The Dems: Simply saying you're better for the working poor don't make it so.

Great Debates
21

A couple things, RT:

On the minimum wage article, the economist was discussing how many jobs were not created because of the minimum wage hikes. He was using generally accepted economic models and calculating how many fewer jobs existed than would have existed if the hikes were not enacted. Is it speculation? Sure, but so is most economics.

On the job destroying nature of higher taxes, more government bureaucracy, and strict regulations, I’m not sure I need to prove common sense. Ask any businessman about the job destroying nature of these things. Hell, I’ll send you to my friend who owns a small business, gets 66% of his profits taxed out from under him, and would like to hire someone to help him, but can’t do it because it simply isn’t affordable after he complies with the myriad regulations necessary to do so.

As for the comments on the Republican voters, this comes from my conversations with them. These are not the ignornant people so often caricatured by the elitists on this board. They are thoughtful people who agree with the Republican stance on economics. They are not mindless automatons who simply vote Republican because their preacher told them to do so.

22

Thanks. I try.

Spending money responsibly is common sense, sure. And the data on the USA’s savings, as a nation, show that people with common sense are the exception in this society. And it’s silly to expect the working poor to be more adept at being good with money than everyone else.

After 25 years of conservative ascendancy, maybe someone can study why the culture they’ve created in this country hasn’t led to more responsible habits. (I’ve got some theories, but that’s all they are.) When one person makes a bad decision, the solution is to talk to that person. When a whole society is making the same bad decisions, treating it as a whole bunch of individual problems is like countering a tsunami one bucket of water at a time.

But the ‘keeping a job’ part clearly is harder these days than it was just a few years ago. That keeping a job is common sense doesn’t take you very far if you can’t get one.

23

This is the typical reaction. Republicans think that taking money from the government is OK only if it goes to the wealthy. Want to award multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts to Cheney’s company? No problemo! Want to give a tax cut that targets 90% of the benefit to the wealthiest 10% of Americans? Of course! Want to take a surplus and turn it into record deficits? That’s what we voted you in for! Fiscal responsibility only comes into play if it is a Democratic proposal to help those Americans that need it the most. Those that need health insurance can’t look to the government for help because to do so might endanger Johnny Gotrocks’ tax cut. Minimum wages can’t be raised under the false idea that it would endanger teen employment. This is based on the supposition that corporations are benevolent and hire teens only out of the goodness of their hearts and can easily pare the payrolls if they <shudder> have to pay more of a minimum wage. I don’t buy it. Businesses will continue to run with the minimum number of employees and if the minimum wage is raised, they will make up for it with either a small price increase or in a small decrease in profit. It’s that small decrease in corporate profit that has the Republicans opposing a raise in the minimum wage, not some new-found concern for the welfare of teenagers.

24

Wow. You’re comparing apples to apples, and to mangoes, and to a 1957 Chevy Bell Air, albeit in no particular order.

The subject is “taking money from the government.”

The first example is a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract awarded to a company. Now, was the money “given?” Of course not. The government pays the company for a service. Now, because it’s “no-bid” you may argue that the government is OVERpaying for this service. And that would be true… IF AND ONLY IF you can show that the contract price is, in fact, an overpayment - that for the benefit received, the government paid more than the market price. Did it?

The second example of “taking money from the government” is a tax cut to benefit the wealthy. This assumes, somehow, that the money is the government’s, and a tax cut “gives” money to the recipient. No. The money was earned by the recipient. A tax cut TAKES LESS AWAY from him. The government gives him nothing. You amy argue this is unwise, that a prudent tax policy involves higher taxes, or whatever… but you cannot fairly characterize this as the taxpayer taking money from the government. It would be good for liberals to remember this fact: much as some of you might want to, your government does not own all property and money. People do own stuff, and taking some of it away is an unfortunate necessity. But when you turn it around and start believing the model is “giving tax cut money to taxpayers” instead of “taking less tax money” then you have a problem.

The final example is fair, the apples to apples comparison I spoke of above. The current government did put us into a deficit. There were good reasons to do so, but it’s not an unfair allegation.

25

  1. How you and I define “responsibly” might be different. Some people have no choice but to go in debt or go without things like, well, medical care, or a car repair.

