RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Robert Reich begins: "Imagine your house is burning. You call the fire department but your call isn't answered because every fire fighter in town is debating whether there will be enough water to fight fires over the next ten years, even though water is plentiful right now."

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)



Slouching Toward a Double-Dip

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

08 August 11

For no good reason.

magine your house is burning. You call the fire department but your call isn't answered because every fire fighter in town is debating whether there will be enough water to fight fires over the next ten years, even though water is plentiful right now. (Yes, there's a long-term problem.) One faction won't even allow the fire trucks out of the garage unless everyone agrees to cut water use. An agency that rates fire departments has just issued a downgrade, causing everyone to hoard water.

While all this squabbling continues, your house burns to the ground and the fire has now spread to your neighbors' homes. But because everyone is preoccupied with the wrong question (the long-term water supply) and the wrong solution (saving water now), there's no response. In the end, the town comes up with a plan for the water supply over the next decade, but it's irrelevant because the whole town has been turned to ashes.

Okay, I exaggerate a bit, but you get the point. The American economy is on the verge of another recession. Most Americans haven't even emerged from the last one. Consumers (70 percent of the economy) won't or can't spend because their major asset is worth a third less than it was five years ago, they can't borrow as before, and they're justifiably worried about their jobs and wages. And without customers, businesses won't expand and hire. So we're trapped in a vicious cycle that's getting worse.

But the government won't come to the rescue by spending more and cutting most peoples' taxes because it's obsessed by a so-called "debt crisis" based on budget projections over the next ten years. That obsession - which serves the ideological purposes of right-wing Republicans who really want to shrink government - has even spread to the eat-your-spinach media, deficit hawks in the Democratic Party, and a major (and thoroughly irresponsible) credit-rating agency that's neither standard nor poor.

Meanwhile, some lazy (or misinformed) commentators are linking our faux debt crisis to Europe's real one. But the two are entirely different. Several European nations don't have enough money to repay what they owe their lenders, or even pay the interest. That's threatening the entire euro-zone.

But there's no question that the United States has enough money to pay what it owes. We're the richest nation in the world and we print the money the world relies on. The only question on this side of the pond is whether tea-party Republicans will allow America to pay its bills when the debt-ceiling fight resumes at the end of 2012.

Europe is scared of what's happening in the United States - but it's not America's faux "debt crisis" that's spooked them. It's the slowdown here (and the likelihood of another recession), made all the worse as our debt obsession prevents the U.S. government from doing what it should. A slowdown and recession here mean fewer exports from Europe to America. When combined with their genuine debt crisis, this could push Europe's economy over the edge.

The most important aspect of policy making is getting the problem right. We are slouching toward a double-dip because we're getting the problem wrong. Despite what Standard & Poor's says, notwithstanding what's occurring in Europe, and regardless of US budget projections years from now - our current crisis is jobs, wages, and growth. We do not now have a debt crisis.

Every time you hear an American politician analogize the nation's budget to a family budget (as, sadly, even President Obama has done), you should know the politician is not telling the truth. The truth is just the opposite. Our national budget can and should counteract the shrinkage of family budgets by running larger deficits when families cannot.

Americans are more frightened, economically insecure, and angrier than at any time since the Great Depression. If our lawmakers continue to obsess about the wrong thing and fail to do what must be done - and they don't explain it to the nation - Americans will only become more fearful, insecure, and angry.

We are slouching toward a double-dip, with all the human costs that implies. We don't have to be. That is the tragedy of our time.


Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+48 # PhilO 2011-08-08 16:26
As always, RR is spot-on!!

I think we need to develop a new expression to describe those people who lack the wisdom, knowledge, foresight and intelligence to govern, but instead rely upon populist catch-phrases that oversimplify complex problems (and make all new problems that are even bigger!). That expression, with all due respect to Jim Jones and his KoolAide swilling cult, is "Drinking the TEA"! The initially conceived TEA party was built upon the acronym 'Taxed Enough Already', but that movement (albeit, initially misinformed and misdirected) has been hijacked by a group of 'Terrorists, Extortionists, and Antichrists'!!!
 
 
+11 # Sandy G 2011-08-08 21:07
Of course, portz' the irony in the whole mess is that the very people so bereft of wisdom,knowledg e, forsight and intelligence were elected by us. So, we got precisely what we voted for.
 
