awesome reading

[SwampG8r]

http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform
the 2008 platform funny but sad

[JDPriestly]

1. Too much of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts. Plus we need to change our trade policy.

Jumpstart the Economy and Provide Middle Class Americans Immediate Relief
We will provide an immediate energy rebate to American families struggling with the record price of gasoline and the skyrocketing cost of other necessities – to spend on those basic needs and energy efficient measures. We will devote $50 billion to jumpstarting the economy, helping economic growth, and preventing another one million jobs from being lost. This will include assistance to states and localities to prevent them from having to cut their vital services like education, health care, and infrastructure. We will quickly implement the housing bill recently passed by Congress and ensure that states and localities that have been hard-hit by the housing crisis can avoid cuts in vital services. We support investments in infrastructure to replenish the highway trust fund, invest in road and bridge maintenance and fund new, fast-tracked projects to repair schools. We believe that it is essential to take immediate steps to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs. Taking these immediate measures will provide good jobs and will help the economy today. But generating truly shared prosperity is only possible if we also address our most significant long-run challenges like the rising cost of health care, energy, and education.

http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform

Obama's stimulus was larger, but it did not work because too much of it was in tax cuts and too little in job creation. The only thing that will work is ending our bleeding trade agreements.

[Scuba]

2. Stimulus effectiveness....

<img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" />

[JDPriestly]

4. Food stamps and extended unemployment benefits

should not have been counted as part of the stimulus. They are humanitarian relief. We don't like to use that term because we like to delude ourselves into thinking that humanitarian relief is for third world countries. Face it, we have a third world population here in America that needs foods stamps and extended unemployment (when the unemployment benefits exceed the amounts paid into the system, that is unemployment benefits is a euphemism for what we used to call welfare).

The tax cuts only help those who pay taxes -- that means the people who are employed or otherwise earning money. That is trickle down economics and it translates into more cruises for the better-off, not more jobs for the down-and-out. The Republican meme to the contrary is false and about to be proven false once again.

Infrastructure spending and aid to the states are the only items in your list that really created jobs. So that is why the stimulus was a failure. Frankly, a bitter joke.

[Scuba]

6. I think the point is that food stamps an unemployment have a more positive effect than ....

...many of the traditional stimuli.

[JDPriestly]

9. Food stamps and unemployment insurance should just be

considered a necessity and not part of the stimulus.

Food stamps and unemployment insurance are humanitarian help in nature. They should not be given in order to stimulate the economy but rather because they keep people alive.

They do stimulate the economy and they are very important, but they should not be counted in the tally for the economic stimulus program. They should just be a matter of course because they are the right thing to do.

[Enthusiast]

3. The trade agreements have destroyed

the working class. Yet Obama is seeking more "free" trade agreements. The agreements are free to our traders but they are not free and fair to American workers.

[JDPriestly]

5. You are so right, Enthusiast.

Since 1985 when Congress first talked about free trade, our economy has gone steadily down hill. Another DUer pointed out that Reagan's other policies, no welfare (also a Clinton policy), no unions, etc. caused our economic decline.

That is of course true, but the three things that we can change now that will improve our economy are reducing our dependence on foreign trade (especially international energy markets), returning to progressive taxation and reducing our military involvement overseas.

Those are the austerity measures we need.

We need a Democratic candidate to run on this platform in 2012. Unfortunately, we won't be able to persuade anyone to do it. This may be our last chance to get these ideas before the American people.

I believe that Americans will enthusiastically adopt this program by 2016 if we get some candidate to speak about it now in the primaries leading to 2012. But I realize that the money isn't there and that we have no individual willing to risk his or her political career on what would probably not be a very successful campaign for 2012. Where is the patriot who will do this?

[Enthusiast]

10. Yes. Where is the patriot?

One of the few that would measure up is Bernie Sanders. Of course Bernie isn't Mr. cute young vigorous universal sex appeal candidate that would appeal to the masses of the shallow and uniformed. This is a huge dilemma.

[Spike89]

7. Despite what politician/teabaggers say...

higher business taxes actually encourage hiring and lower unemployment. It is pure common sense--if the government is taking most of your profit, invest it instead and make the business bigger. For instance, say I've got a business that pays me a salary that I set that I can live on. If in addition I have $100,000 in net revenue every year. I could hire 2 employees for $100,000 which would allow me to expand my business and pay a bit extra salary to myself.
If I get to keep 90% of my business profit of $100,000 annually, I probably will. That $90,000 is pretty sweet, and if I hire the 2 employees, I might be able to get $10K in extra salary back, but in essence, I lose $80,000 and sure, I've built a stronger company, but man, $80,000 is a lot to invest for someone only making $100K!
If the government bite is 50%, but I can hire two employees with the $100,000, I'm actually only giving up $40,000 (half as much!) for the same benefits! I'm twice as likely to hire the extra employees.

Why do politicians lie and say tax cuts spur job growth when the opposite is much more accurate?

[JDPriestly]

8. I agree with you Spike89

Economists must know this, but they just don't want to ire their employers by telling us the truth.

[JFN1]

11. Spot on.

Very well stated. Commone sense and reality both seem to have caught the last train out of town, though...so we're currently stuck on "greed" instead of "smart."