  2. Going without things like medical care, or car repair, can lead to losing a job. So can having your company close, or leave the country, or downsize, or layoff. Employees at my company keep getting laid off, not because they are bad people but because the company is struggling. Unemployment is high. Their incomes are unstable. It isn’t their fault.

26

If it’s your money and not the government’s, then who does the national debt belong to? You can’t have it both ways. Unless you cut spending, you have no business cutting taxes.

27

Bootstraps, Arty, bootstraps! Entreprenuerial spirit! When they give you lemons, feed your kids lemonade! Use the rinds to make attractive shoes! Are the alms houses closed, the debtors prisons all shuttered?

Scrooge was a Republican. So was Marley, till he learned better.

28

Yes. What I said:

So are arguing, as I said you might, that the tax cut were not prudent fiscally. I acknowledge this as a valid argument, although I disagree. My beef was your charactreization of the beneficiaries of the tax cut as “taking money.” I was pointing out they are simply paying less money to the system. An argument that claims this change is unsound is a fair one; an argument that claims this constitutes the government giving them money is not a fair one.

29

You are kidding, right?

[quote]
Auditors from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Coalition Provisional Authority Inspector General (CPA IG) have repeatedly and consistently criticized multiple aspects of Halliburton’s activities in Iraq. In nine different reports, these government auditors have found widespread, systemic problems with almost every aspect of Halliburton’s work in Iraq, from cost estimation and billing systems to cost control and subcontract management.

Key findings from these audits include the following:
[ul]
[li]In December 2003, a DCAA draft audit reported that Halliburton overcharged the Defense Department by $61 million to import gasoline into Iraq from Kuwait through September 30, 2003.[/li][li]On December 31, 2003, a DCAA “Flash Report” audit found “significant” and “systemic” deficiencies in the way Halliburton estimates and validates costs. According to the DCAA audit, Halliburton repeatedly violated the Federal Acquisition Regulation and submitted a $2.7 billion proposal that “did not contain current, accurate, and complete data regarding subcontract costs.”[/li][li]On January 13, 2004, DCAA concluded that Halliburton’s deficiencies “bring into question [Halliburton’s] ability to consistently produce well-supported proposals that are acceptable as a basis for negotiation of fair and reasonable prices,” and it urged the Corps of Engineers to “contact us to ascertain the status of [Halliburton’s] estimating system prior to entering into future negotiations.”[/li][li]In a May 13, 2004, audit, DCAA reported “several deficiencies” in Halliburton’s billing system that resulted in billings to the government that “are not prepared in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and contract terms.” DCAA also found “system deficiencies resulting in material invoicing misstatements that are not prevented, detected and/ or corrected in a timely manner.” The report emphasized Halliburton’s inadequate controls over subcontract billings. The auditors “identified inadequate or nonexistent policies and procedures for notifying the government of potential significant subcontract problems that impact delivery, quality, and price” and determined that Halliburton “does not monitor the ongoing physical progress of subcontracts or the related costs and billings.” [/li][li]On June 25, 2004, the CPA IG found that, as a result of poor oversight, Halliburton charged U. S. taxpayers for unauthorized and unnecessary expenses at the Kuwait Hilton Hotel. According to the IG, the overcharges would have amounted to $3.6 million per year.[/li][li]A July 26, 2004, CPA IG audit report found that Halliburton “did not effectively manage government property” and that the company’s property records “were not sufficiently accurate or available to properly account for CPA property items.” The IG “projected that property valued at more than $18.6 million was not accurately accounted for or was missing.” [/li][li]In July 2004, GAO found ineffective planning, inadequate cost control, and insufficient training of contract management officials under LOGCAP in Iraq. GAO reported that, when Halliburton acted as a middleman for the operation of dining halls, costs were over 40% higher.[/li][li]In an August 16, 2004, memorandum, DCAA “identified significant unsupported costs” submitted by KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, and found “numerous, systemic issues . . . with KBR’s estimates.” According to DCAA, “while contingency issues may have had an impact during the earlier stages of the procurements, clearly, the contractor should have adequate supporting data by now.” When DCAA examined seven LOGCAP task orders with a combined proposed value of $4.33 billion, auditors identified unsupported costs totaling $1.82 billion. [/li][li]On November 23, 2004, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (formerly the CPA IG) examined a $569 million LOGCAP task order and found that Halliburton “did not provide . . . sufficiently detailed cost data to evaluate overall project costs or to determine whether specific costs for services performed were reasonable.” The IG concluded that the Army “did not receive sufficient or reliable cost information to effectively manage” the task order. Multiple criminal investigations of Halliburton’s Iraq contracts are also ongoing. The Justice Department is investigating Halliburton’s admission that two of its employees received up to $6.3 million in kickbacks to steer LOGCAP subcontracts to a Kuwaiti contractor. The Defense Department Inspector General, the FBI, and the Justice Department are investigating allegations of fraud and overcharging for gasoline under the RIO contract. [/ul][/li][/quote]

