The Indypendent
DONATE NOW - URGENT FALL 2009 FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN
Search All Articles
Get The Indy by Email




Facebook Twitter

Donate

Subscribe

The IndyShop

RSS Available

Why we love The Indy






Sarah Stuteville
Journalism Workshops

Indykids

Posters!

A Threat to Peace
Artwork by The Indypendent Staff

A Threat to Peace - Artwork by The Indypendent

Buy Now! »


Army of None
Artwork by David Hollenbach

Army of None - Artwork by David Hollenbach

Buy Now! »


Community Resources

Obamanomics: Why the Stimulus Plan Will Not Revive the Economy

By Arun Gupta
From the December 12, 2008 issue | Posted in National | Email this article
ILLUSTRATION: JENNIFER LEW
ILLUSTRATION: JENNIFER LEW

Shortly after his Jan. 20 inauguration, if all goes according to plan, President Barack Obama will submit an economic stimulus plan to Congress. The plan will be of such historic proportions that the media will compare it incessantly to the New Deal; it will probably come with an eye-popping price tag of more than $500 billion; free-market ideologues will wail about the end of capitalism but will be almost powerless to stop it; Congress will jockey to lard it with pet projects as the price of approval.

And like the New Deal, Obama’s stimulus plan will almost certainly fail to pull the economy out of a historic free-fall. For one, the plan is inadequate. Two, it will be drafted and overseen by Obama’s economic “dream team,” who are committed to the failed ideology that got us into this mess. Three, there’s the matter of the still-festering financial crisis. And four, there has been no national debate over economic priorities such as who controls the economy, how production should be structured and what should be produced.

Because of these factors, the stimulus plan will be designed to benefit specific industrial and financial sectors, not the public. If the downturn proves vicious and long-lived, the government will have to introduce even more dramatic economic programs and policies, just like during the Great Depression.

The silver lining is that a failed stimulus will open up organizing opportunities around socializing wealth, such as universal singlepayer healthcare or subsidized housing; expanding the notion of what is a public utility, such as banking or energy; and rethinking how production is structured, a process that is already happening with the automobile industry bailout plan.

Right now the hype over a stimulus plan is at a fever pitch, and supplicants from industries of all sorts to local governments of all sizes have lined up hats in hand. The plan’s key components are taking shape: a middle- class tax cut; aid to local governments, especially to the 41 states expected to run budget deficits in 2009; an extension of unemployment benefits and expanded access to food stamps; up to $40 billion to cover state shortfalls in Medicaid; and around $150 billion for municipal and state infrastructure projects, mainly roads and bridges, but also ports, airports, mass transit, waterworks, sewers and schools.

The centerpiece will be a “green recovery” plan, perhaps $100 billion, and will likely be a hodgepodge of initiatives ranging from green construction, weatherizing old homes and building a national electricity transmission and distribution grid to subsidizing wind and solar power, hybrid cars and mass transit systems.

HOPES FOR ‘ZERO GROWTH’

But it’s too little too late. A $700 billion plan over two years amounts to barely 2.5 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). In November Goldman Sachs estimated the economy would shrink at an annual rate of 5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. As bad as that is, the New Year will be uglier as the retail sector gets walloped by a dismal holiday shopping season. So 5 percent of the GDP may be a reasonable benchmark for a stimulus. Add to that the 2 percent the U.S. economy needs to grow every year to keep pace with inflation and population growth, and the growth gap may be nearly 7 percent or close to $1 trillion of annual economic activity.

Another reason to be skeptical is the claim that a stimulus will “save or create 2.5 million jobs” over two years. There is no way to measure if a job has been saved. It doesn’t inspire confidence if an Obama White House is trying to cook the books before there is even a plan on paper. Conservative pundit George Will asks correctly, “How will anyone calculate the number of jobs ‘saved’? In what sense saved? Saved from what? Saved by what?”

