It’s important to understand that “deficit” and “stimulus” mean the same thing: money pumped into the economy by government spending and not pulled back by taxation. So deficit reductions (tax hikes and spending cuts) destimulate the economy. FDR learned that the hard way in the first year of his second term; in a premature return to “fiscal responsibility,” he cut deficits, which destimulated the economy and induced the Recession of 1937.
In the Summer of 2011, Obama concocted the Grand Bargain of 2011, a deficit-reduction package not unlike that of FDR. But, it cut Social Security and Medicare (entitlements), which offended some progressive Democrats. And, because it also contained tax increases, which offended Tea Party Republicans, it was eventually shot it down.
But, Obama immediately countered with a delay-triggered second destimulus package, now known as the Fiscal Cliff, that didn’t cut entitlements and easily passed — for details, read “Let’s Celebrate the Failure of the July 2011 Great Betrayal” by Bill Black. Immediately upon his reelection, however, Obama immediately sought to replace his Fiscal Cliff with another Grand Bargain that which restored those long-term entitlement cuts, on which he had been working cheek-by-jowl with Pete Peterson ever since his election in 2008.
No matter what you call it, deficit reduction destimulates the economy, which is not a good thing in the middle of a recovery. But, the more disturbing aspects of Obama’s grand bargains is that he uses near-term deficit cuts as a Trojan Horse to sneak in Pete Peterson’s long-term entitlement “reforms,” which will have no near-term effect on the deficit.
Social Security, for example, has never contributed a penny to any deficit, is prohibited from doing so by law, and is auditably solvent for the next two decades. Obama’s true near-term concern is that Social Security has loaned $2.7 trillion to the General Fund (i.e., the income-tax payers) that the wealthy don’t want to pay back and won’t have to if he can “strengthen” Social Security in such a way that it never runs a deficit, which it would otherwise do within a year or so. The point is that 70% of income taxes are paid by the top 10%, while the Social Security Trust Fund has been funded by the working class (and on their behalf by their employers).
This is a matter of class warfare. Obama’s “grand bargains” are “grand larceny” against the America’s working class. And, in the matter of derailing these grand bargains, the Tea Party is our very effective ally. On Thursday night, they did what liberal Democrats have not done; they stood on principle and stood up to their party’s leadership. A year and a half ago, they save us from Grand Bargain 2011 and on Thursday they at least delayed Grand Bargain 2012. It’s time for Democrats to join them in blocking this Obama/Peterson grand larceny.
Photo by Phil Roeder under Creative Commons license.




111 Comments

Well said, wigwam. The dims will be unable to stand up for what is best for the 99% because they are too enthralled by o and in denial of the facts. They chose o and will follow him off of the cliff as he destroys the part of the uniparty that calls itself Democratic and, along with that, destroys the middle class. The t-party may be opposing o for the wrong reasons, but at least they are a road block to some of his worst moves. Already the backing and filling by dim “leaders” on SS and M&M has begun. o will get what he wants eventually. Even my BIL who has a PhD thinks that the catfood commission (he didn’t know what I meant when I used that term) scheme is neccesary to save the country fiscally.
Exactly right.
While this treacherous attempt at stiffing the people is in motion, Treasury continues to sell bonds to Wall Street to finance the empire.
Quite audacious since Wall Street is using practically free Fed money to buy those interest paying bonds.
More audacious still is the fact that Wall Street will never have to worry about the govt scheming to not pay them back.
Cannot recommend highly enough.
Recommended (FDL)
Tweeted
Recommended (FB)
But the Democrats won’t. At least the Tea Party has SOME populist roots, no matter how misguided. The Democrats cut those out decades ago.
Thanks. I’m joining with the Tea Partiers on this one.
A writer on truthout.org suggests Edited by Moderator. We don’t go that route for the next 30 years. Agreed on that too.
Would have liked to be a fly in the room when Pete Peterson and other elites learned the House wingnuts turned down a chance to chain the CPI.
“Principled stand” or hissy fit? I’m thinking the latter, the fact that it thwarted the caver in chief notwithstanding. Sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reason. This is one of those times.
