  •  Obama Derangement runs strong with this crew.... (4+ / 0-)

    Watching them on cspan bloviating about 'what the American people want' gets sickening. They are trying to bring down the government by the most childish means. Polls however show attitudes are changing but these fools are too stupid to even pretend to adjust. The bell is ringing on these clowns.

  •  They're governing for their constituencies. (4+ / 0-)

    If the Democratic party would govern for its constituencies, instead of helping republicans govern for theirs (i.e. continuing the bankster bailouts, torture, indefinite detention, extending the Bush tax-cuts, expanding offshore drilling in the wake of the biggest man-made environmental disaster in US history, which by the way, was caused by offshore drilling), there might be a credible reason for hope.

    •  A great many Democratic officials... (6+ / 0-)

      ...need to recognize who their constituency is. It's not the Financial Elites, no matter how many token millions of dollars trickle from that source. They and their functionaries continue to draw water from that well because even now it's much easier than engaging with core activists and relying on their modest fundraising potential that happens to come with a predictable number of canvassing and GOTV "footsoldiers".

      Wisconsin is very instructive on this count: the DNC and the periphery organizations in DC look with envy-enhanced blinders at Walker's cash haul and despair that they will never "catch him." But the other side of the coin is that Bennett is electorally competitive in that race DESPITE being out-raised and out-spent in excess of 20-1!! A few hundred thousand dollars - not even a million, mind you - committed to GOTV in (I'm guessing here) 50 key precincts weeks ago by the DNC would be working wonders now. I haven't read most articles attempting to explain the DNC's hesitancy to fund some significant "basic blocking and tackling" in Wisconsin, mostly because I don't want more reasons to be disturbed by the multiple-speak that too often emanates from "Official Washington." But I bet "wanting to see which candidate emerged" was one of the official pronouncements.

      As if that mattered.

      I didn't have a dog in the fight, but I'm fairly certain that if Falk had won the Primary, she would have been polling within  the margin against Walker, despite also being out Fundraised and out spent more than 20-1.

      And here's the kicker: IF Bennett (or Falk) were polling statistically, ever so slightly ahead in the race at this point, many thousands of dollars "from parts unknown" would be streaming into Madison. Because some significant number of Financial Elites value access.

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:27:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Once you can get all those ordinary people.... (0+ / 0-)

        .....to contribute even ten dollars a month regularly to political action, then get back to me.

        It is depressing beyond words to hear of politicians "bought" for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in contributions. If even ten per cent of the American people were willing to kick in a hundred bucks a year, say, one would think they could buy the entire political class, with money to spare to start up a bullshit "think tank" to give them all cushy jobs after they left politics. The 0.1% gets their politicians pretty damn cheap.

        "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

        by sagesource on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:43:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They care more about raising money than (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Egalitare

        they care about winning elections. Extending the Bush tax-cuts was inexcusable, they knew it would cost them votes (even their jobs, for some of them). There had to be an up-side for taking that risk somewhere. I guess that’s how they get to be multi-millionaires on house and senate salaries.

  •  I'd call 'em republican anarchists, 'cept that... (7+ / 0-)

    ...I have too much regard for some other anarchists.

    Hmmm...

  •  Sometimes I wish we would all lay down, give up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe wobblie

    and let them have everything (since they have taken SO Much already anyway)

    Then, with nothing left - we can make our own popcorn and beer and sit back to watch them consume each other.


    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

    by laserhaas on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:31:11 PM PDT

  •  A vote for Romney is a vote for a depression. (11+ / 0-)

    Fructose is a liver poison. Stop eating it today.

    by Anne Elk on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:32:16 PM PDT

  •  If Boehner was truly concerned about the debt (8+ / 0-)

    he would let the Bush Tax Cuts expire.

    The USA needs more revenue, even if all it was used for was to pay down the debt. But today's Teapublicans will never, ever agree to that.

    •  IF! n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "Do your best, and keep your sense of humor."--My Mom

      by mainely49 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:49:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  CBO says that would send us over the cliff (0+ / 0-)

      fiscally.

      Just this past week.. of course, you didn't hear a  word about it here at Daily Kos because it doesn't fit the meme...

      CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Expiration Paired With Spending Cuts Would Drive U.S. Off 'Fiscal Cliff'

      Cbo Bush Tax Cuts

      WASHINGTON — A new government study released Tuesday says that allowing Bush-era tax cuts to expire and a scheduled round of automatic spending cuts to take effect would probably throw the economy into a recession.

