Goolsbee: Unemployment 'Going to Stay High'

[Techn0Girl]

Source: ABC News

This recession is the deepest in our lifetimes, the deepest since 1929," said Goolsbee, who was just appointed chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. "More than eight million people lost their jobs. It's going to take a significant push on our part – and time – before that comes down," he said. "I don't anticipate it coming down right away."

President Barack Obama spent last week rolling out new plans to help America's struggling economy -- $50 billion in infrastructure spending and about $200 billion in tax cuts for companies' investments in research and development.

Amanpour asked Goolsbee the tough question of what effect it would have on unemployment, which currently stands at 9.6%.
"It obviously depends on how you do it," he said. "It could have a significant impact on trying to get investment in factories…by small businesses in buying equipment, research and development and job creation in this country."

"Do you have sort of a target number?" Amanpour pressed.
"I do not want to speculate on that," Goolsbee replied. "The point of those policies, they aren't spending – they're the government giving tax cuts to businesses to invest in this country, that's what they are."

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/goolsbee-unemployment-stay-high/story?id=11616090

---

200 BILLION in business tax cuts. "Trickle-down" anyone?

By the way are you on unemployment? No matter , you probably will be soon. The current Administration cut unemployment benefits by $100 a month just this last July. They also removed the 60% COBRA subsidy for the unemployed making health insurance once again unaffordable to the recently unemployed.

But business got a 200 billion tax cut.
Yup.

[Donnachaidh]

1. those unemployed people being swept aside have the time to VOTE

just sayin....

[OhioChick]

2. They sure do. n/t

[pattmarty]

5. Or not, just sayin'.

[Donnachaidh]

7. I would say they have a reason TO vote at this point

:eyes:

[pattmarty]

10. Well, I'll tell ya what, explain it to me (I don't want to paraphrase.........

..........Denzel Washington too much) like I am a HS dropout that is 40 yrs old and worked at that shitty factory job for the last 15 yrs and am now out of a 15hr job because the company closed it's doors. Give me, a not too bright guy/girl a reason to go to vote.



I really hope you get the sarcasm in my response, but it if FUCKING true.

[jtuck004]

25. You have a reason to vote

and may well be motivated (mad). And odds are you are going to vote for change...

[pattmarty]

69. Well, we see what "change" we got (NONE).

[Donnachaidh]

30. nope -- not a chance

But you keep buying the *I'm not gonna vote because ...* whatever meme you are driving at. Unemployed people DO have the time to vote -- and many MANY of them cannot wait to do so this November.

:eyes:

:rofl:

:eyes:

[jmowreader]

31. And the big problem is, of course...

that they're probably going to go to a tea party, where they'll hear the One Sure Way to put them back to work is to vote for Republicans, who have the Answer to Everything.

The Republicans' answer is tax cuts for the rich, as we know.

If the question is "how do we make the rich even richer" or "how can we cool off an economy that's too strong," certainly use tax cuts. They work well for those things. If the answer is "how do we recreate the middle class," the quickest answer is to up the top tax rate to 90 percent on business or personal income over $1 million and put a "investment that directly creates living-wage jobs is deductible" loophole in it, you will see the job creation rate skyrocket because no rich person wants to be taxed at 90 percent!

Now check it out: six months after the 90 percent tax rate is established, the unemployment rate will be somewhere around 6 percent. When the Repukes complain about coercion, simply point out that tax cuts didn't work so they had to be forced to create jobs.

[dotymed]

46. Sadly, it no longer matters.

The rethugs want to "fix" everything with tax cuts.
So does this administration.
:wtf:
Is there another way without the creation of a viable third party? I realize we are not supposed to advocate for that, so I am asking a question.

[No Elephants]

60. I just put some of my thoughts on that down in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4537230 (Reply 85).

As a matter of practical reality, Dems and Pubs have joined to pretty much make a viable third party unlikely, anyway.

My deepest fear is that rank and file Democrats have already slept too long.

[DoctorK]

50. I checked, did you?

"Now check it out: six months after the 90 percent tax rate is established, the unemployment rate will be somewhere around 6 percent."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

In 1929 the top tax rate was 25% (on $100,000+ of income - there were many brackets, you can check the link)

Hoover, in addition to the expansion of the Federal government spending and deficits, signed an increase in tax rates in 1932.
The tax rate at $100,000 was increased to 56%, and more brackets were created (again, see the link), the highest rate being 63% on income over $1,000,000.

Unemployment got worse into 1933, and slowly started trending down from 25% toward 15% by 1936.

Under FDR, in 1936, the top rate was increased to 77% on incomes over $1,000,000, with a new top bracket collecting 79% on incomes over $5,000,000. Unemployment didn't get better, it got worse.

Income taxes were increased even more during WW2 (by 1944 the top rate was 94% on incomes over $200,000), but unemployment disappeared because millions and millions of Americans were swept into the slaughterhouse overseas, not because high earners were induced to create more jobs.

In short, history does not bear out your prediction, unless we're going to draft over 10 million people into the armed forces and start laying waste to world again.

[No Elephants]

61. Not necessarily. You've focused in on one tiny piece of what was a massive and complex situation,

like a person finding a tiny piece of tusk and extrapolating from it that elephants are diminutive, inanimate pieces of ivory.

Many believe FDR's downfall was that he caved to politics, specifically, pre-Cheney Republicans insisting the deficit was ruining America, and cut back on recovery programs. While deficit aversion and tax policy are often related, the deficit hawk issue raised by those Democrats is much broader. So, was FDR's downfall really the tax increase, or chickening out on recovery programs, or scaring businesses by things like creating the SEC and the 1934 amendments to the Bankruptcy Act or unsettling everyone with too many bold programs all at once or or or....? In the midst of all that was then happening, laying everything at the door of a tax increase is way too simplistic and superficial. Seems more agenda driven than reality based.

Beyond that, while we definitely need to know about the Depression, America and he world were both very very different then. We cannot assume that everything that SEMMED to helped then will help now, or that everything that SEEMED to fail then will fail now. For one thing, I very much doubt that modern wars and the way we now wage them is our way out of economic doo doo this time, instead of our way deeper in.

We have to find our own paradigm.

[DoctorK]

68. laying everything?

"laying everything at the door of a tax increase is way too simplistic and superficial."

I merely pointed out large, progressive tax increases have been tried. Their history does not indicate the OPs proposal has any merit.

