It's Our Turn Now

Candidate John McCain gave a truly innovative speech last week that suffered from one fatal flaw. The innovation: cast your speech as a fantasy, looking back from the end of your first term so you can tout all your great accomplishments without the distraction of pesky fact-checkers. The fatal flaw: recent history has shown that his policy agenda is antithetical to his goals. His vision of the future is divorced from his roadmap to get there.

To the contrary, anyone interested in a future that looks quite different from the present, and most Americans are leaning in precisely that direction, needs to remember but one mantra. It's one of the most important arguments progressives can make between now and November, and it's simple, compelling, and unarguably true: we've tried it their way, and it hasn't worked.

Whether it's the economy, the environment, foreign policy, fiscal policy, government competency, judicial fairness... you name it... we've tried it their way, and it hasn't worked.

For this post, let's focus on the economy. We're aided by the fact that we are likely at the end of the economic expansion that began in late 2001, so we can now compare the results from this cycle to previous ones. We're additionally aided by the fact that the work has already been completed by my EPI colleagues Josh Bivens and John Irons. They've done the math, comparing growth rates of all the key variables over this and past cycles.

We'll get to those results in a minute, but consider them in this light: they are the outcome of a natural experiment, one wherein we turned every branch of Federal government, including the judiciary, over to conservatives with a unified vision of the economy. I describe the vision as YOYO (you're on your own) economics, though you're free to amend it to "you're on your own unless you've got friends in high places... in that case, you can plunder the treasure." For the rest, it's "here's a tax cut, a private program, some deregulation, and a nudge into the market place to sink or swim."

Note, for example, that McCain's speech revives privatizing Social Security ("personal retirement accounts) as a policy goal. He reforms health care though the injection of more "market forces," as we're all incentivized to go out and shop for health care in the open market, a plan that has the potential to be both expensive and ineffective. And as I pointed out last week in this space, McCain's tax cuts are Bush's on steroids. He begins with extending the Bush cuts (10-year cost: $1.7 trillion), but that's less than a third of the cuts that he's planning. And remember, in the midst of all these cuts, he's got to pay for a lot more war.

So, what are the economic outcomes of this great, neocon experiment? From Bivens and Irons:

• Of the 10 expansions since 1949, as measured from the end of the recession (trough) to the end of the expansion (peak), the expansion from 2001 through last year ranks last in average growth of GDP, investment, employment growth, and employee compensation.
• Despite [supply-side] tax changes that were promoted as incentives to increase investment, average growth in total investment over the latest expansion was less than half of the post-WWII average, and ranked last in this group. For the full cycle (from the 2001 peak to the last quarter of 2007), investment growth was also less than half the average and worse than all cycles in the last 50 years.
• Corporate profits were the only area of strength in the latest cycle, ranking 2nd strongest among the last the prior 10 cycles.
• The rankings for all 10 full business cycles since WWII show that the 2000s rank eighth in GDP, ninth in consumption spending and employment growth, and last in labor compensation and the ratio of the population employed.

Regarding the variables that matter most to working families, the neocon experiment was a particularly dramatic failure. Employment grew one third as fast as the average over the 2000s business cycle and the unemployment rate, though low on average, was higher at the end of the cycle than at the beginning. Perhaps the most damning indictment is this: for the first time on record, going back to the mid-1940s, the income of the typical, middle-income family was slightly lower last year than at the prior peak in 2000 (see their figure A).

The reason, of course, is that the benefits of the economy's growth flowed largely to those at the top of the scale, an outcome long associated with YOYO'ism. In the history of income inequality data going back to 1913, income is now more concentrated among the top 1% of households than in any other year, bar one: 1928.

So there you have it: the great, neo-con economic experiment is over and the results are in. Outside of the top 1%, there's less income growth than in any past business cycle. The key macro-indicators, such as employment, GDP growth, and investment have also faired uniquely poorly. The anti-government, deregulatory agenda has led to fatal incompetence, a massive housing bubble, ailing global credit markets, and near-recessionary growth for the US. The "ownership society" is a cruel joke: homeownership rates are falling for the first time in decades.