Let’s give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume his plan creates 2.5 million jobs. It’s still spitting in the wind. Every year, the U.S. economy has to add about 1.8 million jobs to keep up with the net surplus of new workers entering the job force. The recession started in December 2007, and jobs began evaporating in January 2008. With more than 2 million jobs projected to be lost in 2008, the deficit is about 4 million jobs this year. Some 3.6 million jobs will be needed to keep up with workforce growth in 2009 and 2010, and with job losses running at 400,000 per month recently, the actual total of jobs needed by 2011 may be well in excess of 10 million, which dwarfs the 2.5 million goal.

REWARDING FAILURE

Then there is the issue of who will manage the economy. Barack Obama is not just retaining some of the key personnel of the Bush administration, such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, he’s also keeping one of the key management principles of the Bush years: rewarding failure.

Not that anyone noticed. Wall Street, academics, pundits and the corporate media — including the Wall Street Journal, Fox News and Karl Rove — have been writing Obama mash notes, praising his “dream team.” Some progressives grumbled at the roster of anti-tax, pro-deregulation proponents, but consoled themselves that the reviled Larry Summers was not asked to be secretary of the Treasury.

But this is cold comfort. Stephen Dubner, co-author of Freakanomics, calls Summers, tapped to be the director of the White House National Economic Council, “the general who conducts the campaign.” Summers mentored Timothy Geithner, Obama’s choice for Treasury secretary, during the Clinton years when both served in the Treasury Department, and the two were disciples of Robert Rubin, who hailed from Goldman Sachs.

These days, Rubin, Summers and Geithner are credited with managing the global economy through the turbulent nineties, including the Mexican, East Asian, Russian and Latin American financial crises. This narrative glosses over the role they played in forcing countries, particularly in Asia, to liberalize financial flows.

A New York Times account from February 1999 noted: “It was American officials who pushed for the financial liberalization that nurtured the speculation (even if developing nations themselves welcomed it). And it was American bankers and money managers who poured billions of dollars into those emerging markets. Then, when the crisis hit, American officials insisted on tough measures like budget cuts and high interest rates, which many economists argue made things worse.”

Summers and Rubin were the point men for liberalization, which led to the rise of oligarchic billionaires and financial panics that saw huge outflows of funds, currency devaluations, mass impoverishment and Western capital sweeping in to cherry-pick industries at fire-sale prices.

In the late 1990s, Summers joined with Rubin and then Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan to aggressively block the U.S. government from regulating derivatives. These are the financial products, such as credit default swaps, at the center of today’s economic storm.

SECRETARY OF BAILOUTS

In picking Tim Geithner to be his Treasury secretary, Obama is choosing someone whose record of late as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a compendium of catastrophe. Geithner’s role at the New York Fed has landed him in the heart of every big financial bailout in 2008, earning him the title of the “secretary of bailouts.” But even before these botched operations, The New Republic notes, Geithner failed to take action after evidence started accumulating in 2007 that “U.S. banks were undercapitalized.”

In March 2008, Geithner helped kill off Bear Stearns, handing the carcass to JPMorgan Chase for a song, while the New York Fed swallowed about $29 billion in toxic securities that have lost $2.7 billion on paper so far. Portfolio Magazine said he “got suckered by Wall Street” because of the lopsided deal and detailed many of the chummy associations Geithner has with Wall Street honchos whose firms profited from the Bear Stearns deal, including the omnipresent Goldman Sachs.

After deciding that Bear was too big to fail, Geithner and current Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (also of Goldman Sachs) let Lehman Brothers collapse in September. Within 24 hours the contagion spread to money market funds. They were roiled after one fund “broke the buck,” leading to a freeze in commercial paper purchases, a critical tool for financing business operations. And the Fed and Treasury had to step in to save insurance giant AIG because of its exposure to Lehman debt.

The Wall Street Journal observed, “Mr. Geithner was the driving force behind the government takeover of insurance giant AIG — a ‘rescue’ that has itself twice had to be rescued with more taxpayer capital.” The government lifeline to AIG is at $150 billion and rising, because there is no coherent rescue plan. Most recently, AIG announced it faces about $10 billion more in loses linked to credit default swaps not covered by any of the bailout plans already enacted.

