[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] [OccupyCU] Yet Obama refuses a WPA

[C. G. Estabrook]

The question is the evaluation of gov't policy, specifically the reason there's no job program.

Did you see the debate between Dyson & Ford this morning? 

If not, see Democracy Now! online later. 


On Sep 7, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Soooo, FDR was the first politician to get elected and not do exactly 
> what his party platform indicates he might?
> 
> Carl, if you want to ban hypocrisy in politics, that's OK with me. But 
> if you're going to damn someone over it, try to be a little more 
> even-handed, which will make your arguments more plausible.
> 
> BTW, Hoover didn't win in '32 so maybe he should have adopted an antiWPA 
> slogan? Only problem is the no one had thought of the WPA yet, but while 
> we're dealing in counterfactuals, what the heck.
> Mike
> 
> On 9/7/2012 11:28 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> > A Hoover supporter could have said that with reason about FDR in 1932, because the Democrats were running on a platform of a balanced budget and a cut in federal spending.
> >
> >
> > On Sep 7, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> ...Romney could get elected, then it would take a veto-proof
> >> majority to pass a WPA. Not really an improvement for the 99%, I'd say.
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On 9/7/2012 10:00 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> >>> The point is that Obama refuses to push for a WPA - for obvious reasons - not that he's prevented from doing so.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 7, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Carl,
> >>>> Bernstein is a bad joke, but one that is certainly on us. Not carrying water for the big O and can't say one way or the other that the man might be in favor of a WPA personally, but...
> >>>>
> >>>> Those Republicans in the House might have just a teenzy-weenzy bit more to do with the fact that we aren't blessed with a WPA Redux than cherry-picking Bernstein might indicate.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bad as O is, he's not the source of all evil in the world...or even in DC.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, I'm fairly certain that Romney will pull the carpet from under my argument by announcing his own WPA program any day now...
> >>>> ;-)
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/7/2012 9:14 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> >>>>> Jared Bernstein, former chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden, wrote on May 30, 2011, "There will be no WPA-type programs in our near future. There was no appetite for them in the Obama admin in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression and there's a lot less now. The reasons for that are interesting and I'll speak to them another day. But it ain't happening" <http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/shoulds-versus-coulds/>.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "...on a WPA program, Bernstein explicitly says it was the White House, not Republicans, who had no appetite for direct, public job creation during the first term. Bernstein says he made the arguments about public works jobs inside the White House, but he was clearly outvoted. He doesn't give the arguments made in response, tantalizingly alluding to 'interesting' reasons that he will 'speak to another day.' But he says very clearly that the reason we did all of this hoops-jumping and nudging in the stimulus package rather than just paying people to work at jobs that needed to be done was a philosophical decision inside the White House. In a sense we already knew this, but it's important that a former White House insider re-emphasized it" <http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/05/30/jared-bernstein-lets-slip-interesting-info-about-wh-economic-views/>.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The August jobs report was released this morning at 7:30:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "86,000 fewer Americans have a job today than when Obama took office in January 2009 ... In August alone, another 580,000 people left the workforce entirely ... While the top-line drop of the unemployment rate may seem like a positive [8.2% to 8.1%], it is entirely driven by people leaving the workforce. In August alone, 119,000 fewer Americans have a job..." <http://getliberty.org/fewer-americans-employed-now-than-when-obama-took-office/>.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's the responsibility of government to provide a decent job at a living wage to every American who wants one. But Obama has specifically rejected a New Deal-style Works Progress Administration (even while he adopts the rhetoric of a "New New Deal" - typically "faking left and driving right").
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Obama's 1% sponsors abominate the notion of a WPA for the simple reason that it would raise their labor costs. Fewer people would have to take the terrible jobs and wages that they offer to American workers if those workers could get a decent job at a living wage.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It would also move work in America toward production for use rather than production for the profit of the very few. There is immense work to be done that private capital isn't doing - because they can't profit from it - from infrastructure to teaching. A new WPA could remedy that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The original WPA even employed artists.
> >
> 
> __._,_.___
> Reply via web post                       	 Reply to sender                        	 Reply to group                        	Start a New Topic           	Messages in this topic (6)                       
> TRENDING Republican Debates > Tea Party Nation > Democratic Party >
> RECENT ACTIVITY:
> Visit Your Group
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback 
> .
>  
> __,_._,___

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120907/9176457d/attachment-0001.html>