Greenwald is partly right. Obama has always wanted a bi-partisan deal on the debt ceiling and from his electoral pov this is probably better than a clean increase in the debt ceiling (something which I doubt he would have ever gotten). It allows him to position himself to independents as someone who is making a serious effort to curb the long-term deficit.
The idea that this deal is some kind of massive betrayal of Democrats is nonsense. It is mildly tilted towards Republicans because Obama has more to lose. Without an increase in the debt ceiling the economy would only get worse and ultimately he would be blamed.
Given his hand Obama has gotten a decent deal. This piecein Time highlights the good points for Democrats. I think the biggest one is that massive defense cuts are on the table in a big way. A second important point is that the cuts are truly miniscule in the first couple of years, around 10 billion. This is both good economics and good politics.
The final point is that this ten year deal isn’t set in stone. Future Presidents and Congresses can and will make changes just as they did with the Gramm-Rudman bill in the 80’s. Ultimately spending and taxes are decided budget by budget and election by election and not by ten year deals. Getting Obama re-elected is a lot more important for Democrats than anything in this deal.
The government doesn’t create wealth with the exception of selling land or mineral rights. This can’t be any clearer than the 16.6% unemployment after spending a trillion dollars.
Wealth comes from the private sector. Within the private sector those jobs are created directly and indirectly by investors/business owners.
John Boehner doesn’t need an excuse. He’s pushing for a balanced budget and reduced debt. The President, on the other hand, is standing on the deck of the Titanic arguing that the ship is unsinkable. He stood there and argued that we needed to rush through the stimulus package or we would have unemployment over 8%. Well now it’s double that and he still doesn’t get it.
I like the way John Boehner negotiated the President’s $4 trillion debt reduction package into a $2.4 trillion debt reduction package. Now that’s real legislative leadership – supporting a balanced budget while only making a half-ass attempt to achieve it.
Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would** peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.
**
We have a raging unemployment infection, Obama prescribed penicillin, a massive dose. The Republicans cut that down to a homeopathic dose, and the infection got worse. Your conclusion: penicillin doesn’t work, and Obama lied when he said it does.
You’re missing the big picture. Politifact calls this claim “mostly false.”
Furthermore, you’re still doing this deceptive apples-to-oranges unemployment figures comparison bullshit. You’ve been called on it, and you’re being intentionally misleading. The unemployment numbers most people talk about (whether its 8%, or 9.2%, or whatever) is measuring one thing, and the 16.6% you keep talking about is not UNemployment, it is UNDERemployment.
I’m glad someone finally mentioned this. This deal is classic Washington kabuki theater, with each side getting what they want politically, but doing nothing to solve the problem they were supposed to be working on.
This deal cuts only 10 billion dollars from the 2012 budget. The annual deficit is estimated by the CBO to be 1.2 trillion for 2011. The rest of the cuts should take place over the next ten years. Nothing in this legislation stops us from having this same debate over again when it comes time to pass a budget for the fiscal years when these cuts take effect.
What just happened here was that both Boehner and Obama realized that an actual deal on the deficit was impossible, and both reached the best deal for themselves politically. Boehner can claim he cut spending, and Obama can claim that he’s a moderate willing to compromise his party’s position.
Neither side “won” here because nothing was accomplished.
Not the OP, but the Narwhal bacons at midnight. Sorry, Whack-a-Mole, couldn’t resist, I have a reddit addiction, I should probably go make a rage comic about it… Wait… FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU
Private industry and capital built the Interstate highways? Built the airports and air navigation system? Keeps the Mississippi River dredged for barge traffic? How are transportation facilities NOT wealth creators?
Or is this some kind of ipse dixit true-Scotsman thing, so that a private railway carrying a shipping container generates wealth but a public road used to carry an identical container simply doesn’t?
Roads DO generate wealth. Roads tend to lead to economic development – or at least it is rather difficult to have economic development where there are not roads.
You’re making a different argument regarding transportation as a facilitator of commerce versus the concept of government spending money as a way to generate wealth. The construction of the road does not generate wealth by itself but it does allow for the ability of commerce to increase. We saw that first with 19th century expansion of the eastern states with construction of canals. They rarely made money themselves but allowed for the expansion of farm trade which led to a general increase in manufacturing.
If that was the original argument then yes it’s possible but in today’s industrial sprawl a new road is more likely to relocate wealth than it is to encourage it.
