Working Americans should not have to sit idly awaiting the right conditions for the private sector to hire them. Moreover, the country has work to do, the residual of a decade of neglect, "years," as Winston Churchill called an earlier era, "that the locusts have eaten".
The $700B the Republicans propose as tax cuts for billionaires should be used instead to hire four million Americans at an average salary of $45,000 per person for four years, or five million Americans at an average salary of $35,000 per person for four years.
Not stimulus. Not temporary employment. Direct hires. So long as businesses are cutting back and Republicans are giving them tax breaks to send jobs overseas (see "Closing Argument (I): Republicans Say "Yes" to Offshoring American Jobs", October 16, 2010), incentives are working, but not fast enough.
When incentives are not working fast enough for working Americans, Democrats should not throw up their hands in futility. They should take the next step.
Unlike some, I do not really blame (most) private companies. If demand for a company's products is down, if there is no increase on the horizon, there is no reason to boost production or purchase new equipment. Of course, if these businesses are hiring, but just hiring overseas, that is a different story altogether. And, just as we know the Saudis kept oil prices low to enable Bush's re-election (see Bob Woodward's, "State of Denial"), it is certainly possible that some companies are delaying hiring until after the mid-terms to make the Congress's record look worse.
What is more, we have important work to do in this country, most of which is too big of an investment, or the pay back too long term, for private companies to do it anyhow: building a new electric grid, repairing our roads, bridges, upgrading our rail systems, constructing high-speed rail, creating energy from wind and solar and algae, laying high-speed fiberoptic cable, and so forth.
All of these are critical investments... and they put people to work. All of these put people to work... and they are critical investments.
The longer we wait, the more our economic future is imperiled. The longer we wait, the more families suffer, the more people lose confidence in themselves, the more the gloom spreads.
In just four months Harry Hopkins hired four million Americans for the Works Progress Administration (WPA). And, he did not have the internet.
It can be done.
It can be paid for.
By specifically allocating receipts from the expired tax cuts on incomes above $250,000 to this modern WPA, the deficit will increase in the short run, but the national debt will not increase over 10 years. (We will spend the $700B in 4 years, recoup it over 10 years, but have provided a competitive foundation for future economic growth -- Washington State gets 80% of its electricity from hydroelectric, 7 decades after the Grand Coulee dam was constructed).
Here are the images: i) Bush speaking to the black-tied, bejeweled dinner telling them, "you are my base" with images of foreclosure signs and plants shutting, then sliding into Joe Barton apologizing to BP with images of Gulf residents out of work; ii) images of unemployment lines; iii) graphics of dollars floating toward billionaires,; iv) images of Americans going to work on the Grand Coulee dam in the Great Depression, voiceover with how many jobs it created by government employees; v) then graphics of the dollars to floating toward workers in hard hats images of modern America, people going off to work on the national parks, roads, bridges and so forth. These should be calming soothing images, and voice over a calming, soothing voice.
At the end: "On November 2, it is your choice: tax cuts for billionaires [Republican candidate] or jobs for Americans [Democratic candidate].
"I'm XYZ, and I approved this message, because, like you, I choose jobs for Americans".
Period.
It is late, but not too late. On October 26, 1982, Ronald Reagan decried those using the rising job losses to win the elections. October 26th. Reagan's record to that point was worse, much worse, than Obama's. The recession he had to handle was bad, but not nearly as bad as that left to President Obama by the disastrous Bush Administration. Reagan's personal poll ratings were lower, despite the sympathy for his having survived an assassination attempt.
Reagan lost seats, but it was not a blow-out.
So, two closing arguments: "Republicans Say 'Yes' to Shipping Your Job Overseas", and "Jobs for Americans vs. Tax Cuts for Billionaires".
Nothing more.
Repeat from now until election day. Repeat from now until election day. Repeat from now until election day....
Just like any other "tax and spend" liberal Paul Abrams is advocating HIGHER TAXES and INCREASED SPENDING.
We could, of course, go back to the Reagan tax cut rates in 1981...oh, let's see, where were they, oh yes, old "tax and spend" Ronald Reagan had top rates at 50%, and capital gains rates at 28%. And, enormous deficits, the first president since World War II to INCREASE the debt/GDP ratio.
