Ever see a parade with elephants? There's always some schlimazel walking behind the elephants with a big push-brush and a bucket to scoop up the manure left by the passing of the elephants.
Now look at any Democratic administration that followed a Republican one (whose symbol, in a quirk of fate, turns out to be an elephant). See any similarities? Democrats always have to clean up the mess that was made by the uber-patriotic, true Amurrican GOP, expert at destruction but incompetent at positive creation - of anything at all.
Did you see Obama try to put in major changes so that the depression caused by the GOP at the end of 2009 might never happen again? The Republicans blocked him at every turn. Or go back to FDR having to clean up after Hoover, or Grant having to clean up as best he could after Johnson.
One of the very worst situations to be in is Biden having to clean up after 4 years of a totally incompetent and corrupt Trump administration. So of course the national media is down on Biden because he didn't fix everything magically in his first week of office.
Having served in two Democratic administrations and advised one, I can tell you first-hand that the huge challenges of cleaning up Republican messes often dominates the agenda, making next to impossible the kinds of deep structural changes that the nation increasingly needs -- whether fighting climate change, reforming our dysfunctional healthcare system, improving our schools and making college affordable, fighting systemic racism, or making the economy work for the many rather than the few. This is no accident. When in power, the Republican Party since Reagan has done whatever it can to undermine the capacities of government to remedy the nation's largest problems.
Thank you Professor Reich. I think we need to shine a disinfectant bright light into all the shady corners of the elephant's pen. Finally, someone in academia proved that trickle down voodoo economics doesn't trickle down, but how do we make the case that they don't understand the economy at all. People still believe that Republicans are better for the economy and that we have the best healthcare in the world? They also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus too.... but how do you fix rampant stupid?
It would help, not to repeat my earlier comment, if some photogenic, well-spoken Democrats on the national stage came out on the attack, stating loudly and often that Democrats fix the economy after Republicans - who know nothing about the economy beyond some catch phrases and never do anything to improve it - have harmed it severely.
Trump got a lot of his following, perhaps even most of it, by attacking, again and again and again. People love that, at least 35% of American voters, that is. They follow the warlord, the despot, the noisy loudmouth and that's what Trump was and continues to be.
Americans who follow Trump feel that he can get things done. Trouble is, he's full of beans and rarely if ever does anything positive, plus he's a nasty S.O.B. (snuck in a Truman quote here...). I'm not saying Democrats should have leaders like these despots, but there is still something important to learn about how to get control of the news cycle and sway public opinion.
I'm eager to see a major Democrat come out on the attack and a dozen or more other Democrats come out with exactly the same message. The Republicans do it and they succeed in fooling not just American voters but also national media who for all of Trump's term picked up his daily rant and promoted it every single day as the hot news of the day.
In comparison, the Dems in national office are just too nice. Many are seen as wimps, and when was the last time that a wimp carried a news cycle? It's time for the Democrats - how many times have people said this? - to wake up. The house is on fire and under attack. It's way past time for Democrats to hit back.
Porter: As for your understandable desire to see Dems get more aggressive, I see an opening for Dems to take on Republicans who opposed BIF. Dems should be prevailed upon to demand that Republicans explain not what they oppose, but what they are in favor of for their communities. For instance, are they for fixing the lead pipes, for building and fixing roads and bridges, for expanding broadband, and so forth. I fear, if Dems don’t get more aggressive on a host of issues, that Monday’s signing ceremony could be the last opportunity of any President to stand in front of a bipartisan audience and say this is how Washington should work.
Chris: My reply is far from a fix. Instead, it’s a question about how to respond to inflation fears currently being used as a weapon against paid-for government investment (BBB) that actually would help people in need.
Unfortunately, it isn't about justice but about doing the hard thing. The hard thing is to face it, tear off the bandaid and get to work on the long term things that will change this stupid loop of cleaning up after the elephant craps all over the place. We simply have to say, sure, this process is going to be hard, but we have to build and invest and take care of our infrastructure and our people in order to get out of this stupid loop. It takes leadership and balls, which I give Joe Biden a lot of credit for having and Joe Manchin a lot of credit for losing. Leadership means making the hard decisions for all of us. Thank you Joe Biden for not taking the easy road and smoothing it all over and actually making infrastructure week a real thing as opposed to a punchline. Now let's pass the voting rights act and the rest of the agenda. Let's get to work on the hard stuff. Damn your reelection prospects. I know it's a terribly sexist thing to say, but Man Up. Everyone.
Very well said, but let's not downplay the necessity for Democrats - photogenic and well-spoken Congressional Democrats (if there are any) - to keep pumping out status reports and achievements in a fashion that the media can't ignore. Democratic "PR area control" is abysmal - and keeping Dems in office is essential.
I agree however the "PR area control" is the tough nut to crack. It's much easier for the Republicans as they are funded by similar groups with similar agendas, plus they also have Fox standing right behind them to amplify their message, but unfortunately, the Democrats, although I believe there are many photogenic, well-spoken and engaging personalities, many of them are funded by the some of those same groups that fund the Republicans. Whenever I listen to either Joe Manchin or Josh Gottheimer speak on CNN for example, I keep looking at the captions on the bottom of the TV screen to see if the (D) had somehow switched to an (R)!
Thank you, James, but can you name one, just one, of the "many photogenic, well-spoken and engaging personalities" in the Democratic Party? Howard Dean doesn't count, alas.
Sure, but photogenic may be somewhat subjective like as the saying goes is that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. My preference tends to be more towards those who appear sincere and believable. For me, the one that stands out the most is Rep Pramila Jayapal. Others, in no particular order, would be Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Ro Khanna, Elizabeth Warren, Katie Porter, Alex Padilla, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Stacey Plaskett. All very well-spoken IMHO and with slightly different styles.
I am in awe at how well republicans succeed in controlling the narrative. The American public deserves some transparency; why don't democrats fight back with the same wit and energy (that does not include you, Mr. Reich) to give it to us??? What makes them so afraid of reaching out to their constituents, especially when the stakes are so high, by hammering down some factual truths on mainstream media the same way their republican colleagues do with their lies?
My theory about this, Philippe, is that the Republican Party is by nature more inclined to authoritarian discipline than is the Democratic ("let a thousand flowers bloom") Party -- meaning that Republican lawmakers stay on message and vote together far easier than Democratic lawmakers. This is not a justification, of course. I offer it as at least a partial explanation.