Call it what you like; this is the second time that the TeaBaggers took a stand against BO’s entitlement-reforming Grand Bargains and blocked them. Too bad the Dems won’t stand up like that.
Democrats on MSNBC cant believe that the crazy radical Tea Party members of congress actually do what the people who voted for them wants them to do. They think its silly that elected officials wld actually honor the committments made to their constituents and not raise taxes. We are truly living in a strange time, when betraying the people who voted for you is noble and not betraying them is considered kooky and strange. God Bless the Tea Party, at least they have the integrity of honoring what their constituents want them to do.
Remember if you have a republican congressman representing your district call them and urge them to continue saying no to raising taxes or making any deals with Obama.
Do you honestly think they would have been so “principled” if Boehner was offering no tax hikes at all but much deeper cuts to medicare and social security? They would have fallen over themselves to vote for it. Then what would your take have been? The ‘baggers didn’t object to it to protect social security, they came out against it because it didn’t go far enough to suit them.
The baggers don’t want cuts to Social Security or Medicare either. Just ask them. Corporatists want these cuts – not baggers. At least that’s what I’ve read. And it fits with the polls too! Speaker Boehner may be a hero for the wrong reason but at this point, I like it.
We’ve got a climate change denier on one thread, simultaneously with a post praising the very “principled” teabaggers for being oh so friendly toward and such fierce protectors of Social Security. It’s no wonder DDay left. If I had serious journalistic ambitions, I wouldn’t want to be associated with this absurd lunacy either. I’m afraid to refresh the page for fear that I’ll see a post about the Illuminati constructing FEMA camps in the Bohemian Grove or something.
No, they want to privatize them. Just ask them.
In response to Margaret @ 10
“No tax hikes” is their principle, and they stood up for it. That’s not my principle, but the stand they took was “principled,” which I admire with reservations, and it worked to my advantage, which I appreciate.
The Tea Partiers are ideological. The corporate Democrats (and there are almost no other kind) and Republicans have no ideology at all. They are just meat puppets for the .01%. Because puppets without ideological moorings make more effective puppets than those who just do what they are paid to do, no questions asked. Now you, like me, might not like the Tea Partiers ideology but one has to– or at least should– respect that they are capable of standing up for actual principles.
Exactly!
I have a lot of respect for Rachel Maddow, but listening to her on Thursday and Friday made me want to puke. To her the GOP had just then melted into obliviion. Meanwhile, it was Obama who was saving us from … WHAT? … The fiscal cliff was a de-stimulus of Obama’s own invention. But it didn’t cut entitlements, and now he wants to replace it with another de-stimulus that does.
Wow! Front paged. Thanks. But, I’d prefer to have David back. Sigh.
tweeted and recommended wigwam. congrats for making the fdl front page at the mothership — well deserved!
Hi Suzanne,
Thanks. I figured that I better tune in to the discussion to see what’s going on. I’m imagine my surprise.
Are you running LLN tonight?
Wigwam
But do you really think they would not support a reduction in SS if taxes were not raised as Margaret suggested? I have an awfully hard time thinking these people are my “allies”.
Today’s WSJ has a news story that has a different slant on Obama’s negotiating posture.
There is a post here about it.
I recognize it is the WSJ, but as a regular reader, I find the WSJ’s news stories, as opposed to its opinion pieces, to represent competent journalism. Anyway, it does offer a different perspective on Obama’s negotiating posture with Boehner.
This is a first for me, baggers don’t want a cut in SS or Medicare? The Kochs will fire all of them.
“To her the GOP had just then melted into obliviion. Meanwhile, it was Obama who was saving us from … WHAT? … The fiscal cliff was a de-stimulus of Obama’s own invention. But it didn’t cut entitlements, and now he wants to replace it with another de-stimulus that does.”
The Democrats have fully mastered Orwellian doublethink, and take a back seat in that dept. to no political party in history.
The baggers want whatever Faux News tells them they want.
During WW II, Josef Stalin was our ally and did the heavy lifting on the European front — to the Germans, the western front was merely a holding action.
From that perspective, I’m grateful to whomever helps us prevent Obama from gutting Social Security, whatever their reasons.