Most recently, Geithner has done some lifting for his old boss Rubin, who is a top player at Citigroup. The government has had to bail out the Citigroup bailout, upping its ante to $45 billion while promising to backstop about a quarter trillion in troubled assets.

THE VOLCKER SHOCK

Another suspect figure joining the Obama team is Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who has been chosen to head the new Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Volcker has been given a free pass by the media because he hasn’t been as slavish as Greenspan in his devotion to the free markets. But Volcker played a critical role in ushering in neoliberalism in the late 1970s.

Volcker engineered a dramatic shift in economic policy from guaranteeing full employment to fighting inflation using massive increases in interest rates. High inflation was slashed but the result was deindustrialization, unemployment rates above 10 percent, a severe recession and the weakening of organized labor. High interest rates benefited creditors and shareholders. The share of income held by the top one percent soared from a historic low of 23 percent in the mid-seventies to about 35 percent by 1985. High interest rates also crippled developing nations as debt payments soared. In turn, this set the stage for IMF-engineered structural adjustment programs that conditioned aid to nations sliding toward bankruptcy with demands of draconian cuts in education, and health and social services, wholesale privatization and trade and financial liberalization.

Conservatives are also pleased that Obama appointed Christina Romer to chair his Council of Economic Advisors because she is known for academic work that concluded tax cuts are a powerful economic stimulus.

Summers, Geithner, Romer and Volcker’s history is not just of academic interest. Obama’s dream team may look to raid social security and Medicare to pay for ballooning deficits. In September, Summers wrote in the Washington Post, “We still must address issues of entitlements and fiscal sustainability.” This is code word for slashing social welfare.

NO DEBATE

Because Obama is committed to neoliberal policies, he is shying away from any debate. Talking about economic priorities means talking about winners or losers.

For instance, the lack of open debate has pushed the auto industry to the edge. While the executives and shareholders of the Big Three should be kicked to the curb, letting the companies fail could drag under auto-parts suppliers, dealerships and U.S.-based foreign auto plants, resulting in more than a million jobs lost.

The auto industry is to blame for its ramshackle state, but unions are being cast as scapegoats. Labor costs are not the reason General Motors may go under. It’s because it chose to continue building SUVs even as gas prices crept up for years.

Mandating hybrid technology and high gas mileage is a given, but many consumers may rekindle their love affair with gas-guzzlers now that oil prices have tanked. Green car technology should be combined with a tax on oil that keeps it above $100 a barrel. The revenue could help address the climate crisis, but Big Oil would fight it to the death. And Wall Street and the Democrats are preparing a cap-and-trade scheme in carbon emissions. It won’t reduce greenhouse gases, but it could inflate a huge new speculative bubble.

Without open debate, economic policies will be designed for powerful business interests to profit from. The way out of this mess is to address 30 years of declining wages and benefits, reducing foreign trade imbalances and giving developing countries the space to get off the commodity and export-oriented production treadmill.

Obama’s plan may help some parts of the country and some industries and stave off a depression, but it won’t create a just economy for the future. Just like the 1930s, real change has to come from below.

By Jessica Lee

While Wall Street is recoiling from the economic blow and politicians are arguing on Capitol Hill, average Americans are taking matters into their own hands. Here are some of their stories:

 

City Life/Vida Urbana
City Life/Vida Urbana
TAKING A STAND

Many people facing immediate eviction in the Boston area have received unexpected support in the form of a human blockade. A group of activists from the group have mobilized in front of foreclosed homes in the last several months in support of residents. Less than 12 hours after Barack Obama was elected, the group organized to help an African-American family in Boston’s Mattapan neighborhood. The group criticizes banks such as Bank of America, Countrywide Mortgage and JPMorgan Chase that own mortgages on homes where families in financial distress are striving to meet monthy housing payments. “It’s a bittersweet time, you know, because Obama’s theme was ‘yes we can, we can fight against injustice,’” said housing and tenants rights activist James Brooks, “and the banks are saying ‘no you can’t.’”