Brad Schrick and I just made that point concerning republicans. As for democrats and even though having diverging views is more in the party's culture, one would wish that they stood stronger for what they say they believe in. That may imply forcing other party members to take the deal at hand. I know very little about U.S. history but I doubt that Franklin D. Roosevelt or Lyndon B. Johnson hesitated for very long before doing exactly that in difficult situations and when the stakes were high. Being nice is... well, nice but it does not make your leadership accomplish much. I do not mean being violent, I mean having convictions.
I feel compelled to add that the one politician I admire most, Bernie Sanders, has definitely strong convictions and is definitely a nice person. Both qualities together allowed him to go a long way and the country owes him a lot. I wish, however, that he would sometimes accept to be more direct with colleagues who just play games.
To be honest, I think that the lack of fighting spirit on the part of democrats when it comes to economic issues is that they share with republicans the same talking points and are convinced of the same neoliberal fantasies. But still, that still leaves room to remind everyone whose administrations have historically been responsible for the greatest deficits.
Do you think it's because the R's have been so effective in framing the issues that the D's are forced to respond to those "talking points," or do you think those "same talking points" are actually what the D's stand for? I'd argue the former, but I'd like to know your reasoning.
Yes. They frame everything as negative. That way the Dems are always on the defensive. I know squat about military theory but I’ll bet doing that is principle one. Wow, I just realized this. This is exactly the problem. Politics has become a war and needs to be fought like one. Ugh.
Clausewitz said that "War is the continuation of politics by other means." I would suggest the corollary, that politics is the continuation of war by other means.
Just so. Some politics. Some wars. That's why I don't distinguish - in my mind - between WWI & WWII. The peace apparent between them was recovery from exhaustion. What war would you hazard a guess is being fought politically, at this time? Recall, Jesse Helms called on like-minded Southern Democrats to defect to the Republicans after the Civil Rights era. How have the Southern States tended to vote since the McReagan era?
When you want to win, it is always some kind of war. The Greeks invented the Olympic games as a substitute for the bloody ones. "War" can be friendly, and I certainly do not mean that we should jump at each other's throat when politically disagreeing. I mean playing offense if needs be. Republicans do it all the time; can't we do it and still be principled?
Of course, that's while understanding you're speaking of a "winner takes all" condition that precludes any amicable compromise solution. I point toward the practice of fanning up hatred as evidence that there is no intention of amicability on the side doing the fanning.
You know, I realize this strategy has been effective for them but I really don’t get it on a personal level. Isn’t it much more pleasant to get along with people and build something together? I know, then you don’t control other people and some visceral need on their part goes unfulfilled but good grief, they’re hurting themselves along with the rest of us.
Neoliberalism. The intellectual smokescreen stating that there is a "free market." All markets obey someone's rule. If not the government's (aka people, in a democracy), then corporations'. The latter is by and large where we are at in the U.S. and there is nothing more important to almost all democrat reps than to deny it.
The corporate media are complicit with Republican messaging because the media are for-profit businesses that favor a world view that jibes with the 19th century capitalism espoused by Republican lawmakers. I listen to National Public Radio and take note of how the questions asked by NPR journalists seem to be Republican talking points.
I think you are exactly right. The framing of questions in mainstream media, at least in the economic field, systematically follows a neoliberal stance. Given their own business model, they have a strong incentive to keep it this way.
That was the point of defunding Public Radio back in the '80s. That's the point of >all< Republican deregulation measures. I'll bang on again how ol' Tweety leveraged billions in campaign advertisement from corporate media by just being outrageous - that is, entertaining. I was a fan of McNeill/Lehrer at that time. They eventually left, and the News Hour hobbled along for awhile and I eventually stopped viewing it - around 2005.
Certainly the democrats of this country need a propaganda machine equal to Fox- if we don't, we are totally foxed. The deficit demagoguery and the damage it has done to the earth is personal to me. My father was one of Reagan's fiscal policy creators and propagandists. He and the men with whom he worked had the same unhealthy psychological profile - but in fact, so do a huge number of Americans, and that's why that garbage worked, and is still working. It's Outraged Entitlement.
What to do: 1. deploy a television and social media propaganda machine equal to Fox in market appeal. 2. Grassroots organize like mad, particularly among communities of color that are impacted by the gerrymandering. 3. get funders to buy TV ads in "moderate" democrat and republican media markets, extolling the virtues of the moderate senators and congressmembers whom we need to vote for specific legislation. For example, the Joe Manchin Freedom to Vote Act. 4. circumvent the filibuster on voting rights legislation. https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-warner-backs-carve-out-filibuster-voting-rights-legislation-2021-7 5. Look at 2022. Keep eye on prize.
Some comments on your post: For item 1, add talk radio. Talk radio is a major way for Republicans and right wingers to communicate ideas. Also cheaper than starting a cable news network. For item 3, I thinks the only effective political ads are attack ads. For item 4, be careful here! Republicans can circumvent the filibuster themselves to reimpose voting restrictions nationwide when they again control Washington.
The topic "which works under what conditions, attack ads v. praise ads" is very worthwhile. In re filibuster, I am convinced that at the first opportunity the GOP will kill the fiibuster rules they have used to their advantage. If they get the House and Senate I recommend emigration to another nation.
Talk radio shows are a constant on construction sites (just like Fox News was a constant on military bases until maybe recently). My guess would be that talk radio is also on where people drive vehicles for a living.
No, these are just personal observations. When I was much younger, in my twenties, being a born and bred Republican at the time, I spent a lot of time in the car listening to Rush Limbaugh as I traveled to and from construction sites. He was just starting out at the time on KFBK in the Sacramento area, bashing the government and trashing the town of Rio Linda where I happened to be working from at that time. Sad to say, he was quite entertaining at that time, but looking back and knowing what I know now, it's so easy to be duped! And to know that he was just part of a concerted propaganda effort by the Movement Conservatives really galls me.
Also, Tim, you are right about talk radio being a major way GOP people communicate. Whether you, I, other democrats would, I don't know. I haven't seen any market research. I know I would not participate in talk radio.