      The Congressional Budget Office report says that the economy would shrink by 1.3 percent in the first half of next year if the government is allowed to fall off this so-called "fiscal cliff" on Jan. 1 – and that the higher tax rates and more than $100 billion in automatic cuts to the Pentagon and domestic agencies are kept in place.

  •  Europe is collapsing now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi

    The US (and Japan) will do so in the future. Once Europe's economic implosion has played itself out, bond investors are going to start looking at the US and wondering how we are ever going to service what will by then be debt of 150% of GDP.

    Look at Japan, they tried exactly what is being suggested here, tons and tons of stimulus spending and "infrastructure" spending and now they are facing the abyss with debt of 200% of GDP and no way to escape.

    In a debt-based economic contraction, running up more debt is like continuing to give heroin to a junkie. Sure, it avoids the pain of recovery now, but it just makes it all the more painful later.

    For example, the New Deal worked, while austerity doesn't.
    Name an example of New Deal type spending that wasn't accompanied by 60 million people dead and half the world destroyed.

    People look at the New Deal as if it's the economic be-all and end-all. If this kind of stimulus spending was such a good idea, someone should be able to come up with an example of it working at some other time than then. The fact that posts of this type don't say: look at (a) The New Deal, (b) something else (c) something else (d) something else shows how intellectually bankrupt this line of reasoning is.

    I'm as progressive as the next guy (and will not vote for Republicans for the most part), but telling ourselves fairy tales that getting out of a massive economic collapse by ever more borrowing and spending is ludicrous. Eventually, massive tax increases (on the middle class, no less) or massive cuts in various services are virtually guaranteed. It's just a matter of how it plays out.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:39:37 PM PDT

    •  Actually Japan is at 225% debt to GDP and per (8+ / 0-)

      capita income and employment are doing just fine, thank you.  Austerity, on the other hand is clearly a massive failure.  What we need is massive stimulus spending paid for by taxes on those who have been stealing us blind since Reagan.

      Romney: Wrong on GM. Wrong on bin Laden. Wrong on fiscal austerity and wrong for America. I voted for change. Where is my vote?

      by SGWM on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:48:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A good 30 second TV ad would be your tag line, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Nelson, MarcKyle64

        ... followed by clips of Romney delivering his policy on each one, one by one. And concluding with Obama's point that the GOP insists on blocking progress and moving backward.

        Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

        by TRPChicago on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:18:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In what universe (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, Sparhawk

        is Japan "doing just fine?" Japan is sputtering along with weak exports, huge debt (sustained so far by domestic savings, although household savings rates have plunged), real estate that never recovered from a bubble nearly a decade back, rising unemployment and widespread underemployment, and now a self-inflicted energy crisis that has already resulted in higher energy costs, with more to come.

        •  People look at Japan... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hmi

          ...and assume that because there aren't fires in the street like Greece, everything is fine.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:18:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  the new deal (11+ / 0-)

      had started the recovery well before the u.s. entered the war. and when fdr cut spending in 1937 the recovery foundered until he again started spending. the war did indeed boost spending, but the horrors of the war have nothing to do with the fact that spending boosted the economy. it would have done the same without the war. and you also completely misrepresent japan.

      your right wing talking points are beyond stale.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:57:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hmi
        had started the recovery well before the u.s. entered the war. and when fdr cut spending in 1937 the recovery foundered until he again started spending
        This supports my point. When the heroin gets shut off, the patient gets ill again and suffers withdrawal.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:32:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i see (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cybersaur

          you can twist any argument to suit your needs. first the new deal didn't help, and then it did, but it was like heroin. typical. and once again just to prove the dishonesty of your argument, the entire point of keynesianism is that you don't worry about deficits until after a true recovery is established and booming. 1937 was too early. by the time jfk addressed deficits it was after. now is much too early, as we still need robust spending. as europe's austerity meltdown is proving.

          either you don't understand the basics or you are deliberately dishonest.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:47:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hmi, soros

            Japan tried it your way and has nothing to show for it now but a sclerotic economy and 225% GDP debt and nothing to show for it. They are also a demographic time bomb whose pension funds just became net bond sellers. Also, a slight increase in global interest rates will make Japan's debt service exceed their entire government revenues, making them implode like Greece.

            Deficit spending is a dangerous game that can destroy your economy. It must always be done carefully and for specific purposes. The massive deficit spending being proposed here will 'help' in the short term but will ultimately destroy the economy when it becomes clear that the US will never pay back.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:05:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  True Keynesianism is different (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hmi, Sparhawk

            Than convenient spendism.