WORKERS SIT DOWN

In Chicago, some 200 laid-off union workers with United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America Local 1110 won a $1.75 million settlement after occupying their shuttered factory for six days. The showdown began in early December when their employer Republic Windows and Doors gave them three days notice that their plant was closing. Protesting that the company did not give them 60 days notice of a mass layoff as required by federal law and demanding owed vacation pay, the workers took over the factory Dec. 5. An outpouring of support from across the country ensued, forcing the company and its lead creditor Bank of America to meet the workers’ demands. The factory occupation mirrors direct action taken by workers in the 1930s to push for union recognition and better pay and working conditions.

RIGHT TO A NEW HOME

Miami housing activist Max Rameau sees the economic crisis as an opportunity for the city’s homeless. As thousands of homes sit empty after foreclosure, Rameau takes it upon himself to open them up and find a family to move inside. Thanks to a once-booming condo market, Florida has the nation’s second-highest foreclosure rate, with one in every 178 homes in default, according to the Associated Press. While individuals around the country are quietly squatting vacant homes, Rameau has taken the issue public, saying, “Homeless people across the country are squatting in empty homes. The question is: Is this going to be done out of desperation or with direction?”

MAKING A BID

When the foreclosed home of single mother Jocelyne Voltaire headed for the auction block Oct. 17, a coalition of women was there to help her out. Once CODEPINK, a national peace action group, heard about Voltaire’s case in Queens Village, New York, the group rallied its base and raised the $30,000 needed to save her home. Voltaire, a mother of four and a victim of a predatory loan, suffered the loss of her eldest son earlier this year while he was serving with the U.S. Marine Corps in the Middle East.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Sphinn
  • Mixx
For nine years, The Indypendent has printed truth in the face of power. With political and economic systems faltering, there is an opportunity for real change from the bottom up. But this means having a vibrant independent media. Consider supporting The Indypendent as a monthly sustainer, donating as little as $5 a month. Please visit indypendent.org/donate.

Subscribe to the Indypendent!

17 Responses to “Obamanomics: Why the Stimulus Plan Will Not Revive the Economy”

Joel Cook Says:

Nice work Jessica!

Shocked Says:

The Indypendent writer a la “Shock Doctrine” is onto something here. I disagree with the writer that the economy will not get better. I think what the writer is trying to say is that through the economic crisis the elites will be able to steer the most bailout money to their interests and remain wealthy. While the working and middle class bear the brunt of the crisis. The economy will “get better” in the sense that it is not unreasonable to believe that rich people will start making money again in the future (or even now), though the deep seated problems of the American capitalist system (income disparity, deindustrialization) will persist.

Nick Says:

I have to agree with shocked. Let us not think that Obama is pretending to be some savior to get us out of all the systemic issues we face. It was great that he was elected after 8 years of Bush wielding power. McCain would have been a lot more like Bush, so I think we can be happy for that. Perhaps people with their critical eye at Bush-like policies challenged to hope have hit the brick wall that we still live on planet earth. But good article and we should kick Obama’s tush when he gets outta line.

yahaak Says:

kick obama’s tush?
if you’re still in such deep denial
to imagine that the president is any more
than a commercial in chief, then, there may
be no way to ever get the point through to you
that citizens determine the conditions in which
they wish to live. right now, they need a master.
when they choose to be their own master, they will
be choose their leader from the hood rather than
adopting any tom, dick or obama chosen by the weapons
lobby. anyone who ever talked about bush, clearly was being
outwitted by a rodeo clown. to even mention obama, as if his
tv persona has some bearing on what the corporate bosses decide,
is to illustrate a helplessness that may be so deeply ingrained in the
tv-generated dna of the average homo americanus, that the species
can no longer be considered part of the animal kingdom. try genus mollusk
for its backbone, or kingdom vegetalia for its remarkable ability to react to stimuli.