It seems that this is an oft repeated tale. The new Democrat in office is instantly crowned the most profligate of them all, because that is the way Democrats roll. I remember reading that when Clinton entered office there was a large deficit and he better clean it up. Same story when Obama took the reigns. The media seems to be owned by Republicans and I'm tired of the way so many headlines are slanted towards the downward starting with 'Dems' look to increase the deficit with blah blah blah'...When in fact there are stories about how the Democrat actually left office with our economy in better shape. Similar to when Obama came in. It did not help that McConnell announced that the intention of his party was to make Obama's Presidency a one term one and they intended to block everything he tried to accomplish. The old image of the working class person who was a 'dese' 'dem' and dose' guy is where this comes from. calling those who support or are from the lower income 'working class' 'Dems'. it is classism and a specific dog whistle that extends to people of color. It is happening now. Our former guy runs up a huge deficit and now it will be laid at Biden's feet. No mention of the trillions given away before Biden entered office and huge spending by the previous administration. Really nothing new. But it took a Democrat to pass a large (not large enough) spending bill to deal with infrastructure and give working families some help. Have not seen that from the Republicans since Eisenhower.
Thanks for saying that. I really enjoy being in this forum. I just told a friend this morning about it. He is struggling to stay sane, or positive. Life needs help. This is it.
The objective behind the deficit obsession is laissez faire capitalism, that the wealthy and large corporations should be free to do whatever they want to accumulate more and more wealth, while ordinary Americans are merely slaves to help them accomplish this. Reagan recruited one Grover Norquist, who was never elected to anything, to found Americans for Tax Reform with intent to, as he famously said, "shrink it [government] down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." He induced numerous Republican members of Congress and state legislatures to sign pledges to never raise taxes. If you lower taxes and you obsess about getting rid of the deficit, then cutting government services, including work place safety and pollution reduction enforcement, is the only option. To this day, Grover Norquist is very influential in conservative circles and with the news media.
I agree with other commenters that Democrats must change the narrative. If a member of the news media asks Democratic officeholders whether some legislation will increase the deficit, they can reply, "Why are you concerned about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House, but not when a Republican is in the White House?" Repeat as needed.
In simplest terms, the Dems should speak to the Public about this so that they can understand what our current administration is up against. We need to point out to them the bad that Trump and the GOP had done, but before you say all that, we need to keep saying all the good things Biden has done. Start off by stating: Do you like that the roads are going to be fixed? Don't have to worry about Tires being blown and alignments needing to be done every 5 months... sort of like that. Keep honing it in. When talking to college students, their parents, or college-bound young people, remind them that Biden cut 2 billion dollars off of student loans debt. That's huge!
Responsible citizens should study both science & history to avoid the mistakes of the past. GOP supply-side economics has been falsified, read "After the Music Stopped". Consider Hoover(The Great Depression), George "W" Bush ( Greatest Financial Crisis since the Great Depression) & Trump (great inequality, slow growth, & huge deficits). In fact, trickle-down economics provides false hope for our future, read "The Rise & Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism". To reduce wealth & income inequality, & grow our economy, moral or stakeholder capitalism is the best theory, read "Prosperity" by Colin Mayer. Another great book is "Making Capitalism Work for the Many, not the Few" by a man who could have been a great tunnel rat. In accordance with timeless wisdom, ALL Americans can better flourish, in a more JUST economy. As an educated but humble citizen, I would rather be approximately right, than definitely wrong.
The struggle continues to be how to neutralize the continuous sound bites that both Republicans and Conservative Democrats use to sway us. Things like "We have out of control inflation because the government is pumping too much money into the economy". These "truisms" are not easily dispelled! People just accept them as is. I see President Biden trying to turn this tide by saying things like "We're building the economy from the bottom up and the middle out", but this doesn't necessarily translate to how inflation would be curbed by doing this. Just my humble opinion here but is that there is a basic underlying principle that provides the basis for these excellent books that you've named? What is it? Whatever it is let's just say it as simply as possible in a Democratic sound bite. Could it be that when people have more money to spend, they spend it and the economy thrive? And when they don't the economy dies? Here I have to rely on the authors like Mr. Reich to distill it down for me. Unfortunately, I don't think that even though they may responsible that every citizen has the time or inclination to read all these great books. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and provide them a more accurate truism.
If we raised the minimum wage by $2.25 each year, for the next 5 years, the $7.25 Federal minimum wage would increase to $18.50 per hour and then linked all future increases to inflation, we would get more people off of government assistance and onto tax roles all over the country. We would save Social Security and Medicare plus people would live better that do not have a college education. Some would call this inflationary but inflation came and is here without those wage increases. We have been bandaging this inequity with government programs that add more taxes rather than let the capitalistic system work it's self out.
"... the debt is more than $4 trillion and the yearly deficit more than $300 billion ..."
Any time I see a number with more than nine zeros I have to translate it to terms I can comprehend:
"... the debt is more than $30,000 per household and the yearly deficit more than $2300 per household ..."
By comparison, American household debt is $14.6 trillion (translation: $110,000 per household). Unlike national debt, we don't think of home loans, car mortgages, etc. as evil. People should think of the national budget as an extension of their personal household budget. What do you get for your money? Taking out a home improvement loan to fix roof leaks and broken pipes ("infrastructure") is a no-brainer if the alternative is a home ruined by water damage.
On the other hand, what do we get for the $750 billion ($5500 per household) that we spend on the military every year? We would probably get the same economic benefit from a public works project to dig another Grand Canyon.
If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, today it would be at $18.75 per hour. That means a single person, working 2000 hours a year (50 weeks times 40 hours per week) would earn $37,500.00 or more per year and a couple, both working, would bring in $75,000.00 or more per year and that would mean they would pay both Federal and State income taxes (in states that have an income tax), not be getting food stamps and Medicaid. This would cut the deficit and allow the economy to grow. They would also be contributing more to Medicare and Social Security and have a better financial future.
That the military doesn’t produce a profit is regrettable. However, the military-industrial complex was the ticket out of the 1930s depression. IMHO, it’s too bad that we didn’t pivot to another, less lethal, federal jobs program. For example, wouldn’t it be great if we had an Agricultural-Industrial Complex to eliminate hunger? Or an Eduational-Industrial Complex that is serious about creating informed citizens? Or a Medical-Industrial Complex that sustains a healthy population?
That is correct. The shipyards, airplane manufacturing and building tanks put millions to work at good wages and we could do the same with solar and wind farms, battery storage yards and building a resilient nation wide grid system like it was war time. The energy production would be paid for by money already being spent to fossil fuel companies that are ruining our lands, water and depleting the natural recourses that are finite rather than the infinite power of the sun. America got behind the war effort in 1942 and 1943 and it is time to get behind the energy transition program needed to save the planet as well as our country. If we do not, you should check how much your home is above sea level because in 70 years any home or real estate that is less than 50 feet above sea level will be gone.