            People around here like the spend-your-way-out-of-recession talk because its easy, and is the political equivalent of having your cake and eating it too.

            •  actually (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wsexson

              people around here understand keynesianism. labeling it "spendism" is yet more right wing tripe.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Sun May 27, 2012 at 07:17:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  People around here enjoy govt. spending (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk

                And Keynesianism is popular because it tells you that the cure-all for economic malaise is the conduct that we enjoy.

                Nobody really wants to hear that the US has been living beyond its means for decades. We want to hear that the things that we naturally support (green investment, infrastructure spending, etc.) are the things that will lead to better economic times.

                I would be more likely to believe that people were keynesians if we saw calls for debt/deficit reduction during the better economic times.

                •  perhaps you missed (0+ / 0-)

                  the clinton era. oops.

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:31:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Most of the Clinton era... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...was a fraud-based bubble. The 'surpluses' were only possible because of massive private sector debt being accumulated behind the scenes due to the bubble. The crash was essentially the private sector debt reaching a breaking point. Everything after that has been ever increasing public debt and private debt (the housing bubble) trying to paper over that crash.

                    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                    by Sparhawk on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:15:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  funny thing (0+ / 0-)

                      there has been a series of bubbles and bursts for decades, but the bubbles seem to happen during democratic presidencies and the bursts during republican presidencies. and funny how you continue to ignore the reality that massive deficit spending ended the depression, and that austerity is such a disaster in europe, while tentative keynesianism has our economy slowly growing. and funny how the much more socialized scandinavian economies largely escaped the collapse, but to the degree that they're integrated with the rest of europe.

                      keep trolling.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Sun May 27, 2012 at 11:25:33 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The Scandinavian countries... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...aren't running gigantic budget deficits, now are they? When you're at parity or surplusing you have a good economy, because you're spending what you make, no more, no less. The degree of "socialization" of their economy is not really relevant.  As long as you have sufficient private sector economic activity to support whatever welfare state you are trying to run, you'll never have a problem.

                        Also the Scandinavian countries are all on the order of 10 million people, not 300 million like we are. (This part is just my opinion). It seems to me that you get kind of a reverse economy of scale with large countries because the central government can make very inefficient decisions that effect different constituencies differently. When you're small, you can't do that.

                        Spending far beyond your means, as Greece did, as the US and Europe are doing, is a recipe for disaster.

                        funny how you continue to ignore the reality that massive deficit spending ended the depression
                        The war ended the Depression. It is your opinion that massive deficit spending was the true root of the end of the depression, however, you have (a) failed to explain why no other example of this mythical ability can ever be found, while ignoring numerous examples of countries that overspent themselves into economic crisis  and (b) are handwaving away a lot of other alternative explanations for the end of the depression that are more convincing.
                        and that austerity is such a disaster in europe
                        The "austerity" disaster in Europe is the natural result of spending beyond your means. It's the heroin addict who needs drugs and borrows money to get the drugs. People like you point out that cutting government spending will cause a recession. You are correct, it will. Or you can continue to endlessly kick the can down the road until the spending is forcibly cut off for you, which is what is happening to Greece, and instead of a mild to moderate recession there are fires in the street and riots!

                        Now, the US is a much larger and more dangerous entity than Greece and so it has a greater ability to deficit spend before it implodes. It's more like Japan than Greece: it can kind of limp along as long as interest rates stay low and other countries will keep buying our debt because it has a lot of historical credibility.

                        However, as the debt rises that credibility will erode, until sooner or later at some % of GDP the market will say "no mas, no more money for you". Like with Greece, that can happen almost instantly... Greek bonds were trading at 4% in Nov 2009! No one can be forced to lend money to anyone, even by a sovereign government.

                        In any case, Laurence, I appreciate you taking the time to engage me, but it is clear I am not going to convince you. You are going to continue to advance the line that endless Keynesian spending and continuing to balloon the debt is a good idea despite all the examples to the contrary. Maybe it's just that the Democrats are reliant on older voters who rely on this fraud to continue in any way possible. But my generation is going to be stuck with whatever gets screwed up here.

                        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                        by Sparhawk on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:07:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  Historical example to the contrary (3+ / 0-)

      The Clinton-Gore economic program of 1993 solved all the problems related to the deficit.  If the Japanese situation is extreme, and I'm not sure that it is, we have the ability to adopt a much more practical version  of returning to the Clinton-Gore taxes.  That, plus the 2 percent reduction in Social Security taxes accomplishes Obama's campaign promise also: not to raise taxes on the middle class.