I do not lay the fault of the Depression on tax increases, but I do note that tax increases did not ameloriate the Depression.

I contend that suggesting a tax increase will reduce unemployment is itself 'too simplistic and superficial'.

[newspeak]

84. then by that argument, Little Boot's tax break to the wealthy

(passed near the beginning of his first term) should have produced jobs. However, Little Boot's tax cut to the wealthy produced less jobs (2,000,000) in eight years than Carter produced (10,000,000) in four years. Actually he has one of the worse job creation records than the previous seven presidents.

And yet, he gave an even bigger tax break to his "base." Now, on DU there is a chart showing how FDR's public works programs lowered unemployment and then when a repug congress went against those programs, unemployment went up.

Also, giving tax breaks to businesses that are tied to actually hiring americans or creating innovation helps-giving tax breaks to big business to outsource overseas and pour their money overseas, or sit on their money does not help us nor the economy.

[DoctorK]

87. as pointed out above

there are always several factors at work.

"However, Little Boot's tax cut to the wealthy produced less jobs (2,000,000) in eight years than Carter produced (10,000,000) in four years."

Unemployment at the beginning and end of Carter's term was roughly 7.5%. In combination with worsening inflation (resultant from fear of Federal deficits after Nixon severed the gold standard), Americans realized things weren't getting better (misery index went from 13.55 to 20.76 under Carter).
The appointment of Volcker was the most important thing Carter did. Volcker was serious about restoring confidence in the dollar (but the price was wrenching interest rates - we can only hope Obama wakes up to this before, like Carter, he is too late to win a second term). The combination of that and the Greenspan commission's tax increases and benefit cuts to Social Security restored investor confidence that the U.S. wouldn't fall into a debt spiral.

There's an important facet to the job creation numbers under Carter. Women were still strongly coming into the workforce. The percentage of males in the workforce had been trending down since WW2 as women rose, but not at equal rates. Women weren't replacing men in the workforce after the sexual revolution, they were joining them.

Take a look at this link, it highlights it well:

__ (sorry, I can't make a link this forum will place nice with to that image, you'll have to cut and paste the url)

This was a generational event, part of the Baby Boomers reshaping of American society. That trend ran its course by the mid to late 90's as the percentage of women who put themselves in the workforce peaked.

Another important thing about the late 90's was that memories/fears of Tienanmen Square faded and China's economy started booming as Western investment poured in. China still had a ruling 'communist' party, but no longer were over 1 billion people trapped in a communist system. That labor became part of the global economy. That process is still ongoing, and the Obama administration realizes it - that's why Goolsbee is out there lowering expectations.

Bush's tax cuts differed from the policy response of Harding to the 1920-1 recession in that he didn't cut government spending, instead he increased it tremendously. Much of it wasted on wars, but also spent on entirely new entitlement programs and increasing domestic spending.



"Now, on DU there is a chart showing how FDR's public works programs lowered unemployment and then when a repug congress went against those programs"

Under Hoover and FDR's programs of higher taxes and public works (FDR just expanded the same policies Hoover tried to fight the Depression with) unemployment never got below double digits. FDRs ultimate 'public works' program was to draft millions of working age men into the military and ship them out of the country. The WPA, etc. didn't get America out of it's unemployment slump. That didn't happen until those programs disappeared, and the economy was freed from the crazier aspects of cartelization that the 'Brain Trust' tried to enforce, after WW2.
Your grasp of the facts with respect to Congress is lacking, you can look it up in wikipedia:
"During the long administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933 to 1945), the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress. As a result the Democrats obtained 60 of the 96 existing Senate seats and 318 of the existing 435 House seats; hence the party now controlled two-thirds of US Congress. The Democrats would continue to maintain this two-thirds control for the next six years. While the Democrats still managed to maintain control of Congress after the 1938 elections, the Republicans- taking advantage from the Recession of 1937- were able to gain 81 seat in the House of Representatives and 6 seats in the Senate, hence the party lost two-thirds control of Congress and Roosevelt was unable to continue expanding New Deal programs."
In 1936 the Democratic Congress raised income tax rates again (and lowered the bracket thresholds for existing rates). They also instituted an 'Undistributed Profits' tax. This led to the '37 recession, and this measure was fully repealed by 1939.

[newspeak]

85. well, yeah-tax increases on the wealthy

have been since that 1929 "greed is good, robber baron" mentality where it was at 25%. Yes, FDR raised it to 94%, Eisenhouwer about 88%, before Reagan it was 66%. Yet, we are at a similar economic downturn like 1929 where it was 25%. Reagan cuts taxes, especially for the wealthy to 28% and we have a recession, by the end of his terms he increases the deficit to about 128%-and I have a long list of good paying businesses that went under during Reagan's reign and the con game "junk bond" deals and the S&L debacle caused by deregulation.

Little Boots, god forbid, got two terms and he leaves office increasing the deficit by about 89% and more layoffs with little job creation. Yet, his buddies have been doing swimmingly, especially those war profiteers, basically sucking the blood out of us.

So, when a repug cries about the deficit, I find it quite ironic since they more than anyone, following the lead of their glorious master, did indeed get us into this mess.

So, if the tax rate was about 66% during Carter and he created 10 million jobs, how's that argument going about give the sociopathic more tax breaks and they will incline to give the "little people" a job?

[emilyg]

22. Or not.

[Donnachaidh]

29. doubt that very much

:rofl: :rofl:

[JJ]

51. but nobody to vote for

lot's to vote against, but damn few to vote for.

Campaign finance needs to become an issue again.

[No Elephants]

59. Good luck with that after the Citizens United case.

[No Elephants]

65. If people believed voting would improve their lives, they'd make time to vote.

Paul Revere had 16 kids and even more professions. He made time.

Voter apathy in modern America is due to lack of hope that voting will actually improve things for working people, not lack of time.

[w4rma]

83. Do they have the gas money to spend to get to the polls? (nt)

[notesdev]

3. Deepest since 1929?

At the rate things are going this will be the deepest "recession" since the Dark Ages.

[KoKo]

48. Austin is just letting us know what the real stuff is...going down.

Austin doesn't have any financial difficulty...he's one of the "chosen."