Has anyone read Stephanie Kelton's "The Deficit Myth"? ......or any other economists describing Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)? She makes the distinction that families and a government that prints its own currency are essentially different, and we need to better understand that difference. I agree with Robert. We have a very unhealthy deficit obsession that we need to better understand, and then move on to address the real problems of meeting people's needs.
I was on a panel last night with her (and with Bernie Sanders), in which she explained very clearly why the deficit is mythological. I recommend her book as well.
I always thought the Republicans screaming about having a budget for the country just like their family does and not having debt was another magnifying glass over their ignorance. I think we have more unqualified people in the Congress than ever in my lifetime.
They pretend to believe that having a budget for the country is just like having a family one. It gives their fallacy a moral spin that makes people spontaneously endorse it. Has anyone seen a republican being concerned by the deficit once in office since the Reagan years?
We need to curtail the outrageous military budget that does nothing for people, besides killing many innocent ones. We use far too much money on an already bloated military to use to take other countries resources. Let’s get real about this! Why do we need to be 15 times larger than any military on earth?
One thing I noticed while working as a civilian contractor to the Defense Dept. is that the Pentagon would attempt to cancel a military program because it was unneeded, wasteful, or outdated, only to have it blocked by Congress (Republicans and Democrats) because the military program spending was in a member's district. Very frustrating!
Yes, we set up an incentive program of use it or lose it. It doesn’t make sense. There’s so much that should have already been reined in. But my husband worked in top secret military and the waste is almost beyond belief. That’s our money they’re wasting while those paying the taxes go without.
One example of waste from my work experience is the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier. It cost around $14 billion dollars and was completed in 2017, yet it has so many problems that it cannot serve as a combatant ship until 2024 at the earliest. That's 15% of its 50 year service life wasted. One problem is that the toilets clog frequently, nasty when you have 4000 sailors on a ship out in the ocean. Nothing gets reported to the American people, so the waste continues. However, one bright spot are the men and women who serve on our Naval ships -- they are the best of the best!
"Deficit-mongering" is a racist tool like the filibuster - both used by a White Majority Corporate Media and White Majority Congress to execute class-warfare against the poor and middle class.
The DOD budget is the biggest expense to the American people yet "deficit-mongering" is NEVER USED in discussing DOD budget considerations.
What we should do is create a U.S. gov't expense account funded by Congress depositing a multi-trillion dollar currency instrument directly into a U.S. gov't bank account at the U.S. Treasury Dept. WITHOUT BORROWING A DIME FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
One day Americans will wise up to the bi-partisan false claims bi-partisans use to prevent government funding of the poor, middle class and social programs.
You can thank Republican racist Newt Gingrich for creating the 1980's GOP talking points that Republicans and moderate/conservative Democrats still use to this day to justify their opposition to government funding of the poor, middle class and social programs.
BIGASS BI-PARTISAN LIE #1 - Inflation Fears;
BIGASS BI-PARTISAN LIE #2 - Deficit Fears;
BIGASS BI-PARTISAN LIE #3 - The economy will fail if we give away too much money and benefits to Americans;
BIGASS BI-PARTISAN LIE #4 - We are heroes who force the American people to go to work everyday thanks to our austerity measures and actions. We oppose gov't funding of UBI and other social programs because if we don't, lazy Americans won't get up and go to work in the morning;
UBI:
In the United States, proponents of guaranteed income as a matter of economic justice have included the Black Panthers and Martin Luther King Jr., while the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated it as a form of negative income tax. Even President Richard Nixon proposed providing cash directly to families, without conditions. His plan—produced after 1,000 economists urged it in an open letter—twice passed the House, but got rejected by the Senate.
Yet another instance of the DNC utterly failing to control the discourse. The data are clear. GOP control increases deficits (and produces other financial and other evils) and yet "the Dems are the fiscally irresponsible party".
Many of the comments on this forum bemoan the fact that Democrats have poor and inept messaging. When the Fairness Doctrine rule was abolished, the Republicans took full advantage to build a right wing media empire. The Democrats did little to nothing. I suggest that the Democrats should go to school on the Republican experience and build their own media empire. Surely their is sufficient money that can be had and talent (Mr. Reich, for example) to tap. Having the best message does no good if the other side drowns you out!
I wrote a thing this AM about the Fairness Doctrine. It was promulgated by the FCC, an administrative agency under the executive branch and thus subject to the whim of whosoever occupies the Oval Office. It should have been an Act of Congress or a Supreme Court Decision. The Fairness Doctrine got whittled down and was finally dispatched by the FCC in 1987.
Why did we barely hear anything about the deficit when Donald was in office. It seems to me that only Republicans use this argument whenever they are trying to gain votes. And Democrats do not use it to their advantage when campaigning against a Republican presidential candidate. Question: where is the $300m a day that we are saving from no longer being involved in Afghanistan going?
Using a comparison of government finance with household finance to explain or make an argument is such a tricky matter.
Leaving the roof unrepaired and calling it thrift: an apt comparison with “fiscal responsibility.”
Household debt and government debt: so absolutely utterly different things, with government’s effectively infinite lifespan and ability to print money exemplary instances.
Ever see a parade with elephants? There's always some schlimazel walking behind the elephants with a big push-brush and a bucket to scoop up the manure left by the passing of the elephants.
Now look at any Democratic administration that followed a Republican one (whose symbol, in a quirk of fate, turns out to be an elephant). See any similarities? Democrats always have to clean up the mess that was made by the uber-patriotic, true Amurrican GOP, expert at destruction but incompetent at positive creation - of anything at all.
Did you see Obama try to put in major changes so that the depression caused by the GOP at the end of 2009 might never happen again? The Republicans blocked him at every turn. Or go back to FDR having to clean up after Hoover, or Grant having to clean up as best he could after Johnson.
One of the very worst situations to be in is Biden having to clean up after 4 years of a totally incompetent and corrupt Trump administration. So of course the national media is down on Biden because he didn't fix everything magically in his first week of office.
Ain't no justice!