 
+37 # Mickeyfilm 2011-08-08 16:37
Sadly, nothing is going to change this. Most Americans are too stupid to listen and also stupid enough to elect the idiots of the Tea Party. Absolutely not one politician will stand up to tell the truth as you point out. We had a chance with Hillary. Obama from the start had next to zero experience managing any real crisis. The day she conceded to Obama was the day the Democratic party decided to accept nonsense of fake "we can do it" talk. Deficit hawks will likely keep the country angry and divided even after the metaphorical house is burned down. Likely all will be lost. Even China is ridiculing us today as Putin did last week. In the end, even the Koch Brothers and Murdoch will loose as there will be no economy to sustain their fortunes.
 
 
-66 # forparity 2011-08-08 16:56
A chance with Hillary?

As Obama's pastor ranted to his singing and dancing congregation:

Rev. Wright: Hillary is married to Bill and Bill have been good to us? No, he ain't! Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky Wright thrusting his pelvic area to and fro)!

Congregation: (cheers)

Rev. Wright: He was riding dirty!

Meaning: "us"? Wright is refering to the black community. He's saying that Hillary going to screw them over, just like Bill did.

The national media had Hillary, Bill, the Rev, & Obama on TV plenty of times back then, and didn't see the need to have the conversation.

I'll say this about the Tea Party-it was only they that have finally got Obama (today) to inform the people that he is finally going to come up with a plan to address the debt crisis, of which S & P warned us about back in April.

Obama ignored the reccomedations of his debt commission, last December-and ever since; his budget he presented in Feb., promised to swell the debt (received 0 votes in the Senate; and the Democratic congress for the past two years never even passed a federal budget - I suspect that is of hisotrical note.

With polls showing most Americans support the broad positions of the TP on these current issues, I suspect the Pres had to finally come to the table.
 
 
+19 # ABen 2011-08-08 21:07
forparity,
It sounds as though you have been drinking the tea as well. What was it you didn't like about the Clinton era--the peace or the prosperity? 23.7 million jobs under Clinton; three years of surplus (Bush took care of that), and got the U.S. out of the Somalia mess that Bush1 started. You would do well to pay less attention to less Fixed Noise and more to the historical record.
 
 
+2 # brianf 2011-08-09 08:35
I didn't like NAFTA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, or all the deregulation, for starters. Of course Clinton had some good qualities too. He was much better than Bush, but that's not saying much. Clinton and Obama and Clinton are all very similar in their outlook. They are not who the nation or the Democratic party needs right now. Can't we do any better than "not as bad as Bush"? If we can't, we are doomed.
 
 
-2 # for parity 2011-08-09 10:51
Peace? Rwanda - DR Congo - Ivory Coast - Algiers - Chechnya - Bosnia - Kosovo - turned his back on HIV/Aids in Africa (where millions more became infected and died) - Blood Diamonds - the Taliban seizure of Afghanistan (another 100K + horrific human rights violations - we did nothing) - 5 named military ops in Iraq plus major escalation of action towards the end of his term.

Clinton returned to Rwanda and promised "Never Again." Already, at that time, the conflict had re-erupted just next door in the DR Congo, where 2-3 million would die before the end of his term.

The era of Clinton was the most deadly period for the world, since the end of WW II.

Prosperity? Well, bubbles of greed and massive corporate fraud and venture capitalism run amuck - do have short term massive stimulus power, i.e., proof that it does absolutely trickle down.

However, in case you missed it, the Dot.com bubble (the Enron bubble) crashed in March of 2000. Every leading economic indicator that had not already turned on it's head (note - the top of the broad market was back in early 1998) did so promptly.

With the $10 Trillion crash came the end of that prosperity, the end of the tax revenue and economy that brought us the nice little surpluses - leaving behind a collapse that drove us deep back into quick massive deficits.
 
 
+5 # HarpoMarx 2011-08-08 20:37
Hillary was the "known known." It was a given she would fill her administration with the Rubin proteges, aka the DINO triangulators. So I went with Obama, the "unknown" in the hope he was a straight shooter who offered real hope and change. Imagine my shock when he turned out to be just another corporate fascist DINO.
 