[QC]

4. Why would businesses add production capacity if no one is buying their stuff anyway?

That's what I don't get about all this tax cut talk: if I owned, say, a spark plug factory, and people were not buying spark plugs, I certainly would not hire more people to make spark plugs, or open a new production line.

It seems to me that we need to stimulate demand, but then I don't teach in Milton Friedman's old department, so what do I know?

[Techn0Girl]

6. Bingo ! :)

You get the Gold Star my friend.
That's one of the key fallacies in Regan's trickle down approach.

It's Bullshit.
If people are out of work then they aren't buying . If people aren't buying then business won't be producing more crap. If business isn't producing more crap than they aren't hiring more workers.

But they are going to get the 200 BILLION tax cut anyway.

Put that 200 BILLION (I like capitalizing that ) into a WPA type program that, oh i don;t know, maybe provides health care workers for low cost health care clinics and you have put money back into the pockets of the American middle class.

Give 200 BILLION to DuPont, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs and where do you think it is going to go?

[comtec]

56. most likely that money will "disappear" from the economy

in the form of off-shore accounts for executives.

Sad that out supposedly democratic president is really making alot of rethuglicant's (secretly) very happy.... and fucking rich(er)

[senseandsensibility]

8. stop making sense

you trouble maker.

[QC]

13. I know. How can I question the likes of Ghoulsbee, ignorant rube that I am?

LOL!

[senseandsensibility]

15. you do have a lot of nerve

but we need more of that around here.:hi:

[Odin2005]

17. On a different tack, why SHOULD we buy their cheap, poisoned shit?

Our society is on an ecologically and sociologically unsustainable course coming from a fundamental internal contradicition of Capitalism. In an ideal society improved efficiency from technological advancement should allow people to work less for the same pay, but the workings of capitalism prevent this, instead it has lead to technological unemployment, outsourcing and mass consumerist hyper-consumption to inflate demand.

[KakistocracyHater]

26. yup, I prefer to buy at thrift stores, or antique stores, if you want to spiff

up the name, I like lead-free stuff, & especially stuff made in USA, even stuff made in England.

[DeSwiss]

18. Trying to patch-up and fix a flawed system.....

...with more patches, and more flawed ideas/approaches hasn't ever worked, and it never will work. At least not for very long.

Scarcity -- its creation and its maintenance -- is the hallmark and a prerequisite of any profit-driven monetary system. However, with the technological advances we've made in the past 10 to 20 years, we can now produce way more than we can ever consume. It only makes matters worse when we can't consume what we make because we can't afford to buy.

- It is time for a new paradigm.

"At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources.

It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war. In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative." ~ Jacques Fresco


"The reality is that institutional establishments, institutions of codified thought, and institutions of societal influence and power, meaning philosophies, dogmas on one hand and corporations and governments on the other, each have a high propensity to engage in denial, dishonesty, and corruption to maintain self-preservation and self-perpetuation. The result is a continuous culture lag where social progress by way of incorporating new socially-helpful scientific advancements is constantly inhibited. It is like walking through a brick wall as the established power orthodoxies continue to perpetuate themselves for their own interests and comforts.

The profit mechanism creates established orders which constitute the survival and wealth for a few groups of people. The fact is that no matter how socially beneficial new advents may be, they will be viewed in hostility if they threaten an established financially-driven institution. Meaning social progress can be a threat to the establishment. So to put this into a sentence: Abundance, sustainability and efficiency are the enemies of profit.

Progressive advancement in science and technology which can solve problems of inefficiency and scarcity once and for all, are in effect making the prior establishment's servicing of those issues obsolete. Therefore in a monetary system corporations aren't just in competition with each other, they're in competition with progress itself. That is why social-change is so difficult within a monetary system. In other words, the established monetary system refuses to allow free-flowing change." ~ Peter Joseph

http://www.thevenusproject.com">The Venus Project

[Odin2005]

27. Ooh, great post!

Though I am no fan of the Zeitgeist movement. The tyranny of AI is still tyranny and economic planning does not work.

[Starry Messenger]

24. QC 2012.

:thumbsup:

[DoctorK]

41. supply/demand

"It seems to me that we need to stimulate demand, but then I don't teach in Milton Friedman's old department, so what do I know?"

Production (supply) is demand, simply the other side of the coin in any transaction.
Stimulating production increases supply, lowering prices, and provides the basis for expanded trade and increased standards of living.

Sometimes it is easier to grasp these things by taking a concept of money out of it for a moment. Money evolves in a market economy as a matter of convenience (if you made shoes and want to eat eggs you might wait a long time to find a farmer interested in trading shoes for eggs, so intermediary goods are introduced - things that anyone is willing to trade because they expect others will trade them for what they really want - consumer goods). At the heart of every trade someone is trading what they produced for what someone else produced.

The problem with 'helicopter drops' of money (in a fiat money regime) is that no additional supply (production) has been made. The net effect is that prices are higher than they would otherwise be, and whoever gets the 'helicopter' money first benefits at the expense of everyone who has actual savings (which are now worth less in the inflated environment).

This can lead to an imbalance of savings (required for investment to increase - and even maintain - production) versus consumption. If this process continues living standards will actually decline as the 'seed stock' of capital is diverted toward consumption. In the U.S. the savings rate actually went negative as people were induced to borrow, not simply for investment, but for consumption, by interest rates held too low.

[comtec]

57. It's interesting how you attack the OP (clear) but never actually make a point

The supply is currently overly plentiful, so your argument is moot (and wrong anyway)

You have no transactions unless there is a demand for something.

You have have the greatest whirlitzer in the world, cheaply made, etc... but if no one wants it, or can AFFORD IT say for LACK OF FUCKING MONEY, then no one will buy it.

people need money, and jobs first.

There has never been a case of a company going out of business due to a GOOD economy (the idiots in management usually are the ones that find a way to break the company), but M A N Y going under in a BAD economy.

You can't make money on lower taxes if there's no money to reduce taxes on!

[No Elephants]

63. +1

[DoctorK]

70. no attack, just clarification of a misunderstood process

I have 'attacked' no one, I have tried to clarify the very nature of supply and demand, which is clearly misunderstood.

"The supply is currently overly plentiful"

Supply of what is overly plentiful? That statement in itself presupposes a price point that the market itself does not support. For example, there is an 'over supply' of houses currently, because prices haven't adjusted down (based on several factors, from seller denial of reality to government subsidies) to a market clearing price.