I would suggest that the teabagger types don’t stand on principle so much as they simply lash out based upon a combination of ignorance and craziness. In this instance, however, the result is the same. To the extent that demonstrably crazy people can help beat back this obvious attack on social insurance programs, I’m all for it. As for what happens after that, well, it’s anyone’s guess. I’d venture to guess that the GOP brass rue the day they ever let the teabagger
lunaticsgenie out of thenervous hospitalbottle.And right-wing yammering AM radio…
Sure. I would also take the help, but as Margaret is saying the baggers are not the friends you want when there are tax cuts for the rich in the mix.
I can only wish Obama is on our side this time around. But I will have to wait and see.
But, they’re friends I want when SS cuts and tax hikes for the rich are in the mix, which is where we are now.
That’s a tough one to respond to. I am not certain what Obama will do. We are hearing bits and pieces and not all is bad, as noted by Old Gold. In a few weeks at most I suspect we will know. On a pro forma basis he scares the shit out of me though.
Pretty sure they will not vote for an increase in taxes for the rich.
yup — hope to see ya there wigwam
I read somewhere that, for whatever reason, some of the conservative money masters were pushing the Tea Party congressmen to vote against Boehner’s proposal. Those guys aren’t “crazy;” rather, they’re evil. But, then, so was Joe Stalin.
Obama’s efforts to “reform entitlements” have been as reliable as the tides ever since the week before his inauguration. Janezilla recounts the details in her article from earlier this week that I linked to above.
I reckon that on the other hand, DD was proud to associated with Tbogg.
For anyone who doubts the concept of kharma, I point to John Boehner’s playing marbles with Barack Obama’s political ‘nads for the past four years…and now, having the peckerheads in the GOP doing the same thing with HIS cajones. :o)
I’ve lost track of which Tea Party is which. Are you referring to the original Karl Denniger group rather than the Koch astro-turf ilk?
Rec’d, wigwam. ;o)
Sounds like a really nice vacation spot.
With you on Maddow…she’s been one of the heavy lifters in moving the goalposts for Obama, as he “evolves” into “liberal” positions
People like Paul Krugman and Drew Weston have been a ton more honest and accurate about all the damage Obama has done to the progressive agenda by his “reaching out” to the republicans…
Yes wigwam,it is egregious class warfare .I wasn’t reared to think in terms of class struggle ,and my Sixties indoctrination didn’t really stick ,but even a damn mule is smart enough to react when being beat over the head with a lethal club .Since Carter it has been policies of deindustrialization of the US ,deregulation , royalist debt externalities into the public coffers ,and now Obama is doing to social insurance what Clinton did to welfare programs ,all under the guise of reform .
I challenge anyone to show me any initiative that isn’t framed as a false dichotomy pursuant to advancing class warfare against us .At this point in time ,I dismiss any and everyone as intellectually deficient if eliding a class narrative .
Thanks wigwam ,for a very insightful and enlightening blog .
“I’ve lost track of which tea party is which…”
Hell, I’ve about lost track of which PARTY is which…
like I said he scares the shit out of me. I am hoping he can get the tax increases on the rich too. Dreamer I am.
Thanks, Wendy. By “Tea Party” I was referring to the doctrinaire, uncompromising wing of the GOP. It was probably a misuse of the term on my part, since the starve-the-beast tactic for shrinking the U.S. government goes back to the late ’70s or earlier.
The deregulation actually started with Carter.
Yes, maybe Goldwaterin 1964 or the Powell memo of 1971.
All he has to do is keep his pen in his pocket for a change. (Why does Bill Clinton come to mind as I type this?)
In any case, the Bush tax cuts expire at midnight ten days from now. At that point income taxes will go up, of which (per the Heritage Foundation), the upper 1% pay 40%, the upper 10% pay 70%, and the upper 53% pay 100%. For the bottom 90%, the loss of the payroll tax holiday is twice as bit a bite as the loss of the Bush tax cuts.
So, if the White House cares to do something for its constituents, it should fight for reinstatement of the payroll tax holiday, which by the way has a multiplier of 1.29 as opposed to .29 for the Bush tax cuts.
IIRC, it was the Powell memo.
All good, just so long as he increases the tax on the rich. the gulf between the rich and the rest of us is antithetical to democracy and must be reversed. That fight has to happen, and it is only the beginning. Now is as good a time as any, since the public agrees with it.
