|
And I've never denied that those stimulus funds kept people -- like a lot of teachers and police officers in Arizona -- on the job.
The problem is that the stimulus funds come to an end, and there is not an inexhaustible source for them at the present time in the present economy. They alone cannot resuscitate an economy being drained of its lifeblood, which is the creation of tangible wealth in the form of consumer goods.
Teachers and police officers, as much respect as they deserve for their valuable contributions to our society, do not create the tangible wealth that is necessary for a sustainable economy. For that you need jobs in which raw material is turned into useful products: clothes, shoes, staplers, TVs, dishes, pianos and ukeleles, shovels, food and/or the machinery and equipment needed to produce them, everything from tractors to . There will always, of course, be ancillary jobs, like accountants and schedulers, janitors and engineers. There will also be distributive jobs in sales and transportation. But ultimately it all goes back to manufacturing (which includes farming and mining and logging, etc.).
Those jobs which serve little to no function in the economy relative to the remuneration paid for them -- insurance executive, stock broker, lobbyist -- drag the economy down in a proportion fairly relative to the disparity between their value and their pay. If their jobs and their pay are protected more than the jobs and pay of those in the "real" economy, then it is difficult to resurrect a dying economy.
Look at the "trickle-up" scenario, which has its historic precedents:
As cheap goods from China and Madagascar are made less attractive through tariffs and taxes, more consumer goods will be manufactured in the U.S. That means companies will be hiring workers, and they will be putting those workers to work MAKING THINGS. Those workers will in turn buy other products, from cars to iPads, thus putting more people to work. Tax revenues will rise, and cities and counties will be able to put more people to work building roads and repairing bridges. Desiring to get the best workers, companies will offer incentives, such as paid health insurance and improved wages and benefits. Desiring to get the best FOR workers, unions will negotiate better contracts with better benefits. As production increases, companies will hire more accountants and sales people. Stores will hire more cashiers.
It all starts with manufacturing jobs. It always has and it always will. That's the foundation of a viable national economy. Without it, there is no wealth creation other than the fantasy figures dreamt up by quants who have no connection to the real world.
Stimulus funds are fine, provided they're accompanied by legislation that restarts the wealth production machine. The stimulus package produced by the Obama administration didn't do that. Cash for Clunkers tried, but it was far too little and far too late.
The people in Oregon appear to be very much aware of this economic theory, because they've elected to pull some of the wealth back into their economy that's been taken out by the very rich who didn't put enough back in on their own. If the federal government, aka the Obama administration, wants to make a stab at restarting the fundamental economy of the United States, they need to start taxing the very wealthy and their estates, stop protecting the foreign manufacturers owned and or operated by "American" corporations, and keep the money and the jobs at home.
I'm not the enemy here, and I don't think of even my opponents on DU as "enemies." But I do think -- and you can flame me or alert on me all you like -- too many of those who are blindly supporting the administration to the extent that they perceive ANY criticism as "hatred" of Obama have painted themselves into a corner. It's okay to admit to a mistake. It's okay to change your mind when the circumstances change. In my book, that's a sign of wisdom and maturity.
Even Carl Schurz, who said "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right," admitted within that quote the possiblity that his country might do or be wrong.
Barack Obama seems to be admitting recently that perhaps he's made some mistakes. Haven't we all? And isn't that admission the first step to correcting the mistake or fixing the results of that mistake?
Haven't we all known parents who adored their offspring so much that they never corrected the little darlings when they did wrong? They thought the tantrums were cute and the petty thefts just pranks and the minor cruelties just the ordinary actions of a child on its way to maturity. And of course all too often those little tantrum throwers grow up to be insufferable brats. . . .or worse.
But you can hate me if you like, and by "you" I mean not any particular DUer but any and all who disagree with me; all of you, supporters and detractors alike, live only in my computer and not in my real life so I really don't care if some of you don't like me. You can call me an Obama hater when I choose to refer to him by his childhood nickname of Barry because I think there are times when he's acting like a spoiled teenager. You can call me a PUMA when I mention that yes, I was a Hillary supporter in the primaries. You can call me a socialist and a marxist and a far left fringer and I will thank you for the compliment, since I am all three. You can even call me a freeper or a troll or whatever, and if you do I will simply alert on you because that's against the rule.
But don't accuse me of not caring. I do care about my country, my world, my planet, my family, my dogs, my friends, my environment. I'll work to keep them safe and happy and healthy, and those who don't agree with me on DU can go scratch. You're not really real to me, and in fact
neither is
Tansy Gold
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