The defenders of the status quo will howl in protest: the Democrats blocked us, the terrorist attacks and the war changed everything, we must stay the course to victory! But such rhetoric should be dismissed as what it is: the last, desperate gasps of a dying movement.

They've had their turn and they've failed. It is our turn now.

Comments

[Donald Wolberg]

The difficulty with economics and the interpretation of economics is that all kinds of people with more experience as political water carriers and less understanding of mathematics can make marvelously naive comments. The U.S. has a $14 trillion gdp in a world with a $46 trillion GDP. The U.S. (one nation of more than 100) has 30% of the world GDP. Now a trillion dollars is a large number ($1000 billion) and the U.S. GDP is $14,000 billion, about 30% larger than when Mr. Clinton left office. Mr. Berstein does not seem to understand this fact. Additionally, the U.S. has a population of 330 million, about three times that of 1928, and a 5% unemployment rate (95% of folks are working and 95% of the present working population translates into very large employment numbers and 5% is more than "full employment, better than that of the last Democrat President. The supposed housing crisis actually shoe 96% of all mortages are being paid and only 4% are in difficulty. Of the 4%, 2% are being refinanced. Thus, only 2% of mortages are in default, hardly a problem. The energy picture is difficult. It still costs the Saudis only $1.30 to get a barrel of oil that ends up at $125/bbl. There is a market shortage and high prices, some from speculation. The Democratic controlled Congress has stopped increased American production. We can add 1 million barrels a day in 5 years if Congress cooperated.

[TonalCrow]

To cite just one of the many problems in your Bush-McCain "rough patch" argument: a 5% unemployment rate does *not* mean that "95% of folks are working". As http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm notes, the Bureau of Labor Stats -- which publishes the official unemployment rate -- classifies civilian, noninstitu­tionalized people aged 16 or over as either "employed", "unemployed", or "not in the labor force".

A person is called "employed" if she did "any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week". Thus, even the laziest panhandlers probably get classified as "employed".

A person is "unemployed" only if she is not employed *and* is actively seeking work. Otherwise she is classified along with full-time students and retirees as "not in the labor force".

As of April 2008, BLS says that 79.2 million Americans (of a potential labor force of 233.2 million) are "not in the labor force".

If you care to make an honest argument (instead of merely to push destructive propaganda), read much more about the unemployment rate at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm .

[Donald Wolberg]

Again, this is less than appropriate math; if words matter, so do numbers and so does objective reality. The definition of employed or unemployed is as much a matter of words, arbitrary as they may be, and reality. Not counted as employed are those who are in an unreported cash economy, not so much blackmarket as simply unreported. That number is likely in the millions on a national scale. Then there are the underreported: folks working part-time as reported but actually full time with some percentage as cash not documented (a gray-market economy). So one expects that that 79 million person figure is likely 30-50% too high; they are indeed in the labor force, differently and more accurately defined. Of course one forgets that the number 233 million employed is more Americans than the 165 million TOTAL population of the U.S., when John Kennedy was President. By the way, I would suggest debate loses force if one suggest the "encampment" of the other as a basis of debate.

[MourningDude]

It's refreshing to see someone come out and state it plainly.

Dems aren't running on the soundness of their own ideas. They're only running as "NotBush".

Sure, it makes perfect sense politically. It's a winning political strategy. But it creates a big problem when it's time to govern.

This strategy actually makes proposing solutions dangerous and risky. Why open your own ideas up to scrutiny when you can win without doing so?

But as a country, we need effective governance more than we need shrewd politicians. Unfortunately, we have an overabundance of shrewd politicians, and far too few leaders.

Obama is perhaps the most shrewd politician of them all, which makes him particularly dangerous. He said he was anti-war, and then once he got into the Senate his shrewdness kicked in and he voted in lockstep with Hillary Clinton. Consistent? No. Shrewd? Absolutely.

