Can the Press Please Take a Side for Once?

RE: Mr. Bernanke’s Warning

Washington needs to stop the political antics and focus on housing and jobs.

Can the press stop this charade in its attempt to shield itself from accusations of a liberal bias? It is very obvious what happened this summer as economists and other experts predicted for many months leading up to it: the mere threat that there was any possibility of a U.S. default was cause to rattle the world markets. And that threat was 100% synthetic and created by the Republicans in Congress as prodded by the Tea Party. The credit worthiness of the world's largest economy was denigrated simply because a rogue group of rebel rousers insisted they get their absolute way on routine budget matters. And said rebel rousers scared those in their party who know better with the threat of primary challenges. Since their 2010 mandate (and an impressive one at that) was hardly enough to empower them with such absolutism, they knowingly chose to use a very, very dangerous weapon, American credit-worthiness, for leverage. And it was a terribly irresponsible thing to do.

Although we are all (left, right and in-between) disappointed with the performance of those on our \"side,\" and for many reasons, this was NOT the fault of the entire U.S. government. The President and the Democrats in Congress had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that this entire debacle happened in the first place.

The press has a responsibility to report the news and we celebrate those whose reporting is non-biased. But it is not taking sides to simply tell it like it is. And it is unfair to the vast majority of voters who are not immersed in every detail of the news. Those who take the time to read the first few pages of the daily newspaper and watch the evening news should be allowed access to more accurate information even if it is somewhat 'uncomfortable' for the corporate editorial boards.

They didn't win every seat!

We keep hearing over and over about how the "American People" (as if it were all 300 million of us) made their voices clear in the 2010 elections and that gives the Tea Party the right to make such ridiculous demands.

435 House seats were decided in those elections as was control of the U.S. Senate. The Republicans did not win every seat in the House ... the Democrats won 193 of those seats and retained a majority in the Senate.

Sure the Republican party was granted a tremendous amount of 'influence' on Capitol Hill, but they were NOT given 'control' of the entire U.S. government. Their influence has won them a tremendous amount in these arguments as not only has the other side agreed to tie a debt ceiling vote to deficit reduction in the first place, but also to massive spending cuts and the exclusion of revenue increases.

When the Republicans convince the American people to elect them to a majority in both houses and regain the Presidency, they can attempt to exercise the 'control' they believe they deserve.

Even then, as Democrats learned early in 2009, the other members of Congress still have a vote. If they didn't we would now have single-payer health care and we would have had a much, much larger stimulus.

When the Republican party wins 435 House seats, 100 Senate seats and the Presidency, they will have the rights they think they have now. Until then, the rest of us still have a voice.

The loopholes of cluelessness

We will continue our downward spiral with gaining momentum if the Democratic party continues to fail so miserably in the message wars. I just cannot comprehend why lawmakers whose ideology is on the right side of history, public sentiment (overwhelmingly) and otherwise proven economic science cannot win any argument and therefore must constantly employ the policies of the other side in order to get anything done.

Perfect case in point: yesterday's Presidential address in which he calls for, of all things, a 'tax credit' for businesses who hire returning war vets. A TAX CREDIT? This is your plan in the midst of trying to convince the public that we need to close loopholes and spending in the tax code? Every loophole was once a new 'tax credit' or deduction meant to stimulate a certain sector of the economy. Yes, the motive is noble without question, but the method is ridiculous in this political environment.

The immediate cost to the government would be equal if this investment was designed as a spending program. But the cost to the long-term debt is exponentially higher if it is designed as a tax credit. What happens when these wars are long over and the economy (hopefully) recovers? A tax credit will continue to cost the government money in perpetuity as tax lawyers successfully lobby that it also applies to 'this' & 'that' hire thereby making it yet another senseless corporate 'loophole' whose elimination will be considered a 'tax hike' by fiscal 'conservatives.'

If it were designed as a spending program, once it has achieved it's admirable and currently necessary goal it would be among the first items eliminated in some future negotiation to cut spending.

The Democrats (via our current President) are once again playing into the hands of a political party that has no true concerns about debt & deficits, only lower taxes. How can smart people be so stupid?

-GSW 8/8/11

Cutting means cutting ... there's no demanding the DEMAND for new jobs!