Having served in two Democratic administrations and advised one, I can tell you first-hand that the huge challenges of cleaning up Republican messes often dominates the agenda, making next to impossible the kinds of deep structural changes that the nation increasingly needs -- whether fighting climate change, reforming our dysfunctional healthcare system, improving our schools and making college affordable, fighting systemic racism, or making the economy work for the many rather than the few. This is no accident. When in power, the Republican Party since Reagan has done whatever it can to undermine the capacities of government to remedy the nation's largest problems.
Thank you Professor Reich. I think we need to shine a disinfectant bright light into all the shady corners of the elephant's pen. Finally, someone in academia proved that trickle down voodoo economics doesn't trickle down, but how do we make the case that they don't understand the economy at all. People still believe that Republicans are better for the economy and that we have the best healthcare in the world? They also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus too.... but how do you fix rampant stupid?
It would help, not to repeat my earlier comment, if some photogenic, well-spoken Democrats on the national stage came out on the attack, stating loudly and often that Democrats fix the economy after Republicans - who know nothing about the economy beyond some catch phrases and never do anything to improve it - have harmed it severely.
Trump got a lot of his following, perhaps even most of it, by attacking, again and again and again. People love that, at least 35% of American voters, that is. They follow the warlord, the despot, the noisy loudmouth and that's what Trump was and continues to be.
Americans who follow Trump feel that he can get things done. Trouble is, he's full of beans and rarely if ever does anything positive, plus he's a nasty S.O.B. (snuck in a Truman quote here...). I'm not saying Democrats should have leaders like these despots, but there is still something important to learn about how to get control of the news cycle and sway public opinion.
I'm eager to see a major Democrat come out on the attack and a dozen or more other Democrats come out with exactly the same message. The Republicans do it and they succeed in fooling not just American voters but also national media who for all of Trump's term picked up his daily rant and promoted it every single day as the hot news of the day.
In comparison, the Dems in national office are just too nice. Many are seen as wimps, and when was the last time that a wimp carried a news cycle? It's time for the Democrats - how many times have people said this? - to wake up. The house is on fire and under attack. It's way past time for Democrats to hit back.
Porter: As for your understandable desire to see Dems get more aggressive, I see an opening for Dems to take on Republicans who opposed BIF. Dems should be prevailed upon to demand that Republicans explain not what they oppose, but what they are in favor of for their communities. For instance, are they for fixing the lead pipes, for building and fixing roads and bridges, for expanding broadband, and so forth. I fear, if Dems don’t get more aggressive on a host of issues, that Monday’s signing ceremony could be the last opportunity of any President to stand in front of a bipartisan audience and say this is how Washington should work.
Agreed. But at the risk of being dense, what is BIF?
I apologize for simply abbreviating Bipartisan Infrastructure (BIF). I should initially have spelled it out.
Chris: My reply is far from a fix. Instead, it’s a question about how to respond to inflation fears currently being used as a weapon against paid-for government investment (BBB) that actually would help people in need.
Thank you, Professor Reich!
Unfortunately, it isn't about justice but about doing the hard thing. The hard thing is to face it, tear off the bandaid and get to work on the long term things that will change this stupid loop of cleaning up after the elephant craps all over the place. We simply have to say, sure, this process is going to be hard, but we have to build and invest and take care of our infrastructure and our people in order to get out of this stupid loop. It takes leadership and balls, which I give Joe Biden a lot of credit for having and Joe Manchin a lot of credit for losing. Leadership means making the hard decisions for all of us. Thank you Joe Biden for not taking the easy road and smoothing it all over and actually making infrastructure week a real thing as opposed to a punchline. Now let's pass the voting rights act and the rest of the agenda. Let's get to work on the hard stuff. Damn your reelection prospects. I know it's a terribly sexist thing to say, but Man Up. Everyone.
Very well said, but let's not downplay the necessity for Democrats - photogenic and well-spoken Congressional Democrats (if there are any) - to keep pumping out status reports and achievements in a fashion that the media can't ignore. Democratic "PR area control" is abysmal - and keeping Dems in office is essential.
I agree however the "PR area control" is the tough nut to crack. It's much easier for the Republicans as they are funded by similar groups with similar agendas, plus they also have Fox standing right behind them to amplify their message, but unfortunately, the Democrats, although I believe there are many photogenic, well-spoken and engaging personalities, many of them are funded by the some of those same groups that fund the Republicans. Whenever I listen to either Joe Manchin or Josh Gottheimer speak on CNN for example, I keep looking at the captions on the bottom of the TV screen to see if the (D) had somehow switched to an (R)!
Thank you, James, but can you name one, just one, of the "many photogenic, well-spoken and engaging personalities" in the Democratic Party? Howard Dean doesn't count, alas.
Sure, but photogenic may be somewhat subjective like as the saying goes is that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. My preference tends to be more towards those who appear sincere and believable. For me, the one that stands out the most is Rep Pramila Jayapal. Others, in no particular order, would be Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Ro Khanna, Elizabeth Warren, Katie Porter, Alex Padilla, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Stacey Plaskett. All very well-spoken IMHO and with slightly different styles.
Agreed, a very good list. They all need to get out more and mold the media to their coordinated message.
Typo - the financial mess for Obama was at the end of 2008, ready for him to solve when he came into office in January, 2009.
Very well said!
Thanks so much, but ain't got no charisma (:
I am in awe at how well republicans succeed in controlling the narrative. The American public deserves some transparency; why don't democrats fight back with the same wit and energy (that does not include you, Mr. Reich) to give it to us??? What makes them so afraid of reaching out to their constituents, especially when the stakes are so high, by hammering down some factual truths on mainstream media the same way their republican colleagues do with their lies?
My theory about this, Philippe, is that the Republican Party is by nature more inclined to authoritarian discipline than is the Democratic ("let a thousand flowers bloom") Party -- meaning that Republican lawmakers stay on message and vote together far easier than Democratic lawmakers. This is not a justification, of course. I offer it as at least a partial explanation.
Brad Schrick and I just made that point concerning republicans. As for democrats and even though having diverging views is more in the party's culture, one would wish that they stood stronger for what they say they believe in. That may imply forcing other party members to take the deal at hand. I know very little about U.S. history but I doubt that Franklin D. Roosevelt or Lyndon B. Johnson hesitated for very long before doing exactly that in difficult situations and when the stakes were high. Being nice is... well, nice but it does not make your leadership accomplish much. I do not mean being violent, I mean having convictions.