With millions of people homeless, I don't think one can accurately attest that there is currently an over supply of homes, just that homes are over priced.

"You have no transactions unless there is a demand for something."

There is always want for something, so in that sense there is always demand, but in the supply/demand equation it is important to understand that one person's supply is another person's demand, and vice versa. Transactions can only happen when both bring supply to the market, otherwise they have nothing to make 'demands' with.

"You have have the greatest whirlitzer in the world, cheaply made, etc... but if no one wants it, or can AFFORD IT say for LACK OF FUCKING MONEY, then no one will buy it."

There is no needs for cursing or caps.
You are correct, if no one wants it (market value is zero) your widget won't sell. Is the problem in our economy that we have too many goods that people don't want? I don't think so. Plenty of people want homes, cars, food, etc. the issue is price.
Money is simply an intermediary for transactions. Once any good has been elevated to the role of universal exchange changing the size of the money stock has no net benefit. Those who get their hands on 'new money' first are advantaged at the expense of everyone who has savings, or earns money (their purchasing power is reduced equal to purchasing power of the 'new money'. But if you increase the money supply you haven't increased the pool of goods, and rising prices will result.

"people need money, and jobs first."

People need goods and services, money is just an intermediary. People don't need money, they utilize money to get what they need.
If I gave you 1 million dollars, but there were no goods on the shelf, what good is the money to you?
It is the process of production (making goods or services) that create jobs, not money. Adding money to the economy send a false signal that there are more goods and services than reality can support. The result is malinvestment and the eventual retrenchement of the economy to a sustainable pattern of production/consumption/savings (a recession).

"There has never been a case of a company going out of business due to a GOOD economy"

If demand for your good or service (say, buggy whips or ice delivery) falls, you company can fail irrespective of how 'good' the economy is doing.

"M A N Y going under in a BAD economy."

True. Companies for which demand appeared to be strong under the 'new money' regime (e.g. construction in the recent boom) can fail because once prices adjust to the new money, the relative demand no longer supports the level of employment and devotion of resources.

"You can't make money on lower taxes if there's no money to reduce taxes on!"

Profits are derived from cost differentials. The best run firms will adjust to changes in the money stock and demand to keep revenue above costs. Taxes is one of the costs a firm must deal with. Unprofitable firms can't pay workers, and can't stay in business. Profits that aren't generated can't be taxed. Companies out of business can't be taxed.

[comtec]

71. SO what part of the reich are you from?

Your explanations are lacking in humanity, but I do thank you for giving them.
You can not take humanity out of the equation, because it directly effects humans.

You are also dancing like a pro around the core point of no jobs = no economy.
you need money to have a demand.

your false point of "lets remove money" is bullshit. Money is exactly the point... no one but the rich have any!

There is plenty of reason for caps, and profanity!
You are, for what appears to be, pushing the exact policies that got us here!

SO just be honest, tell us what kind of RW shill you are, because you are truly failing to understand how we got here.

Your attempts to push a libertarian Utopian ideal is lost here.

We all know better.

The best investment in the economy comes in the kind of WPA works from the 30's, to come down with the fist of Thor on the banks, and tax the ever living fuck out of the ultra rich, who hold all the capital.

That won't happen, however because the president has surrounded himself with idiots like you.

People who don;t actually give a damn about the PEOPLE of America, only the RICH... who in all honesty are no longer people.

[DoctorK]

73. lacking humanity?

"You can not take humanity out of the equation, because it directly effects humans."

I haven't 'taken humanity' out of the equation, so I don't know what you mean. Notions of supply and demand presupose a humanity that creates supply and demands goods and services.

"You are also dancing like a pro around the core point of no jobs = no economy."

I haven't disputed that no jobs = no economy. Who has? Can you perhaps quote what I wrote that led you to conclude that was an argument I was making?

"you need money to have a demand."

Demand is a concept that exists irrespective of money. Money is simply an intermediary of advanced economies that utitilize a high division of labor.

"your false point of "lets remove money" is bullshit."

I'm trying to help you understand. Take for example a barter economy. No money, yet there are jobs and exchange. Because this type of economy is inefficient members of it seek a good of universal exchange. This is what becomes 'money' in the marketplace. By starting with the example of barter economy one can recognize more readily that supply is demand, and vice versa. The introduction of a good of universal exchange (money)doesn't change the underlying facets of supply and demand, it just makes exchange more efficient and beneficial. It makes possible greater and greater divisions of labor and the production of higher end goods (requiring vast cooperation - like the computer you're using).
Introducing more money without an increase in the production of goods merely advantages the ones who get the money first (in our present fractional reserve/fiat money regime those are the people that can the money from the banks first - usually the politically connected rich)

"Money is exactly the point... no one but the rich have any!"

Hardly, but you're getting close when you realize that the rich (or politically connected) have greater access to 'money from thin air'. It's the 'money from thin air' that is the problem. It distorts prices, and thereby production, and results in unprofitable actions that appear, at first, as profitable enterprises. When prices adjust to the new level of the money stock the unprofitability becomes apparent, and production must be re-aligned to the re-exposed underlying reality of supply and demand. This process is the recession, when (using our latest boom/bust as an example) the extra construction workers employed the boom have to find a different job.

"SO just be honest, tell us what kind of RW shill you are, because you are truly failing to understand how we got here.
Your attempts to push a libertarian Utopian ideal is lost here."

I push no Utopia, socialist, libertarian, etc. They cannot exist in the real world. I 'push' an economy based on the fundamentals of supply and demand, and to have one we need hard money. The fractional reserve system, with legal tender laws making paper 'money', robs producers (to the advantage of bankers and the politically connected) and disproportionally harms the poor, who can least afford the inflation this money regime engenders. It destroys real savings and promotes debt.

"The best investment in the economy comes in the kind of WPA works from the 30's, to come down with the fist of Thor on the banks, and tax the ever living fuck out of the ultra rich, who hold all the capital."

The WPA didn't get us out of double digit unemployment throughout the time we tried that experiment, nor did confiscatory tax rates. What we need to address is the institution of fiat money, and fractional reserve banking.

"That won't happen, however because the president has surrounded himself with idiots like you."

"Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum"
I don't think any of the president's advisors appreciate the harm fostered by our money regime. Certainly none of them are advocating hard money, and they're pursuing policies that are lowering the value of the dollar.