Forget marginal income tax rates on rich. Penny ante.
Need sales tax on Wall St transactions.
IMHO, there are two reason for taxation:
* to promote economic efficiency, particularly to control inflation
* to promote social justice.
Into the latter category fall the Citizens United ruling, which say that money has a first-amendment right to speak and be heard. That being so, social justice requires that concentrations be taxed to the point where they no longer pose a threat to the Republic.
OK, but I want to really increase taxes on the rich and that includes the estate tax, and not merely the Bush tax cuts. This shit has been going on, as a few have noted above, for forty years. It is time we took back this country. The fight will take awhile.
My old friend Bob Polin at U.Mass has been pushing that idea for some time. I’d like to see it succeed.
Yep.
There will be a lot more revenue raised and a lot more social good if you tax derivatives’ trading and other Wall St. transactions.
If you’re going to bother to demand anything, get priorities in line.
Link.
I’d like to see a 100% estate on everything above the first X dollars. (I have no idea what X should be.)
There is a great quote from John Kenneth Galbraith about the propriety of confiscatory inheritance in his book (joint with Nicole Salinger), “Almost Everyone’s Guide to Economics,” which is the only book on economics that I’ve ever read.
Maybe so but that is a bridge too far. Personally I need some more info about it, like does it also fall onto the little guy in a regressive way? Best we can do now is reverse the Bush tax cuts. If we get a majority in congress and a better Pres we can do more. I know, I know, dreaming again.
Link at 56.
None of this will happen, so go for the item that will do the most good.
You are a real hard ass. I would say x is five million and I would only tax it at say 70% over that. gotta leave a little for the kiddies you know. But since we are negotiating here, do you have a counter offer?
Here’s a link to Bob’s stuff.
“nationalize the federal reserve”. I like the idea but that’s another time.
Now there is something you should do a post on. Benefits,who pays, etc.
That stuff about nationalizing the Fed is very big. Our banking system is essentially a congressionally commissioned cartel. Whose members get to issue dollars that the government will accept in payment of taxes, i.e., that are in effect “coin of the realm.”
Let’s test this:
A $100 billion borrowed and spent building roads and bridges with borrowed money to be repaid by taxes on enterprise using the roads will create 2 million $50K jobs.
vs
A $100 billion borrowed and spent buying oil from Saudi Arabia to fuel the military burning oil in the work of blowing things up in Iraq and Afghanistan et al used by Saudi Arabia to buy US Treasuries creates no American jobs and will generate no tax revenue from any enterprise related to the spending so taxes are imposed merely to pay for past capital destruction.
The first is stimulative because it creates jobs with the borrowing which creates capital that generates revenue over time to pay the debt.
That is called capitalism.
The first creates no jobs and requires that roads not be built so transportation taxes can pay the debt.
That is called pillage and plunder. (The Saudis plundering the US taxpayer).
I know that Krugman and many other liberal economists say any deficit is stimulative, but if that were true, the job market would be so hot unemployment would be 3% and wages would be rising rapidly with inflation causing the Fed to drive interest rates to 10%. The Bush and Obama deficits have been pillage and plundering the economy and killing jobs while out infrastructure decays.
Didn’t Dennis Kucinich have something he wanted to do about the fed? I’d like to see it combined with the treasury but I suspect it would not be constitutional.
I will let Wigwam answer as well but I think the quote is correct. If the government spends $100 and only taxes $90 that extra ten dollars is in your pocket.
Just like in your medicine cabinet, different stimulants have different potency, which are known as “multipliers” in regard to economic stimulants. Here is a multiplier (potency) table that was submitted by Mark Zandi (chief economist at Moody’s Analytics) to Congress in 2008. I mentioned above that the multiplier for the payroll tax holiday is 1.29 while that of the Bush tax cuts is .29.
Time for some shut eye.
Thanks for joining in.
I think today “principled” means only consistent, rather than necessarily good. That may be the problem.
“Principled” sounds too complimentary for some, since it also tries to evoke something positive, beneficial, AND intended. Unfortunately “principled” carries ideological baggage in addition to the benign meaning of consistency.