I feel compelled to add that the one politician I admire most, Bernie Sanders, has definitely strong convictions and is definitely a nice person. Both qualities together allowed him to go a long way and the country owes him a lot. I wish, however, that he would sometimes accept to be more direct with colleagues who just play games.
Agreed! I've harped and harped about just that - and how the Democrats are consistently inept with their messaging.
To be honest, I think that the lack of fighting spirit on the part of democrats when it comes to economic issues is that they share with republicans the same talking points and are convinced of the same neoliberal fantasies. But still, that still leaves room to remind everyone whose administrations have historically been responsible for the greatest deficits.
Do you think it's because the R's have been so effective in framing the issues that the D's are forced to respond to those "talking points," or do you think those "same talking points" are actually what the D's stand for? I'd argue the former, but I'd like to know your reasoning.
Yes. They frame everything as negative. That way the Dems are always on the defensive. I know squat about military theory but I’ll bet doing that is principle one. Wow, I just realized this. This is exactly the problem. Politics has become a war and needs to be fought like one. Ugh.
Clausewitz said that "War is the continuation of politics by other means." I would suggest the corollary, that politics is the continuation of war by other means.
Just so. Some politics. Some wars. That's why I don't distinguish - in my mind - between WWI & WWII. The peace apparent between them was recovery from exhaustion. What war would you hazard a guess is being fought politically, at this time? Recall, Jesse Helms called on like-minded Southern Democrats to defect to the Republicans after the Civil Rights era. How have the Southern States tended to vote since the McReagan era?
When you want to win, it is always some kind of war. The Greeks invented the Olympic games as a substitute for the bloody ones. "War" can be friendly, and I certainly do not mean that we should jump at each other's throat when politically disagreeing. I mean playing offense if needs be. Republicans do it all the time; can't we do it and still be principled?
Honestly I don’t know, Philippe. I’m not good at dealing with bullies. I suspect history shows us that the answer is no but there might be exceptions.
Of course, that's while understanding you're speaking of a "winner takes all" condition that precludes any amicable compromise solution. I point toward the practice of fanning up hatred as evidence that there is no intention of amicability on the side doing the fanning.
Indeed. A "culture war," as first defined by Bush Sr in a stump speech. I heard it first mentioned back at that time. along with "family values."
So much for one nation, eh?
You know, I realize this strategy has been effective for them but I really don’t get it on a personal level. Isn’t it much more pleasant to get along with people and build something together? I know, then you don’t control other people and some visceral need on their part goes unfulfilled but good grief, they’re hurting themselves along with the rest of us.
I believe republicans and democrats in the House share the same basic economic doctrine.
How would you characterize that doctrine?
Neoliberalism. The intellectual smokescreen stating that there is a "free market." All markets obey someone's rule. If not the government's (aka people, in a democracy), then corporations'. The latter is by and large where we are at in the U.S. and there is nothing more important to almost all democrat reps than to deny it.
The corporate media are complicit with Republican messaging because the media are for-profit businesses that favor a world view that jibes with the 19th century capitalism espoused by Republican lawmakers. I listen to National Public Radio and take note of how the questions asked by NPR journalists seem to be Republican talking points.
I think you are exactly right. The framing of questions in mainstream media, at least in the economic field, systematically follows a neoliberal stance. Given their own business model, they have a strong incentive to keep it this way.
That was the point of defunding Public Radio back in the '80s. That's the point of >all< Republican deregulation measures. I'll bang on again how ol' Tweety leveraged billions in campaign advertisement from corporate media by just being outrageous - that is, entertaining. I was a fan of McNeill/Lehrer at that time. They eventually left, and the News Hour hobbled along for awhile and I eventually stopped viewing it - around 2005.
Important point, but it’s not excellence, it’s the audience.
The so called ‘Republicans’ — which one is Lincoln? — are now worse than a zombie cult, but zombies do ‘stay on message.’
Yes. The Republican party is somewhat like an army, in my view. Questioning is not what its members do.
Certainly the democrats of this country need a propaganda machine equal to Fox- if we don't, we are totally foxed. The deficit demagoguery and the damage it has done to the earth is personal to me. My father was one of Reagan's fiscal policy creators and propagandists. He and the men with whom he worked had the same unhealthy psychological profile - but in fact, so do a huge number of Americans, and that's why that garbage worked, and is still working. It's Outraged Entitlement.
What to do: 1. deploy a television and social media propaganda machine equal to Fox in market appeal. 2. Grassroots organize like mad, particularly among communities of color that are impacted by the gerrymandering. 3. get funders to buy TV ads in "moderate" democrat and republican media markets, extolling the virtues of the moderate senators and congressmembers whom we need to vote for specific legislation. For example, the Joe Manchin Freedom to Vote Act. 4. circumvent the filibuster on voting rights legislation. https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-warner-backs-carve-out-filibuster-voting-rights-legislation-2021-7 5. Look at 2022. Keep eye on prize.
Some comments on your post: For item 1, add talk radio. Talk radio is a major way for Republicans and right wingers to communicate ideas. Also cheaper than starting a cable news network. For item 3, I thinks the only effective political ads are attack ads. For item 4, be careful here! Republicans can circumvent the filibuster themselves to reimpose voting restrictions nationwide when they again control Washington.
The topic "which works under what conditions, attack ads v. praise ads" is very worthwhile. In re filibuster, I am convinced that at the first opportunity the GOP will kill the fiibuster rules they have used to their advantage. If they get the House and Senate I recommend emigration to another nation.
Agreed, Republicans will do away with the filibuster whenever it gets in their way.
Talk radio shows are a constant on construction sites (just like Fox News was a constant on military bases until maybe recently). My guess would be that talk radio is also on where people drive vehicles for a living.
James, have you seen any market research indicating that Democrats would or would not tune into/ participate in talk radio?
No, these are just personal observations. When I was much younger, in my twenties, being a born and bred Republican at the time, I spent a lot of time in the car listening to Rush Limbaugh as I traveled to and from construction sites. He was just starting out at the time on KFBK in the Sacramento area, bashing the government and trashing the town of Rio Linda where I happened to be working from at that time. Sad to say, he was quite entertaining at that time, but looking back and knowing what I know now, it's so easy to be duped! And to know that he was just part of a concerted propaganda effort by the Movement Conservatives really galls me.