30

The government has no obligation to go deep in debt just to make life more pleasant for the wealthy. We can debate about what services government should supply, but when all is said and done we need to pay for those services. We had a fiscal policy where the bills were being paid, and Bush overturned the apple cart by letting the wealthy contribute less of their share than what was working. This is taking money out of the government and giving to the wealthy. As I said, who does the national debt belong to? The Republicans act like it is an orphan.

31

Actually, I have a plan. And it doesn’t depend on big government programs. It just depends on a clearer understanding of the way in which free market economies actually works, and in developing economic policies that are consistent with that better understanding.

Let’s say you start fresh with a free-market capitalist society. Everybody’s equally wealthy, or poor, or whatever, and they go out in the marketplace and try to make more bucks. Under the classic free-market system, there are winners and losers. Some get rich, some go bust. Free-market types would like us to believe that that’s the end of it, with each generation producing a completely new batch of winners and losers, but of course that isn’t the end of it. As people accumulate wealth, they also accumulate political power. They use that further increase their wealth and also to try to ensure that they and their progeny are able to sustain that wealth as long as possible. Which in the case of very large fortunes, can be indefinitely, even if the offspring do nothing but clip coupons.

Of course, the effect that this has on the free-market system and on society in general is utterly unimportant to almost all of the wealthy because the advantages to being wealthy in a capitalist society outweigh all other considerations. They just want to retain their advantages.

The inevitable result of all this greed is just what you might expect – the wealthy accumulate almost all of the nation’s wealth, leaving the middle class and the poor living from paycheck to paycheck, in increasingly desparate conditions. It happened in the 1890s (they didn’t call it the Gilded Age for nothing) and it’s happening now. The Master has spoken on this topic.

The way to solve the problem is to focus our economic and social programs on developing and building a strong middle class, rather than a strong upper class. After all, the upper class has plenty of power and clout – no need to worry about them, they can take care of themselves. And the lower classes will quickly and easily move into the middle class, if you have a strong middle class. All you need is a minimal safety net to keep them healthy and alive as they do so – starving babies are a Bad Thing, period.

But if your middle class is robust, they’ll generate plenty of wealth, keeping your economy robust, making the rich richer, which I’m not at all opposed to … so long as that wealth is not accumulated by squeezing the middle class, as is now the case. To ensure that, you want a strong educational system, you want to retain and expand jobs that pay a living wage, and minimize market forces that tend to transform people into faceless bots working for minimum wage for large corporations like Wal-Mart. You try to keep small businesses healthy and vibrant, but not by turning their employees into poverty cases.

You want EVERYONE to win here, and this bugs the hell out of free-market economists, because they basically don’t care about middle class and poor people – they only care about the total amount of wealth generated by a society. Which always means, making the rich richer. Bad idea, for the rich as well as everybody else, but only a few wealthy people have the vision to understand that.

How’s that for a Democratic economic plan that will actually help the poor and the working class?

32

Oh, yeah, ask any employee if his boss is paying him enough to get a measure of proper wages. :wink:

If he is meeting the demands of his customers or clients, then hiring another person is, apparently, a luxury he does not feel like acquiring. When it is no longer a luxury, I would be interested in seeing if those taxes are still such a burden. Of course, rather than have his profits taxed, he could use them up… money is gone either way, but at least in one circumstance he’s getting something out of it. YMMV.

33

If ‘most economics is speculation’, then we’ve all got our Ph.D.'s. The reality is that after a minimum wage hike, you can do studies to see how many jobs were actually lost, rather than simply making the same projection after the fact as you could do beforehand. You make predictions with models. They were using their model in 1999 to ‘predict’ the past.

