Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Mandate for Spreading the Wealth
Two days before he lost the election, John McCain summarized what had become the central message of his campaign: "Redistribute the wealth, spread the wealth around -- we can't do that."
Oh yes we can.
The 2008 presidential election became something of a referendum on "spreading the wealth."
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody," Barack Obama said on Oct. 12, in a conversation with an Ohio resident named Joe. The candidate quickly added: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
McCain eagerly attacked the concept, most dramatically three days later during the last debate. While instantly creating the "Joe the Plumber" everyman myth, McCain sharpened the distinctions between the two tickets while the nation watched and listened. He charged: "The whole premise behind Senator Obama's plans are class warfare -- let's spread the wealth around."
Obama has routinely reframed the issue in terms of fairness. "Exxon Mobil, which made $12 billion, record profits, over the last several quarters," he replied during the final debate, "they can afford to pay a little more so that ordinary families who are hurting out there -- they're trying to figure out how they're going to afford food, how they're going to save for their kids' college education, they need a break."
This fall, the candidates and their surrogates endlessly repeated such arguments. As much as anything else, the presidential campaign turned into a dispute over the wisdom of "spreading the wealth." Most voters were comfortable enough with the concept to send its leading advocate to the Oval Office.
In the process, the top of the GOP ticket recycled attacks on the principles of the New Deal. Like Franklin Roosevelt when he first ran for president in 1932, Barack Obama put forward economic prescriptions that were hardly radical. Yet, in the next few years, Obama's administration could accomplish great things -- reminiscent of the New Deal, with its safety-net guarantees and its (redistributive) progressive income tax and its support for labor rights and its mammoth commitment to public works programs that created jobs. Today, we need green jobs that cure our economy and heal our environment.
Let's be clear: Despite their rhetoric, even McCain and Palin know that spreading the wealth from greedy elites to the masses of people is quite popular in our country. That's why their campaign emphasized how Palin "stood up to the oil industry" in Alaska. She did it by imposing a windfall profits tax on big oil that put money into the hands of every man, woman and child in the state. If it's good for Alaska, why wouldn't it be good for America as a whole?
Obama and his activist base won a mandate for strong government action on behalf of economic fairness. But since election night, countless pundits and politicians have somberly warned the president-elect to govern from "the center." Presumably, such governance would preclude doing much to spread the wealth. Before that sort of conventional wisdom further hardens like political cement, national discussions should highlight options for moving toward a more egalitarian society.
Government policies in that direction would be a sharp reversal of what's been happening over the last few decades. No matter how you slice it, more of the economic pie has been going to fewer people.
"The top 1 percent of households received 22.9 percent of all pre-tax income in 2006, more than double what that figure was in the 1970s," the Working Group on Extreme Inequality reports. "This is the greatest concentration of income since 1928." And: "Between 1979 and 2006, the top 5 percent of American families saw their real incomes increase 87 percent. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw zero increase in real income."
Current tax structures are steeply tilted to make the rich richer at the expense of others: "In the 2008 tax year, households in the bottom 20 percent will receive $26 due to the Bush tax cuts. Households in the middle 20 percent will receive $784. Households in the top 1 percent will receive $50,495. And households in the top 0.1 percent will receive $266,151."
We can reverse those trends. The time and opportunity have come to "spread the wealth."
When President Franklin Roosevelt heard pleas for bold steps to counter extreme economic inequality, he replied: "Go out and make me do it."
Barack Obama won the presidency after clearly saying that he wants to spread the wealth. Let's make him do it.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
61 Comments so far
Show AllSpread the wealth. Spread the health. To the idiots who scream, "Socialism!"
So?
http://davedubya.com
Tax cuts for the middle class is a drop in the bucket. It's a very minimalist way to go about "redistributing wealth."
WE NEED TO END CORPORATE WELFARE.
Doing that would quickly free up trillions of dollars, that's right, trillions, to either start paying down the federal debt or to spend on public programs like education, health care, infrastructure, etc.
Do we really want to pay for more than 760 military bases all over the world or would we rather have better schools?
