Once upon a time, the United States (as well as the rest of the world) was in economic peril. The private sector was not creating jobs and people were afraid to invest money in the face of a stock market in freefall. A new kind of politician came forward and suggested that government spending could get the United States economy out of deadlock. He would create government jobs in the hopes that their spending would stimulate the economy and get the private sector off the map.
Everyone realizes that I am talking about FDR and his New Deal, but those words could just as easily be uttered today. The arguments against the New Deal are the same as the arguments against the Democratic agenda today. In many ways it shows how little we have progressed as a nation, but in other ways it is a stimulating conversation that should continue to happen.
I seem to know more conservatives than progressives. Maybe that is just a cross to bear in Texas. Maybe it is just the people that I have surrounded myself with. Either way, these folks are uttering the same thing those Republicans uttered. They say that the Democrats don't get the fact that they don't want the government spending more money. The cruel irony is that they are making the argument for us better than we could. One said, "we need private sector jobs. The government can't create private sector jobs so they are just going to spend more money on government jobs." Well duh. Of coure the government cannot create private sector jobs. If the government created it it would cease to be private.
The problem is that the private sector isn't creating many private sector jobs. This is a hard lesson for a supply sider. They still think you give the businesses money and they create the jobs. It hasn't worked before, but that shouldn't matter. Keep hitting that square peg into the round hole. It will go in eventually right? The truth is that all free market economies are driven by demand. You don't have demand when you don't have anyone with money to buy products. So, conservatives keep crying about progressives wanting to give jobs to those liberal programs like education and other governmental services.
Let's ignore the positive effects of having more educators for a moment. This is about the economy, small business, and families. Big business doesn't have to have economic stimulus. Enough people will buy Fords, get local phone service, cable, buy computers, and have mortgages to keep those businesses afloat. It is the smaller businesses (like restaurants, speciality businesses, service industry) that suffer when people don't have money to spend. Furthermore, when things are going well, those are the types of businesses that increase in numbers. Those are the businesses that are crippled by outrageous health care costs. Those are the businesses most effected by economic downturns. Those are the businesses that really need targeted tax breaks.
So, when a conservative says they are for small businesses, make them prove it. If they are for the Bush tax cuts then they aren't for small businesses or you. They love to paint the Democratic party as the party that will raise your taxes. Well, if you earn more than $200,000 then they are right. Otherwise, we lower taxes on people that need it. We want to budding restauranteours, repair people, speciality shops, and other entrepaneurs. We don't want the big boys to fail, but they won't unless we fall asleep at the wheel and hit the iceberg.
So, for those of you that want Congress to stop stimulating the economy come in and tell us what you want. Keeping the Bush tax cuts won't be accepted as an answer. They've already failed. Give us something else. If you want the government to do nothing then be prepared to build the bonfire and dance around in your war paint and feathers. Do a dance to the gods of Adam Smith and the invisible hand. That's what you are doing.
Lalalalalala, I can't hear you.
Sorry Carguy, I was channeling some wingnut. ;-)
I've noticed that they are putting "hints" in the Jeopardy clues now to make them easier if you don't know the answer.
Example: He might have been a dick, but he orchestrated the end of the VietNam war.
or
Where there's a will there's a way. This bard was the most prolific English writer of the 17th century.
yeah, he has a way of doing that...
Hell AH, I thought I was pretty damn smart until Carguy burst MY bubble with the revelation that they have dumbed down Jeopardy! Back to the po' side of town and only feeling smug while watching "Wheel of Fortune" again...