Ellen Says:

Yahaak - you’ve said it perfectly in this mountain of words.

Er Says:

What qualifications does Arun Gupta posses which gives him the right to analyze the economy? What degrees does he have? What financial journalism has he done before this year? Or is this similar to Mr. Gupta’s Iraq “analysis,” entirely conducted from his own bedroom on the Lower East Side?

Nick Says:

Ok Yahaak and Ellen so you think I am naive.
You think “that citizens determine the conditions in which they wish to live.”
So if I saw you on the street and shot you in the head hat would be your fault?
Who is naive?

“right now, they need a master.”
Who chose you god to speak for the people?

“when they choose to be their own master,”
What makes you think they aren’t their own master?

“they will be choose their leader from the hood rather than
adopting any tom, dick or obama chosen by the weapons
lobby.”
Ok if Obama is a gun dealer and I would guess you would say that it is almost impossible for a non-gun dealer to get elected, how are the people going to chose their own “master”?
And what if in choosing “to be their own master” they don’t want a “master”?

So which “corporate bosses” are you referring to that “decide” I suppose the way the world works? That would be a great article.

I don’t know why you bother caring enough to write if you think that people, not just me, “can no longer be considered part of the animal kingdom.”

If people are so dumb then how are they going to choose your “hood” leader?

If the bosses decide everything then how is your hood leader going to take power?

As far as kicking tush, it is the only way things have ever gotten done. It is called dissent my friend and if you think the only way out of problems is picking a “master” I wish you luck because until Jesus or Mohammed or whoever might be worthy of having as a master comes you can just wait.

Ari Says:

Let’s all reserve judgement until we start to see what Obama does. He hasn’t even taken office yet and the same people who were yelling so vociferously for his candidaacy are now vehementyly demanding something other than the platform he ran on.

Obama has said that his current strategy about how best to fix the economy is to invest in the US infrastructure & green technology.

More investment into such projects mean more blue collar jobs, which means more blue collar spending, and more service jobs to cater to these blue collar workers.

His approach seems like it will level the playing field a bit. One of Obama’s famous gaffes is that he claimed he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” Obviously this was a major gaffe in a contry like ours that is largely anti-socialism. Nevertheles he was elected. Not because people believe he is a socialist, just because most Americans believed America would be better off without a war-mongering, hate-mongering, anti-free-will Republican in the white house again.

Obama never promised a revolution, and most of us who voted for him didn’t want one. If you want a revolutionary politician to run, become active in trying to persuade others about why we’re better off with an extreme change in national priorities.

Michael Says:

Nick, your replies don’t make any sense.
Ari, you only need to look at history to see that what Obama plans to do has been done before and it doesn’t work. We SHOULD be criticizing him NOW while we have the time to make any sort of change.

Obamanomics Says:

The only thing that has ever combatted corporate interests is grass roots work, usually in the form of protest involving mostly women - who have a much larger hand in the progressive shaping of of the world at large than is usually portrayed- and not in the “great leader” of history theory to which so many of us tend to subscribe. FDR was driven by corporate interests just as Obama is. The difference was a that in the 1930s there was a vast and vibrant Left, including communists, socialists and anarchists for whom, in this day and age, most people (I mean regular working people) show such visceral and uncritical disdain. What we need to be asking is, why should Obama help us? Why does he want to get us out of debt? What incentive does he have? Right now, none. If a homeless person asks you for change, your incentive to give is a personal feeling of guilt. But if he has a motivational tool, say a gun in his hand, your tune changes quickly. Obama has our support a la “yes we can” which serves to snow us into “believing” instead of actually taking it upon ourselves. Most people, in fact, want universal, single-payer healthcare, because it is cheaper and more effective …for everyone. Around 75% of Americans says so. They also disagree with US foreign policy at large, the invasion of Iraq, uncritical support for Israel and the proposed escalation in Afghanistan. How are we going to let him know we won’t stand for it? Otherwise, he won’t. The same way you won’t until that homeless person let’s you know how he can effect you. Obama may be a fine person, but he is stepping into the same matrix of interests and pressures that Bush lived in. He won’t be an iota different, other than in the media which will laud every step he takes as”brave” and “historic.”