Do we really want to spend, as Obama has endorsed, $1100 on military for every $15 on alternative energy sources?
Do we really want to fight incredibly expensive wars to guard private oil pipelines that yield outrageous profits to the oil industry at staggering costs to the taxpayers?
Progressive tax rates and tax cuts for the middle class do little more than bandage the wounds that corporatism inflicts. If Obama isn't going to address the root of the problem, nothing will change.
For starters, how about ending the abuses of paid lobbyists? If we allow them to exist at all, how about demanding a public record be created of all such conversations between paid lobbyists and elected officials? How about banning 100% of corporate dollars from the electoral process including ballot questions?
Corporations are not citizens; until they are stripped of power and until power is restored to its rightful owners, don't count on strengthening the middle class.
Norman Solomon ends with the teling FDR quote, "Now make me do it.". I voted for Obama. I was originally for Kucinich. I like the history Obama makes;I was sold by his Philly race speech, which I heard live online. He is a moderate. Let's get rolling and push him into doing a new New Deal and his smart advisors can come up with a great name for it. Push, push, push, push. Organize. The organizer will appreciate it.
Absolutely. FDR didn't enter the office with the New Deal all figured out and ready to go. He was guided by We the People. It will require the same with Obama.
Our civic duty does not end on Election Day. The real work has just started.
Flood the Congress and the White House with e-mails and phone calls. Make sure they get the message of the things we expect them to do.
what wealth?
- the loyal opposition
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Most definitely. But progressive taxation doesn't work because the rich write the tax laws.
The key is how you spread the wealth around without getting killed.
Putting these issues up for a referendum will achieve this purpose without getting Obama shot.
A referendum that establishes a yearly, direct democratically established cap on personal and institutional net worth would achieve this purpose in relative peace.
Ask Hugo Chavez about the power of the referendum.
There is work to do in successfully framing this issue. Obama comes closer posing it as a matter of fairness. It needs to go much further; all the way to a legitimate and powerful claim on wealth. Otherwise Repubs, conservatives and libertarians will always frame the issue of unfair taking from one person to give to an underserving other.
One only has to look around and see the roads, bridges, buildings and other readily apparant structure to realize it is all furnished by the people who worked to produce these things. This of course includes digging the necessary resources out of the ground as well as planting and harvesting the food.
This calls for enlarging the voice and authority of labor; an old concept that has gone out of style via successful propaganda convincing the so called educated college graduates they belong to a seperate class. We should all know by now this was a scam to weaken the labor force with promises going unfulfilled. Change will not be possible if all those in the workforce stay hiding in their cubicles and fail to grow a pair.
A legitimate claim on the nation's common resources of water, air and minerals also needs adjusting. It is rediculous to assign all the wealth and profit to an undeserving few.
That such concepts are seen to be startling is the measure of how buried the people are in gratuitous propaganda.
Well said!!
I'd like to add a couple of points regarding "the commons."
First, the US military is being used to "subsidize" the wants and needs of private corporations. We should never use the taxpayer-funded US military to topple governments unfriendly to corporations. We should not use the US military (or the CIA, DEA, etc) to pressure sovereign, foreign governments to be "friendly" hosts to US corporations. This is a blatant form of corporate welfare.
Second, the cap and trade program that seeks to reward "small polluters" at the expense of "big polluters" is misguided. Those who "small pollute" should pay fines to the American people and be forced to comply with pollution regulations; those who "big pollute" should, in most instances, be fined, forced to comply and shut down if they continue to abuse the environment. Turning pollution into a market commodity still allows big polluters to "big pollute" if they can afford to pay whatever it costs. We shouldn't give them market incentives; we should give them our demands.
The environment belongs to all citizens of the earth. Selling "right to pollute" coupons (e.g. cap and trade), at any price, is a bogus solution to the pollution and global warming problems. It's not "theirs" to sell and trade. Substituting a naive hope that free market forces, e.g. cap and trade, for real governance by, for and of the people is the wrong way to go.