      •  Obama defined the middle class too broadly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson, Minnesota Deb

        all the way up to the 98th percentile in income...we should be able to increase taxes, at least a little, on the top 5% or 10%.

        And a cut in Social Security tax is a really bad idea. It would be one thing if we were cutting the payroll tax and raising another tax to make up for it, but cutting revenue to Social Security just sets it up as a target for future benefit cuts.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:01:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that the Clinton budgeting... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hmi

        ...was the right thing to do. That being said, without the dot.com bubble and related fraud, would we have ever had a balanced budget? Not sure if that's really true, because the bubble just caused public debt to be subsumed into private debt.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:50:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You're blaming WW2 on the New Deal. Seriously? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      luckylizard

      Name an example of New Deal type spending that wasn't accompanied by 60 million people dead and half the world destroyed. --Some Idiot

    •  We don't need a war with 60 million dead (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mike101, Wrench44, wsexson

      to create jobs. The fact is austerity creates misery while social safety nets and large education and training programs work. The latter are paid for by insuring an economic system that includes distribution of wealth.

      -7.5 -7.28, I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one.

      by Blueslide on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:05:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  After all,.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson

        .....we have a power supply system that has to be made carbon-neutral ASAP, all over the globe, at the same time it is massively expanded in parts of the developing world. That's going to be quite a task.

        "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

        by sagesource on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:46:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  this is dishonest trolling (9+ / 0-)

      You are deliberately implying that the progressive economic measures require the slaughter of 10s of millions of people.

      The reason New Deal like programmes have never been replicated is that the people with money and power hate and fear them, and the political willl to overcome them has never again been marshalled.

      Massive tax increases on the middle class will not reverse the concentration of wealth which is the source of the problem. In fact, it will further it.

      So, Mister "I hardly ever vote Republican", go peddle it somewhere else.

      Scripture says "resist not evil", but evil unresisted will prevail.

      by Boreal Ecologist on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:06:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just ignore this guy, he roams around from diary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarcKyle64

        to diary spreading apocalyptic gloom and doom.  His friends call him Eeyore.

        "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy

        by helpImdrowning on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:15:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Despite that being a troll comment (0+ / 0-)

        I do sometimes wonder if it takes a World War for people to agree to the kinds of "socialistic" steps that are needed to restore the middle class.  

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:04:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  no (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hmi, toys
        You are deliberately implying that the progressive economic measures require the slaughter of 10s of millions of people.
        You do not understand.

        I am suggesting that the supposed economic success of the New Deal may not have had anything to do with the New Deal and had more to do with the radical restructuring of the planet that occurred during WWII. After the war, the economies of virtually all of Europe and Asia were shattered. That is probably far more relevant to the rise of the US than the deficit spending of the New Deal.

        Massive tax increases on the middle class will not reverse the concentration of wealth which is the source of the problem. In fact, it will further it.

        I am trying to solve a budget problem. Increasing taxes on the rich, though necessary, will not nearly suffice. There are simply not enough of them to make a huge difference. Raising taxes on the rich under some scenarios will raise $150 billion. We have a $1400 billion hole. Where is the rest going to come from?!

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:44:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you don't mean it, DON'T SAY IT. (0+ / 0-)

          As for the "budget problem", you're complaining about something that built up over 200 years and you want it solved NOW NOW NOW.

          Not gonna happen.

          Not even if everyone BUT the .001% committed immediate suicide and left every penny they had to the US government.

          Maybe there "aren't enough" of "the rich", but they have by-God not left US enough.

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Sun May 27, 2012 at 06:40:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  WRONGNEY (5+ / 0-)

    Wrong on GM
    Wrong on bin Laden
    Wrong on Taxes
    Wrong on Austerity
    Wrong for America

    Romney: Wrong on GM. Wrong on bin Laden. Wrong on fiscal austerity and wrong for America. I voted for change. Where is my vote?

    by SGWM on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:40:30 PM PDT

  •  The destruction is intentional. (8+ / 0-)

    These people win when government fails. And so, unfortunately, all they have to do to achieve that goal is nothing. Absolutely nothing.

    •  Shock Doctrine 101. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bensdad

      "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy

      by helpImdrowning on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:12:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  More than nothing (0+ / 0-)

      Reagan and GOP said government is bad and gave us many examples of bad government.  
      Masterful obstructors when Democrats get in after a GOP wreck.
      Massive money in think tanks, media, FOX and purchase of government.
      Willing to let really bad things happen to people in order to protect their money.
      Act and believe like a cult of greed calling it "freedom".