Chances are that voters will support the "NotBush" strategy. But that doesn't mean things are definitely going to get better, does it?

[DrPaulProteus]

"Regarding the variables that matter most to working families, the neocon experiment was a particularly dramatic failure."

Wrong. The neocon experiment was indeed a failure, but the more important failure you ought to be getting across to Americans inclined to believe in it is that what we call conservative governance in general, or whatever you want to call the ideology in place since the Reagan era, is the real dramatic failure.

Whatever you do, don't tie this to just Bush, this is a deeper ideological system that needs to be resigned to the scrapheap of history, which extends far further back than just the year 2000. Blaming Bush is nice and convenient, but successfully tie this to the Republican party itself and you won't have to worry about them for a long time to come. Of course, Democrats will have to show us they're different, and so far they haven't shown us anything of the sort.

[tippy6]

I think with conclusions such as these, that "whatever was being done, it ain't working" doesn't, logically, make any solid conclusions, and it really implies that the White House has a lot more weight in directing the economy than it really has.

What may really be happenning are some natural confluences in cultural, economic, political and social changes over the past 20 or so years, that any administration would have little luck in steering, much less any ecomonist or other expert in trying to predict. My point is that there are other, deeper currents contributing to this disintegration than just G.W. Bush's administration.

[argeec]

Calling economic policies "neocon" is inaccurate. Neoconservatism is a foreign policy philosophy.
The proper term for Bush economic policies is "neoliberalism", or, even better, fascism.

[McLaren]

One problem. The current econ policies are a mish-mash of liberal/populist crap, not remotely close to anything Reaganesque. We've spent more on social programs than at any time: no change in poverty. We've spent more on education than at any time: no change in education -- well, at least no positive change.

Nice try, but swing and a miss. What you are describing as "their way" is actually "your way, light."

[TonalCrow]

Current economic policies are largely a mish-mash of GOP (and, yes, Reagan) claptrap, including pervasive deregulation of large business and the accompanying capture of regulatory agencies by the "regulated"; low federal tax rates coupled with out-of-control spending; a bloated, inefficient sacred-cow Pentagon; and "free trade" gone wild.

Revisionist argument will not save the GOP this November.

[frappe]

"...we've tried it their way, and it hasn't worked" -- Yes, the universal consensus is that the neocons have been an abysmal -- a disastrous failure. The signs are everywhere. They have left their unique mark on history -- political, economic, and social -- a mark that will forever be branded a failed experiment. Of course, the problem is that U.S. citizens were the unwitting and unwilling guinea pigs for their failed experiment. And we, collectively, have suffered greatly under their miserable stewardship. Good riddens to that bunch. I hope I never see or hear from them again.

[JerryinATL]

when are you going to realize that you are responsible for your own well being. The government and their policies, help or hurt companies and the wealthy. They don't really effect you (unless you work for a company that is effected).

My point is, there is plenty of freedom for you to do well for your self in ANY economy. STOP wasting your time with 'who' is in charge of the government. Concentrate on your self and helping others, and you will be successful.

[returnofthejedi]

I would agree people should be more responsible for themselves. Having said that I would interject that we as americans should have a government that contributes to our
Independence and Freedom instead of making policies that make it hard to save 25 cents and much less a dollar.

[bobwalters]

JerryinATL: Your argument is totally specious. No individual, in the US, at least, is completely responsible for her/his own well being. There are multitudes of factors which affect individual well being over which *most* individuals have absolutely no control. Part of the abject failure of the fascist agenda -- political, economic, social, or what-have-you -- is the contradictory emphasis on the *rugged individualism* you're advocating (which is really *you're on your own, Buster*) as contrasted with the total devotion to welfare for corporate and wealthy supporters, and to hell with everyone else. This is coupled with the concerted efforts by the BushCo cabal to insure that *everyone else* has no say in the way things are run.
Wolberg: Your arguments usually have some salience, although I often question your conclusions. Most of the macroeconomic data you cite do not reflect the real state of affairs. Much of the vaunted GDP is comprised of economically counter-productive data -- expenditures that do not contribute to the common good. Destruction of the concept of *common good* has been one of the chief aims of the Repugnants since there have been Repugnants­...that objective was even pursued as opposition to Lincoln's commitment to preserving the Union.