I've posted this site before and here it is again.
http://www.inequality.org/
Click on "By the numbers" and page down to the pie charts showing distribution of wealth and stock ownership in 2004. In 2004, the wealthiest 10% of people in this country had over 70% of the wealth and nearly 80% of stocks. If fact, the wealthiest 1% had more wealth than the bottom 90%.
In 2004, 90% of people had only 28.7% of the wealth. I've seem a later number that had reduced us to 28.2%. This is not the direction we should be going in. By all means, redistribute the wealth.
The country is broke folks. Due to the Wall Street bailout, which Obama endorsed; two needless wars, one of which Obama endorses; maintaining an empire of 700 plus bases in countries overseas; really bad trade deals written for corporate profits at the expense of the American worker; and our dependence on foreign oil. I certainly endorse the need to raise taxes on the wealthy but there isn't any wealth to redistribute to the middle class and the poor.
Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris: possibly not broke. What data do you have or sources, please?
NYCartist November 6th, 2008 5:15 pm
"Lobo Gris: possibly not broke. What data do you have or sources, please?"
I'm not your research assistant, look up the figures for yourself. You could start though with 10 trillion dollars of debt, a fiscal deficit that is likely to top 1 trillion this next year, a six trillion current account deficit, and 53 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Even the government acknowledges that we are in the midst of the greatest financial crisis since the great depression as does Wall Street with a 5000 plus point drop in the DOW since last year.
Have you been playing ostrich?
Lobo Gris
"I'm not your research assistant, look up the figures for yourself. "
And you'll find that the total debt, an aggregate figure, is around 70% of GDP, an annual figure. If you looked at a family with debt at 70% of annual income you wouldn't call them broke.
Given that the U.S. government regularly prints money by selling tbills to willing buyers, the country is not broke by a long shot. That will happen if and when no one wants to buy tbills anymore, and for that we will have to wait and see.
jakenewton November 6th, 2008 9:25 pm
"And you'll find that the total debt, an aggregate figure, is around 70% of GDP, an annual figure. If you looked at a family with debt at 70% of annual income you wouldn't call them broke."
Yes I would, especially if as result of that 70% of annual income that is debt, that family was consistently having to borrow more money each month to make ends meet.
The same for the Government, that only covers debt, not how much is spent. The Government consistently, and has for a very long time, spent more than it takes in.
Just one of the things you are not taking into account is the interest on that debt which has to be paid out of the budget. An ongoing and for the last eight years increasing part of the annual budget that doesn't even do anything to address the underlying debt itself.
Another is the current recession. Announced today were layoffs that have been occuring across the economic spectrum from retail to the financial sector. The automotive industry for the month of Oct, and that includes foreign manufacturers such as Toyota, announced reduced sales from 30 to 47 percent. The big three in the U.S. are asking for an additional 25 billion dollar bailout and the word is they will get it because to not bail them out would mean the loss of over a million jobs immediately.
This all means less revenue for the Government at a time when they are dramatically increasing spending. And yes, they can print more money, but that has its own devil to pay in the form of eventual hyper inflation.
Lobo Gris
"Yes I would, especially if as result of that 70% of annual income that is debt, that family was consistently having to borrow more money each month to make ends meet."
Which is usually not true of families.
"The Government consistently, and has for a very long time, spent more than it takes in."
Yup, the National Debt dates from the 1700s. As a percentage of GDP, the debt was at it's worst, aroun 120% of GDP, just after WWII.
"Just one of the things you are not taking into account is the interest on that debt which has to be paid out of the budget."
Accounted for, debt service is just another expense. It's in the budget every year. What you and many others don't account for is The National Asset. Ever hear of it? Kind of hard to put into numbers, but think about it.
"Announced today were layoffs "
Employment rates often being a lagging indicator of the economy, not trying to make a forecast though.
"This all means less revenue for the Government "
Likely correct. What do you think the new administration and congress will do?
jakenewton November 6th, 2008 11:02 pm
"Likely correct. What do you think the new administration and congress will do?"