The answers coming from Washington are completely off the mark. The problems are both simple and very, very obvious. Technology has vastly decreased the amount of employees necessary to provide goods and services (irreversibly) & the demand for goods/services is very low because the middle class (U/L) are pinching pennies.

Let's be honest. No one is going to hire a new employee simply because they have more money due to a lower tax rate. Furthermore, no business that can afford to hire a needed new employee will chose not to do so because they fear the government is over spending on Medicare (as an example). Businesses large and small will hire a new employee only when there is a job that would not get done without doing so - the cost factor comes in second. If there is reduced demand for goods and services, there is a reduced demand for employees regardless of how much the employer has to spend. This is virtually scientific.

Yet we continue to buy the Republican talking point that reduced Federal spending will create jobs? Cutting spending means CUTTING jobs. Period. When the government cuts back it does so via layoffs. Notwithstanding one's preference for private vs public sector jobs, the balloon-like consequences are enormous. When a government employee loses their job they cannot support the businesses in their community & the result is the loss of private sector jobs. Likewise, when the government scraps a 'project' then the private businesses in that community suffer terribly.

A fair tax code, where profits (translation: the money bred of a successful transaction) are taxed at a rate ample enough to be redistributed throughout the economy via new business loans/support, AND government spending on infrastructure, defense, health care, transportation, safety regulation, emergency response &  the care of those who simply cannot care for themselves is simply the only way an economy as large as the United States' can function properly.

-GSW 7/8/11

I want MY country back!

Do any of you supposed flag wavers have any idea of the actual history of this country you purport to love so much? This was a nation founded by and further strengthened by immigrants. Virtually every American citizen can trace their heritage back to another country within the past one or two hundred years. Actual "Native Americans" are a very small ethnic minority and they are, sadly, treated as such.

I am a vehemently proud, fourth-generation American who considers his eastern European roots as an added strength to my being. My ancestors fled hatred and repression and came to this country early in the 20th century with nothing but the shirts on their backs. My heritage contributed immensely to the business and cultural make-up of our great society. I take great pride in this. It makes me a TRUE American.

I do not take pride in the fact that so many in my great country, the vast majority of whom can also only trace their American roots back a hundred years or so, speak with the same hatred of other cultures that led  to their own ancestors fleeing their place of birth to seek a life of freedom and opportunity in America.

You are, by definition, NOT true Americans. And I want MY country back!

-GSW 8/14/11

Spend, spend, spend ... or what's that smell?

In response to a really silly line item I have read so repeatedly on internet forums ... one that really has nothing to do with anything really important in this current crisis ... I must ask: Why in the World do so many choose to attack culture in the heat of such serious debate? It is completely legitimate to have issues with taxpayer dollars supporting the arts (something I fully support, but that is irrelevant), but it's a very insignificant and silly argument to make right now. Still, aside from culture being among the few things that separate human beings from other species, shouldn't one also take into consideration that the performing arts also employ countless taxpayers, support businesses large and small and have a definite economic impact. Life in America will certainly not cease to exist if one is unable to watch a symphony performance on PBS, nor would it if cable news and these internet blogs suddenly disappeared. Nor would it if we outlawed soap and deodorant. We would just stink.

-GSW 4/11/11

Oh, those poor people who pay all of the taxes

To those who keep repeating the ridiculous argument that the top BLAH% are paying BLAH% of the tax burden (the numbers change hourly) while the lower BLAH% pays nothing: please take a deep breath and do some thinking.

If the top tax rate is the lowest it has been in 60 some-odd years, and the income disparity is the widest it has been in modern history, wouldn't those figures you quote still actually make perfect sense? If you make most of the INCOME, you're going to pay most of the INCOME taxes.

Aren't those of us who BUY the most also paying the most in SALES taxes?

Is that a problem as well. Would you like a cut-off ... say after you spend what the average person spends on essentials there won't be any sales tax on the 'choice' and 'luxury' items because that would mean you are shouldering too much of the sales tax burden as well.

Oh, and by the way ... if you would like to join the ranks of those who pay little or no income taxes ... you are completely and legally free to donate everything you earn over and above the average living wage to charity.

Which other parts of the system don't work for you?

-GSW 7/11/11

Hey, let's just cut 10% across the board! What a great idea!

Lets cut every item we spend on across the board at least 10%. I just love that.

Since the Federal government is constantly compared to the average family or business (which is a completely DUMB comparison in its own right), I propose we all simply cut our bills 10% across the board.