[bgregs]

No, you are entirely WRONG!!!! The government's policies DO affect us ALL!!!

[Timma]

Its obvious to me that you're a person of some means. "Pleny of freedom to do well for yourself." How's that? In the recession of 1979 I lost my employment due to downsizing. I ended up working as a stock clerk, and for the following fifteen years not one single employer I had included any kind of savings or retirment incentive program. So basically I was working for a paycheck with nothing to show once I had to look for other work. Perhaps you should quit your day job and see what kind of employment you can get before you making these kinds of cavalier remarks. I have plenty of friends and people I know beside myself who are very well educated and articulate who are jsut barely scraping by.

[trollsbwild]

The policies of the last seven years have not been much different from the robber baron era or the middle ages. Bush has been the ultimate reverse Robin Hood- steal from the poor and give to the rich.
My conern is that this WH has basically used a scorched earth economic policy for the sake of enriching their few friends. Will there be ANYTHING left over to rebuild after January, 2009?

[returnofthejedi]

Jerry all the planning in the world will do you no good when you dont have resources to carry out the plan you have concieved. Not to use race as an excuse but I am a Black man living here in a land that has enforced it's "Plan" on me and my ancestors for many years. This "plan was implemented with the help of the federal government. Barack Obama definatly has a plan,and sir if you are willing to look at reality,look at how these same evil forces attack this man who is a Harvard Grad. This man is probably the best thing that could happen to America but because of the "plan'of the powers that be,look at the lies,slander and deciet about the man that is going on. It is no different for any other person of color. This campaign is revealing the falicy of your notions.
It has never been the people that work hard that rise to the top of the ladder but those in who the policies of the nation has favored. The ones that work hard only wake up the next day to work even harder. When a CEO of a company makes more in a year than his employees make their entire lives how can you honestly keep trying to argue your flawed logic.

[JerryinATL]

What a corporate CEO make in salary has little effect on what you earn. That is just sour grapes. I grant you that little rescources will hinder your plan (if you have one), but just remember that illegal alliens come her with NOTHING. They LEAVE EVERYTHING behind. and they still become 'something' of a middle class, eventually. I have seen it.

Now if you do things that hold you back, like pregnancy, or accepting substandard housing from the governent, or surround yourself with people without vision or hope, you may never get out of the situation. Obama has no plan that you can cite, which will benifit you long term. He may tax someone, and give it to the underclass, but that simply keeps the reciever tied to the giver. It does not help you long term. Then when Obama's term runs out, your have the same argument on why you want a give-a-way from the next politician. You are now in the 2000s, and no one can force a plan on you. You are now responsible for yourself, and win or lose, you will be the one who gains or suffers. No amount of pointing to the black experiance or a CEOs salary will help you. Your black leaders have no vested interest in helping 'their comunity'. They pass the hat and you give him your hard earned money, so he can fight the "good fight" in $1000.00 suits.

[slemay]

The neocons want to avoid this argument. Their fiscal gods look weak in this analysis because they are weak.

Privatizing Social Security is a bone to be thrown to Wall Street, a group that adds little value to the real economy. Those people play a video game with lots of money, but they add nothing to infrastructure and nothing of real value. But they do get rich, despite not being able to forecast much of anything.

Median real income is down for the middle quintile of U.S. households--over 7% in real terms since 1970. The highest quintile has grown, the upper 1% has grown the most, unless you want to talk about the upper .1%.

We pay taxes for a reason: to build infrastructure, to govern markets, to pay for national defense. The enormous increase in the national debt is only partly due to the wars. Bush increased federal employment by 45% from 2002 to 2005, but the military shrank.

