[Peace-discuss] How to win in November: jobs & income

[C. G. Estabrook]

"Chimera" is a wonderful word. It's not just the "fire-breathing monster of 
Greek mythology, with a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail (or 
according to others with the heads of a lion, a goat, and a serpent), killed by 
Bellerophon" (and unaccountably regarded as female). It's also "an unreal 
creature of the imagination, a mere wild fancy, an unfounded conception." That's 
what the frightening deficit is.

David describes the real situation, but the reason we've been hearing so much
about the deficit today is that the rich in America want to stave off the coming 
demand for taxation on differential wealth, which has concentrated at an 
accelerating pace in fewer and fewer hands. They want to scare people with the 
notion that the government is "spending too much" in order to forestall 
redistributive tax increases.

Obviously, no tax increase should be laid upon the bulk of the population: as
the teapartiers say quite rightly, they're "Taxed Enough Already." But the rich 
who have done so well out of the crisis should be despoiled of their ill-gotten 
gains and the money passed on in the form of living wages to the majority.

Keynes made all this clear between the wars - read about his ditch-digging and 
-refilling proposal - but even the most advanced liberals in America today say 
only that business should be given more money in hopes that they'll hire more 
people!  Crossed fingers are the stimulus program...

BTW, the Chimera led Rabelais to pose a question in the Scholastic style that
with a few changes could be put into he mainstream media as an economic
discussion: "Questio subtilissima, utrum chimera in vacuo bombinans possit
comedere secundas intentiones" ("whether a chimera bombinating in a vacuum can
eat second intentions" [= a conception generalized from a first impressions on
the mind; an abstract notion; e.g., species, genus, whiteness].)

Well we may ask.


