It's Still The Economy, Stupid

[akirlu]

The Polling Point people are running essay contests through the election, requesting opinion-driven essays (blog posts, really) and videos on various issues. The current one is on the prompt, "If you could speak directly to Obama and Romney, what would you tell them they had to do to secure your vote?" What follows is my take -- it's a short version of something I've been meaning to write as a letter-to-the editor for a while now:

In the coming election the candidate who first appoints Paul Krugman to his economic policy team gets my vote. As the American economy has cratered, then struggled vainly towards recovery, Professor Krugman has been there first, telling us how it would go, and why. And he’s been right. He has been doing this since before the housing bubble burst. His was the lone voice in the wilderness telling us there even was a housing bubble, back when all the Wise Old Men of Washington and Wall Street pooh-poohed the idea, certain that unregulated financial speculation could keep expanding forever. Alan Greenspan has since recanted. Washington politicians should follow his example.

The country needs a sound economy before any other political agenda can be pursued successfully. So the President and Congress’ first job is to fix the economy. And to fix the economy they need to stop taking bad economic advice, and listen to someone who actually knows what he’s talking about. You don’t fix the economy with government belt tightening or grim austerity measures. “Austerity” is just another word for cutting yet more vital jobs. People have to have jobs in order to make money in order to spend it to buy the things private industry wants to sell. You don’t fix the economy by focusing on retiring debt. Debt can only be retired from profits, which means you have to make more money than you spend before you can pay down the debt. Government can only make more money than it spends when the economy is already robust, so that tax income on individual and corporate earnings is also high. In other words, to get the economy going again, the Federal government needs to spend money on targeted job growth, especially in emergency services, infrastructure, and education. Yes, that will increase the national debt in the short term. But any good businessman knows that sometimes you have to take on debt in order to increase your capacity and expand your business. Once you expand, and your income grows, you retire the debt again.

And before any blowhard parrots the lie that government never created jobs, remember that anyone who believes that does not belong in Congress, or the White House – because anyone who believes that obviously doesn’t take the very real job of running the country seriously.

Comments

[daveon.livejournal.com]

1) Economies are not households nor businesses, running them the same way is stupid
2) Infrastructure is for decades/centuries and not just for the last election cycle
3) Retirement cover and Medical Cover USED to be conservative positions to hold - a healthy workforce which is looked after is a productive workforce

I weep that terms in modern US politics have become so distorted.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

3) Retirement cover and Medical Cover USED to be conservative positions to hold - a healthy workforce which is looked after is a productive workforce

I'm not sure that ever was a conservative position in the United States, though it should be, for the reasons you state. But then, there's a long laundry list of pro-business, conservative reasons why single-payer universal health care ought to be a top priority for Republicans. I need to write that essay one of these days. As it is, too many of them are in the pockets of the insurance industry, which is the sole beneficiary of a purely private healthcare system

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Ok, well I'll give you that :)

But those SHOULD be conservative positions for really sound fiscal conservative reasons. It's not about looking after the lazy its about being careful with your money!

It's most likely a selection effect but our friends Karen and Bill (anesthesiologist and PA) have a lot of doctor friends and they're all anti the status quo too... but then she felt that the 'pittance' she was paid working at Group Health was a shit tonne of anybody elses ,money, just less than she'd have got at Harbor View.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

For me... yeah, hiring Krugman as Chief Economic Advisor (& following his advice) would be a big plus... but would be far from my only Demand.

Recognizing that killing x-many non-combatants in order to eliminate one previously-number-two Taliban or Al Qaeda Leader is A Good Idea only if "x" is no larger than two (I think it's currently, under our Drone Attack system, something like 18), and that if one of our attacks kills someone's sweet old aunt who used to give all children who showed-up in her kitchen at the right times warm cookies and cold milk, we may well have added at least one more person who _will_ participate in some future suicide attack that may be as spectacular as the 9/11 one.