Also, Tim, you are right about talk radio being a major way GOP people communicate. Whether you, I, other democrats would, I don't know. I haven't seen any market research. I know I would not participate in talk radio.
It seems that this is an oft repeated tale. The new Democrat in office is instantly crowned the most profligate of them all, because that is the way Democrats roll. I remember reading that when Clinton entered office there was a large deficit and he better clean it up. Same story when Obama took the reigns. The media seems to be owned by Republicans and I'm tired of the way so many headlines are slanted towards the downward starting with 'Dems' look to increase the deficit with blah blah blah'...When in fact there are stories about how the Democrat actually left office with our economy in better shape. Similar to when Obama came in. It did not help that McConnell announced that the intention of his party was to make Obama's Presidency a one term one and they intended to block everything he tried to accomplish. The old image of the working class person who was a 'dese' 'dem' and dose' guy is where this comes from. calling those who support or are from the lower income 'working class' 'Dems'. it is classism and a specific dog whistle that extends to people of color. It is happening now. Our former guy runs up a huge deficit and now it will be laid at Biden's feet. No mention of the trillions given away before Biden entered office and huge spending by the previous administration. Really nothing new. But it took a Democrat to pass a large (not large enough) spending bill to deal with infrastructure and give working families some help. Have not seen that from the Republicans since Eisenhower.
You rock, Laurie. 😀
Thanks for saying that. I really enjoy being in this forum. I just told a friend this morning about it. He is struggling to stay sane, or positive. Life needs help. This is it.
Music to my ears!
And best of all, it's true!
Yes!!
Absolutely!
The objective behind the deficit obsession is laissez faire capitalism, that the wealthy and large corporations should be free to do whatever they want to accumulate more and more wealth, while ordinary Americans are merely slaves to help them accomplish this. Reagan recruited one Grover Norquist, who was never elected to anything, to found Americans for Tax Reform with intent to, as he famously said, "shrink it [government] down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." He induced numerous Republican members of Congress and state legislatures to sign pledges to never raise taxes. If you lower taxes and you obsess about getting rid of the deficit, then cutting government services, including work place safety and pollution reduction enforcement, is the only option. To this day, Grover Norquist is very influential in conservative circles and with the news media.
I agree with other commenters that Democrats must change the narrative. If a member of the news media asks Democratic officeholders whether some legislation will increase the deficit, they can reply, "Why are you concerned about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House, but not when a Republican is in the White House?" Repeat as needed.
Agreed! I second your "Repeat as needed" recommendation. Well said!
In simplest terms, the Dems should speak to the Public about this so that they can understand what our current administration is up against. We need to point out to them the bad that Trump and the GOP had done, but before you say all that, we need to keep saying all the good things Biden has done. Start off by stating: Do you like that the roads are going to be fixed? Don't have to worry about Tires being blown and alignments needing to be done every 5 months... sort of like that. Keep honing it in. When talking to college students, their parents, or college-bound young people, remind them that Biden cut 2 billion dollars off of student loans debt. That's huge!
Responsible citizens should study both science & history to avoid the mistakes of the past. GOP supply-side economics has been falsified, read "After the Music Stopped". Consider Hoover(The Great Depression), George "W" Bush ( Greatest Financial Crisis since the Great Depression) & Trump (great inequality, slow growth, & huge deficits). In fact, trickle-down economics provides false hope for our future, read "The Rise & Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism". To reduce wealth & income inequality, & grow our economy, moral or stakeholder capitalism is the best theory, read "Prosperity" by Colin Mayer. Another great book is "Making Capitalism Work for the Many, not the Few" by a man who could have been a great tunnel rat. In accordance with timeless wisdom, ALL Americans can better flourish, in a more JUST economy. As an educated but humble citizen, I would rather be approximately right, than definitely wrong.
Please support the Build Back Better Act.
The struggle continues to be how to neutralize the continuous sound bites that both Republicans and Conservative Democrats use to sway us. Things like "We have out of control inflation because the government is pumping too much money into the economy". These "truisms" are not easily dispelled! People just accept them as is. I see President Biden trying to turn this tide by saying things like "We're building the economy from the bottom up and the middle out", but this doesn't necessarily translate to how inflation would be curbed by doing this. Just my humble opinion here but is that there is a basic underlying principle that provides the basis for these excellent books that you've named? What is it? Whatever it is let's just say it as simply as possible in a Democratic sound bite. Could it be that when people have more money to spend, they spend it and the economy thrive? And when they don't the economy dies? Here I have to rely on the authors like Mr. Reich to distill it down for me. Unfortunately, I don't think that even though they may responsible that every citizen has the time or inclination to read all these great books. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and provide them a more accurate truism.
If we raised the minimum wage by $2.25 each year, for the next 5 years, the $7.25 Federal minimum wage would increase to $18.50 per hour and then linked all future increases to inflation, we would get more people off of government assistance and onto tax roles all over the country. We would save Social Security and Medicare plus people would live better that do not have a college education. Some would call this inflationary but inflation came and is here without those wage increases. We have been bandaging this inequity with government programs that add more taxes rather than let the capitalistic system work it's self out.
"... the debt is more than $4 trillion and the yearly deficit more than $300 billion ..."
Any time I see a number with more than nine zeros I have to translate it to terms I can comprehend:
"... the debt is more than $30,000 per household and the yearly deficit more than $2300 per household ..."
By comparison, American household debt is $14.6 trillion (translation: $110,000 per household). Unlike national debt, we don't think of home loans, car mortgages, etc. as evil. People should think of the national budget as an extension of their personal household budget. What do you get for your money? Taking out a home improvement loan to fix roof leaks and broken pipes ("infrastructure") is a no-brainer if the alternative is a home ruined by water damage.
On the other hand, what do we get for the $750 billion ($5500 per household) that we spend on the military every year? We would probably get the same economic benefit from a public works project to dig another Grand Canyon.
If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, today it would be at $18.75 per hour. That means a single person, working 2000 hours a year (50 weeks times 40 hours per week) would earn $37,500.00 or more per year and a couple, both working, would bring in $75,000.00 or more per year and that would mean they would pay both Federal and State income taxes (in states that have an income tax), not be getting food stamps and Medicaid. This would cut the deficit and allow the economy to grow. They would also be contributing more to Medicare and Social Security and have a better financial future.
Yes, your example of a higher-income family helping the economy to grow is a good one.