[No Elephants]

64. My instinct in Reply 61 seems on target. Agenda-driven.

I reply as I read. If I had read the whole thread first, I could have saved myself time.


Next time, DrK.

[No Elephants]

62. Bingo. No jobs or stability = no purchasing dollars or consumer confidence=no demand

Add to that two parties who seem to think all solutions come from making the rich richer and happier, and you have, well, what we now have, the American plutonomy, waiting on the next artificial bubble from the far right and center right that run this country.

[customerserviceguy]

9. What I find particularly dishonest is this:

"The point of those policies, they aren't spending – they're the government giving tax cuts to businesses to invest in this country, that's what they are."

Spending, tax cuts, it all comes out of the bottom line, and increases deficit spending. I'm starting to worry about a man who would try to pull the wool over our eyes on his first major media interview.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Tax cuts for business, Social Security cuts for working Americans

And, as the OP, dwindling help for the hurting.

Oh brother.

[Safetykitten]

12. Never finish high school? Learn at home to become a WH economic advisor.

So now we know why he is here. He's the "truth" guy. He's the narrative changer. He's the shield for the next two years of bad to catastrophic economic news.

But as others have noticed, tax breaks can carpet the lobbies of businesses but have no effect.

People who have no jobs do not buy things. Our economy is what? 70% consumer based? No jobs, no money, no buy things.

This is a depression, make no mistake about it, and it will be put out there in the media right after the fall elections.

[Odin2005]

14. Neo-Liberal Chicago School garbage. We are SOOOOO fucked...

[jtuck004]

16. Austan. if I may, let me give you a projection...

Officially, we have 30,000,000 people unemployed or underemployed, more that are not counted because they have been too discouraged to look for work. There appears to be nothing on the horizon that will lead to any significant job creation, and projections are for 11-12% unemployment next year, so it could be near 40,000,000.

So let's just address half of that need. Create 20,000,000 new jobs over the next 10 years to reduce our unemployment rate to around 7%. (Don't know how, let's just say the job fairy drops them from the sky). 20 million divided by 120 months is 167K (rounded).

Don't forget about ~125,000 new job seekers entering the worker pool each month, so we need something more than 125,000 each month to reduce our unemployment.

Last month was net -54,000, but you knew that Austan. So let's start in September. We need 125,000 plus 167,000 new jobs each month, or 292,000 net new jobs each month.

292,000 net new jobs, each and every month for the next 20 years to bring our unemployment rate down about half, maybe?. Hey, we did 321K in 1994. So if we did it once in the past 30 years, surely we can do it every month, every year for the next 20, eh?

So here's a projection buddy. We are going to need multiple trillions of dollars invested in this country and our neighbors to make us even close to competitive in the world in 2020. We need to educate people on how to make their best choices in a globalized world. We need to rebuild a manufacturing industry that is, in large part, 30 years out of date. And we need to do something about tens of trillions of dollars of debt weighing on consumers, the housing market, and that which is sitting "off the books" hidden by the 6 largest banks and the Federal Reserve. Just to start...

If we don't we are going to be weaker and poorer than anyone ever thought. Moderate changes to social security to help a few people lead more miserable lives for a few years? Oh, please - we will have people living in tarp cities by the time any such silly policy could even take effect. Except for those at the very top, who will have moved their homes to Brazil, China, India, or Russia by then.

Free of charge, here's another projection from GovernmentGoldman Sachs. “We believe that by 2027, China could be the largest economy in the world.”
—Jim O’Neill, Head of Global Economics and Strategy Research, Goldman, Sachs & Co


For reference, Here's the job creation average since 1980*

Year
----
1980 22
1981 -4
1982 -177
1983 288
1984 323
1985 208
1986 158
1987 263
1988 270
1989 162
1990 26
1991 -71
1992 96
1993 233
1994 321
1995 179
1996 233
1997 280
1998 250
1999 264
2000 163
2001 -147
2002 -45
2003 7
2004 173
2005 211
2006 175
2007 91
2008 -256
2009 -373


*I pulled these off the the BLS database and let Excel do a simple average function.
Revised numbers for 2008-9 are actually a little worse now, but I haven't updated it yet.
"Monthly Growth in Total Nonfarm Employment, Seasonally Adjusted: 1980-2008, average per month

[endless october]

19. we need to make things here if we hope to reverse the economic malaise.

cheap, imported goods are anything but.

[DeSwiss]

20. K&R

We need jobs for now it is true. But more importantly we need a new approach -- a new way of seeing and addressing problems more than anything else.

Because even when there are people out there who can buy the things we make, the "job holders" will more likely be machines/robots who will get those jobs -- before humans. Which is largely what is happening to us right now. We can now produce way more than we can consume. Especially when we can only buy things through a system which belongs to the owners/producers who (once) paid us to work for them.

The production of goods in a monetary system can only work if there is a scarcity of products in the marketplace that will allow for the creation of profit. Without profit, things don't get made. Whether that scarcity is created by the circumstance of a lack of available resources, or if the scarcity is manufactured just to maintain the value of the wealth held by the few.

- It is time for http://www.thevenusproject.com">a new paradigm.

[Joanne98]

21. TIER 5

[Orrex]

28. +5

I love how every political talker has the time and will to decry the ongoing unemployment catastrophe, but none of them has the integrity or courage to put forth Tier 5 as a serious and essential option.

People will literally be starving in the streets, and our esteemed legislators will still be standing there wondering why the public's opinion of the government is in the shitter.

[comtec]

58. what's Tier 5?

[Orrex]

67. Unemployment eligibility is categorized by "Tiers"

Let me disclaim that I've spoken with three separate people who work for Pennsylvania's Department of Labor about this: two have admitted outright that "nobody really understands this whole tier thing," and the third said, in essence, that it's simply a way to categorize the unemployed.

However, Tier 5 would be an extension of unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work for more than 99 weeks. When they exhausted their benefits, they were being paid as part of Tier 5; if their benefits were restored/extended, they would be classified as Tier 5, in part to distinguish them from existing Tier 4 recipients.


The problem is that no one in authority is seriously discussing an extension of Tier 5 benefits, possibly because they've been frightened by talk of deficits and the "lazy" unemployed.


Let me know if that clarifies it for you!

[Jim Sagle]

23. Shorter Goolsbee: 'Let 'em eat cake.'

[leschwartz]

35. Let them eat cake

I agree. 