      •  Want to hear real whining? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe wobblie, orlbucfan, METAL TREK

        Give many examples of how the banks and big corporations screw stuff up.

        I quit doing income taxes when the overlords demanded that a try to sell instant refund loans - at roughly 400% annual interest for a loan that got the money delivered in about 10 days instead of overnight. There are at that time either one or two U.S. banks pushing those loans.

        That interest rate was less than what Cash America charges for a payday loan.

        Check the fees on your credit card.

        The government makes mistakes. The big banks and corporations actively go out of their way to screw us. The federal government is our only protection from those predators.

        The US Supreme Court has by it's actions and rhetoric ceased to be legitimate. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

        by Rick B on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:55:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Follow the money. (8+ / 0-)

    If Social Security is cut, who will benefit?

    If public funding of first responders is cut, who will benefit?

    If funding for public education is cut, who will benefit?

    Etc.

    On one side of the screen, the winners; on the other side, the losers.

    Which side are you on?

    "Do your best, and keep your sense of humor."--My Mom

    by mainely49 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:49:10 PM PDT

  •  No easy growth (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    basket, Al Fondy, Stuart Heady, mike101

    Neither the Dems nor Repubs have a way to increase economic growth. They don't understand why the policies which may have worked in the past are no longer effective for sustained high growth.

    Economic growth requires the depletion of a resource, either a natural resource such as oil or coal, or a monetary resource such as savings, debt or human effort. The main drivers have been cheap oil, middle class savings, women entering the workforce, expansion into global markets, farmland utilization, etc.  The resources have largely been exhasted for future growth.  The recent growth relied on higher leveraged debt.

    The honey pots are empty. The only course is for the middle class to rebuild their savings, but doing so will take a generation and will put even greater strain on the economy.

    Getting to a sustainable economy is going to be very painful. But that should be the goal. The first step should be to redirect the discussion from growth to what it means to live in a sustainable economy.

    •  Growth = economic activity (4+ / 0-)

      --Upgrading the electric grid
      --Green energy initiatives and research
      --Having the world continue to recycle its surpluses through Wall Street

      These are just three elements of increased economic activity that are either happening now or possible in the near future.

      There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

      by upstate NY on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:56:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nine Yarder hits the nail on the head (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mike101

      Underlying plate tectonics, normally beyond the reach of the sound bite universe, will dictate the terms of the future.  

      Cheap oil fueled the prosperity people experienced in the 50s, 60s and 70s.  The decline since then is due to both the global Peak Oil phenomenon and the rise of consumerism along the lines of the American model among the billions of people who live in India, China and the Pacific Rim.

      When George HW Bush proclaimed that there was a "new world order" this is what he meant.  The growth in consumer demand was not going to be in the US middle class, but in the rise of the populations of Asia.  That is why American jobs were shipped overseas.  That is why American debt was sold to China and other countries.  

      The plutocrats sold us out a couple of decades ago and we are just now beginning to wake up and really see it.  

      What indeed is a sustainable economy?  That is the best question that can be asked.  Romney won't ask it.  He will deny that it is a question, all the while pursuing accelerated offshoring.  

      hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

      by Stuart Heady on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:21:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  i wasn't aware (4+ / 0-)

      that human effort was a depletable resource.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:32:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hope the meaning was "use, and/or depletion" n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laurence Lewis

        -- We are just regular people informed on issues

        by mike101 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:45:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that makes the argument even worse (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mike101, cybersaur, wsexson

          because there are plenty of resources we can use, including a manhattan project urgency on the development of green tech.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:48:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right. I was just commenting on resources (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Laurence Lewis

            helping growth. The argument of us not having resources is, of course, wrong.

            -- We are just regular people informed on issues

            by mike101 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:12:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What is growth? (0+ / 0-)

              I suggest we think about economic growth as "a positive spin on the accelerating depletion of a resource".  Whenever a way to deplete a resource is discovered, people rush in to use up that resource until it is gone, or uneconomical, or there's a temporary glut in the market.

              During high growth periods, many different resources are being consumed at once. So for example in the post war period the US had access to new consumer markets in Europe and Asia, a strong dollar, increasing efficiency in farming methods, easy access to anthracite coal deposits, and cheap high grade oil. The human skills and and virtues acquired during the war can be though of as depleteable assets. I don't see many men building their own homes from the cellar up these days, as my father and uncles did, while holding down full time jobs. Without getting into debt.  (No mortgage, buy materials paycheck to paycheck).  That human resource is gone now.