What’s seen in these parts is a wrecking iron in TP’s hands all the time, so it’s difficult to focus elsewhere.
Your take is intriguing. Still it’s so hard to imagine anything beneficial in TP’s wake which they placed there themselves. I don’t doubt their sincerity, though, in wanting power.
It’s a dangerous game the GOPers are up to. There’s nobody steering there for the Dems to deal with. It means the cliff, and maybe a wreck at the debt ceiling — couldn’t that be the TP’s intent in a bring-it-on sort of way? The intervening tax hikes may be a sideshow for them in the short term.
Kucinich follows the money theorist Stephen Zarlenga.
Right. I used the term “principled” to mean standing for what one believes in, even though I may not believe in it (provided it isn’t truly evil).
I’m signing off for now. Thanks, everyone.
This is too funny! Principled? Pragmatic? Sellouts? Hypocrites? Integrity?Idealogues? The Tea Party have no relationship with political reality or labels. They are a Christian based bunch of militarized, political nuts in search of squirrels to crack them fully open. You want the Patriot Act tattooed on your ass, call this bunch of full time vigilantes for false flag operations. You want a 50 State Right to Work law, call this bunch. You want armed teachers in the classroom, call this bunch. ” Save your Confederate money, boys, cause the South will rise again. ” Can I bring my Bible? Not only can you; you must, just to keep up with narrative. Sheesh!
Yes bluedot@45 ,I thought ”since” was inclusive ,but you are certainly correct .I was thinking of Kahn as I wrote my comment .The globalization process had been formalized under UN charter with the export interdependence post WW2,but this was just stuff one learns in school.Maybe I’m slow ,but bells didn’t really go off until the deindustrialization process ,debt shock ,and the connection with Volcker’s high-rate retention to bail out the banking cartel on their syndicated loans .This was a recycling scheme via which the high rates reflected the prime rate at which sovereign lenders were funneling our money back into bankster coffers until the moratoria .
That was my class-war epiphany ,and with all the subsequent bail outs ,I’m pretty confident no one in the world could survive a debate with me,not because I’m so brilliant ,but I certainly have developed a strong grasp of the obvious .
Per Ryan Grim at HuffPo:
YMMV
I agree wynota@75 ,yet I believe we are all making feeble attempts at saying we need a belief system to combat these primitive fucks .If the Sixties and Seventies were about anything ,it was the repudiation of Puritanism around which cultural and religious conservatism has been rooted for centuries .Tearing down this retrograde value system was a crucial step but we need our own values system if we are to prevail over these “traditional values ” .
We will continue to aimlessly roam the political desert until we stand for moral absolutes as opposed to being crisis reactionaries and victims .We have a great activist wing in OWS ,but theycan’t be putting out a million fires while we dither with issue and identity politics .As I write this an ad is talking about ending child hunger in ten years .A moral absolute would say this bizarre and outlandish,food insecurity must end for everyone in ten weeks .
We now believe austerity to repay an unpayable debt incurred by banksters and wars of choice is reasonable ,but ending hunger in America in several months is not like moral hazard socialism ,food security is public socialism and we can’t have that kind of budget-busting initiative .
Our minds are diseased with corporate conformity,and shooting massacres are not about firearms ,but rather a dark ,twisted evil that prevents us from caring about other people . Corporations and Puritanism are a perfect imperial marriage ,watch Morsi follow the US and every dictator into kleptocratic pillage with repressive values keeping the masses divided and distracted .
Tax money is not pulled out of the economy. If it was, where would it go? I hate these stupid arguments. No one that took macro econ should repeat this BS.
Let’s have a revolution? We have the brains and the Tea Party has the guns.
Once money is collected as tax, it is no longer part of the money supply. Of course, the government can spend it back into the money supply, but in the interim (while its sitting in the Treasury’s General Account at the Fed) it is not in the money supply.
But, for all we can know without looking at the books, the government destroys it and replaces it with fresh money. How else could we tell? In any case, it would make no difference.
Yeah, but in the case of this government they’ve spent all the tax money AND the surplus of money that was meant for people’s retirement AND are still having to print more so in essence skepticdog has a point.