 
+4 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-08-09 10:36
Not only that, since then, she's been complicit in using US diplomats as spies. Hillary was not the answer. Hillary would not have gotten ANY healthcare reform passed. Hillary would still be ducking imaginary bullets on the tarmac, and the Republican Obama-haters would have been vicious Hillary-haters as well. Are we so bereft of leaders we have to second-guess Hillary?

Howard Dean. Kucinich. Where are the liberal lions?
 
 
+1 # Mickeyfilm 2011-08-08 22:13
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-72/6957-hillary-told-you-so
 
 
+9 # NanFan 2011-08-09 04:43
Okay, Mickey, you had until the last line when you prophesied that the Koch boys and El Murdocho "will lose as there will be no economy to sustain their fortunes." Ha!

They've ripped off America and moved on. They've outsourced -- like all big corporations -- to other countries who have YOUR jobs that will never come back, all the while making record profits (Exxon up 44% last quarter!!). They've got their money in off-shore accounts and in hidden assets.

And WE'RE becoming EXACTLY what they want us to be: Mexico...the rich at the top, luxuriating off of unearned income to keep 1% rich, and the angry poor at the bottom, no jobs...the 99% poor, becoming more and more corrupt to stay alive. It's fetid!

Yes, we're being ridiculed by China and Russia -- that's what they do, by the way; it's their propaganda tactic -- but ask yourself, "Why wouldn't we be ridiculed?" We have just shown the World that we're all about a bunch of right-wing nut-job children who simply will take their toys and go home to their tax-haven mansions if they do not get their way. Republicans are rejoicing at our expense!

Well, they just got their way...we're the richest country in the World and our people have no jobs, thus, no money.

Just what El Mudocho and the Koch boys want: us watching helplessly, empty water buckets in hand, U.S burning.
 
 
+1 # BradFromSalem 2011-08-09 08:02
Nan,

Mickey is very correct, and it is why I call them stupid. The Koch brothers et. al. are taking more and more of the US and the world's financial wealth for themselves. Your house didn't really lose 30% of it's value. That was merely stolen by the $$boys.

However, if thay had not stolen it, that house's value would have gone up. So, if your house was worth 100K in 2007, then it is now worth 70K and the $$boys have that other 30K. If they left it alone your home may be worth 110K.

That's because as the wealth concentrates into fewer hands it circulates less. When money circulates, it grows wealth. There are problems with too much circulation (inflation), but that is not our existing problem.

So, eventually the $$boys will start actually shrinking the total wealth, if that has not started already in Europe. Once the wealth shrinks, then all that $$ they stole begins to disintegrate.

Thats why Mickey is correct!
 
 
+2 # brianf 2011-08-09 08:40
In the long run, they will lose. They are only interested in short term profit, and that is what they will get. But when the entire economy collapses, because we failed to stop global warming, they will lose everything too. That doesn't make me feel any better. It's just the truth.
 
 
+13 # NanFan 2011-08-09 04:50
P.S. Cut spending by ENDING ALL of our Wars! If President Obama had the guts to do that, our revenue would be increased immediately.

NO MORE WAR FUNDING. Bring 'em home!

N.
 
 
-1 # for parity 2011-08-09 13:58
Well, the revenue would not be increased - but yes, spending would go down - lowering the current and future deficits.
 
 
+44 # Allison 2011-08-08 16:38
Here's my question: Do the politicians know they're getting the problem wrong? If yes, and they're deliberately lying, shame on them. If no, they are not doing their homework, so shame on them.

And in the meantime, those of us who work for a living are getting screwed -- and I don't mean in the good way.
 
 
+12 # MIKE K 2011-08-08 18:58
Many in the GOP know very well asn are doing it delibratly. There doing it partly to make it harder for all Democrats in the next election and partly because they have painted them selves into a Corner Idealogicaly.
 
 
+2 # NanFan 2011-08-09 06:11
No offense to you, Allison, as this is a question many who vote for them should be asking, but... DUH! Of course they know "they're getting the problem wrong" FOR US...it's just not wrong for THEM.

This is what most of America just doesn't get...or even see...or even question!

N.
 