              As a unionized petroleum refinery worker, my father worked overtime to boost production, paid taxes, and invested his savings in the stock market. And died a millionaire.  

              Just about everything that made that growth possible is now exhausted.  

  •  Hear, hear. Great diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick, Laurence Lewis

    For once, the Americans did something right while Europe royally fucked up.

    Obama was pushing them to come along with us and they refused, and though I agree we needed more government-induced demand in the USA, it becomes even more difficult to do that when you have to go it alone and watch others free-ride on all the liquidity you're trying to inject.

    There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

    by upstate NY on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:51:32 PM PDT

  •  What is needed (3+ / 0-)

    is for Democrats to repeat these points at every opportunity.

    Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

    by Big River Bandido on Sun May 27, 2012 at 01:59:30 PM PDT

    •  especially: "Romney - WRONG for America" (0+ / 0-)

      For a better America, vote the GOP out of office whenever and wherever possible and as soon (and as often) as possible!

      by dagnome on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:32:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The point of the sword is specificity (0+ / 0-)

        The statement "Romney is wrong for America" does nothing to convince because it lacks substance and detail, and can thus be easily discounted as sloganeering or propaganda.

        What's compelling about this ad is the narrative itself — the money trail, who wins and who loses, and especially the identification with the average voter's self-interest.  Those are the kinds of points that move people, and demand constant repetition.

        Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

        by Big River Bandido on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:19:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  sorry! Off topic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orlbucfan

    Voter Purge, Minority Voting Rights Flashpoints Of New Showdown In Florida

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  •  Mitt's A Scott Walker In Sheep's Clothing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mithra

    " In my first term, we repealed the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell" -- -- wait, though; in my second term, we will replace it with a policy known as, it's raining men." Barack Obama

    by wild hair on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:04:52 PM PDT

  •  A two pronged approach (4+ / 0-)

    In addition to a frontal assault on GOP fitness to lead, now is the time for the democrats to propose a simple plan for growth and prosperity. Isolated initiatives like the Buffett rule and equal pay for women are good tools to reflect the contrast between the parties but, in and of themselves, they fail to present a coherent theme that will capture the imagination of parties base and independents.

    I'd like to see Obama propose some bold initiatives that can be enacted when he is re-elected and has a democratic congress to work with. How about we start with a $500 billion infrastructure/jobs initiative, paid for with tax increases on the wealthy. Instead of waging a losing battle with this congress, this initiative can't be presented as a fete accompli if the Dems take back congress and re-elect Obama.  

  •  Hear, hear, indeed. Too much evangelism out there (5+ / 0-)

    I recently concluded some discussions with an old friend who had in recent years become an evangelical Christian.  

    The real danger posed by the Republican Party at this point, I conclude from this and other similar discussions, is that the GOP has become invested in evangelical thinking. It is not about Jesus.  It goes deeper.  

    There are enough people out there whose fears motivate them that a coalition of the fearful and neurotic can be put together to support the policies described in this diary.

    The glue that binds this is not the Bible or even religion.

    The glue is really the money that is there because the special interests, out of cold and cynical calculation, have discovered that they can influence evangelicals because they do not see the need to question the opinions of their leadership.  They do not see the relationships at the deeper levels.  Questioning is a breach of faith.  

    That level of cynicism, leading the faithful to cynical purposes is really the absolute pit of low.  But it works and is profitable.  Billions have been invested in pushing America towards authoritarianism over the past several decades.

    More needs to be done to criticize this publicly.  Without this link between the Wall Street interests and the religious right, Romney, Boehner, McConnell, Ryan, Norquist, Rove et all would not be having much effect at all.  

    If Romney gets elected because of this we will have a fight on our hands to prevent this from all going over the cliff.  

    We will be nostalgic for Bush.  

    Thank you Lawrence Lewis.  I wish this could be published in sky writing over every neighborhood in America.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:13:36 PM PDT

  •  Great diary. If only people away from this site (0+ / 0-)

    could read this and actually comprehend its content, maybe the way would be a little easier.  Thank you and please keep up the great work.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy

    by helpImdrowning on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:20:24 PM PDT

  •  I would feel bad about (0+ / 0-)

    bullying a classmate, gay or not. I would wonder what was I thinking if I put the dog carrier on top of my car. I would have a little guilt if I made a million off of sucking the lifeblood from a few hundred hard workers, but that's just me and I'm not Mitt. He comes from a different place.
    I think Obama more than deserves my vote for re-election, way more. My life is going fine and I'm not financially rich at all but I'm not morally bankrupt either.