On 7/15/10 9:01 AM, David Green wrote:
> /No, probably not.  But I don't think the deficit (or the cumulative national
>  debt) is in any way "chimerical" I think it's very real, and the interest on
> it alone saps something like a third of all the income taxes we Americans
> pay. We owe real money to real lenders; or else the Fed is simply printing
> money, which devalues the currency and creates inflation. Either way or both
> ways, there's nothing chimerical about it./ // What's not well understood
> about the deficit/debt is that interest payments--which are really the only
> cost of the debt--have remained stable or decreased as a portion of GDP (the
> valid context), as interest rates have gone down.
> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm A significant
> chunk of the lenders is the Social Security Trust Fund. Foreign lenders can
> only borrow on the basis of our trade deficit, which is a different (currency
> valuation) issue. In any event, deficit spending now is needed to put people
> to work, and eventually bring the deficit in line with historical levels.
> Given the shortage of demand, there is no concern about inflation--in fact,
> deflation is more of a concern. Our currency needs to be devalued in relation
> to the Chinese, but that will only make domestic products more competitive.
> Again, that's a different (but related) issue. DG
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
*From:* John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
> *To:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> *Cc:* peace discuss
> <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> *Sent:* Wed, July 14, 2010 10:18:25 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] How to win in November: jobs & income
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:27 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>
> "...beyond the scope of this post"?! Come on, John. When did you think
> anything to be beyond the scope of your posts?
>
> *smile*
>
> You're right that Americans are much more concerned about jobs than about the
> deficit - in spite of all that Republicans and Democrats and the entire MSM
> can do to get them worried about the chimerical deficit - but Americans doubt
> (correctly) that the war is producing many jobs. Our mercenary army, of
> course, and some arms manufacturing jobs - but they'd be there anyway.
> (Israel e.g. needs weapons.) Americans' first reaction to an announcement
> that the US is withdrawing its troops from the Mideast would not be, "Oh, no,
> there go our jobs!"
>
> No, probably not. But I don't think the deficit (or the cumulative national
> debt) is in any way "chimerical" I think it's very real, and the interest on
> it alone saps something like a third of all the income taxes we Americans
> pay. We owe real money to real lenders; or else the Fed is simply printing
> money, which devalues the currency and creates inflation. Either way or both
> ways, there's nothing chimerical about it.
>
> In fact a withdrawal of US expeditionary forces abroad would produce a clamor
> for "building up our defenses" - and probably scotch any attempt (like the
> Barney Frank-Ron Paul proposal) to reduce the military.
>
> Probably. Because we (collectively) still believe in the "terrorist"
> bogeyman, and have absolutely no concept of how American foreign policy
> creates and sustains what terrorists there are around the world.
>
> How about spending the money going to war actually to hire people (maybe even
> to do useful work, like building mass transit)? The $33.5 billion
> "supplemental" war budget the House just passed would pay a lot of wages and
> salaries - more than it's doing through the profit-heavy "defense"
> industries.
>
> Well, of course I agree with you here. But apparently a majority of Americans
>  don't....or at least our "leaders" don't.
>
> We need a movement (in any political party) that demands the federal
> government provide a living-wage job to anyone who wants one.
>
> Though I think your suggestion here is overly simplistic, it would be
> lovely.
>
> On 7/14/10 9:02 PM, John W. wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:36 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu
> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>> wrote:
>
> [And no one believes any more that the Democrats will provide that. People
> are beginning to notice that the war is making us poor. --CGE]
>
> I think not, Carl. The reality is that war generally creates jobs but adds to
> the deficit. America's loss of jobs over the past 30 years is due, not to
> war, but to other factors beyond the scope of this post. Since according to
> the poll Americans are much more concerned about jobs than about the
> deficit, this would support the very opposite of your tortured reasoning.
>
> Americans Really Care About Jobs; Deficit, Not so Much By: Jon Walker
> Wednesday July 14, 2010 8:01 am
>
> While collective deficit hysteria fully grips Washington, what the American
> people really care about is jobs and the economy. According to a new CBS
> News poll, 38 percent of Americans think the most important problem facing
> our country is the economy and jobs. Second is the wars in Iraq and
> Afghanistan at seven percent. Health care comes in third at about six
> percent, and all the way back in fourth place, with a mere five percent, is
> the budget deficit and national debt.
>
> I have said it before, but since members of Congress are descending into
> highly destructive deficit insanity, it needs to be said again. The American
> people don’t really care about the deficit. They consider it to be an issue
> that should eventually get addressed but is a low priority right now. As
> common sense would dictate, with almost 10 percent official unemployment and
> a serious problem of long-term unemployment, what the American people care
> about is jobs.
>
> When the poll specifically asked people for the most important economic
> problem facing the country, the top response, again at 38 percent, was jobs
> and unemployment. That number is even slightly higher when you consider that
> three percent chose the issue of jobs going overseas. The collective topic
> of budget, national debt and government spending was the top priority for
> only 10 percent of the country.
>
> For Washington politicians to obsess about the deficit at the expense of job
> creation and protection is clearly not what most Americans want their
> leaders to do. Doing the opposite of what the voters want is an even worse
> political move, considering that increasing average real disposable income is
> a significant predictor of how well the incumbent party will do in the next
> election. So, refusing to extend unemployment insurance, continue COBRA
> subsidies and provide aid to local governments to prevent massive teacher
> layoffs right before an election is a bad move for the party in power. It is
> even worse because the main excuse given for the focus on the deficit, bond
> vigilantes, is nothing more than a Washington, DC fever dream with no basis
> in reality. The cost of American borrowing is still much lower than even a
> few years ago.
>
> So, this deficit hysteria is not only misguided policy and morally cruel but
> also extremely bad politics. The pollsters and political advisers who have
> convinced Democrats to focus on the issue at the expense of aiding regular
> Americans are either secretly trying to destroy the party or are
> incompetent. Either way, they should have been fired yesterday.
>
> http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/07/14/americans-really-care-about-jobs-deficit-not-so-much/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CampaignSilo+%28Jane+Hamsher+Campaign+Silo%29&utm_content=Twitter
>
>
<http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/07/14/americans-really-care-about-jobs-deficit-not-so-much/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CampaignSilo+%28Jane+Hamsher+Campaign+Silo%29&utm_content=Twitter>
>
>