 
+19 # Isar 2011-08-08 16:59
How very sad that we have allowed ourselves to come to a point where most of us do not trust our political leaders. We need heroes in Washington, not narrow-minded, back-biting, selfish polticians who lie to us and spread fear. FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." is so appropriate now. We need another FDR, and I was hoping Obama could be that. But once again, he disappoints us. His speech today needed to be more uplifting. He also needed to apologize as Commander in Chief for the deaths of those young men instead of using the usual platitudes. However, we all know, Presidents dare not apologize. Things are looking grim for the President and his party. Mitch McConnel, Eric Cantor, and Speaker Boehner must be sharing a brandy and cigar right now, huh? Smiling...winki ng at one another. It's working.
 
 
+33 # teineitalia 2011-08-08 17:38
As usual, Mr. Reich has identified the real source of confusion in America: the politicians are focusing on the wrong problem. Whether they are doing it knowingly, like some of the older, more experienced senators and congress critters (who are - with few exceptions-boug ht and paid for by corporate America) or unknowingly- like the upstart freshman TEA party crazies, it is a tragedy to watch Washington fiddle while the country burns.

Never in my lifetime did I think I would see such national psychosis.

The Republicans have lost all sense of humanity, and the Democrats can't bring themselves to fight back and CHANGE the narrative. The crazies in both parties have convinced the people that the only tool we have left is a hammer... so every problem needs to look like a nail.

Can this blog be published as a guest editorial in every small town paper? that would help.
 
 
+13 # angelfish 2011-08-08 17:39
In the Musical 1776, John Adams sings a song with the plaintive lines, "Is ANYbody there? Does ANYbody care? Does ANYBODY see what I see?" Those few lines express EXACTLY what I'm feeling over what has and has NOT been happening in Washington since President Obama's Inauguration! It seems that "Special Interests" have been holding up progress in Congress since BEFORE the Declaration of Independence was signed! The one GOOD thing is, is that they EVENTUALLY came together for the good of ALL, in 1776, that is. My greatest fear is that THIS Congress is so Hell bent on adhering to it's OWN agendas rather than what is BEST for the Country and her people, and that the problems WON'T be addressed and will only worsen with all their foot dragging and "gotcha" blame gaming. EVERYONE knows that the Mega-Wealthy MUST begin to pay their fair share of the Tax burden. Unless and until this problem is addressed, we'll remain stale-mated! Please, Congressmen, put aside your petty partisan Bull-Puckey and address the Fiscal problems NOW before it eats us ALL alive!
 
 
+4 # Ingrid Scott 2011-08-08 18:39
I believe it was this same song that contained the wonderful line,
"If pro is the opposite of con, is Progress the opposite of Congress?"
 
 
+7 # Lulie 2011-08-08 17:49
And "fearful, insecure, and angry" people tend to be violent people.
 
 
+3 # rf 2011-08-09 04:51
Look at England ...we're one police shooting from a melt down. A new dip will have all of those like me, who have hung on to their houses out of them. The banks will need another bailout, Wall st. will get attention again, maybe bigger salaries and bonuses for this round of destruction. Look at who profits from the country going further down the rabbit hole!
 
 
+9 # Doc Mary 2011-08-08 17:52
Hey, I think we should take S & P's advice. Cut spending - why do we have to be the world's policeman? And increase revenues: raise taxes on ... People like the executives at S & P.

Isn't it truly obscene that they issued their downgrade the same day so many Seals lost their lives when their helicopter was hit by a missile?

No, no. The only acceptable cuts are to the sick, the poor, children, the elderly. And heaven forbid the fine people at S & P offer to help out their country in an hour of need.
 
 
+5 # Toole 2011-08-08 17:55
The present situation in the US is not surprising. Any country that engages in prolonged war has to pay the bill or keep borrowing until it reaches the moment of crisis.
One commentator has expressed his/her preference for Hillary Clinton over Obama for the presidency. let's face it, whoever had become president in 2009 would have the same predicament as long as the stupid war policy inherited from the previous administration had been pursued. War is costly and does not bring one any friend.
President Obama had a chance with the Democrats controlling both branches of the legislature to make the changes he touted so much during the campaign, but opted for the ill advised "bipartisanship " policy that made the American voter become utterly disgusted with them. Hence this mess!
In the parliamentary democracies of most countries, where the leader of the majority party becomes the prime minister, the government makes all decisions, subject to debate in the house, despite opposition from the other parties. In the end, it takes action to change policies in order to avert crises.
 