Swoopanddive Says:

Michael, I presume you are referring to Roosevelt’s New Deal when you say that what Obama plans to do has been done before and it doesn’t work.

I find it shocking that you would qualify the New Deal as a failure, unless of course your definition of success is socialist revolution. But of course, the New Deal was designed to prevent that from happening in the US so it’s a bit of a tautology there.

What the New Deal DID do, for the first time in American history, is involve the federal government in the business of ensuring the basic social security of the American people, from providing badly needed direct relief so people could keep body and soul together (through the FERA) and then providing, with astounding creativity and flexibility, public works jobs across the country (through the CWA and the WPA) , which encompassed everything from ditch digging, to food processing and distribution of surplus crops purchased by the government in a price support program that kept farmers functioning, to a federal theater and writer’s project. In short, it attempted to create jobs and pay fair wages to all people across the land who needed them, without regard to race, gender, class or any other division you can come up with (and boy did those federal administrators have to fight like hell to uphold such principles - articulated FOR THE FIRST TIME by the federal government during the New Deal!).

The point is, I believe there is widespread agreement that the New Deal programs during the Depression and the massive veterans’ benefit that was paid after World War II are what put purchasing power back in the hands of the people and it was their spending that got the economy going again.

Obama’s plan will not only give spending power back to people who have lost it, it will also accomplish a host of social goods, like improving energy efficiency in public buildings (and thus the actual operating cost of government at all levels) and restoring so much of the country’s infrastructure which is on the border of virtual collapse. I tend to see that as win/win.

I also think that Obama’s politics are clearly more centrist than yours are, but what strikes me about his dream team is that it is not ideologically determined, nor does it represent even the slightest degree of cronyism. There are no Alberto Gonzalezes or Michael D Browns in Obama’s administration. What there is is a cross-section of our racially and politically diverse nation and proven track records of competence, which WILL promote the very badly needed debate that Gupta so aptly identifies as crucial.

I guess that means I am in the “wait and see” camp. It is so easy to fall into the temptation to criticize leaders when what they most need is our support and faith. Let’s see what Obama can do with a little of that on our parts before we start kneecapping him.

Michael Says:

Swoopdanddive,
Here’s the unemployment rates through FDR’s term:
Year Lebergott Darby
1933 24.9 20.6
1934 21.7 16.0
1935 20.1 14.2
1936 16.9 9.9
1937 14.3 9.1
1938 19.0 12.5
1939 17.2 11.3
1940 14.6 9.5
1941 9.9 8.0
1942 4.7 4.7
1943 1.9 1.9
1944 1.2 1.2
1945 1.9 1.9
Darby counts WPA workers as employed; Lebergott as unemployed source: Historical Statistics US(1976) series D-86; Smiley 1983
From wikipedia.

Looks to me like what brought us out of the Great Depression was WWII, and that overall FDR did very little to help the unemployment rate of the country.
here’s several articles you can read on the matter and decide for yourself:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3327
http://international.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/depwwii/newdeal/failure.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1048166/posts