What they are really saying is that they know what the
problems are and they are not willing to do anything
fundamental to change the economy so that we do not have
prolonged, near permanent high rates of unemployment.

The Obama administration talks about growing exports, 200% in
five years, but that has only happened one time in the past 60
years, 1971 - 1976, and the conditions, including 150% growth
of the global economy, 10% reduction in the US dollar, and
much less direct competition in the markets for the US at that
time.

But that is not going to happen again for a long time, and to
hold that out as you solution is to offer a false hope based
on wishful thinking and they still are not facing the real
structural problems.

What they have to change is the exporting of jobs, ANY JOB -
every job matters, and the exporting of industries, in order
to address and remedy the near $60 billion a month trade
deficit. That is $60 billion a month that does not go to US
domestic corporations, and does not go to the wages of
Americans.

That is what must be changed, and BOTH parties are responsible
for this prosperity destroying trade policy and neither are
willing to admit they were wrong about it in the first place
calling it a win-win "free trade" prospect that
would add to US prosperity.

US exports are important and help the economy, but the great
balance of trade is against our interests, and it is
destroying our economy.

Ultimately it destroys every market from housing to stocks
(retirement savings) not just the wages of workers. 

It (bad - job killing trade policy) is the reason why with
permanent high unemployment, it is extremely difficult to do
anything about the economy today, and otherwise just using
every other policy you can name, including government
spending/stimulus is not going to produce prosperity.
 

[Jim Sagle]

53. I was going to say 'Welcome to DU' but you've been here 8 yrs.

;)

[KoKo]

32. Yes...according to Goolsbee, Axelrod and Emmanuel...we Americans have been Feeding at Troff

and like "greedy pigs" to the "slaughter in NC and elsewhere"...WE DESERVE WHAT WE GET!

We Pigged Out at the Trough in our Credit Cards and then went WILD with our HOMES..taking out HELOC LOANS and "FLIPPING HOMES" was the BIG THING...like "Dancing with Stars" on HDTV...!

We were FLIPPING AND CREDITING AND HELOCING ....until NOTHING WAS LEFT TO US BUT DEPT....

But, our Bankers SAVED US! and WE WILL PAY IT ALL OFF IN DUE TIME. THINGS ARE GOOD! :sarcasm:

[prolesunited]

39. I did NONE of that

and I'm still screwed.

[KoKo]

49. I didn't Either...but I'm SCREWED, too!

:shrug: ...Doesn't matter, does it?

[DoctorK]

52. most individuals can understand

that borrowing now means reduced income in the future, unless you're investing that money profitably (new enterprises, improved production).
We had hundreds of billions borrowed to fund higher consumption for years and years. The numbers on MEW (mortgage equity withdrawal) aren't pretty, and are an indictment of Greenspan's low interest rate policy that induced millions to borrow too much.
Even if you didn't partake in the borrowing orgy you could find yourself out of a job as the people who did are now reducing consumption to service the debt they wracked up, or the savers who were defaulted on by reckless borrowers reduce consumption to restore their savings balances.

More borrowing by the government doesn't solve this problem, it just shifts the burden from those who created it to the taxpayers.

The worst thing the Democrats did was buy into the notion that banks can't fail. Capitalism is a system of profit and loss - success and failure. Profit and failure perform the critical function of moving resources into the hands of those most capable of creating wealth, and taking resources away from those that demonstrate and inability to manage them.

Trying to take failure out of capitalism would be like removing pain from the human nervous system. We would imperil and harm ourselves without even realizing it.

The most important economic reform we could institute would be to restore hard money. One of the reasons the Constitution forbid the states from making anything but gold or silver legal tender was because there was recent history with the dangers of paper money (sacrificing the interests of the productive members of society for the speculators and politically connected). In fact, the first federal coinage act prescribed the death penalty for debasement of money. We've institutionalized the debasement of our money in the Federal Reserve, and been wracked with the worst economic panics since then. Hard money, and a willingness to let bad bankers fail, would do more to stem speculation and over consumption than anything else we could ask Congress to do. Unfortunately, since Congress likes to promise more in payments than it is willing to take in taxes, we won't have hard money until we address notions of 'welfare for everybody' inherent in our federal entitlement programs.

[ProudDad]

54. The Ponzi Scheme that is end-stage Capitalism...

Is all about "growing" today to pay tomorrow's interest on yesterday's debt.

It's all Foma (bullshit)...

For the last 30+ years the USAmerican "economy" has been all about borrowing from the future, using up resources at an unsustainable rate, creating money out of thin air (and making a few assholes "rich" from that process), and fouling the water, air and climate with the end products of the madness.

Now we're at the point where it's likely that large air-breathing mammals won't last past the next century...

There can be no "economy" on a dead planet...

[DoctorK]

72. you are partially correct

"For the last 30+ years the USAmerican "economy" has been all about borrowing from the future", using up resources at an unsustainable rate, creating money out of thin air (and making a few assholes "rich" from that process), and fouling the water, air and climate with the end products of the madness."

That is not capitalism, per se, but a consequence of fractional reserve banking.
Fractional reserve banking and our legal tender laws are what have created the unsustainable patter of production/consumption/savings that have wrecked the American economy.

Capitalism can exist without creating 'money out of thin air', and would function much more effectively (avoided the false signals sent by 'money out of thin air' in the marketplace). Capitalism refers ultimately to the utilization of savings for capital investment to increase production, so that living standards can increase y-o-y.
We have politicized money with the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, and suffered ever since. It is the ability of banks to create 'money out of thin air' that enriches the politically connected 'assholes'. We need a return to hard money, so that market forces can balance economic activity. There is no more effective regulator than reality, the Federal Reserve has proven itself to be part of the problem, not the solution.

[ProudDad]

74. "living standards" are NOT "Quality of Life"!

Capitalism CANNOT contribute to Quality of Life...

You are making the mistake of believing that if only you can fix the well that fuels the poisonous system that you will cure the disease. It's the system that demands growth that is the disease not the fuel for growth.

Capitalism is an efficient domination mechanism that will find ANY way to loot resources to make profits. That's its ONLY function; to create "profits"! Capitalism is also a "growth machine". As you've said, "capital investment <is> to increase production".