That being said what I find particularly egregious is that for years the conservatives have been arguing that 47% of the population wasn’t contributing to our government when essentially that Social Security money meant for their retirement WAS taken and now the people in charge are looking for ways to not have to pay it back by raising the retirement age.
The rich shouldn’t be able to whine that FICA and what not does not count as long as the surpluses are REQUIRED to be spent on government and that money has not been paid back. Every single working 18-61 year old who has not collected a dime of the money set aside for them has essentially been paying taxes, even if those taxes weren’t income.
Most of the Tea Party members I know are an odd lot. Then again I can say the same of the pragmatists that gave us a second term of Obama as well.
I’m not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater and am willing to be “pragmatic” enough to align myself with the tea party against a “grand bargain.” Although I have absolutely no intention of praising the ideology itself which often defies reality.
Does the Fed still control the supply of money? I thought so.
You’re right. This whole deficit hysteria is nothing but class warfare, and you described one reason why it is so. The Teabaggers may be insane, but their continued intransigence is the only hope working class Americans have that the few remaining safety nets won’t be cut.
Most ironic. The investor class might be forced to leave Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone for awhile in order to prevent their stocks from losing value, which they will if no agreement is reached by the New Year. If the Teabaggers refuse to budge, Obama’s corporate masters may well instruct him to give up on gutting Social Security and Medicare for awhile, and Boehner and just enough Republicans will go along with most of the Democrats to reach a deal.
Good analysis. Recc’d.
They are not our natural allies but in this instance they are. They can stop Obama from cutting ssi and right now we cant. Sometimes life is funny like that.
I agree that skepticdog has a point; in fact, it’s the key point to understanding how a fiat-money economy works. My point, however, is that until tax money is re-spent by the government, i.e., while it is sitting in the Treasury’s General Account at the Fed, it is not participating in the transactions that we count toward our GDP.
The same can be said for money that is sitting in Social Security’s account at the Fed; until it is loaned to the Treasury (invested in Treasury bonds) and subsequently spent by the Treasury to pay congressionally appropriated government expenses, it is not participating in the transations that we count toward out GDP.
Regarding your point that:
And, they are borrowing even from others: the wealthy, the insurance companies, China, and the banks. But that’s how things are supposed to work. The Constitution gives the government, Congress in particular, three ways to raise money: taxes, borrowing, and “minting coins,” which now includes printing money and/or simply adding numbers to balances inside computers at the Fed. (IMHO, they’re doing too much borrowing and too little minting of coins, but that’s material for another diary.)
The key point is that borrowed money gets spent. Duh! But, you and I can’t tell the band, “Too bad, so sad; we spent it and it’s gone.” They’d laugh at us. But people like GWB and Alan Simpson say such bullshit to pensioners with a straight face. And, much, much worse, newspapers like the NYT and WaPo print these quotes without laughing.
The bottom line is that, if the government can’t roll that debt over for whatever reason, e.g., some congressionally imposed debt limit, it has a constitutional obligation to raise more taxes or mint more coins. It’s simple as that.
The media especially MSNBC and CNN are deliberately scaring people into believing the world ends if we go over the cliff. Only a few people who are allowed on those channels have had the courage to point out that there is no fiscal cliff awaiting us if we dont make a deal. Obama’s hand actually strengthens if we go over a cliff he just loses his excuse to cut ssi. Oh well- if he does not get it now you can bet the debt ceiling will be his next attempt.
Exactly, we may not be natural allies with the Tea Party but in this instance we are. If they can stop the Obama Pelosi cuts then by god lets let them.
You’ve asked the sixty-four trillion dollar question. In a word, the answer is a resounding “no.” But then it gets into the question of what counts as money.
If you look at the “money supply” entry in the Wikipedia, you’ll see the technical definitions of various measures of money supply: M0, M1, M2, M3, etc. But even those vary by country.
But the key is that every time a bank makes a loan or purchases a security, they do so with money that they creat out of thin air and issue right there on the spot. It’s very simple, how they keep the books. The signed loan agreement and/or the security is treated as an asset and the money paid to the seller or borrower appear as credit in an account (numbers in a computer), which is considered to be a liability to the bank. Their books balance and there is suddenly that much more money in the money supply.