I’m sure you do: “common sense” is often wrong. For instance, take taxes. More taxes cost varying numbers of jobs, depending on what the taxes are. But sufficient fiscal irresponsibility undermines the dollar, reducing all Americans’ wealth - which might as well be a tax. Which was worse? The devil is in the details.

Or if you put a hefty tax on gasoline, reducing demand over time for gas guzzlers, thereby reducing domestic demand for petroleum. World oil prices stay lower as a result. The alternative would have been no tax, increased demand, and a price hike anyway - with the money mostly going overseas instead of into the Treasury. Which is worse? Depends.

With ‘government bureaucracy’: I’m a government bureaucrat. We’re not publishing regulations that business owners must follow; rather, we’re generating data that we put out there as a free resource for those businesses, and private citizens, to make use of. Which they do. I’d say my corner of the bureaucracy helps create wealth, thankyewverymuch, and supportive analyses haven’t exactly been hard to come by.

Or take ‘bureaucracy’ that does restrict businesses, limiting how much bad stuff they can release into the air and water, or limiting the risks they can expose their employees to, or ensuring that drugs are safe to use before they’re marketed, or that products are and do what the box says the product is and does. All this goes on in the Federal bureaucracy, and surely it costs some jobs. But are the people who would have potentially had those jobs better off as a result? It depends, doesn’t it? There are unquestionably instances of the government regulating past the point of diminishing returns; you won’t get any blanket defense of every government regulation from me. But enough government regulations have clearly been beneficial to the body politic that you do in fact have to be specific about which regulation you’re talking about; you can’t just say “government regulation is bad for American citizens.”

And ask coal miners about the lung-destroying nature of the absence of regulation. We can all come up with anecdotes.

Please do. If he’s sincerely willing to open up his books, I’ll come back and tell you whether his 66% claim is truth or wild exaggeration. My money’s on the latter.

Again, we’re talking anecdotes here. I personally know Republicans of both kinds, but that doesn’t prove anything either. But I’d rather continue to avoid that whole discussion.

34

Bootstraps, Arty, bootstraps! Like our President!

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050105/a_gonzales05.art.htm

Bush “likes somebody he sees as having overcome potential disadvantages, because he sees himself as having done that,” says Paul Burka, executive editor of Texas Monthly magazine and a close follower of the president.

35

So I start to investigate the first item on your list… a draft audit report found blah, blah, blah. Then I wonder what the final report found. And I discover that the final report apparently found that the draft report was in error, since the allegation was substantially modified.

On I move to the second bullet. “On December 31, 2003, a DCAA “Flash Report” audit found “significant” and “systemic” deficiencies in the way Halliburton estimates and validates costs. According to the DCAA audit, Halliburton repeatedly violated the Federal Acquisition Regulation and submitted a $2.7 billion proposal that “did not contain current, accurate, and complete data regarding subcontract costs.””

Now, I have been through several DCAA flash audits, working for several different companies. Each time, there has been at least one or two areas tagged by DCAA, using language precisely like that. The FAR is a hugely complex document, and I think it’s fair to say there is no government contractor in the United States that has not, in some way, violated the FAR, especially as regards subcontracting costs. This bullet means nothing, but it’s been written in such a way as to sound awful for Halliburton.

So I stop looking at the bullets and try to discover where they came from.

There are four cites above. Two are questionable on their face: commondreasm.org and truthout.org. Two are mainstream: MSN and CNN.

The MSN story details allegations made by a Halliburton whistleblower, which the company has denied and which FBI officials are said to be investigating. There is no result - just the story that a former employee made these allegations and the company denied them. The MSN story’s last para details several other problems:

[ul]
[li]the U.S. ambassador to Kuwait intervened to ensure that Halliburton retained a favored Kuwaiti subcontractor for gasoline imports to Iraq. My comment: is this the company’s fault?[/li][li]in 2002, Cheney’s chief of staff, a political appointee, was told the vice president’s former company would receive no-bid work to restore Iraq’s oil facilities. Cheney’s spokesman said the information was not given to the vice president. My comment: so what? [/li][li]Halliburton charged the government $2.68 a gallon to import Kuwaiti gasoline to Iraq; a U.S. government agency did the same job for $1.57 a gallon. My comment: was this an IDIQ contract? Did the government agency meet the same terms as the Halliburton contract? [/li][li]Pentagon auditors recommended withholding nearly $160 million in payments, saying Halliburton charged the military for meals in and around Iraq that never were served. My comment: Did the meals not get served because of the government’s failure to provide an essential service? Or was this fraud? Don’t know. [/ul][/li]
The CNN story goes into detail about what appears to be the fourth item above. In it, we learn that it’s KBR, a Halliburton sub, at issue. And we learn that the issue relates to pricing the estimated number of meals. In other words, if you tell the caterer to have meals for 5,000 guests at a wedding, and only 2,000 guests show up, you cannot tell the caterer to only charge you for 2,000 meals.

So I repeat - what do you know, IN DETAIL, about Halliburton’s supposed overcharges? From real news sources?

36

What are you talking about? The Democratic party consistently supports higher minumum wages, better healthcare for the working-class, tax breaks for the working class coupled with a higher tax burden for the extremely wealthy, and stronger workplace safety regulations.

The Republican party consistently opposes a higher minimum wage, opposes any goverment support for worker healthcare, supports giving the lion’s share of tax reduction to the extremely wealthy, and as a general rule, opposes ANY regulations on business. In short, they support business over the individual. That’s not a slam on the party; they happen to believe that businesses should be as unfettered as possible. That’s fine if you believe that, but it’s wrong to believe that this equates to support of the working-class.

The Democratic party is obviously the party of the working-class.

One can vote Republican because one likes the Republican candidates better, or because one doesn’t believe the policies of the Democratic party are prudent, or for religious reasons, but to not believe that the Democratic party is more supportive of the working-class is just flat out denial.

But your criticism is one of style and delivery, not of substance. You say, “Blabbing about it doesn’t make it so”, but then go on to say the Republicans have a “better pitch”. Well which are you criticizing? Style or substance? I submit that the Democratic party does support the working-class, MUCH more so than the Republican party. The problem is a general voter misconception that the reverse is true. The problem isn’t that they’re blabbing about nothing, but that the voters don’t understand the issues.

And just a grammar nitpick: You don’t ring your hands, you wring your hands.

37

I became a big non-fan of Edwards after seeing him in his debate with Cheney (not that Old Nick was any better). He just had “lightweight” written all over him. His continual thumbs-upping was also supremely annoying.

But you raise a good point. Edwards’ “two Americas” rhetoric was OK as far as it went, but it was hard to imagine how all that talk would be backed up with life-altering policy.

The Pubs, on the other hand, add to their rhetoric concrete actions like the tax cut. It’s bread and circuses, to be sure, but guess what wins elections? Until the Dems offer promises that are

A. Rhetorically and emotionally appealing
B. Possible to imagine coming to be in a concrete way

they will remain stuck in the jakes.

38

I don’t think an “educated electorate” is possible. Marginal changes, perhaps, but nothing major. If the Dems wait for people to be smart enough and sophisticated enough to understand their “nuance,” they will never win another election.

39

Poison the well much? The Common Dreams link is a reprint from the New York Times. The truthout link lists it sources.

40

Since you so blithely dismiss any source you don’t like, I suspect you do so with these statements from the U.S. House Minority Staff Committee on Government Reform.

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20040818112939-66942.pdf
(I’ll grant that these numbers are inflated to what the would have been had they not been caught and stopped)

[quote]
As a result of this inadequate oversight, Halliburton overcharged for unauthorized and unnecessary expenses at the Hilton. According to the CPA IG, “The resulting additional costs incurred under the task order amounted to $3.6 million annually.” For example:[list]
[li]Halliburton billed the CPA for contractor employees to stay in rooms in the main Hilton building, even though Halliburton had already billed for rooms in villas on the hotel complex that were unused. Over one year, these charges would have amounted to $2,853,000.[/li][li]Halliburton billed for a single room in the main Hilton building for a senior CPA official, even though rooms were available in the villas. Over one year, these charges would have amounted to $101,000.[/li][li]Halliburton billed U.S. taxpayers for laundry expenses at the Hilton, even though washers and dryers were already available. Over one year, these charges would have amounted to $191,000.[/li][/quote]

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20040826161707-44655.pdf

More at:
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/investigations.asp?Issue=Iraq+Contracting