 
-9 # s wm carson 2011-08-08 18:16
O Holy wise man Reich - where were you when first NAFTA, then GATT were crammed down the throats of us workers in the (former) usa?!! how really elegantly simple to fix this mess - many of our voices were silenced in that fight - we shall not lose the next! you 'new ' democrats are no more American than Dick Nixon/ Henry Kissinger. shame forever upon all of you traitors.
 
 
+9 # jon 2011-08-08 19:12
You can't ship jobs overseas for 30 years and expect to have a strong economy.

Reagan gave tax-breaks to corporations to pay for their shipping jobs off-shore - never forget that.

To correct "wrong thought, wrong action, wrong results" on this kind of level is going to require a VERY big change in policy. I am NOT going to hold my breath.
 
 
-5 # Dick Huopana 2011-08-08 18:36
Reich says,

"But there's no question that the United States has enough money to pay what it owes. We're the richest nation in the world and we print the money the world relies on."

So why is our government $14.4 trillion in debt? Instead of raising the debt ceiling, why haven't we just printed $14.4 trillion and repaid the debt to end its interest payments, debt ceiling controversies, and risk of more credit rating downgrades?

Reich also says,

"The American economy is on the verge of another recession. Most Americans haven't even emerged from the last one. Consumers (70 percent of the economy) won't or can't spend because their major asset is worth a third less than it was five years ago, they can't borrow as before, and they're justifiably worried about their jobs and wages. And without customers, businesses won't expand and hire. So we're trapped in a vicious cycle that's getting worse."

Such words tell me that we have never recovered from Bush's 2008 recession and instead are "slouching" or perhaps rushing to the verge of a Depression.

BTW, Reich's above words also reinforce my conviction that the only errors S&P has made is not downgrading our government's debt to a lower rating and not doing so much much sooner.
 
 
-15 # for parity 2011-08-08 20:58
According to Dean Baker - we've never really recovered from the crisis that Bill Clinton oversaw -- which helped set the stage for Bush's recession.
 
 
+4 # Dick Huopana 2011-08-09 09:12
If Bush was presiding over a crisis, why did he repeatedly boast to Americans that the economy was growing and strong
(as it should have been with a couple of wars to boost it)? In fact, when Bush submitted his proposed 2009 budget in February, 2008, it promised a $48 billion surplus budget by 2012.
Unfortunately, the economic collapse later in 2008 revealed that Bush had been feeding us BS and that he had "set the stage" for the crisis that Obama inherited.
 
 
-6 # for parity 2011-08-09 10:59
Look, I'm not going to defend Bush either - he inherited a mess - and left a bigger mess.

In truth, however, the deficits were disappearing sharply from 2003-2007, and as they CBO does this BS with just projecting forward that which is going on in the moment - they (like we were told in 2000) told us that we were going right back into surpluses. I never believed it, as I understood back in 1999-2000 what was upon us, because the housing bubble - like the dot.com bubble before - was overripe for a collapse.

This does compare to the BS we are told about what Clinton left - and if anyone has the balls to ask either Dan Baker or Paul Krugman, or any other economist out there, left or right, they will tell you that the surpluses were toast the second the dot.com bubble crashed (March, 2000).

This stuff is not rocket science - it's simply Econ 101 - or Gut Logic 101.

And here we go again -- been listening to Obama for 2-1/2 years?
 
 
+4 # Dick Huopana 2011-08-09 14:44
You say the Bush deficits were "disappearing sharply from 2003-2007."
But the debt from Bush's January, 2001 inauguration to Obama's January, 2009 inauguration increased $4.9 trillion.So, Bush's deficits must have been huge in the other years,including 2008 when he submitted a proposed 2009 budget with a projected $48 billion surplus by 2012.
You say this "stuff" is "simply Econ101" but Bush supposedly had a Harvard MBA. While running up a record debt increase why did he cut taxes? And why did he predict a 2012 a balanced budget with a $48 billion surplus? To help elect a Republican to succeed him in the 2008 election with more lies?
 
 
-2 # for parity 2011-08-09 15:42
Dick -- meant 2004 forward. sorry, I knew that.

2004 - $412.7
2005 - $318.3
2006 - $248.2
2007 - $160.7

It was going down because federal tax revenues were really climbing again from 2004-2007. It was not because they were cutting spending - not new news there.

I explained, by comparing the Clinton era projections to what the Bush era projections were... Both were off in the Trillions - as soon as the economy turned - crashed - bubble burst - whatever you want to call it.