  •  An inconvenient fact (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi

    No individual, business, corporation or country can borrow their way out of debt or into prosperity.  Many countries in the European Union stand today in proof of that and truth be known, America is not far behind them.

    The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

    by commonsensically on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:21:24 PM PDT

    •  actually (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein, mike101

      we did it. it was called the new deal. and you kinda missed the whole point that europe's implosion has been caused by a very different economic approach than the one we're taking.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:31:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hope you're correct, Laurence (0+ / 0-)

        Thanks.

        The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

        by commonsensically on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:32:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The problem in communicating that, though (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laurence Lewis

        is that in this country Europe=socialism, so anything that's wrong in Europe must have been caused by socialism.  

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:13:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  my link above (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wsexson

          about the "cruel stupidity that is economic austerity"- the reality is that conservative parties have controlled europe's governments for the past few years, and their policies have made things significantly worse. and in reaction to their meltdown,the french just elected a socialist.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:22:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Socialism (0+ / 0-)

          I know this is a "progressive" site, but I am not real sure that the majority here is all about "socialism".  Maybe it is, just do not see that as what most people here on Daily Kos want America to go to.  Maybe a "hybrid" kind of socialism?  Maybe something that is "in between capitalism and socialism"?  

          Just wondering exactly what, really, the majority wants to see here.

          The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

          by commonsensically on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:24:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Social Democracy? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alice in Florida

            It's what Europe used to have, before the plutocrats put their yes-men back in power (in the power centers like France, Germany and the UK - they ignored the "smaller" nations, and some of those are still managing pretty well thank you).

            If it's
            Not your body,
            Then it's
            Not your choice
            And it's
            None of your damn business!

            by TheOtherMaven on Sun May 27, 2012 at 06:52:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Depends on what you mean by "Socialist" (0+ / 0-)

            It is widely believed among the Republican Right that President Obama is a socialist, after all. The "in between" is actually what most European Socialist or Social-Democratic or Labor parties are all about.

            "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

            by Alice in Florida on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:39:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I did it for over ten years (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Minnesota Deb

      I maxed out my overdraft and credit cards every month to keep things going. Eventually my kids started demanding less and my pay rose. I never went under because of credit and now I only owe taxes and insurance on my paid off home each year and have a few thousand dollars of credit card debt that amounts to absolutely nothing. Austerity is for the rich, they want you to be poor and suffer for them. They aren't going to play that game, you shouldn't either.

    •  Countries can issue credit! (0+ / 0-)

      And we should. We don't need to go to the private sector at all.

      The EU countries stand as proof of what happens when you REFUSE to use levers over your economy.

      Spain, for instance, has a budget surplus and a low debt to GDP. But what happens when a country is BARRED from controlling its own economy?

      I think you've taken the wrong lessons from Europe.

      There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

      by upstate NY on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:15:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  out.of. the. ball. park! great diary (3+ / 0-)

    thanks Lawrence.  the comparison between the US & EU at this junction gives the perfect example of the competing ideologies ...it can't be stressed enough.

    Macca's Meatless Monday

    by VL Baker on Sun May 27, 2012 at 02:34:13 PM PDT

  •  The Republicans are also not fit to govern (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mithra, Eric Nelson, Laurence Lewis

    because they are using considerable political muscle in the states they control to cut back on voting rights.  Freedom to cast a ballot is the central tenet of Democracy, and Republicans are using every means at their disposal--many of them underhanded or illegal--to keep traditionally Democratic voters from having their say.

    Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

    by SottoVoce on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:15:34 PM PDT

  •  Trouble is, it's more complicated (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Citizenpower, Laurence Lewis

    The US is pursuing a Kenseyan policy at the federal level (though only half-heartedly, thanks to the dominance of conservative Dems and Republicans in Congress) while most states are in austerity mode. That's one reason the US economy is stuck mostly spinning its wheels (while Europe is speeding up in reverse)...

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Sun May 27, 2012 at 03:17:41 PM PDT

  •  A question for a wise person!! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mithra, orlbucfan, Citizenpower, Matt Z
    Is there any way to Legally Challenge the Republicans in Congress for their relationship with Grover, since they no longer represent the people that elected them?
    •  Grover Norquist should be criminally (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, Minnesota Deb, LillithMc

      indicted and facing trial. His connections to Abramoff are just the tip of the crime hill he's created and sits on.

      Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

      by orlbucfan on Sun May 27, 2012 at 06:12:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Its up to any real Republicans to challenge the (0+ / 0-)

      unelected, illegitimate authority of the Republican party.
      They may be too cowardly or over-whelmed by the Tea Party crazies to do so.

