Talking Point: US Government Debt and Jobs

Job, Jobs, Where are the Jobs?

The talking point is simple. Average Americans are not spending money, and the economy is stalled, because they don't have much money. It's no use giving tax breaks and low interest rates to product manufacturers, because the people who would normally buy their products don't have money. People need jobs.

It is debatable whether the American public is responsible for 70% of domestic spending on goods and services, but by sheer number their spending potential is huge. They might make up 70% of domestic spending if they had money to spend, but they don't have good jobs.

Why not? Government policies over the past several decades, supply-side (trickle-down) tax policies and corporate globalization policies, have created a record wealth gap. A study by three Citigroup analysts indicates that the top 1% of Americans earn as much annual income as the bottom 60% and the top 1% possess as much wealth as the bottom 90% of Americans. The analysts concluded “economic growth [in the US] is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few.” [1] This is borne out by recent statistics showing that growth in domestic product sales have declined at discount stores and have grown in high-end stores and luxury products.

The Solution:

The government needs to set policies to put money in the pockets of average Americans, and I'm not talking about a $600 check; it needs to be tens of thousands per year, which simply put means temporarily creating jobs. The money for these jobs needs to come from the places that it is being hoarded: The richest 1% of Americans and transnational corporations who have benefited greatly from government policies over the past few decades.

After people have had government-sponsored jobs for several years, they will have the money to buy more products and services they need. This will create a market for private sector products and, in turn, support more jobs in the private sector. Eventually, the government can get out of business of job creation.

And yes, these jobs will require more government revenue in the near-term, but will also generate new revenues. In the long run, we'll be more likely able to pay down the US Government debt.

Agree? Let policy makers know:

• Contact the Broadcast Media
• Contact the US Senate
• Contact the House of Representatives

Update: Listen to a professional, Bill Gross, founder and co-chief investment officer of the investment management firm Pimco. "America’s debt is not its biggest problem", Washington Post, August 10, 2011.

Sources:

1. Can the Middle Class be Saved? Atlantic Monthly, September, 2011.

October 2000 Flashback

On October 3, 2000, while debating Al Gore, George W. Bush said he'd commit troops only with an "exit strategy," and he'd be "very careful about using our troops as nation builders."

Sources:

Mother Jones Magazine,"Chronicle of a War Fortold," September October 2006 Issue.

Purple Heart for Domestic Service to the Country

Nick Morgan, US Veteran, Trampled by Police Horse at Final Presidential Debate

On Wednesday October 15th 2008, former Army Sergeant Nick Morgan, a 24 year old veteran of the US war in Iraq, was nearly killed by riot police, his face crushed under a police horse, during a peaceful protest outside the final US presidential debates.

Morgan is a native of Annapolis, MD who spent four-years the US Army and one year in Iraq. He was a participant in the Winter Soldier hearings and is an active member of the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), a national organization of 'Global War On Terror' veterans who had come to the Presidential debates in Long Island, demanding that veterans' concerns be heard during these nationally televised dialogues MORE

Video Footage of Nick Morgan

Sources:

Text: Now Public: Crowed Powered Media

Video: iwitnessvideo on YouTube

Does "Straight Talk" Mean Dodging Questions?

"Straight Talk" to Sarah Palin means side-stepping the question:

Biden Palin Debate Highlights

"Fear, Fear, Fear" says Palin in her opening debate response.

Dodge, Dodge, Dodge the question Sarah.

Team of "Mavericks." If you say so Sarah.

"Never Again" will a corrupt speculative bubble be allowed to grow and burst if Palin and McCain win. OK. If they win, lets hold them to the regulatory oversight Palin has promised.

Palin side-steps the question about McCain's record on deregulation, twice, an very blatantly shifting the question to... a Republican favorite, buying votes with tax cuts.

Then there is the tax question:

Palin plays the "redistribution of wealth" card.... in this case, opposing the redistribution from the ultra wealthy to the middle class. She still believes in trickle-down economics despite the train wreck that we're experiencing because of.... trickle-down economic ideology.

Oh Boy! The health care "ultimate bridge to nowhere" line by Biden deserves more air play.

Taking on the oil companies in Alaska. Did she really break up a monopoly?

Yea. Windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Let see you implement that nationally Sarah.

Uh, Sara. You mean toxic waste on wall street that's affecting main street. Will any of the pundits mention her freudian slip in reversing the streets?

Sarah is a question-dodge. Will she and McCain support reducing both interest and the cost (principle) of the houses to keep people from being foreclosed upon.

Sarah and climate change. "I don't want to argue about the charges." At least she finally admits we've got to reduce emissions.

Some people might be happy that Joe Biden referred to off shore drilling as "raping" the coastline. Not Sarah.

What was the answer on civil unions Sarah? Not the the "marriage" question. Another obvious dodge.

"Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq." Well, now there is some "straight talk," not presidential, but straight.

Obama is not just naive, not just a bad judge, he is "down right dangerous" when it comes to negotiating directly with adversarial foreign leaders. (Fear, Fear, Fear).

World view: America is that nation of exceptionalism, which is why we can attack countries, unprovoked, and it's "OKaeee". The US can do no wrong. When the US kills civilians it's OK because the US is exceptional.

"Consummate Maverick." Are we supposed to believe that?