The 2001 and 2003 stimulus bills (mostly tax cuts) were just that -- stimulus trying to get the economy going again following the economic crash of March, 2000 - and then the after effects on the economy from 9/11.

Your Q - "while running up a record debt inc why did he cut taxes?" is out of context, completely. The stimulus was to help the economy - and indeed following the 2003 tax cuts, tax revenue soared from 2004 thru 2007. Then, as in 2001, following the 2008 crash, revenues collapsed again - and stimulus and other spending increased the debt.

Take the political bias out of your process - and it's econ 101, as I said.

My biggest problem with Bush, economically, is that he didn't follow thru on getting the housing bubble he inherited from Clinton (born of Clinton/Cuomo) - in check. And, the top tax cuts.
 
 
+4 # Dick Huopana 2011-08-09 18:14
Well, if the Bush tax cuts were stimulus measures, they are probably setting a record as the longest running stimulus (already 8 years)this country has ever experienced - because they are still in effect and Republicans are determined to keep up the tax cuts ignoring the $14.3 trillion debt for which the tax cuts are largely responsible. You ignore that the Bush wars were a steroid-like economic stimulant, especially when the wars' costs have been effectively funded by borrowing and increasing the debt. When and how do you think we should begin repaying the debt accrued to fund the wars?
 
 
-2 # for parity 2011-08-09 20:33
Bounce around, would you.?

Then you say, "I ignore the stimulus effect of the wars."

I wasn't ignoring it. Personally, yes I understand that they have a stimulus effect - course if I'd volunteered that here on this board, I'd been called ever name under the sun.

Whatever - the stimulus effect is not more than the dollar cost. If you just pull out - then the cost will be less and the revenue loss will increase as well.

How do you pay it back? Can't, any more than you can pay back the current stimulus spending - it's done. Only by balancing the budget and getting us into surplus can that process be started.

Last I checked, the President's last budget that he submitted (which received 0 votes in the Senate) would have run the deficits up to $20 trillion in ten years. The House passed Cut cap and balance bill, which has super majority support by the nation, might be a better starting point -- certainly, for a starting conversation point.

And what do you mean "if" the Bush tax cuts were stimulus? Certainly the first leg - the tax rebates pushed by the Democrats in 2001 are considered stimulus by everyone. The corporate jet tax cuts, extended by Obama's Stimulus Bill are considered stimulus.

Those tax cuts for the above $200k ($250 couples) - 18% of the total Bush cuts - don't do as much.
 
 
+1 # Dick Huopana 2011-08-10 07:36
You answered, "Only by balancing the budget and getting us into surplus can that process be started." But I and most others know that.

You misunderstood the intent of my question, I'll re-phrase (and expand it): When and how do you personally propose we both balance the budget and then repay the debt attributable to the Bush tax cuts, unfunded wars. and unfunded Medicare D?

For example: Do you propose increasing further what you call the "Bush tax cut stimulus?" Do you propose maneuvering our country into one or two more war stimuli? Do you propose expanding unfunded Medicare D to also cover, but unfunded, over-the-counte r drugs?

Alternatives, of course, would be to repeal the Bush tax cuts, end the Iraq and Afghanistan military occupations, and reduce the size of the Pentagon to a Triangle.
 
 
+4 # BradFromSalem 2011-08-09 08:10
Because the US Government is not doing the responsible thing by putting a higher portion of the aggregate wealth to uplift everyone.

Duh!

There are lots of peripheral issues that will improve the lot of everyone, but the rich owe us a ton of dough. And our government is so dysfunctional that we don't even ask to get it back.
 
 
-2 # Dick Huopana 2011-08-09 09:28
I notice that my comment received 6 thumbs down (maybe more if anyone gave it a thumbs up). I'm disappointed that those thumbing down didn't reply with their reasoning. But, I especially would have welcomed a "reply" comment from Robert Reich. I almost always agree with his articles but think, after reading this one, that he needs a vacation to give his macro perspective a needed rest.
 
 
+7 # jon 2011-08-08 18:39
The riots in London are ALL about THIS.

The murder of Duggan by the police was just a catalyst.
 
 
+4 # rja 2011-08-08 18:46
Given that the President has shown he has no fighting spirit, no fire in his belly - I find it strange that not one commentator has suggested that he could possibly be challenged for the Democratic nomination. I find the silence from the Clintons quite curious.
 