Go ahead!

Deduct 10% off next month's mortgage/rent payment, your electric bill, your cable, phone, college tuition bill, loan payments ... just pay 90% of the bill ... across the board!

Let's see how fast your interest and penalty payments add up and actually increase your debt. Let's see how you eventually have no power and are thrown out into the street.

This is so stupid!

-GSW 8/14/11

Well OF COURSE the whole debt ceiling debacle was created by the Republican Party!

Americans have very short memories and we allow the press to shape the conversation far too much. Two major, major things happened in the past few months that link directly to both the debt ceiling and unemployment and no one is talking about them...not even the President who would have so very much to gain by repeating them over and over.

First, it is completely unnecessary for the debt ceiling vote to be tied to any budget talks/deficit reduction packages that are by their very nature extremely heated and difficult to resolve in a divided government. Obama called for a 'clean vote' on the debt ceiling throughout the spring. This is virtually always how this matter is addressed and it is done pretty much every year. The Republican party refused and Boehner insisted that any such raise be tied to significant deficit reduction. Therefore, it was the Republican party that created this impasse. The vast majority (if not all) congressional democrats would approve a debt ceiling raise on its own merits today and Obama would sign it. Boehner has just recently begun to acknowledge (as he always has in the past) how critically important this issue is and yet he is allowing the far right wing of his party to hold the entire economy hostage for fear of primary challenges. There are enough grown-up Republicans in the House to combine with Democrats and approve a critical debt ceiling increase in a clean vote. Therefore, if the U.S. defaults because of inaction, the consequences that are sure to ensue will have been caused 100% by self-serving political gamesmanship by the polarized Republican party. This MUST be stressed by the Democrats ad nauseum and a responsible press should allude to it as well. Not for bragging rights but to ensure that the voting public knows what clearly happened before they hit the voting booth in 2012.

Secondly, doesn't anyone remember that only five months ago John Boehner acknowledged that spending cuts DIRECTLY increase the unemployment rate? When confronted with the fact that spending cuts would result in the loss of thousands of government jobs, his response was, "SO BE IT." You can agrue all you want about whether or not government jobs are as healthy to the economy as private sector jobs, but you cannot deny the MATH that a laid-off government employee adds to the unemployment rate on a 1:1 ratio. Why does the media allow him to ask as he did in response to last Friday's spike in the unemployment rate, "WHERE ARE THE JOBS?" without questioning him on his own recent comments and insistance that much more radical spending cuts (translation: layoffs) be implemented?

You can subscribe to any theory you wish about job creation and the effects of tax increases, tax cuts, interest rates, confidence in the economy, etc.. But you cannot deny that the overwhelming reason for an employer to hire is and always will be DEMAND. And it has a direct snowball effect. The more unemployed, the less spending. The less spending, the less demand. The less demand, the less need for workers.

Then you can apply your theories.

-GSW 8/14/11

Firing people to create jobs ... let's give Charles Darwin a run for his money

Government austerity results in government layoffs and thus directly causes a rise in the unemployment rate. Yet Republicans continue to insist that cutting spending will somehow create jobs. So with all of the arguments against science, (evolution, climate change, etc.) the far right has now, abandoned mathematics as well. And, as is clearly evident in the vast majority of reader comments on most news sites (with a few exceptions i.e. the NY Times), the need for language, spelling, grammar have been repudiated as well.

So now it seems as though a large, and seemingly growing faction choose basically to eliminate any and all of the traits exhibited by humans that separate us from other species.

The only logical end result of totally reducing us to being on par with other animal species would be true survival of the fittest. The strongest and most intelligent among us will have the best access to food, shelter, safety, longevity and, ultimately propagation. This is, of course, Darwinism at its core which would in itself be in direct contradiction with Creationism, but it is indeed the only POSSIBLE result ... barring divine intervention, if one believes in that sort of thing.

Won't the outcome be interesting? Just how many of us will suddenly find ourselves on the opposite side of the have and have-not fence and realize once and for all how we have become a society based upon the survival not of the fittest but of the most fortunate?

Perhaps then everyone will understand that it is the scientific superiority of the human species and our innate intelligence that has allowed us, since the dawn of civilization, to actually defy science itself and make our own world more liveable.

-GSW, July 2011