So I used to think that most of our money was created that way until I read the following at this site:
So, now I need to study more about NBFIs.
Let’s be clear: Even with a Supreme Court that initially fought him tooth and nail, FDR did more in his first year–maybe his first 100 days– than Obama is likely to do in 8 years. Certainly more than Obama did in his first four years.
Unless of course, you count Obama’s giving the go ahead on the second half of the bailout before Obama’s inauguration. That was certainly a massive event. Still, I think FDR wins.
FDR had real jobs programs for almost every job description, from national park crews to artists to architects. Obama’s tepid stimulus was most to prevent cities and towns from laying off more people and unemployment extensions. Not exactly visionary.
I do have a slight quibble. Not providing stimulus dollars does not, in and of itself, de-stimulate the economy. Not providing stimulus dollars just doesn’t stimulate the economy.
And increasing tax rates when tax rates have been relatively very low for the past twelve years does not necessarily de-stimulate the economy, either.
If tax rates had been very high and someone cut taxes, that might stimulate the economy, assuming high taxes had been the reason the economy had been lagging. Not necessarily if the reason the economy was lagging was that jobs went overseas.
However, I appreciate it that you were trying to simply.
I’m all in favor of detonating those time bombs, especially the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Seventy percent of income tax is paid by the upper 10% and in terms of economic impact those tax cuts have a multiplier of only .29. I’m much more concerned about the expiration of the payroll tax holiday. Payroll tax is paid by the working class and has a GDP multiplier of 1.29.
But, as you point out, on the other side of the cliff, Obama holds the cards, except for the one he most wants. He loses the “looming monster” scare story with which he is trying to get people to give up SS and Medicare benefits. The guy is truly obsessive about “entitlement reform.”
In much the same way O-bots want whatever their leader tells them they want. Either way is an abdication of critical thought.
I completely agree regarding the comparison of FDR and Obama, who is a self-proclaimed “Blue Dog” — hopefully the last of a dying breed.
I’m looking for a good physical analog to the relationship between deficits and the GDP. It’s quite complex. For example, surpluses are negative deficits. The following is from this by L. Randall Wray, one of the founders of Modern Monetary Theory:
I once heard Chis Hayes us the analogy of irrigation. Too much and you flood the fields (or cause inflation in the case of deficits). Too little and the crops die unless they get an ample supply of rain to continue to live. Under normal conditions, decreasing irrigation de-stimulate (decreases) you harvests.
That said, I agree that “de-stimulate” is a less-than-perfect word for the point I’m trying to make.
In your opinion, on what has Obama caved?
I don’t believe he has caved on very much.
For example, he promised to cut entitlements before his first inauguration and he has not veered. Oh, except when he campaigned this past year, but, surely, everybody knows better than to believe him when he campaigns.
Wigwam, when I put up this post about OWS forging some common bonds, etc. back in January, it made for a lively discussion, but in the end, I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of agreement (with a few caveats). ;o)
I believe that you and I have very similar views on both the New Deal and the Grand Bargain–and the Trojan Horse in Chief. I was not assuming that you equate Obama and FDR. I just wanted to make the point and replying to your post was the way.
On “de-stimulus,” I do recognize and appreciate that you wanted to simplify things.
+
Man, you’re hypocritical, after for months being outraged about people “telling” or encouraging you to vote third party on this web site you now are outraged about people opposing Obama for the “wrong” reason. Good things happening for the “wrong” reason are still good. Stop, that’s all that matters. If next month some tea party congressman comes out and starts raging against our out out of control drone program because of the fiscal costs and not caring one iota about the number of dead innocents, I would support his conclusion 100 percent. His stand will be a starting point perhaps for a better conclusion than our current policy. I think that a scenario like that is more likely than a democrat stepping up and opposing it. LIke it or not tea party “hissy fits” are good for progressives right now. I’m not looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Because Democratic voters let them do so with no consequences at the polls.
I disagree with your definition of a principled stand.
A principled stand means that someone stood fast on his or her principles. Yes, it does have a connotation of consistency, in the sense that one’s actions are consistent with one’s principles, when one takes a principled stand.
However, “principled stand” says nothing about whether one’s principles are good or evil, serious or ludicrous, etc.