 
+4 # Gary E. 2011-08-08 23:46
I have advocated a Russ Feingold/Elizab eth Warren ticket to challenge the Barak Obama/Joe Biden ticket in the Democratic primaries but few readers even responded. How about you???
 
 
-1 # rf 2011-08-09 04:53
Clintons are the original demopublicans!
 
 
+17 # fredboy 2011-08-08 20:11
This will be an intentional, GOP-tea bagger generated recession. I questioned whether that was the case in 2000, when Greenspan slammed shut a robust economy then raised rates again beyond the choke point--to stop the Democrat's presidential hopes.
What Americans must realize is THE ECONOMY IS IN PLAY AND HAS BEEN IN PLAY for more than a decade. All the pomp and circumstance of hard work, saving, wise financial planning and so on is for naught when political hacks and gangsters throughout the financial community are pulling the switches.
Yep, we are in for an intentional recession. And the ignorant will still vote for the culprits. Amazing.
 
 
+1 # ABen 2011-08-09 10:03
fredboy, as usual, I concur with your assessment.
 
 
+12 # jochapman 2011-08-08 20:28
 
 
-7 # Mickeyfilm 2011-08-08 20:34
No wonder the Republicans are winning... look at these post. We're in real trouble!!!!
 
 
+5 # giraffee2012 2011-08-08 22:34
Remember the movie clip they (GOP) showed a couple weeks ago -- "they were going to hurt... some people" -- from an Aflec movie: WELL!

President Obama's hands are tied. The TP (GOP) are bad-mouthing him in their campaigns and etc.

One said the Dems have killed a Billion people! Billion -- and then laid the rhetoric on President Obama (Saw this on RT.COM -- Russian TV)

Register and get mail-in ballots NOW for 2012-- if we vote out the GOP/TP -- I BET Obama will make America whole in the next 4 years --- TRUE!

Go Wisconsin - tomorrow will be a new trend if the Dems prevail -- and I believe they will.
 
 
+7 # billy bob 2011-08-09 01:01
I PROMISE! I'll vote for Obama in the next election, but I just wish there was a Democrat running.
 
 
-3 # rf 2011-08-09 04:55
I promise I will never vote for a Democrat again in my life. The last two I elected turned out to be free market Republicans once in office!
 
 
+3 # billy bob 2011-08-09 08:12
You're right about Clinton and Obama. If I can get a signiture from 51% of the electorate that they'll vote for the Green Party, I'll be glad to vote for them.

Otherwise, a Democrat will have to change our election laws first.
 
 
-4 # Danny 2011-08-08 23:40
Reich wants to open up the fire hydrant. But the problem is, he doesn't have a hose. Okay, so I'm a bit mean, but you get the point.
 
 
-12 # Danny 2011-08-08 23:52
Robert Reich says what we need now is MORE government spending. When jobs and economic activity are down then the Government should step in to take up the slack by spending. Not that he's wrong, just that he's moronically simplistic. To Reich, government spending is monolithic and undifferentiate d. Any spending is as good as any other. To Reich, with his quasi Keynesian belief system, the problem can be solved by increasing the flow of money, regardless of where the flow goes and what it does. What Reich leaves out is the idea of Value. So, you're going to spend money to stimulate the economy. But what do you get for the money spent. Obama was to have the government spend 800 Billion as a stimulus. But what value did it create? Paul Krugman wants to double the amount, but I haven't heard him lay out any guidelines for how that money should come out. These people seem to believe that doesn't matter AT ALL! Well, this is where things become controversial anyway because everybody has their own ideas about where government money should go. So, let me just say this: It should create value. Giving people money for nothing usually, not always, but usually, creates no value. Whether it's bailouts, cheap funds for the carry trade, or extended jobless benefits.
 
 
+2 # rf 2011-08-09 04:59
I agree that we should get better value for the money spent. Hiring the son-in-laws company for highly inflated work on a road that was fixed last year ain't going to cut it. Making a national cell tower network to get rid of all the ugly towers across the country and have it be state of the art and upgradable could be a good non-centralized project.
 
 
+7 # BradFromSalem 2011-08-09 08:25
Professor Reich has often stated that stimulus needs to be directed. He has pointed out that the stimulus that was put in place was mostly bailouts for the states and was only enough to stop the damage from increasing.