One of the primary problems for our country today is that we have no more production work force. Our cars are made in Mexico & Canada, and shipped across the border.
Our iPods and computers, radios and cellphones, all made in China or some other country and then shipped over. Precious few clothing factories continue to operate in the United States, if not in China they move to Mexico. Free trade hasn’t worked, and it’s been unfair all around to developing countries AND us. It’s removed our production workforce out of the country, there’s nothing left here to stimulate. What are we going to do? Build roads? We need a return for the investment. I do think we need to invest in renewable energy, but this talk of Clean Coal needs to end.
I’m all for social programs, such as social security, but social security is drying up. If you make over $102k a year, you don’t pay towards social security. Obama’s economic advisors are the ones who removed the Glass-Steagall Act during the Clinton years. The Clinton years were simply a false sense of prosperity funded by debt and over leveraging of the banks, which we now realize can’t be done and Henry Paulson just came out and said “Whoops sorry I was wrong.” No one’s holding him accountable for saying it’d be okay to let the banks over leverage themselves.
Our foreign policy is nearly $1trillion a year, has Obama talked about lowering THAT? Has he talked about pulling the bases out of the 100 countries we have them in, or ending the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, which is going to end up costing trillions of dollars in veteran aid alone (which is already underfunded and incapable of helping people getting out of the military NOW, let alone when the war is over.) No. He’s talked about heightening it.
What about the cow tax that’s being proposed? Taxing cows on their emissions, it will hurt little farmers. Farm subsidies only benefit corporate farmers, not the little guys. Hell, one of the richest people in California (where I live) is a farmer, who gets billions of dollars of government aid for his corporate farms. Has Obama talked about redistributing that wealth to the people who need it most? No.
He keeps talking about tax cuts, more and more tax cuts. But the money is going to have to come from somewhere. Our federal budget deficit this year was $1trillion, and they’re projecting it will be $1.3 trillion in 09 given the current rate of spending and what Obama plans to do. I want to throw my support behind him, but I don’t believe he has the capabilities to help us with the people he’s appointed or the plans he has. Hell, Tom Daschle is going to be heading our healthcare reform and he was a lobbyist for the medical industry, and his wife is a lobbyist for insurance agencies. I understand the argument that “Obama’s picked people with experience to carry out his ideas” but I think the people he’s picked are a reflection of the types of policies that will be coming out of this administration.
We need to hold him accountable NOW before it’s too late.

Seth Says:

Michael:
“If you make over $102k a year, you don’t pay towards social security.”

Not true. You pay social security on the money you make up to approximately $100k, then you don’t pay on any of your income beyond that.

Michael Says:

I should have phrased that properly, my apologies.

Bailey Z Says:

Though there several out there who aren’t in favor to Obama’s porposed stimulus bill, yet he has the spirit to change the America and save from drowning into hole of debt. But, the question about this is, Can Obama make it? Can he reinvent America? Let’s hope so. Wells Fargo basically got themselves a government payday loan. Then they turned around and used the funds they got as part of the TARP program to put on an employee soiree. The said funds will be given for regular hardworking employees and not for executives. This is what CEO John Stumpf has stated. After taking criticism for throwing this company bash, the company has suspended all such future activities. A company party might be good for morale, but not using the payday loan given to them by the public.

Jersey Says:

Michael - right on. You’re right; Daschle was from the wrong side of the medical industry, as in the side that came up with the pay or die scheme. There are several members of Congress that hold an M.D. Come to think of it, one of them ran for President - Ron Paul!
And you’re also right that the only thing that truly fights off recessions is time. The capitalist system runs in such a manner that recessions and depressions are self correcting - that’s been the way it has worked for the last two hundred years. It isn’t massive government spending that does it, although it may help in the short term, and one of the arguments about the Great Deal’s efficacy is that the recessionary period including the Great Depression didn’t even technically end until after World War 2, when all the troops returned home and went back to work.
I suppose we can all take a little hope with us - they predict that we will start recovering by 3rd quarter of this year, which is some good news, because there are a lot of people that are out of work that would no doubt love to get back to it, and being able to put food on the table and keep gas in the car, which is now starting to get more expensive again.

T Chambers Says:

Love your site and your dedication. I’m setting up an independent community paper and I would love any advice. Because I am a single Mom and poor freelancer, many people would tell me to get a regular paying gig at a mall or some other such waste of time. But I love to write and am willing to work my butt off to make a difference.

I am just getting my site up and am doing battle to get rid of the default wordpress.org theme.

I am working alone from home and do not at this time have any ads or income. My plan is to support small, community businesss that can’t afford big ads in the huge corporate paper in my city.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thank you,
Tricia Chambers
www.sanjoseindependent.com

Leave a Reply