And I can not support or vote for anyone who even suggests that the American President (or anyone he appoints) can rightfuly imprison indefinitely, or excecute, anyone (American citizen or not) without a public (or at least fair) trial, and conviction by a jury.

Okay, I confess to having been (shamelessly) Idealistic when I supported and voted for President Obama... the first time. I thought he would be a Statesman, rather than an opportunistic Politician.  I was wrong. (This isn't the first time that has happened. *sigh*) I certainly can't support him, and probably can't conscientiously vote for him, in the upcoming election. I really hate "no-win" situations like this.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Not sure about it being a no win. Firstly, I actually think he's done as much as any human could be expected to do in a situation he inherited with an opposition who would rather ignore EVERY FUCKING THING they ever believed in than agree with him. He has done statesman like things, he has improved gay rights in the US, he did prevent a total financial calamity, he has done a lot of other things. One of the problems with the US is it culturally plays lip service to concepts like freedom, but leaves of the 'as long as they're white, middle class and like me' rider which infects the entire political system.

Frankly, as a non-voter, I thought he'd do worse.

Secondly, no voting for him will elect Mitt Romney who will be so much worse I can't even begin to think about it.

Anybody remotely progressive in this country who can vote and doesn't vote for Obama in November seriously needs to look at the alternative and what that will mean to the country, the poor and everybody else.

[apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com]

Name one time Obama fought Congress for anything.
That Wall St. is into the Good Cop/Bad Cop game does us no good.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Healthcare and th debt ceiling for two. They weren't results I wanted but they were ones he could get.

Bitching about him being too right wing, which he is, doesn't resolve the horror of the alternative under the messed up,US system.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Those don't fit my definition of "fought Congress". Instead, they were a series of pre-emptive tactical surrenders in hopes of appeasing the unappeasable.

I don't expect President Obama to win these showdowns. I do expect him to show some of the spirit and passion of Candidate Obama, because that will encourage his supporters and give them that much-alluded substance, Hope. This has practical implications. If he had given enough hope to move his supporters to the polls, the Democrats would have won the 2010 midterms. (As it was, if only the midterm voters had voted in 2008, McCain would have won.)

[daveon.livejournal.com]

they were a series of pre-emptive tactical surrenders in hopes of appeasing the unappeasable.

Meh. And the alternative was?

That's the core problem - he had to get something through a wobbly senate with a bunch of pseudo democrats who didn't give a toss about the party whip.

I don't expect President Obama to win these showdowns.

Funny. I do. I expect a person elected to govern to damn well govern and if that means compromise and dirty stinking politics then so be it. I'd rather have a crappy healthcare bill than none at all because people wanted everything. That's why it's taken the US 40+ years to do what the rest of the industrial world had in place by the 60s.

So he's a moderate conservative... I don't care when I look at the alternative of a Romney presidency and start thinking about alternative countries to move to.

No healthcare bill. Probably some daft law on gay marriage. MORE restrictions on women and their rights. Probably somekind of war against Iran. Definately a return to recession and higher unemployment. Reductions in social security benefits. And, here's the amusing thing HIGHER taxes for most people.

So Obama didn't deliver unicorns and sparkly rainbows for all? Big f'ing deal. The alternative is a radical right wing set of nutters who'd make us long for GWB. That isn't an alternative that's stupidity!

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

You are arguing against a phantom caricature liberal of your own creation, trotting out the same tired rebuttals I have seen time and over again, and not addressing what I said. I was trying to advance the conversation, not repeat the same old one over and over again, but it didn't seem to work. Mention "liberal unhappiness with Obama" and a little predictable canned lecture comes out, regardless of what the content of the unhappiness actually was. Even if it was specifically designed to bypass the predictable canned lecture.