I read a New Yorker article about a year or two ago about the Koch brothers that claimed that they had conceived of the Tea Party in the 1980s.
I cannot recall a single vote by a Teabagger in Congress what was not consistent with Teabagger principles. For example,in this instance, they voted against a proposal that included a tax increase; and Teabaggers steadfastly oppose tax increase.
Yes, they may have cut off their noses to spite their faces, and yes, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but both those things are different from whether the vote was a principled stand.
If the proposal had been to cut entitlements, period, and they had voted against it, then we might rightfully ask if they were simply taking a hissy fit. But, not this time.
However, that is not to say whether they did the correct thing for the wrong reason. Since I disagree with most to all of their principles, my opinion would usually be that they act for the wrong reasons.
As I said, ncbo, I’d lost track. But later than Denniger’s original group came the Tea Party Express folks who were taken to anti-Obomba rallies on buses. Paid protestors, was the charge. Anyway, I’m in a tear, and don’t even have time to see if the piece differentiated the groups, nor do I know how Denniger’s group is involved with the dastardly Kochs.
Parenthetically, I hate that the Kochs fund Nova and other good science shows on PBS. I still have to watch them. ;o)
Exactly! Everyone needs to read Janezilla’s masterpiece, “Can We Please Stop Pretending Obama is ‘Capitulating’ on Social Security.” Also, Bill Black’s “Let’s Celebrate the Failure of the 2011 Great Betrayal.”
They are both masterpieces that detail Obama’s attempts to
strengthencut entitlements.True, which is why I’m not a Democratic voter.
“We’ve got a climate change denier on one thread, simultaneously with a post praising the very “principled” teabaggers for being oh so friendly toward and such fierce protectors of Social Security. It’s no wonder DDay left. If I had serious journalistic ambitions, I wouldn’t want to be associated with this absurd lunacy either. I’m afraid to refresh the page for fear that I’ll see a post about the Illuminati constructing FEMA camps in the Bohemian Grove or something.”
This cannot stand, Margaret. I would suggest that you visit Sam Seder’s interview with David Dayen, which is linked to on David’s ‘Acknowledgments’ post. Therein you will find, among other reasons for his departure that he was finding too many threads that ‘look[s] at conversation rather than moving it along’.
Try the latter.
Thank you for these links, and for your diary, wigwam – and to all attempting to explain the tidal shifts which are so difficult for those of us not easily acquainted with the practical economics of the situation. We grasp, or at least I do, that this push to downsize the social programs has been operative ever since the Bush years; that it is ultimately tied into the Grand Bargain that was pushed through to have the taxpayers foot the bill for the trading mess of tranches and mortgages; and that the full faith and credit of the US Government is on the line because the megarich have stolen from their own citizenry – or they wouldn’t be megarich in any way, shape, or form.
It seems to me that teaparty advocates are not different from us [we poor old liberals] in this: they advocate for their own rights as they see them, and those rights include the social safetynet, not as an ideal but as a needed stopgap, a transition. That’s how I remember it being explained during the debates. Well, a transition is certainly better than an abyss. Thank you, tea party. [Later on I'll work on persuading you that it's good longterm as well.]
… yes to this seeing and thinking
Dsnninger is a Ron Paul type of libertarian .and obviously this Nineteenth century school of thought has progressive appeal in the context of our feudal era of devolutionary modernity.Dick Armey saw Ron Paul as a brilliant marketing tool through whom he could sell the vile fringe values of the hicks who comprise cultural and religious conservatism.
As I noted earlier ,progressives are desperate to form a belief system so they can be taken seriously .Until we accept that we have a treasonous government /fed that has turned its citizenry ,we can’t even have a consensus on the hari-kari capitalism of corporate globalism .
Why does this discussion need to end ,we are just beginning to plumb the depths of political economy .It took a 100 comments to invoke MMT ,and now over ?
Wigwam I’m getting to this very late, was out all day and evening too. Anyway I agree with many others that this is a great post and I do like the way you characterized deficits. I’d like to see more of it. MMT writers have been looking for ways to reframe the deficit and the debt. Here’s a post at NEP in which Michael Hoexter puts forth a proposal on reframing.