And what's so damn great about "increased production"? Don't you realize that we've already passed the Earth's LIMIT on resource exploitation; that's what Catastrophic Global Climate Destabilization is trying to tell us.

Good ole' capitalism has allowed the big-brained bipeds to create a system of resource exploitation (with toxic results to the ecosystem), turn those raw resources into toxic products (with toxic results to the workers and ecosystem) that mostly end up in a landfill within 6 months (with toxic results to the ecosystem)!!!

We need to learn to live better, not bigger. We need to POWER DOWN. We need to allow the ecosystem to heal itself and support us again.

We need to build things that fill the needs of humans AND support our ecosystem (or at least, NOT damage it). We need to learn to live within our means on a finite Earth...

Or ELSE!

Capitalism will NOT help in that effort!

[DoctorK]

76. I disagree

"Capitalism CANNOT contribute to Quality of Life"

Does your computer contribute to your quality of life?
You would not have one without the capitalist system that rewarded the invention and production of computers on a scale that made them obtainable to you.
Capitalism is a system that guides the division of labor to enable the creation of higher order goods based on the underlying reality of supply and demand. The profits of creating for people the products they want in the most efficient manner can then be utilized to buy capital goods, which permit more production. A tractor is an example of a capital good that most people can readily visualize. The tractor grants the farmer higher productivity, he can now satisfy more consumers than before, and labor is freed up for other activities - like designing computers.

"You are making the mistake of believing that if only you can fix the well that fuels the poisonous system that you will cure the disease. It's the system that demands growth that is the disease not the fuel for growth."

People want growth. People are not a 'system'.
If you think people don't want more, try cutting their Social Security checks and tell me how they respond to your ideal of lower consumption. I'll warn you, most won't like it.

"And what's so damn great about "increased production"?"

See above. You live in a miraculous age of production, with common advantages of our system of production that Kings 100 years ago could scarcely have dreamed. Capitalism is a system of mass production for the masses.
Increased production lower prices, and allows individuals to have things like computers, refridgerators, etc.
Maybe you don't want these things, but most people do.

"We need to learn to live within our means on a finite Earth..."

How do you determine 'our means'? The raw materials that make up your computer might seem quite limited to you, but someone else (in peaceful cooperation with literally thousands of others) saw a higher use, and put them together in such a way that you and I can share thoughts without ever meeting one another.
What limit do you place on human creativity?
If you want to forego the advantage of capitalism, like your computer, refridgerator, etc. Go ahead. Just don't expect many people to follow you back into pre-history, scraping a substinence living from the dirt.
I suspect you're more attached to the 'poison well' than you're able to recognize, or willing to admit.

"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson.

[ProudDad]

79. As usual, you capitalist true believers

mistake natural human curiosity, creativity and desire to invent with a deadly, Ponzi scheme of an "economic tool"...or more accurately, the whip that's used to enforce artificial scarcity for the many in order to make life luxurious for the few.

There was human creativity for 200,000 years before the recent invention of "capitalism" that's now killing us.

Our only hope is to throw off that system that assumes infinite resource exploitation on a finite planet before it's too late to let our natural creativity help the Earth to heal.

[DoctorK]

81. wow

You _really_ have no grasp on economics if you think scarcity is 'artificial'

On the one hand you deplore that resources are limited, and then you suggest these exact same limits are 'artificial'.

You have to resolve that contradiction in your mind before you understanding can advance.

Supply and Demand is an economic law that recognizes resources are limited, and observes that they are valued based on their supply, and human demand for them.

[ProudDad]

86. You're the one with the tenous grasp of economics...

And apparently no grasp of Peak Oil, Catastrophic Global Climate Destabilization and the current economic meltdown I'm calling end-stage Capitalism (because it IS)...

The artificial scarcity I was speaking of is the locking up of the Commons by the few (recently using the capitalist system to enforce their "ownership" and commodification of the commons by the few) in order to demand the labor of the masses just to get enough crumbs from the groaning capitalist's table to live on.

The other limits are the essential contradiction that IS capitalism. Capitalism depends on constant geometric "growth" or it fails. Thanks to that unalterable characteristic of that dying system on a finite Earth, we have already overshot the Earth's carrying capacity and are reaping the whirlwind.

Supply and Demand is a microcosmic cause and effect WITHIN the capitalist system (or any other economic system for the last 10,000 years) that allegedly sets "prices" (which it often does NOT DO). Neither "supply and demand" nor the capitalist system of resource exploitation recognize the Earth's natural limits...obviously since we're fouling our nest.

You're the one who needs to open your mind to the reality of the Earth's situation.

Time to study up, bunky...

You can start here:
http://www.postcarbon.org/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=risks-of-global-warming-rising
http://www.peakoil.net/
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0222-01.htm

and parts of the solution:
http://steadystate.org/
http://www.transitionus.org/

[DoctorK]

88. crumbs?

"The artificial scarcity I was speaking of is the locking up of the Commons by the few (recently using the capitalist system to enforce their "ownership" and commodification of the commons by the few) in order to demand the labor of the masses just to get enough crumbs from the groaning capitalist's table to live on."

Crumbs like your computer?
Do you have electricity?
A refrigerator?
"All people, however fanatical they may be in their zeal to disparage and to fight capitalism, implicitly pay homage to it by passionately clamoring for the products it turns out."
Were you granted these 'crumbs', or did you trade labor for them like millions of your fellow Americans?

Property rights don't create scarcity, they instead recognize scarcity and create a basis upon which to value the resources available.
If tomorrow property rights were abolished 100% there would still not be enough of everything that people want. We would still need a way to determine what people want most, and how to direct resources toward the satisfaction of those wants.
Property rights allow individuals to personally place value on resources and decide which of their wants are to have priority.
Time and resources are inescapable components of scarcity, only creativity and the division of labor can increase productivity to satisfy more and more of mankind's wants within the limits of time and resources. I don't presume to know the limit of human understanding and creativity, but apparently you think you do. I'm reminded of the guy who wanted to close the patent office because he insisted everything that could be invented had been invented.

The other limits are the essential contradiction that IS capitalism. Capitalism depends on constant geometric "growth" or it fails.

You're confusing capitalism, which only requires property rights and profits (the cost differential between what it takes to create a product and the amount of wealth (products already created) someone will exchange for that product), with the inflationary practice of fractional reserve banking.
Fractional reserve banking, by fostering ever larger amounts of debt, is the process you are indicting, and you may be surprised to learn that I despise it as well.
The best thing we could do for our economy would be to remove the technocrats from manipulating interest rates and return to a money based on supply and demand instead of ivory towered bureaucrat's whims.