They also raised the debt as a percentage of GDP to record levels and fostered the majority of the national debt. Oh, yeah, and we are heavily in debt to China.

Otherwise, these guys have done just fine.

[MourningDude]

"Privatizing Social Security is a bone to be thrown to Wall Street"

Would you care to explain why every major union in the country invests their pension dollars in Wall Street?

If it's all just a suckers game, then why do public employees that work for the federal government have a very large portion of their retirement money invested in Wall Street?

Why is it that almost everyone that has a 401K or IRA puts some of their money into Wall Street?

The only huge retirement entity I can think of that DOESN'T invest in Wall Street is Social Security, where they offer you roughly a 2% annual return on your investment. Even a FDIC insured savings account will get a better return than that.

Who's the real sucker?

[wmfor]

Because Social Security is not a retirement fund. Have an IRA? Is it invested? What happens if those investments go bust? You are left with your Social Security, which will at least help you survive, although not in the style to which you have become accustomed.

But if you had invested your Social Security in Wall Street just like your IRA and you made a bad investment--too bad, sucker! Old and on the street.

SS is not a pension fund. It is a safety net.

[Suzie813]

All those retirements funds invested in Wall Street will be wiped out along with everything else when the crash comes.

[Suzie813]

Employing excess workers in the government is a good way to skew unemployment figures.

[abluevoice]

"trickle down" "supply side", "voodoo economics" or "neo con" , however you label it has never worked especially for the working class dumb shit Republican voters who keep buying it from the Reagan's and Bushs and then blame their unemployment, low pay or lack of benefits on the liberals because Limbaugh and Hannity told them to.
Republican economic policy is simple. Make the rich, richer. In that sense it works just fine.

[bushisatraitor]

It's like I say, if you're working class (especially blue collar) and vote republican, you may as well shove a two-by-four up you-know-where.

[JerryinATL]

It worked for me. I am no rocket scientist, but with a little stock investing and real estate, it worked. I took Warren Buffet's advice. I bought low and sold high.

I did not waste money on stupid IPods, or flat pannel tvs, or expensive cars. I took that money and invested (I did not use high brow investors / money managers). now I OWN (not the banks) a 5000 sq foot home on 10 acres, and i don't have a house payment.

YOU CAN DO IT TOO!

stop whining, and educate yourself and just DO IT!

[MourningDude]

That would take initiative. Dem sheep don't even have the initiative to leave the city when a hurricane is barreling down on them, and would prefer to sit and wait for nanny government to save them.

Sure, there is a role for government, but it should not supplant common sense!

[tschlak]

If I was a McCain supporter (yeeech!!) I would have been embarrassed by that speech. After accusing Obama of pie-in-the-sky rhetoric with no substance to back it up, he comes out with that steaming pile??

[MourningDude]

This entire post is fallacious.

Comparing 2000-2008 with other expansions is impossible. How many other expansions coincided with 2 concurrent wars? How many other expansions coincided with a 50% devaluation of the currency?

It's a fatally flawed argument. It's not rigorous. It's opinion dressed as fact.

How can you claim that "we've tried it" on Social Security reform? We haven't! Not even close. Liberals refuse to even propose a solution, but they're happy to attack those who do.

The liberal philosophy is a one-legged stool. Can we tax our way to prosperity? Can we tax our way to fiscal health? Can we tax our way to a cleaner environment?

Tax, tax, tax. And when taxation alone is simply incapable of solving the problems, like on Social Security, they simply won't propose anything! Obama has said he would 'stick it to the rich', and left it at that. But what he doesn't tell you is that even if we completely eliminated the income caps, it would only extend SS solvency by 7 years. That's not a bold new solution? That's not leadership.

Yesterday Obama was in an old folks home scaring seniors. He didn't say "I have the solution." He said "McCain will throw you into the streets".