      Their hatred of Obama is their Achilles heel. I know a very smart Republican who said she could "never' vote for Obama but she wasn't going to vote for McCain either.
      She believed strongly in women's rights and wasn't religious. How does someone like that even belong in the party?

      Some Republicans are holding their noses and voting for Obama. Let's hope there are enough of those who still
      believe in a duly elected president.

  •  The Election is about a Resume (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    METAL TREK, MarcKyle64

    Whether its Romney's or the GOP's in general. A resume tells what you've done in the past that applies to the present/future. Romney in private business, looked out for the few at the top while not being focused on producing jobs, which is the opposite of what we need. As Gov, his job creation record was near the bottom in the nation. The GOP, when last in control, turned a $200B+ budget surplus into a $1.3T deficit while increasing the national debt by over 80%. They allowed a housing bubble to over produce houses by the millions and the financial sector to nearly collase into a great depression destabilizing the economy. The economy shrank at nearly a 9% annual rate in the quarter before Pres Obama came into office. In less than 3.5 years he has reversed the collapse, rescuing the financial and auto sectors, reduced unemployment from 10% to 8.1%. He revived the manufacturing sector, generated 4.2M private sector jobs over the last 26 months, saw the stock market rise nearly 60% with record corp cash on hand. Additionally, Bin Laden is now "Been Gone". Obama ended the Iraq War and set the exit for the Afghan war, not to mention Qaddafi, and decimating Al Qaeda. This all done with one deranged opposition party tied behind his back. Reading the two Resumes side by side, the choice is easy.

    Modern GOP: Birthers and Deathers Teabaggin' in a widestance on astroturf

    by Wrench44 on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:44:56 PM PDT

  •  Republican Agenda: Raid the Treasury (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    willynel, MarcKyle64, Wrench44, LillithMc

    That is the beginning and the end of the Republican agenda. They want unfettered access to all that money, so they can stuff it in their own pockets, and in their friends.

    They want the money. That's what they're about.

    The invasion of Iraq was a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a crime against civilization. Prosecute the crime.

    by Positronicus on Sun May 27, 2012 at 05:05:05 PM PDT

  •  I've posted some derivative of this idea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LillithMc

    and maybe I'm wrong, but the Republicans are real big friends with the big banks who wreaked havoc with this country in 2008.  And the Republicans are so freaked out that the exposure of the US economic system to the National Debt ($16T) poses such a grave danger to our country.  And yet they are unconcerned that the current leverage (I assume that is something like "potential debt") of the four largest banks is around $235 Trillion, or 50X assets.

  •  Most of this thread only confirms...... (0+ / 0-)

    That we have 3rd world politicians fooling....or try to fool everyone.   The ONLY reason the economy seems to be growing, and I apologize in advance if I sound like a broken record, is by STATISTICAL ABROGATION!  We no longer include certain classes of people in tyhe labor pool.  We include otherwise Mcminimum part time, or temporary jobs.   That's not going to pay for car paiment, let alone a house.   And we don't include food and energy prices for direct inflation.....etc.etc.  

    If you think for one minute we're recovering, I have a bridge for sale.....cheap.   start with the one closest to me...Sunshine Skyway Ridge......10,000...LOL!

    When the next global financial crisis occurs, and this one will be FAR worse than 2008, it will slice open the economic structures of nearly the entire planet like a pig.  And reflect on thinking and debating about where it started or get resolved.  Given the attitude of the average American.....we're going to be worried about when we will be able to watch TV again, as that average American realizes, or not, that credit based societies fail in the end.  No access to credit, because baks are frozen, and customers can't pay their bill, and elctric company has no access to credit because too much of it is "crowded" out by govermental borrowing, goodbye electricity.   Goodbye water and sewer.  Goodbye grocery stores, gas stations....etc.etc.   there was a real reason why the gov't bailed out the banks in 2008.   You'd think we would learned to rectify some of those problems butno, cuts into the profitability of the playtoy called the derivatives market.  We all will pay, rich or poor.

      YOU CANNOT BORROW YOUR WAY TO PROSPERITY.........end of rant, and just my views....

    •  The Horror stories I can tell you! (0+ / 0-)

      Down here.  Massive case of mass stupidity.

      "Gees.....I'm a server making 40 a year.  Think I will buy that condo costing EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND on Treasure Island". Unfortunately true, really nice dateable gal, but I can't deal with that).....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site