I did not threaten to sit out the election, so the horrors of a Romney presidency are not something you need to scare me with. I most emphatically did not ask for "unicorns and sparkly rainbows," and you insult me by bringing up that mocking notion. When I wrote "I don't expect President Obama to win these showdowns," I meant the showdowns in which he asks for something more than he actually got, something that the asking for would inspire his followers. I would have been content with his getting what he actually got, "compromise and dirty stinking politics" and all, if only he had tried. Partly because, though I can't prove it, I believe that if he had tried, he would have gotten more than he did. One thing he would have gotten, and that I am sure of, was a Democratic House in 2011.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

I was trying to advance the conversation, not repeat the same old one over and over again,

You failed. Sorry. You posted much the same whines I hear over and over again all around Seattle about Obama, and it doesn't shift the problem one jot. Which brings us back to...

Partly because, though I can't prove it, I believe that if he had tried, he would have gotten more than he did. One thing he would have gotten, and that I am sure of, was a Democratic House in 2011.

So you can't prove this, you don't actually know, but you think that if he'd just tried a little harder maybe he'd have got more.

Right.

And that's not the same complaint over and over?

I'm just tired of hearing people make variations on these complaints over and over again. If this carries on, then Romney will be elected in November and gods help us all.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

No, that's not the same as the usual complaint. The liberal caricature does not say, as I said, "I don't expect President Obama to win these showdowns" (meaning what I did by "showdowns") or "I would have been content with his getting what he actually got, 'compromise and dirty stinking politics' and all." That's virtually the opposite of what the caricature says on those points. The only thing they wanted that I wanted was an attitude of _hope_. Yes, I expect that would have achieved more, but I specified no certainty of this, and I did not expect _a lot_ more.

That's not "unicorns and sparkly rainbows." Where do you get that nonsense from?

Lastly, if you fear the likelihood of a Romney presidency because of this gloomy attitude - and you're damn right to fear it - why do you think you can negate it by browbeating and insulting people? That'll really motivate them to up and work hard for their candidate and vote, you betcha. Don't you think that a little of the responsibility for the complete difference in atmosphere between 2008 and 2012 might lie with the candidate who raised our expectations - which is what got that enthusiasm going in the first place - and then dashed them by craven and caving behavior?

[daveon.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you're writing is what you're thinking then. Because I'm struggling to parse "I don't expect President Obama to win these showdowns" as anything other than carrying the implication that it would be better for him to try and lose rather than pass something, which is very much the attitude that's pissing me off.

why do you think you can negate it by browbeating and insulting people?

Because things suck at the moment and me being nice about it isn't going to make it suck less. Am I being rude to people about this? Hell fucking yes I am, because as Ulrika pointed out this is the kind of crap that got GWB elected twice and could put Mitt Romney in the White House.

I don't really care about your hurt feelings (which is how you're coming across btw), I care about actually ensuring that the US remains a fairly civilized place to live.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I pay taxes but don't have a passport, there are multiple exit options for me based on the pure luck of being born in the EU - but I just don't get the attitude I see around here.

So yes, I'll be as rude to liberals being daft as I am to right wingers who think that austerity and fiscal insanity actually policy make.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

And as for 'hope' - you actually got a universal healthcare system, a crappy one, but the first one in US history. You got troops out of war zones. Women got the right to reproductive healthcare. Gays are not longer being targeted for who they are. The US car industry still exists. The USA hasn't had the double dip recession (yet) that the UK has had. 4m+ people have jobs who didn't when he was elected. There's still an EPA.

No you didn't get a sane single payer system, no he didn't close Gitmo, yes, he's been as batshit about security as everybody else here is.

But you wanted hope? What the hell did you expect above and beyond all that???

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Mid-term elections are always hard to carry, because it's always hard to get people out to the polls when the presidency, or some hot-button, red meat issue is not on the line.

Spotted today on FB, quoting George Clooney:

"I'm disillusioned by the people who are disillusioned by Obama, quite honestly, I am," he said on ABC News Now's "Popcorn with Peter Travers" before today's release of "The Ides of March."Democrats eat their own. Democrats find singular issues and go, 'Well, I didn't get everything I wanted.' I'm a firm believer in sticking by and sticking up for the people whom you've elected.