I expect that they will raise taxes on those making over 250,000 a year, and that the first promise that will fall by the wayside will be the tax cut for the middle class. Essentially the same promise and the same resulting breaking of the promise of a tax cut as with Clinton. I also think they will try another stimulus package, which won't work. And since Obama endorsed the first bailout I would expect to see more of those which will also be unsuccessful. Past that, I don't know.
Lobo Gris
We are going to see what "change" really means, and with the stumping over, style and eloquence won't matter as much. Regarding Congress, we keep in mind that they are all up for reelection or defeat in two years.
Lobo Gris: financial crisis is not the same as broke. You said it was broke, so you back it up with facts. Read Zinn's article on today's CD, higher up.
Now that the country has discovered that Reaganomics and the trickle-down theory is bogus and has led to the economic ruin of our county, we shouldn't be required to pay homage to Ronald Reagan anymore. So let's re-name the airport in D.C., and this time how about a name we can all live with, like Capitol Airport, or something like that?
Just so "spread the wealth" does NOT increase the numbers on welfare. I'm a liberal who believes probably more than half of those on the public dole could get jobs if they wanted to - and if the monthly checks paid for by MY taxes ended. Too many young girls popping out babies just to get the check. I've met some of those walking uteri. They know how to scam the system (ME being the system).
I'm a secretary who has always earned a secretary's salary. When I need more - I take a second or even third job. I don't want to do that anymore and supported and voted for Barack Obama and am proud to be on the liberal side of life.
I'll check back later for the slams.
I agree with most of what you say, and I live like you do. Welfare was a good program, it just became a very abused one, and for many families, became a way of life through generations. There should have been limits placed on it.
My daughter was working by sixteen. After marrying an alcoholic, and having two kids, her life was trashed. After throwing the bum out, she couldn't find a job that would support them and pay for child care, so she went on Welfare. Then she enrolled in college, put her kids in the day care center there, and dressing them in name brand clothes - like new, that she paid 25 cents for at yard sales. Using coupons, she got groceries that cost $100, for $20 of food stamps. She got her degree, got a good job, bought a house, and has raised her kids by herself.
Some people were mad that she'd used the system that way. Maybe they were right. She could have stayed on welfare, bought new clothes, and not worried about coupons, but that wasn't how she was raised. Most people living on welfare don't know how to do otherwise. We'll see welfare misuse until we educate people how to live differently. Just dumping them in the street isn't going to do it.
Actually that's exactly how welfare was intended to work: be a safety net to keep people from being homeless while they reorganized and got back on their feet. Kudos to your daughter for turning things around and making her way. A great use of my tax money, in my opinion.
The problem folks on welfare are the ones who don't try to make a better way or turn to crime rather than working a "straight" job. Those who just slack off and don't try to make something of themselves are the ones I want kicked off the dole.
"The problem folks on welfare..." See Frances Fox Piven PhD on welfare. You have got Republican talking points stuck in your head and they are not true. (And Clinton wasn't better on welfare.) But it's old old talking points and NOT TRUE.
wilmoor
Good for her. And ditto on that being exactly the way the system should work.
wilmor: See Frances Fox Piven PhD on the subject of welfare. There's almost no welfare abuse. Your story reminds me of the made up Ronald Reagan woman with the mink coat and cadillac. Don't generalize.
Wilmoor - I don't know you or your family but I am PROUD of your daughter! Her situation is why welfare should be available - for people who will work to create their own lives, pay their way, and then more than pay society back. Great story to share.
Welfare recipients rarely stay "on the dole." It's a revolving cycle. Sure, there may be those who do abuse the system, but it is such a small amount that there really is no issue; it's simply a red herring for the weak minded. Go do the research and find out for yourself.
Red herring? You are kidding yourself. There is a permenant underclass in welfare and its not that small. Revolving programs, not cycles is what they do.
Thomas More: Frances Fox Piven PhD says you're wrong. Google.
Is THAT the final word? Someone named "Frances Fox Piven" says Thomas More (and I) are wrong? I'm not going to google. YOU tell us in 4 lines or less what "FFP" *says* and why that's THE answer.
The welfare system - when it rewards 15 yr old walking uteri and generation after generation in the same family - is a blight upon America.