It's very discouraging to see Obama profess to be openminded and willing to think of things in new ways, and then fall back into the same ruts the Democrat party has used for so long to AVOID progress.

[RoloTomassi]

Typical GOP BULLSHIT. There's nothing worthwhile in any aspect of your commentary; you repeat the same old GOP spin, over and over again, but so far you'r just not getting it, are you?

One of two things are very likely to happen by January 2009 [assuming the world keeps turning, UFO-riding aliens don't invade, and that BushCo doesn't stage a false flag attack before the election]:

1) We will hold a presidential election [as well as many congressional elections], and you will see the beginning of a different approach to government that you are guaranteed to dislike immensely;

Or

2) King George will declare martial law and cancel the elections.

If #2 happens, you will:

1) find a way to blame that on Democrats and will claim once again that the free-market will fix everything,

Or

2) You will realize just how much of a fool you have been all along.

[MourningDude]

All I know is that regardless of who is at the helm, we will be facing dark times in the next couple of decades.

Washington is utterly beholden to senior citizens. Now as baby boomers are retiring, suddenly instead of pouring an extra $200 Billion of FICA taxes into the coffers to grease the wheels of government, that money will go away. So, we need to raise taxes by at least 200 billion per year, just to keep our heads above water.

Meanwhile, Medicare is going downhill and gathering speed. Within 10 years it will blow a hole in the budget that will take another huge tax hike to patch.

Bill Clinton pointed this out 10 years ago. He pleaded with people to be reasonable and plan ahead. Now here we are 10 years later without doing ANYTHING to solve these problems. In fact, we've made it worse by tacking on another huge prescription drug boondoggle on top of it all.

Nobody in Washington has the guts to face this. And the longer is goes unaddressed, the more painful it's going to be.

The cratering dollar is mostly due to the future outlook, rather than today's economic conditions.

And when it comes time to make hard choices, I would much rather see someone willing to let baby boomers and older seniors sleep in the beds they have made than continue to punish generation after generation for the shortsighted and idiotic decisions made before we were born.

[realist333]

Not entirely fallacious. The analysis is - as you say - more opinion than fact. And the assumptions are flawed. Free trade globalism is as much a neo-liberal as a neo-conservative theory.

But the conclusion is correct. Globalism has taken away more than it has given, especially in the non-corporate sector. Managerial elitists love the idea of globalism. The rest of the world finds it no better than the naive mercantilism of the 19th century.

Sure - outsourcing jobs to third-world countries results in lower prices, along with lower quality, lower margins for producers and lower standards of living for everyone but the managerial class. Consumers need to learn how to vote for their own best interests.

[strength]

Its funny that anytime poeple talk about economy and Dems, they say TAX! TAX! TAX! too many Taxes!!!! well if we remember right there have been some very prosperous periods in this countrys History and a lot of them Had Democratic Presidents­...the latest being President Clinton.

This govt has been a disaster and its about time that we say it, and its about time the republicans stop blaiming everyone but themselves for the issues we are experienceing now. This govt has adopted a YOYO mentality and a "we will help the wealthy" mentality, even hannity said that he is glad that rich people stay rich, well guess what, when loss class and middle class stop having money to buy things, the rich shall suffer too.

Mccain has said on a number of occasions that he has no clue about economics, so its refreshing to hear him tell the truth, Oh but wait, he came back and said he never said that....so which is it?

And why does everyone think the dollar has been devalued? Why has oil prices went up? why did the housing market go boom? Why has there been an eroding of the middle class? I can tell you this, if the Dems were in the white house right now, we know who would be point the finger at us......it­s about time we point the finger back and make a stand to take this country back.

[MourningDude]

The dollar is devalued primarily because the rest of the world sees our financial outlook and realizes that we can't pay for all our spending.

Would you lend money to someone if you knew they couldn't pay you back? No, of course not.

If Republicans are in power, then they will continue to cut taxes and run deficits. If Democrats are in power, they'll raise taxes and run deficits, spend all the new money, and run deficits as large or larger than those of the Republicans.