"If he was a Republican running, because Republicans are better at this," Clooney continued, "they'd be selling him as the guy who stopped 400,000 jobs a month from leaving the country. They'd be selling him as the guy who saved the auto-industry. If they had the beliefs, they'd be selling him as the guy who got rid of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' who got Osama bin Laden. You could be selling this as a very successful three years."

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

One time? How about women's access to birth control? Hard bright line in the sand, and he stuck to it. Would I like to see the man do that more often? Hell, yes. Would I like to see him learn to be a tougher negotiator, and start his negotiations farther to the left? Oh, absolutely. But the idea that he's no better than the Republican alternative is pernicious nonsense.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

The more I see of the US political process the less I get upset about his negotiating style. Mostly because it seems to be designed to fail from the get go.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

You get less upset because it seems designed to fail? How is that less upsetting?

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Because in a cup half empty view anything, however small, in tr US system is a victory. And I just don't see an outbreak of common sense coming any time real soon now.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Honestly, it was the kind of if-not-white-then-black absolutist criteria you espouse here that got us GWB, and into the whole bloody, fascist War on Terror mess in the first place, because of people who insisted that Al Gore wasn't pure enough. NOBODY is pure enough. George Washington's good dentures were made with human teeth. FDR turned back entire ships filled with Jewish refugees from the Nazis -- sent them back to Europe where most of them died -- in order to placate ant-Semites in Congress. FDR also established the internment camps for Japanese Americans. The very best President you can name had feet of clay, and worse. The best we can ever hope for in our leaders is someone who is reasonable enough, thoughtful enough, and flexible enough, that they might listen and change their minds, recant their errors, and do better next time. Eleanor almost convinced Franklin about the refugees. Others might never have come that close to the better angels of their nature. Some, I hate to say, seem to have no better angels.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, I'm second to... very few, anyhow, in whining & bitching about him not having done enough, or even tried to, but that wouldn't prevent me from voting for him if there seemed a chance that a Republican would get into the Office. But what I was concentration on was not a comparative "not good enough" or "not as good as I want".

To me, the right of everyone to a fair and honest trial before a jury of one's peers, on any major charge, is absolutely crucial to the concept of human/citizen's rights and freedoms that many English-speaking people have been fighting for since (roughly) the Magna Carta. President Obama's assumption of the authoritarian power to imprison people indefinitely, without trial, and to order excecutions, again without trial, are sufficiently alien to my concept of "American" that I consider him disqualified from holding the office, at least to the extent that I cannot, in good conscience, vote for him while he claims this kind of Power.

Mind you, it's not that I think he'll abuse that Power seriously, it's that he and the Democratic Party machine (which did not vigorously oppose it) have accepted it and will pass it on as a legitimate Power of The Government to future Presidents who will not be as scrupulous in exercising it.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

So I presume you would not vote for FDR, were you given the chance, either?

[greenshadows.livejournal.com]

Yes to Krugman. And so saddened by the lack of pragmatism, that people won't vote for Obama since he's imperfect but the freaktastically horrid Romney is somehow okay?! Hold your effin' nose and do the right thing, people. Letting that lying Mormon sh*tstain get in is not something I could ever forgive anyone for, ever. ~

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Yes, again the mythical perfect is the enemy of the actual best choice available. Nobody ever achieved political progress by waiting around for the perfect leader.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

Excellent post, Ulrika. Excellent. Today seems to have been a day to be political on LJ.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Thanks, and thanks also for the heads up on the WA state gay marriage referendum wording, coz I do not want to vote the wrong way on that one. Voting 'yes' to not repeal is a little tangled, and I might have got it backwards.

[voidampersand.livejournal.com]

Hiring Krugman is not enough. They have to keep him on and actually do what he says.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Good luck getting the Senate to do what Krugman says!

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Sure, obviously, but I think there are limits on how pedantic I want to get in a 200-500 word essay, ya know?

[coth.livejournal.com]

This! In particular, for personal reasons.

Cheers the essay.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

No argument here. You speak economic sanity; so few people do. (Well, Krugman.)