GIA:Sorry kid, you'll have to find out the information for yourself. No shortcuts to learning.
I think there are always those that will individually scam the system -- and be on "welfare" even if they don't need to be....BUT what people seem to forget so easily is -- FUNDAMENTALLY -- the "system" under the conservatives -- lower taxes for the rich, taxation for the rest in MANY DIFFERENT HIDDEN FORMS (higher prices, service cuts, return of taxes LATER ON to cover up for cuts for taxes for the rich, etc. loss of jobs, low wages, debt, credit card slavery, health premiums skyrocketing....-- they are ALL forms of taxation) -
the very rich , the big businesses have ALWAYS been ON WELFARE -- by the SYSTEMIC UPWARD "mobility" of the accumulated wealth created by the collective labor of the majority of the people in the "economy"
and that the "economy" is systematically RIGGED to SERVE the interests of the very wealthy.
unless people can accept that THIS is exactly what things are -- they will ALWAYS be "looking at what MY neighbor is doing to go on welfare to use My tax money" (and THIS in itself becomes a DISTRACTION) -- while LOSING the BIGGER picture that :
EVERYONE below the top 10 percent or 20 percent -- IS SHOULDERING those on top of the pile and that the REAL WELFARE people are those ON TOP.
I long ago had a nice discussion with some friends from sweden -- and i asked about the system. i was told:
"our difference is quite fundamental from the us model...as a CULTURE - or a mentality -- WE think that it is SHAMEFUL to have so much wealth accumulated at the top when the majority contains those that are left out....it is considered shameful..that's why we are willing , generally, to pay high taxes, because we know it is for EVERYONE..that is the difference between our system and the USA".
in Thailand -- there is also an old saying about great wealth for the few:
"suspicious wealth".
but that is not the belief in the USA that always thinks :
"since we can DO ANYTHING and BE anything -- those that are not wealthy and successful -- SOMETHING must be WRONG with THEM"........
never for a moment thinking that something MIGHT be seriously wrong WITH the system and mindset of "ultra-individualism" ITSELF = but which BECOMES an APPEARANCE of "individualiSM" - that is really a cultural and social and economic and political CREATION to serve a MONOTHEMATIC ideal of "wanting to be rich" - -- like the ones above the pile....
and THROUGH that -- people are sold on the idea that they have to agree with the philosophy of the "rich" that dictates american life - while at the same time having GIVEN UP their rights to partake of the COMMON WEALTH that they themselves have created collectively.
so -- americans -- and through its exportation of this thinking -- BECOME "glorified slaves" .
teddy and others?Welfare is a miniscule part of the national budget, maybe one percent. It's a "red herring" that putting people on welfare is "spreading the wealth" and that there are many people who want "something for nothing". Read Frances Fox Piven on the poor. She has a lot online. She is a very smart professor at CUNY.
Glad to hear that Obama is being encouraged to govern from the center and I am in agreement with the punditry that Obama should do so. I would happy to see him take several steps to the left in order to govern from the center, as defined as what the average person in this nation thinks should be done: healthcare reform, reduction in military expenditures, better schools, investment in infrastructure, financal reform, electoral reform, media reform and a host of other issues where there is solid support in the population for policies well to the left of what the elite defines as "center". Let's take back the defining of the meaning of the word "center" from the elites so as to define the "center" to be where it actually is with respect to the views of the average americans.
I heard several republicans saying he should be very conservative in his governing.
You mean spread the wealth that's already safely tucked away in off shore bank accounts?
l just read in Automotive News of all the manufactures lining up for a piece of the bailout the same manufactures who cried about government regulations in safety, fuel milege standards, emissions, worker rights.etc.
Government regulations bad, government handouts good. Whatever happened to let the market decide?
And isn't it amazing that they can say they need help with a straight face after pitching such a bitch about raising fuel standards, not building economical cars because that "wasn't what the market wanted".