Funny you should mention DOD Scott. Earlier this week, Obama (via Gates) proposed dramatically reducing defense spending through "efficiencies" and eliminating an entire command (Joint Forces Command). And this doesn't even take into account the drawdown of forces in Iraq (reduced 80,000 since taking office) and the associated savings in no longer conducting combat operations in 2 theaters simultaneously...not to mention the lives saved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/us/10gates.html?scp=3&sq=Robert%20Gates&st=cse
As for Snooki, she's loud, obnoxious, clueless (proudly admits to have only read 2 books in her life), and fluorescent orange. She's pegged off the scale in my bag-o-meter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/fashion/25Snooki.html?scp=1&sq=snooki&st=cse
As a government manager looking out and listening to the right talk, I have concluded that no matter what you say, this group doesn't want to get it. Not only don't they want the government to generate jobs (stimilus putting America to work), there is new propaganda that govt workers are overpaid. The question that should be asked from their private sector is why the private sector hasn't been paying their people fairly. Sitting on profits and not allowing Reagan's trickle down to happen is a large part of the current economic problem. These leeches are hoping that their benefactors will regain the power to screw the working people in November. If Washington is so screwed up, why is wealthy, military pension and social security drawing John McCain fighting like hell to stay there; even to the point of being a political prostitute who will do or say anything to stay in a government chair. Scott---believe that we were discussing Sean O'Keefe a few weeks ago. I hope that he uses his second chance to work for the common man.
Roosevelt's federal jobs were meant to be temporary and so are the unemployment benefits. The budget can be cut back when the private sector is ready to pick up the slack. My problem is that both sides aren't that serious about deficit reduction. You need to cut DOD as well as make adjustments to social security. No, it doesn't mean privitation.
Well put, Scott. To be honest, though, I think we would be in quite a pickle if no one at all were concerned that public spending can get out of hand. I am not an economist, but it is my understanding that the Greek financial crisis was caused, in part, by using too much public money to offset the global downturn. If you have a better explanation, I would very much like to hear it.
One blogger here on TDH said: "Deficit be damned", while blogging about the extension of unemployment benefits, I believe. Although I agree with his view that the extension is/was needed, that is a powerful statement. Opinions like that are needed, but the opinions of the fiscal conservatives are equally needed. I've said it before and I'll say it again: We're hosed if we swing too far in either direction.
Damn...I was reading a bio on Santayana and realized I misappropriated "genteel" as "gentile" the other day...now I feel stupid...thanks a lot!
What the frigg? Snookie a tea bagger?
Nicely put...especially the "Keeping the Bush tax cuts won't be accepted as an answer. They've already failed."
Another great piece Scott! I guess wingers aren't fans, much less readers of George Santayana huh?
Great idea carguy! We need an indescrutable winger warning system. Fluorescent orange should do it. I presume Snooki is a winger too? She passed their IQ test...
The private sector isn't creating jobs because they're unpatriotic wimps, dontcha think?
The private sector brought down the economy.
Tax payers propped it up via the government, whose actions prevented a complete credit freeze and allowed the private sector to stay alive.
Now, those actions have run their course and guess what? The private sector has more cash in reserves than ever before, according to business news reports.
But the private sector can't hire now because the outlook is "soft" and, despite being masters of the universe, they're afraid -- and that attitude somehow gets twisted into it's all the government's fault. Whine whine whine whine wimps.
Why corporations are worshiped in this country is deeply mysterious. All organizations are populated by the same species, us. And we're all capable of good and bad -- except for CEOs, of course, who are clearly superior.
And Scott, as a kind of counterpoint, even if we're having the FDR arguments all over again, I heard an interview yesterday where a writer said that earlier presidents likely wouldn't recognize the job today. Here's a link to his reasoning:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129090078
He also had some interesting things to say about the media, lying, and time, the time necessary to correct big problems.
that's what I'm talkin' about...
Shame they are not ALL orange like Boehner. We could identify them better.
Carguy,
actually that's what extended the depression into WWII...conservative efforts to thwart a recovery. The reptiles have been around for over a 100,000 years.
Obama said recovery will not be easy and will take some time. Wellllll, the definition of "some time" seems to vary considerably. Even between reasonable people. Of course, we all know the republican definition.... 6 to 9 months.
This is a BIG hole. If I recall, I wasn't there, but my grandpa told me about it, We were 7-8 years in "The Great Depression" and only WWII really ended that.
IMO, we are gonna be talking about "the recession" even at the next election. It might even get worse before it gets any better especially with the GOP doing every thing they can to thwart a recovery before 2012.
Well said, Scott!