[ProudDad]

80. To directly answer your questions...

Does your computer contribute to your quality of life?

No. I've been in the computer business since 1965. It's NOT a labor saving device, it's just another tool. It's a glorified form of paper, pencil and postal delivery. If we didn't have them it wouldn't detract from real human progress in the least. If we didn't have computers, I'd just go back to pencil and paper. No problem. Wouldn't cut into my creativity or curiosity at all.

-------------------------
People want growth. People are not a 'system'.

People do NOT "want growth". The USAmerican Sheeple have been programmed to think that this short lived experiment in an industrial growth system is the ONLY way to do things.

People want (and need) clean water, decent food, housing and clothing and fulfilling work to do. The now dying industrial growth system has made the acquisition of most of the previously mentioned harder and harder for most of the people on Earth.

-------------------------
See above. You live in a miraculous age of production, with common advantages of our system of production that Kings 100 years ago could scarcely have dreamed.

Big fucking deal... So capitalism allows burning up resources to make plastic crap to make a few rich and the rest of the folks depressed slaves to consumption...around 50% of the USAmerican population has to take medication to get through the day.

Not anything that we really need, bunky.

-----------------------------------

"We need to learn to live within our means on a finite Earth..."

How do you determine 'our means'?

There are legions of scientists who are working on that problem. The current estimate is that the Earth can support about 2 billion human being at a decent quality of life that's sustainable...that wouldn't continue to destroy the Earth as a hospitable environment for large air-breathing mammals.

We've overshot that by a bunch thanks in no small part to your precious system of capitalist exploitation of the commons for the benefit of a few...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. we need to start manufacturing things that people need

for instance we are way behind gaermany for solar panel export

[KoKo]

34. New "things that people need," that might be "old..but new" and BASIC!

Agree!

[RedCloud]

36. meanwhile rich have $10,000,000,000,000 squirreled away.

[Roland99]

37. And in other news, Florida may experience thunderstorms in summer afternoons

what a fucking moran.

[Roland99]

38. BTW, anyone else waiting for this admin to start using "turning a corner" re: the economy?

[Techn0Girl]

40. About that 200 BILLION Tax Cut To Business ...

Let me put that 200 Billion into perspective for you:

With 200 Billion you could give each and every one of the 30 million unemployed in this country , $6,500 -
Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars .... every single one of them.

for job retraining,
For trade education,
to pay half a year on your mortgage payments while you're unemployed,
to pay your health insurance for a whole year.

But WHO is going to get that money?

BP is going to get that money.
Bank of America is going to get that money.
Walmart is going to get that money.

That's what the Obama administration via Mr. Ghoulsbee is proposing.

Does this put it all in perspective ?

[OhioChick]

42. Eye opening...

Thanks for that.

It's rather sickening, isn't it?

[laughingliberal]

43. Careful. People will think you want a pony.

:sarcasm:

[Techn0Girl]

45. A few more years of this BS and we'll all want ponies - for FOOD !

[dotymed]

44. Piss up our backs?

It must be raining...Rain must trickle up, money sure as hell doesn't.

[KoKo]

47. Good Austin...Tell the Truth...Lower Expectations ...DOWN ...DOWN...

Good OPTIMISTIC FELLOW THERE! Just let the Dems know...the times are dark, deep and there's little HOPE for a recovery. That way we will GIVE UP our SS and MORE OF OUR FREEDOMS.

GOOD ON YOU, AUSTIN. TELL IT LIKE IT IS! A TRUTH TELLER!

[ProudDad]

55. The Ponzi Scheme that is end-stage Capitalism...

Is all about "growing" today to pay tomorrow's interest on yesterday's debt.

It's all Foma (bullshit)...

For the last 30+ years the USAmerican "economy" has been ONLY about borrowing from the future, using up resources at an unsustainable rate for consumer crap, creating money out of thin air (and making a few assholes "rich" from that process) to "pay" for all of this, and fouling the water, air and climate with the end products of the madness.

Now we're at the point where it's likely that large air-breathing mammals won't last past the next century...

There can be no "economy" on a dead planet...

[No Elephants]

66. Fun with wiki:

"At Yale, Goolsbee was a member of the Yale Political Union, the improv comedy troupe Just Add Water, Skull and Bones, and the Yale Debate Association.

<snip>

He served as Senior Economist to the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).<7>


<snip>

He is known in political circles as a centrist and in academic circles as an empirical economist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee


"The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a think tank in the United States, founded in 1989 and affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council, which styles itself as promoting the ideas of "New Democrats." It covers a very wide range of issues and describes itself as centrist, although progressive critics frequently describe it as conservative, neoconservative, or neoliberal. Its current president is Will Marshall, who writes frequently on foreign policy, defense, national service, globalization and trade policy, and cultural issues."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Policy_Institute


"The DLC has supported welfare reform, such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996<8>, President Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit<9>, and the creation of AmeriCorps<10>. The DLC supports expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care. The DLC supports universal access to preschool, charter schools, and measures to allow a greater degree of choice in schooling (though not school vouchers), and supports the No Child Left Behind Act. The DLC supports both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

The DLC has both supported and criticized the policies of President George W. Bush. The DLC opposed the partial birth abortion ban, the expiration of the 1994 assault weapon ban, the Clear Skies Initiative, and what they perceived as a lack of funding of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. In 2001 the DLC endorsed the idea of tax cuts for the middle class, but opposed the Bush tax cut since it favored the wealthy and perceived by the DLC as fiscally irresponsible. The organization supports some forms of Social Security privatization but opposes financing private retirement accounts with large amounts of borrowed money.


<snip>

2003 invasion of Iraq
The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshallco-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left"<12>. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."<13>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council


Yep, "progressive sure is one funny word.

Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The Princess Bride (1987)

[ProudDad]

75. A capitalist by any other name

still stinks up the place...

And will kill us all...

[yurbud]

77. source on the COBRA news?

[defendandprotect]

78. Late K&R ... where was this thread hiding?

[truthisfreedom]

82. I saw the peace sign avatar and read: Goolsbee: Unemployed 'Going to Stay High'

Not as nice an article as I'd hoped.