Group items tagged

History shows that when spending is cut -- in the name of balancing the budget -- recessions immediately follow.

The U.S. economy continues to stagnate. It's growing at the rate of 1.8 percent, which is barely growing at all. Consumer spending is down. Home prices are down. Jobs and wages are going nowhere. It's vital that we understand the truth about the American economy. How did we go from the Great Depression to 30 years of Great Prosperity? And from there, to 30 years of stagnant incomes and widening inequality, culminating in the Great Recession? And from the Great Recession into such an anemic recovery?

Technically, the federal government has now reached the limit of its capacity to borrow money. Raising the debt ceiling used to be a technical adjustment, made almost automatically. Now it's a political football. Democrats should never have agreed to linking it to an agreement on the long-term budget deficit. But now that the debt ceiling is in play, there's no end to what the radical right will demand. John Boehner is already using the classic "they're making me" move, seemingly helpless in the face of Tea Party storm troopers who refuse to raise the ceiling unless they get their way. Their way is reactionary and regressive - eviscerating Medicare, cutting Medicaid and programs for the poor, slashing education and infrastructure, and using most of the savings to reduce taxes on the rich. If the only issue were cutting the federal deficit by four or five trillion dollars over the next ten years, the President and Democrats wouldn't have to cave in to this extortion. That goal can be achieved by doing exactly the opposite of what radical Republicans are demanding. We can reduce the long-term budget deficit, keep everything Americans truly depend on, and also increase spending on education and infrastructure - by cutting unnecessary military expenditures, ending corporate welfare, and raising taxes on the rich. I commend to you the "People's Budget," a detailed plan for doing exactly this - while reducing the long-term budget deficit more than either the Republican's or the President's plan does. When I read through the People's Budget my first thought was how modest and reasonable it is. It was produced by the House Progressive Caucus but could easily have been generated by Washington centrists - forty years ago.

"Banking corruption and corporate corruption is ruining our democracy," he says. "We're spending way too much on bailouts .. and wars. .. People are fed up. We don't have jobs. We're broke. We have to do something about it." Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2011/06/08/recovery-creating-more-corporate-protesters/#ixzz1OkbjBim4

When the war in Libya began, the U.S. government convinced a large number of war supporters that we were there to achieve the very limited goal of creating a no-fly zone in Benghazi to protect civilians from air attacks, while President Obama specifically vowed that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake."  This no-fly zone was created in the first week, yet now, almost three months later, the war drags on without any end in sight, and NATO is no longer even hiding what has long been obvious: that its real goal is exactly the one Obama vowed would not be pursued -- regime change through the use of military force.  We're in Libya to forcibly remove Gaddafi from power and replace him with a regime that we like better, i.e., one that is more accommodating to the interests of the West.  That's not even a debatable proposition at this point. What I suppose is debatable, in the most generous sense of that term, is our motive in doing this.  Why -- at a time when American political leaders feel compelled to advocate politically radioactive budget cuts to reduce the deficit and when polls show Americans solidly and increasingly opposed to the war -- would the U.S. Government continue to spend huge sums of money to fight this war?  Why is President Obama willing to endure self-evidently valid accusations -- even from his own Party -- that he's fighting an illegal war by brazenly flouting the requirements for Congressional approval?  Why would Defense Secretary Gates risk fissures by so angrily and publicly chiding NATO allies for failing to build more Freedom Bombs to devote to the war?  And why would we, to use the President's phrase, "stand idly by" while numerous other regimes -- including our close allies in Bahrain and Yemen and the one in Syria -- engage in attacks on their own people at least as heinous as those threatened by Gaddafi, yet be so devoted to targeting the Libyan leader?

But Barry's words ring true. The city of Detroit stands as a mirror to the United States' battered economy and failing wars. Our nation's continued military exploits in Iraq and Afghanistan are fueling Detroit's destruction. Taxpayers from Detroit shell out over two billion dollars a year for war, money that could cover healthcare for over 150,000 children or the payment of some 3,000 teachers' salaries. While Senator Levin might not want to make the link between war funding and the financial woes of our cities, mayors around the country are doing just that. At this year's annual US Conference of Mayors, to be held from June 17-21 in Baltimore, hundreds of mayors will gather to discuss diverse issues from job growth to homeland security. One of the issues they will vote on is the Bring Our War Dollars Home resolution, introduced by Mayor Kitty Piercy from Eugene, Oregon, which calls on Congress to redirect military spending to domestic priorities.

