[Pres. Lightbringer:] It's an approach that puts [1] every kind of spending on the table -- but [2] one that protects the middle class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.Krugman's thin gruelBoth statement #1 and statement #2 cannot be true. If "everything is on the table," then everybody cannot be "protected"; the protection is the outcome of Obama's mad negotiation skillz, and nothing more. And what kind of protection is that? This isn't "balanced" (the new buzzword). It's self-contradictory....
Gotta go, but so far as I can tell, the speech is no more than rhetorical cover for a neo-liberal assault on the bottom 99%. But then, it is an Obama speech...
NOTE * Notice how the 9 word platform is better in every respect:
1. Medicare for All
2. End the Wars
3. Tax the rich
#1 Medicare for all, for example, would save $350 billion a year, so that's a trillion in four years, with better outcomes. And #2 End the wars will save a heck of a lot more money than whatever timid tinkering the Ds will do (which will not include #3Tax the rich, no matter the kabuki that's lavished on it.)
And that's before we get to a Jobs Guarantee (that should be #4, an 11 word platform) that will put America back to work and solve our fiscal problems, such as they are, the American way....
Booman thinks it's a great speech ("Wow"), especially for the way it "took progressives to task."The Obama 527 Formerly Known As Daily Kos has a roundup; you'll notice it runs the gamut from A to B: That is, from deficit hawk to deficit dove. Not a deficit owl(MMTer) in sight. Meaning the Ds are still in firmly in the neo-liberal mindset that's killing us all. And Susie called her shot. Shocker.
The 4-plank platform [Medicare for All, Dismantle the Empire, Soak the Rich, Jobs Guarantee] rocks. Therefore, don't hold your breath on the Ds adopting it. Look, bro! Sarah Palin!
On to the bolded nugget: One can already identify the parameters of this "debate." "Deficit hawks" - those mean-meanies in the TP [call the whaaa-mbulance!] and "moderates" from both legacy parties - will argue that b/c we have a "deficit" of ZOMG! eleventy quadzillion dollarz, so we must privatize SS/Medicare NOW NOW NOW. The "deficit doves" - as human resources dept. for "deficit hawks," incl. our "friends" from MoveOn [sign this petition!] and the pwog D caucus ["stand with" Alan Grayson/Russ Feingold...whoops!] - will argue that "Hey, bro, just trust us! Deficits are alright ... for now," though they won't say when it won't be ok or what they'll "cave"[/"capitulate"/become "weak"/defer to their superior "judgement"] on when aforementioned accounting identity/financial ratio exceeds some unspecified threshold. But, duuude! - "everything's on the table" [queue the open-mindedness parade w/ our bro, Jon Stewart!].
One must understand that "both sides" purport to believe that the US isn't sovereign in its own currency, though their actions on bailouts (and future guaranteed bailouts), limitless subsidies to the health-industrial complex, and no-bid contracts to mercenaries for "humanitarian" wars/arms dealing seem contradictory. The federal government *did* "print" money for these rentiers, and they did so with no public hand-wringing about inflation. MMT doesn't posit unconstrained "printing" money, as the straw-man argument goes; there's an operational constraint of full-employment (however ultimately operationalized).
If politicians - from the most Amurr'kin TP to the pwoggiest Obot - really believed govt. spending was constrained by revenues/bonds, and their objectives were congruent w/ the General Welfare clause - and not upwardly redistributing wealth in a shock-and-awe heist - they'd simply cap (accumulated) wealth as Huey Long proposed [what a "bitter" "clinger," duuude! bet he'd have voted for wannabe-assassin Hillary Clinton!]. But, of course, we aren't constrained by revenues; instead of "paying" for "spending," taxes function to (1) stave off inflation that might arise for "printing" money (takes heat out of an overheated system), (2) prevent accumulation of wealth that'd otherwise depress demand, and (3) legitimizes the currency (b/c its necessary to pay one's taxes in $, demand for currency doesn't diminish).
But, whatever!
No comments:
Post a Comment