How many times did Palin say "Maverick" in this debate?

Oooo. The "Maverick he is not" memorable line by Biden blasting McCain's claim to be a Maverick.

Fight Fight Fight, says Sarah. Nice closing statement. Apparently Republicans like fighting.

McCain Incorrectly Equates a Military Tactic with a Strategy

McCain exposed his own lack of understanding about the difference between a "tactic" and a "strategy" after he accused Senator Obama of not knowing the difference:

I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy.

I'm certain that Obama does understand the difference. A strategy is the big picture goal and approach. Tactics are the smaller actions taken to implement the larger strategy.

It's not clear that McCain understands the difference. McCain exposed his lack of understanding in the September 26 debate when he equated a "tactics" used to implement the troop surge with a "strategy":

There is social, economic progress, and a strategy, a strategy of going into an area, clearing and holding, and the people of the country then become allied with you.

"Clearing and holding" areas is an example of a military tactic. The "strategy" was the broad goal of stabilizing the security situation so that the Iraqi governance system could become functional. The troop surge could be considered either a sub-strategy or major military tactic to support the larger stabilization strategy.

But "clearing and holding" is definitely not a strategy. It might even be considered a sub-tactic of the tactical surge designed to meet the "strategy" of bringing a period of stability to Iraq. McCain clearly displayed his lack of understanding of strategy and tactic.

Don't take my word for it. Consider what former Director of the National Security Agency, William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret., said in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 2, 2008.

It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability.

(Full Testimony)

McCain's muddled brain is further exposed by his circular thinking about strategies:

This strategy requires additional troops, it requires a fundamental change in strategy and I fought for it.

McCain's idea of a "strategy" was to have "a fundamental change in strategy"? Oh Kayeee. I'm not impressed with this so-called straight talking maverick. McCain's a phony.

Sources:

Los Angeles Times, Full Transcript of the First Debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, September 26, 2008.

U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Testimony of William E. Odom, April 2, 2008. [PDF]

McCain: Evidence He is Whacko

Many of us have had the following experience. We have a series of exchanges with a person in which the communication seemed very clear and we felt like we were on the same page. Then, the person later does something, or fails to do something, that shocks us, making you think, "Whoa. What the heck? Is this person nuts?" or "WTF?"

Here's such an exchange between Obama and McCain:

• On Tuesday night Obama received a phone message from Republican Sen. Tom Coburn who suggested that Obama and McCain make a joint statement outlining their shared principles on the financial crisis.
  
• On Wednesday morning, after conferring with aides, Obama placed a call to McCain to run the idea by him and left a message.
  
• At about 2:30 p.m., Obama received a return call from McCain, which lasted about five minutes. They discussed the joint statement idea and exchanged contact information so their campaign aides could follow up.
  
• On that call McCain also raised the idea of suspending his campaign and delaying the debate. Obama said he didn't rule out either option, but told McCain he wanted to see how events unfolded and suggested the candidates first address the immediate priority of speaking with one voice before Bush's address.
  
• About 20 minutes later, McCain publicly announced his proposal to delay this Friday's debate.
  
• Obama's jaw drops. He stammers and thinks, "Whoa. What the heck? Does McCain have a screw loose?"
  
• When pressed by reporters Obama'a aides refused to accuse McCain of bad faith. "No, John's just a little Whacko sometimes."
  

Sources:

Washington Post, Obama: Debate Should Go On, Shailagh Murray, September 24, 2008.

Democrats Reject Fox as Illegitimate

The story reads that "the Nevada State Democratic Party is pulling out of a controversial presidential debate scheduled for Aug. 14 in Reno." But the story should read that a grassroots movement pressured the National Democratic Party to reject Fox.

This rejection goes far beyond a "snubbing" of FOX News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, though Nevada Democratic party chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) didn't pass on the opportunity. No. This rejection is far deeper in the minds of many people. It is a challenge to the legitimacy of Faux News.

John Edwards deserves significant credit for taking a principled stand early on that led to the unraveling. MoveOn.org collected more than 265,000 petition signatures sent to the Nevada State Democratic Party. MoveOn.org also deserves credit for laying the groundwork with their distribution campaign of Glenn Greenwald's documentary "OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism."

This represents significant evidence of a maturing social movement; MoveOn.org is building on social capital invested over several years. First, they have a legitimate base that is truely mainstream (not extreme) and grassroots (read small-d democratic, not a phony corporate front group).

Second, the MoveOn base and others have been educated by documentaries like Greenwald's, and web sites like News Hounds whose motto is "We Watch Fox So You Don't Have to."

Third, the buzz about Fox's lack of credibility has reached the ears of politicians. The popular discontent is so... popular that politicians are willing to risk giving a major media outlet like Fox the snub. Given the weak knees of politicians toward the media, this is a truly significant shift.

Though Fox Vice President David Rhodes spun it to say, the "Nevada Democratic Caucus... appears to be controlled by radical fringe, out-of-state in interest groups," the fair and balanced version of the news is that the Nation rejected Fox's role in co-hosting a presidential primary debate of national significance. A deeper analysis is that the Nation is rejecting Fox. Media Life Magazine reported a 24% drop between 2005 and 2006.

Fox will need to moderate its abuse of journalism or it will find itself disregarded by the public.
.