These are the same people being beat by the Japanese for quality and fuel efficiency because they wouldn't look beyond short term profits. Do we really believe the Japanese are the only folks who could come up with efficient hybrid vehicles? Build quality vehicles not plagued with mechanical defects? had the Big Three spent the same effort on R&D and aesthetic design as they spent lobbying against higher fuel standards they wouldn't need help now.
It should be plan to any thinkers that this nation will need to go through a great depression before real change will take place.
There is nothing in Mr. Obama's past legislative history to suggest that he will appoint people to his administration who will change the current plutocratic structure of wealthy financial interests.
In other words, the new boss is like the old boss.
And now we not only have the same ol' same ol' in Washington, DC but we get to add Chicago-style smash-mouth politics to the mix. Great.
"Go out and make me do it."
That will be next to impossible with the corporate media as it exists today relative to FDR's or even JFK's time. Also, the criminalization/marginalization of large protests. There is "no" movement if Sean Hannity is not covering it, remember? What about the 95%+ negative phone calls to Congress RE the banker bailout -- and they passed it anyway. That bill was illegal on its face, as funding bills are required to pass the House before being considered by the Senate -- something that did not happen in this case.
Heard about the Constitution-free 130 mile wide zones along all the coasts and borders with Mexico and Canada, as well as the 86 internationalized "Free Trade" highways across the US? Beginning in June of 2009 we'll need some kind of passport to be traveling in the country, and the Constitution won't apply to us. W said it was just a piece of paper anyway.
Sad that Bush Sr and Clinton took control of the Presidential debates away from the League of Women Voters. Maybe Nader and the Greens would have had a chance with some decent media exposure. But I guess that was the point...
***
911 was an inside job. Cheney suspended the Constitution via the imposition of Continuity of Government on 911. Congress has been denied access to the COG details. COG is martial law. http://prisonplanet.tv/alex_jones_live.html
Grappa
First thing he needs to do is repeal Taft / Hartly!!!!!!!!!!!Let workers unite in a union, Hopefully a national one, under one banner.
Although the new preident-elect is a fine wordsmith, an excellent speaker who has the gift of Martin Luther King in his ability to raise hope, what he truly does will speak much louder than his oratory. I understand bipartisanship, but lets face facts, if you go to Clinton for advise, you are going to get republican "light" and make Wall Street happy first and foremost. If you turn your cabinet over to republicans, how are you making a difference? If you can decide we need to mend fences between us and Cuba, how can you change your mind so quickly in a campaign for Cuban American voters in Florida, without explaination? Somewhere there comes a time where the rubber meets the road, you can't waffle. Once you let the cow out the gate, shuting the gate after the fact isn't going to make a difference. Clinton showed us the "way", he promised us health care and gave us NAFTA. I don't recall NAFTA being the leading talking point in the campaign, do you? Eight years we waited for Health Care, we got zip. Eight more years of Bush, we got less than Zip. Show us your leadership. Show us that Democratic Socialism does work and allows us all, at minimum, some sort of health care plan. One that leaves out Wall Street, the drug companies, the insurance thieves, the racketeers of HMO's, and gives us, the people who elected you, that one piece of legislation. One fair health care bill that isn't filled with crap and we will all be appreciative. Until that happens, I'll keep my connections to the third parties where they appreciate my vote.
It's not only about spreading the wealth, but spreading it wisely. First and foremost, it must be used to create jobs and provide for necessities, especially medical care (that way companies can reduce their insurance burden, which will serve as an incentive to hire more people). Concomitantly, 'free' trade agreements MUST be re-negotiated (I think this is the elephant in the room now that hardly anyone wants to face) to ensure that new jobs that are generated here stay here. And if we think we should show any loyalty to those so-called American companies that have shipped their operations overseas, wait and see what they do when we no longer have the will or means to buy their shoddy 'goods.' Don't worry, though, with a hungry tummy minds (and bodies) work more efficiently, and distractions become less important. One focuses upon what is needed.