I absolutely think we need to raise taxes. But Democrats are 100% wrong to continue spending money we don't have on all sorts of new trinkets. What needs to be done is to raise taxes and cut spending simultaneously. Who's out there proposing that? Nobody.

Republicans refuse to raise taxes and balance the budget, and Dems are too busy buying votes with Chinese money to care.

[dadw5boys]

The Social Security Plan is fine as it is. There is not great emergency except for the Republicans to STOP SPENDING IT!!!!!!!!

[MourningDude]

It's scary to think that Dems can't even put forward a workable permanent solution to SS when it's relatively easy in the grand scheme of things.

The beauty of the Republican plan is that it's completely OPTIONAL. If you don't like it, stay in traditional SS. Where's the beef? I thought Dems were pro-choice?

Medicare is the real issue. If Dems can't fix the easy problem, why should we believe they can fix the hard one?

[gumrooters]

So you're basically saying both parties are incapable of getting the economics right....t­he dems can't get it right and we all know the republicans can't either, (they proved it in the last 7 seven years) I can sorta agree with that, it always seems that a democratic administration has to come in and fix all the problems the republican administration created, and some people think that that's what republican administrations have to do for democratic ones and so on and so on......ho­w much more does the american public have to put up with until this country finally realizes that our two-party system in a whole is the problem and does not work! If we really wanted to send a true message to washington it would be to vote independent and/or dont' vote for the republican or democratic candidates at all. Nothing will ever get done if people are divided and pitted against each other to either be branded a democrat or a republican, and neither one likes each other, and we must vote with the party and not with a conscious (and the media is a great catalyst for putting people against each other, making everything seem like its dem vs. rep. super bowl style....b­ut the cable news media is a joke anyways)

[MaureenSharkey]

McCain admittedly stated he doesn't know much about economics.

The main Republican point is, that they don't care about the average Joe.

Republicans say they are the party of the middle class. And that's an out right lie.

If McCain wins, it will spell worse economic times for this nation. All he cares about is war, war, war.

Plus, we're past Hubert's curve in oil drilling capacity. Trouble like we've never seen, is ahead.

[gumrooters]

I think Mccain will be the next Hoover if he's elected because this country will probably slip into a depression both econmically and emotionally.

[Chavez08]

Mr. Bernstein,

You say it's "Our Turn" but who is the "we" you are referring to. It appears there is still a battle in the Democratic party over control of economic policy (Corporate "Blue Dog" Democrats vs. Liberals)

Mark Engler:

"The "free trade" elite in the United States, upset by the George W Bush administration's neo-conservative go-it-alone nationalism that disregarded multilateral means of securing influence, wants a "guerrilla assault" to return to the softer empire of corporate globalization. These corporate globalists are now bidding to control the direction of the US's economic policy, and they see the Democrats as their best chance."

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174933/mark_engler_how_to_rule_the_world_after_bush

How much power will real Liberals have over traditional globalists?

[lamplighter55]

Neo-Con Economics is nothing but another name for Laissez-faire. That "great" philosophy of the Gilded Age.

[ProfessorDuh]

It's worst than laissez faire. It is, quite literally, fascism.

[MajorKong]

"If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
- Richard Perle

This quote pretty well sums up the people we're dealing with. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Wickywoo]

We need to be running on the campaign not of "We tried it their way and it didn't work". We need to be running on the "Every time we try it their way, it NEVER works"

[usapatriot1973]

You are absolutely correct. The great economic prosperity of the 90s was because of the downsizing of the military, greater domestic investment, and the tax increase put through by Bush 41. He saw the mess that Reagonomics (voodoo economics, as he put it in 1980) had created, and knew what needed to be done. Unfortunately for him, going back on his promise of no new taxes kept him from being re-elected because all of the wealthy republicans withheld their support.

[usapatriot1973]

Perle is another neocon traitor. He should be treated as such.