Excerpt: 'The only way out of the vicious economic cycle is for government to adopt an expansionary fiscal policy - spending more in the short term in order to make up for the shortfall in consumer demand.' Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here - from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

As the U.S. continues to spend almost more than the rest of the world combined on its military while it wages and escalates war in multiple Muslim countries around the world -- to say nothing of the dozens of nations in which it continuously engages in lower-level covert military action -- the very idea that American security would be gravely jeopardized by these cuts is absurd on its face.  If anything, American security is far more endangered by continuing on this path of unbridled militarism and aggression.  Yet here we have the bizarre spectacle of a Democratic administration demanding cuts to Social Security and Medicare in order to protect the defense industry from cuts that are, in any event, far less meaningful than are being depicted.  Given how public they're being with these statements, does anyone have any remaining doubt about the constituencies to which they're actually loyal?

President Obama signed legislation on Tuesday that raises the nation's debt ceiling and cuts trillions of dollars in spending. Keith speaks with former Vice President and Current TV Chairman Al Gore about what's next for the country. Al Gore says it's time for an "American Spring," a non-violent movement to take back the country from the right wing.

As leaders make a final push late Monday to pass a final debt deal and cut federal spending, voters aren't exactly cheering. Americans call the budget impasse "ridiculous," "disgusting" and "stupid," according to a new poll. In this extended interview,  Keith consults with former Vice President and Current TV Chairman Al Gore on why our government is in real trouble.

The debate over raising the debt ceiling, which brought the nation to the brink of default, has sent disapproval of Congress to its highest level on record and left most Americans saying that creating jobs should now take priority over cutting spending, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

As the government struggles to come up with spending cuts and revenues, housing subsidies are an obvious place to look.

The Dow Jones average suffered its latest calamitous decline on Thursday, plunging 419 points and erasing much of the progress that had been made after the last series of wild swings two weeks ago. There were many factors at work in Thursday's carnage, which came after markets in Asia and Europe experienced similar turmoil, but the overriding one seems to be this: Just about everyone now believes the U.S. economy is getting worse -- and no one thinks our leaders in Washington are about to do anything meaningful about it. So we thought it might be a good time to take a step back and consider the fundamental absurdity of the paralysis in Washington, where spending cuts and deficit reduction -- and not job creation -- have come to define and dominate the discussion. And who better to illustrate this than ... Robert Reich, playing the roles of both Professor Donald Right and Dr. Hugo Wrong in a one-man show that everyone on Capitol Hill really ought to check out:

During this time of economic uncertainty and record federal deficits, many question why America should invest aggressively in infrastructure. The answer is simple: Whether it involves highways, railways, ports, aviation or any other sector, infrastructure is an economic driver that is essential for the long-term creation of quality American jobs.

But he warned that the eurozone debt crisis, as well as overly hasty spending cuts by the federal government, risked undermining the US recovery.

Although there are 2 sides to this story, someone with a long term illness is unlikely to have much disposable income to spend on parking.

By Ralph Nader & Carl J. Mayer New York Times, April 9, 1988 Our constitutional rights were intended for real persons, not artificial creations. The Framers knew about corporations but chose not to mention these contrived entities in the Constitution. For them, the document shielded living beings from arbitrary government and endowed them with the right to speak, assemble, and petition. Today, however, corporations enjoy virtually the same umbrella of constitutional protections as individuals do. They have become in effect artificial persons with infinitely greater power than humans. This constitutional equivalence must end. Consider a few noxious developments during the last 10 years. A group of large Boston companies invoked the First Amendment in order to spend lavishly and thus successfully defeat a referendum that would have permitted the legislature to enact a progressive income tax that had no direct effect on the property and business of these companies. An Idaho electrical and plumbing corporation cited the Fourth Amendment and deterred a health and safety investigation. A textile supply company used Fifth Amendment protections and barred retrial in a criminal anti-trust case in Texas. The idea that the Constitution should apply to corporations as it applies to humans had its dubious origins in 1886. The Supreme Court said it did "not wish to hear argument" on whether corporations were "persons" protected by the 14th Amendment, a civil rights amendment designed to safeguard newly emancipated blacks from unfair government treatment. It simply decreed that corporations were persons. Now that is judicial activism. A string of later dissents, by Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, demonstrated that neither the history nor the language of the 14th Amendment was meant to protect corporations. But it was too late. The genie was out of the bottle and the corporate evolution into personhood was under way. It was not until the 1970's that corporations

Joe Biden is out selling the fact that we have to spend money to avoid bankruptcy in the health care industry. I know that most people - 75-80% like what they have. I know that all - every single employer - I have talked to is saying that they WILL dump their health care costs on the government if the issue is forced. That's 160 million insured people.

The opening words of H.R. 3200, Mr. Obama s solution to the manufactured health care quot;crisis quot; in the United States reads: quot;A Bill to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes. quot; I haven t yet heard comment by the president or by the leaders of C