Obama seems like a thoughtful guy, and he will have to decide between his imagined legacy (which is how ego glorifies itself by thinking about how future generations will regard it), or doing what character and integrity demands in the present moment, meaning what he knows deep down is right (not in reference to being a black man, great president, Christian, etc.). I think Obama still has this sensing (psychopaths like GWB no longer do). There are many in the US on all financial levels that will fight Obama if he tries to do what is right (primarily because they actually benefit or IMAGINE they benefit from the status quo). I predict there will be an enormous struggle within Obama, and he will be forced to choose between serving the insane few, or the greater whole. If he chooses the latter, this country and the whole world will benefit, while if he chooses the former, the worldwide decline will accelerate. The real meaning of 'higher Truth' is that consequences ALWAYS reveal the authentic nature of every action, regardless of intent. Scientists that set out to prove a theory, often disprove it. Unfortunately, we are not so wise when it comes to social structures and economic ideology because we see things as we are and not as an objective whole. So with Obama, as with us, AWARENESS is the key.
Can we suspend belief-invested ideology (whether it be the left or right), and just be aware in the present moment? Our future and the future of mankind depends on it. The proof here is that the prevailing unconsciousness of the collective will become more and more uncomfortable (as it is now). Some will seek to find solace in clinging more rigidly to their beliefs and ideals (and suffer increasingly because of that choice), while others will face their disillusionment (whether religious or otherwise) and learn to live in a radically different and holistic way.
Plunge deeper into our psychic sleep or awaken. That is our only choice, and that has always been our only choice. However, each one of us must discover this for himself.
"It's not only about spreading the wealth, but spreading it wisely. First and foremost, it must be used to create jobs and provide for necessities..."
Yes, but obama's philosophy has bankrupted the country. By spreading $850 billion of taxpayer wealth to corporatists and pork barrels, he has insured that the US (and probably the rest of the world) will slide quickly into a depression.
Those funds could have been invested to target the foundation of our problems... energy. Instead we now have a scenario that has a guaranteed economic failure. There are no funds for any "change" project. We are left with "more of the same"... only we are much worse off now than prior to obama's "dividend payout".
Oh, don't get me wrong... he will find a few more dollars to bribe deluded Americans into believing that his "new" administration is working to find solutions... but it will be along the same tired government sham of "we'll pay you $600 to shop" that has failed miserably in the past.
That is NOT the way to stimulate the economy.
Nearly 70% of the American economy is based upon *consumer spending*. There will be NO amount of holiday spending this year to stop the spiral... that spending accounts for a huge percentage of the annual total.
The bankruptcies are just starting. The layoffs are just starting. The foreclosures are just starting. The tolls of those without heat or electricity are just starting. The lines of hungry jobless and dispossessed are just starting.
obama guaranteed it... just so *he* could "win".
Got any expectations? Things WILL change... but NOT as you were led to believe. Hope? Read BETWEEN the lines. You are NOT getting any sense of reality from your "savior".
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/business/07retail.html
toast November 7th, 2008 11:48 am
"Nearly 70% of the American economy is based upon *consumer spending*."
"The bankruptcies are just starting. The layoffs are just starting. The foreclosures are just starting. The tolls of those without heat or electricity are just starting. The lines of hungry jobless and dispossessed are just starting."
And let's not forget the companies that are continuing to move their operations overseas to low wage unregulated areas of the world with the encouragement of the government that contribute to the rolls of fewer and fewer who have jobs that are good enough to make them consumers.
Yesterday Pfizer, the big pharma company announced that it is the latest in a long line to move its operations out of the U.S.
Merry Christmas
Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris
Moving its manufacturing or its headquarters? Both?
Merry Christmas indeed.
Good post.
The real problem is we really haven't started to feel the real economic pain yet. This is just getting started. Its going to be nasty I believe.
And the rest of the world is in for perhaps worse. Their economies and financial systems were doing things worse than ours. They are going to reap what they sewed just as we will. Thank God their mistakes are about the only thing we aren't involved in.
John McCain said this campaign was a referendum on socialism. Be careful what you wish for Senator McCain. Socialism won! Even Governor Nieman Marxist gets it. She redistributes wealth from Exxon-Mobil and the other oil companies drilling in the north slope of Alaska to all of Alaska's residents. Ooops again.