Ronald Reagan was the tax and spender. I'm for shrinking the debt/GDP ratio through taxing less than Reagan, spending more on the middle class than Reagan, and investing far more than Reagan.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Now, righties, can you tell me the name of the speaker?
It wasn't Karl Marx, it wasn't Friedrich Engels. IT wasn't even a European!
The man who said this was Abraham Lincoln, and it is more true now than it was even then.
I am not a slave to the state. I am a U.S. citizen, with all the rights and responsibilities proscribed by law. I also ascribe to the Republican notion of "Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
If law is so ineffectual, why not just call for anarchy. Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers that a vigorous government is a guarantor of liberty. Do you think his argument wrong?
Why didn't we do exactly that with the $800B so-called stimulus bill? That could have paid for more people, longer.
“The needs of the many outweigh the basis of the currency.” Economic systems that follow this rule prosper and grow. All others, fail. This is premise of economic humanism.
Economic humanism is a new paradigm on money and currency management. Money and currency exists, solely, to serve the “needs of the many.” All economic theories of value, supply, demand, inflation, deflation, debt, surplus, investment, and return fall subordinate to this rule. Economic theory, associated with a currency, is subordinate to a supreme priority, “the needs of the many.”
The certainty of this theory is supported by the simple fact that a people’s currency naturally reflects, is derivative and icon to, the social, political, economic, and moral value of its people. This reflection is unavoidable and basic to any people’s currency. “The many” are the basis and final backstop of the people’s currency.
Economic humanism recognizes, respects, and factors for the human element of all monetary systems. It provides monetary transparency of the federal reserve for public and political scrutiny.
A dollar not serving the needs of the many is a dollar in need of revision and repair. Dollars, hoarded by the wealthy or banks, used to leverage, exploit, and manage “the many”, are dollars in need of revision and repair.
http://coach-1640280.newsvine.com/
http://constitutionm2.newsvine.com/
http://coach-1640280.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/04/4462088-coach-cm2-constitution
Presidential Candidate (for one of 9 executive branch presidents) 2016
For example, Republican candidate for Governor in CA, Meg Whitman, says JOBS is her number one concern. She promises to create two million jobs in the PRIVATE SECTOR. But she also promises to downsize state services and employees, putting millions of GOVERNMENT employees out of work.
1. The tax cuts that are being proposed are not just against billionaires, it is for people making over $200,000 and couples over $250,000.
2. If you hire the 4 mil. or 5 mil that you propose, what will happen when those projects are completed or the time frame has expired? You will have 4 or 5 mil. unemployed again.
3. Lets say you do provide for the 4 or 5 mil jobs as proposed. One of the big arguments the liberals have is how will we pay for the $700 billion for the tax cuts. The question that needs to be asked, how do we pay for the $700 bil for the jobs.
Government does not need to grow, it needs to shrink so we can bring the budget down. Therefore the deficit will shrink. The only party making this arguement is the republicans. That is why we need to vote for republicans this Nov. 2. All you liberals can vote for the democrats on Nov. 3.
What funding would you propose to cut on the Liberal point of view?
I am even for the bringing home our troops, but I would then put them on our borders, all borders.
Also, your numbers are compelling. Hiring FOUR MILLION Americans would be powerful.
And harking back to the jobs and work done during the Great Depression is powerful too.
Great post.
-Increased taxation on American corporations who ship/have shipped employment overseas.
-Decreased taxation rates on American corporations who create/bring back jobs to America.
-Corporations that decide to relocate their entity to another country all together (will not happen but for argument sake) will not be allowed to sell their product in America.
Liberals, moderates, conversatives, and Tea Baggers should have no problem with this. It benefits us all by creating jobs and revenue.
But will the Christian conservatives who vote them in make sure that these billionaires are charitable? The answer is an astounding no. So then why do you think they support those candidates? Answer: because they will NEVER require them to give up their "hard earned" money. Vicious cycle continues. Conservatives are not conservative, and are certainly not Christian...yet all the sheep follow the flock.
Never trust a millionaire quoting the sermon on the mount. - Arcade Fire
The typical "rich" person is a small to medium sized business owner.
Usually they funded themselves, worked like crazy, and built something sustainable.
Class envy is very unattractive.