That the military doesn’t produce a profit is regrettable. However, the military-industrial complex was the ticket out of the 1930s depression. IMHO, it’s too bad that we didn’t pivot to another, less lethal, federal jobs program. For example, wouldn’t it be great if we had an Agricultural-Industrial Complex to eliminate hunger? Or an Eduational-Industrial Complex that is serious about creating informed citizens? Or a Medical-Industrial Complex that sustains a healthy population?
That is correct. The shipyards, airplane manufacturing and building tanks put millions to work at good wages and we could do the same with solar and wind farms, battery storage yards and building a resilient nation wide grid system like it was war time. The energy production would be paid for by money already being spent to fossil fuel companies that are ruining our lands, water and depleting the natural recourses that are finite rather than the infinite power of the sun. America got behind the war effort in 1942 and 1943 and it is time to get behind the energy transition program needed to save the planet as well as our country. If we do not, you should check how much your home is above sea level because in 70 years any home or real estate that is less than 50 feet above sea level will be gone.
Thanks for putting these big numbers in perspective.
Has anyone read Stephanie Kelton's "The Deficit Myth"? ......or any other economists describing Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)? She makes the distinction that families and a government that prints its own currency are essentially different, and we need to better understand that difference. I agree with Robert. We have a very unhealthy deficit obsession that we need to better understand, and then move on to address the real problems of meeting people's needs.
I was on a panel last night with her (and with Bernie Sanders), in which she explained very clearly why the deficit is mythological. I recommend her book as well.
I have read it...and watched several of her videos...and I wish she could get more traction. If I remember correctly, BernieSanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC are onboard https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/16/18251646/modern-monetary-theory-new-moment-explained
I always thought the Republicans screaming about having a budget for the country just like their family does and not having debt was another magnifying glass over their ignorance. I think we have more unqualified people in the Congress than ever in my lifetime.
They pretend to believe that having a budget for the country is just like having a family one. It gives their fallacy a moral spin that makes people spontaneously endorse it. Has anyone seen a republican being concerned by the deficit once in office since the Reagan years?
We need to curtail the outrageous military budget that does nothing for people, besides killing many innocent ones. We use far too much money on an already bloated military to use to take other countries resources. Let’s get real about this! Why do we need to be 15 times larger than any military on earth?
One thing I noticed while working as a civilian contractor to the Defense Dept. is that the Pentagon would attempt to cancel a military program because it was unneeded, wasteful, or outdated, only to have it blocked by Congress (Republicans and Democrats) because the military program spending was in a member's district. Very frustrating!
Yes, we set up an incentive program of use it or lose it. It doesn’t make sense. There’s so much that should have already been reined in. But my husband worked in top secret military and the waste is almost beyond belief. That’s our money they’re wasting while those paying the taxes go without.
One example of waste from my work experience is the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier. It cost around $14 billion dollars and was completed in 2017, yet it has so many problems that it cannot serve as a combatant ship until 2024 at the earliest. That's 15% of its 50 year service life wasted. One problem is that the toilets clog frequently, nasty when you have 4000 sailors on a ship out in the ocean. Nothing gets reported to the American people, so the waste continues. However, one bright spot are the men and women who serve on our Naval ships -- they are the best of the best!
"Deficit-mongering" is a racist tool like the filibuster - both used by a White Majority Corporate Media and White Majority Congress to execute class-warfare against the poor and middle class.
The DOD budget is the biggest expense to the American people yet "deficit-mongering" is NEVER USED in discussing DOD budget considerations.
What we should do is create a U.S. gov't expense account funded by Congress depositing a multi-trillion dollar currency instrument directly into a U.S. gov't bank account at the U.S. Treasury Dept. WITHOUT BORROWING A DIME FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
One day Americans will wise up to the bi-partisan false claims bi-partisans use to prevent government funding of the poor, middle class and social programs.
You can thank Republican racist Newt Gingrich for creating the 1980's GOP talking points that Republicans and moderate/conservative Democrats still use to this day to justify their opposition to government funding of the poor, middle class and social programs.
BIGASS BI-PARTISAN LIE #1 - Inflation Fears;
BIGASS BI-PARTISAN LIE #2 - Deficit Fears;
BIGASS BI-PARTISAN LIE #3 - The economy will fail if we give away too much money and benefits to Americans;
BIGASS BI-PARTISAN LIE #4 - We are heroes who force the American people to go to work everyday thanks to our austerity measures and actions. We oppose gov't funding of UBI and other social programs because if we don't, lazy Americans won't get up and go to work in the morning;
UBI:
In the United States, proponents of guaranteed income as a matter of economic justice have included the Black Panthers and Martin Luther King Jr., while the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated it as a form of negative income tax. Even President Richard Nixon proposed providing cash directly to families, without conditions. His plan—produced after 1,000 economists urged it in an open letter—twice passed the House, but got rejected by the Senate.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/05/07/1024674/ubi-guaranteed-income-pandemic/
Yet another instance of the DNC utterly failing to control the discourse. The data are clear. GOP control increases deficits (and produces other financial and other evils) and yet "the Dems are the fiscally irresponsible party".
Many of the comments on this forum bemoan the fact that Democrats have poor and inept messaging. When the Fairness Doctrine rule was abolished, the Republicans took full advantage to build a right wing media empire. The Democrats did little to nothing. I suggest that the Democrats should go to school on the Republican experience and build their own media empire. Surely their is sufficient money that can be had and talent (Mr. Reich, for example) to tap. Having the best message does no good if the other side drowns you out!
I wrote a thing this AM about the Fairness Doctrine. It was promulgated by the FCC, an administrative agency under the executive branch and thus subject to the whim of whosoever occupies the Oval Office. It should have been an Act of Congress or a Supreme Court Decision. The Fairness Doctrine got whittled down and was finally dispatched by the FCC in 1987.
Why did we barely hear anything about the deficit when Donald was in office. It seems to me that only Republicans use this argument whenever they are trying to gain votes. And Democrats do not use it to their advantage when campaigning against a Republican presidential candidate. Question: where is the $300m a day that we are saving from no longer being involved in Afghanistan going?
Using a comparison of government finance with household finance to explain or make an argument is such a tricky matter.
Leaving the roof unrepaired and calling it thrift: an apt comparison with “fiscal responsibility.”
Household debt and government debt: so absolutely utterly different things, with government’s effectively infinite lifespan and ability to print money exemplary instances.