By the way, the 'moronic', as you call him, Dr. Reich was right on target.

We need jobs directed stimulus.
 
 
+5 # ABen 2011-08-09 10:41
Danny, John Maynard Keynes' theories related to the function of aggregate demand were never proposed as a alternative to or replacement for a mediated free-market. His theory was developed as a method by which to mitigate the boom/bust cycle that is intrinsic to a free-market system. He developed his theory as a result of studying the causes and long-term effects of the Great Depression. For an economy based primarily on consumer spending (U.S.-70%), if the consumer can't/won't spend (loss of income or net worth) and the private sector isn't spending (low/no consumer demand), the government is the spender of last resort. Without someone spending, the economy naturally contracts leading to recesion and/or depression. Infuse money at the bottom of the economic pyramid and it immediately increases demand as people have money to spend. Remember, even Keynes saw this theory as a method for addressing a short-term problem with a mediated free-market system, but not a replacement for such a market. One of the reasons that hokk-in-mouth freemarketers hate Keynsian theory is that it puts the lie to Says Law which is the basis for "tricle down" theory. Any serious study of macroeconomics will show you that money tricles up through an econmic system not down!
 
 
+2 # racp 2011-08-09 13:13
Danny, you are right regarding the need to use government spending wisely. That's why Reich and Krugman advocate to stop tax cuts for the rich or oil corporations and to spend that money on unemployment benefits, infrastructure, etc. That's exactly what they mean when they refer to "multiplicative effect." They also propose to bail out homeowners that are underwater, (who will spend the money they receive thru gov't spending). Regarding value, infrastructure (bridges that don't fall, roads without potholes, electric grid that doesn't collapse in summer days, etc) create value. Teachers in the classroom, firefigthers in the firehouse, police on the streets also create value. Medicaid by improving the health of the children and working force and children creates value. I could argue that unemployment benefits provides and social security increase current buying power and decreases labor costs, but for those I just think that saying that it is the moral thing to do is enough. Oh! BTW, unemployement benefits and social security are insurance not "entitlement", employees pay extra for them. BTW2, if you follow your own bang-for-the-bu ck logic, Obama's stimulus was poorly directed and small: 300B went to tax breaks (small multiplicative effects), only 200B in infrastructure and 270B not enough to stop States from firing employees (Krugman and Reich made this critique in 09 already).
 
 
+1 # candida 2011-08-09 01:38
i agree, s wm carson, reich was on the wrong side of history re: NAFTA. but i do very much appreciate his commentaries, now, when well reasoned liberal positions by economists are hard to come by. his political and economic analysis are right on the money, so to speak. paul krugman only the other one in the NYTimes.
 
 
+6 # seeuingoa 2011-08-09 02:47
 
 
+2 # angelfish 2011-08-09 20:12
A Majority NEVER voted for Bush. His appointment to the Presidency was Thanks to the Supremes stopping the recount, and not counting all the votes in Florida and Ohio! Bernie and Elizabeth can do MORE by staying in the Senate and FIGHTING the Fascists. The Office of the President is POWERLESS to effect change! A Democratic Majority, WITHOUT the BLUE DOGS, is needed in BOTH Houses to over-rule the Thugs and their INSANE push to dismantle Government and turn us into a Third World Gulag! FIGHT them Tooth and Nail!
 
 
+1 # Carolyn 2011-08-09 12:38
Did I read that Obama is on abus trip, running for president again, while the global financial system is crashing? He's good at oratory. Could we be encouraging people like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, Michael Murphy to take his place -- real soon?
 
 
+1 # fredboy 2011-08-09 15:29
Today the Fed announced a zero interest rate--that's zero--for two more years, guaranteeing no economic recovery until we're passed the next election.

There should be no question now about who is in charge. The financial tail is wagging the dog.
 
 
+1 # for parity 2011-08-09 17:33
Let me get this straight - raising interest rates would help the economy?

That being said. There is bad news in it, as the Fed is doing this, and up front (and I'm sure Geithner and the WH were in on it) to encourage and provide the confidence to business that rates will be low for some time to come - so that that have more confidence to borrow money for capital needed to run the business and to hire.

The bad news is that the Fed doesn't expect the economy to improve for two years (what took them so long to figure that one out?)
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN