Radical. Normally, we don't like that word. Normally, we like our politics somewhere near the center - somewhere between progressive and conservative. You get beyond that and people consider you troubling, at best, dangerous, at worst.
Radical positions. Radical solutions. Radical politics. Normally, as I said, not the stuff most people are comfortable with.But there comes a time when the positions, solutions and politics of normal times don't seem to be working, or to be more exact: aren't working!
We have a 9-plus percent jobless rate. People are not getting hired, not being put to work the way they need to. The normal forces are not solving their problems. Corporations are not hiring; they're investing overseas or finding automated ways to get work done.
We've got a housing situation today that isn't getting fixed. Older people are unable to sell homes they don't need. Young people are having a very rough time getting mortgages and finding a house they can afford. Here again, the normal forces of supply and demand are not getting houses priced to sell, which mean priced to be bought.
Not everyone is getting hurt by all this, certainly not equally. The oil companies have made huge profits. So have many in the financial community.
And millions have been hurt. They're hurting more each month as the hunt for work grows into years, as the corporations - who we're told by one Republican presidential nominee are "really just people like us" - continue to find ways to make profits without offering people in this country real full-time jobs.
So people with brains, and a sense of history, begin to think about solutions to our problems, that arise beyond the normal list of progressive or conservative tools we've used to fix problems.
So we have to listen to the arguments being made down there on Wall Street. Radical solutions are sometimes the right solutions. Think of American independence. Thomas Paine was right. We had to cut off our ties with England pure and simple. Think of abolition. The only right way to deal with American slavery was to ban it outright - not negotiate with the slavers.
How long, exactly, should we continue with policies that leave so many out of work, without the dignity and vitality of a job to go to? How long do we let our economy shrink right there in front of us?
We may, as a society, have to take direct action to put people to work. If the corporations aren't coming to our rescue, why "isn't" the government?
Leave a Comment:
President Obama has tried letting Congress act first, and now, by presenting legislation to the American people, he is trying to harness the American people's anger to get something done. Sound bites are successful in getting our attention, but aren't enough to propel our government to act.. The devil will always be in the details. And unless we have people in power of all political persuasions who are willing to listen to each other and truly take the best of all ideas, we cannot solve these complex problems. The American people elected these individuals to do that while we tackle the "kitchen table" problems that our politicians are so quick to talk about.
The people protesting Wall Street are legitimately angry and deserve action against those who contributed to the mess we're in. Where's the political will on that? Our last President promised quick war. He was re-elected despite a deepening involvement in two wars. Where was the rationale for that? And why didn't we insist on paying for those wars by reversing the Bush-era tax rates when we entered the war? The American people don't always act in their best interest when spin succeeds over substance. It takes too long to process those details, and the ordinary American has to contend with the day-to-day.
And then you and your guests sit around asking what Bill Clinton would have done. I admired Bill Clinton's intellect, his willingness to compromise, but some of the toxicity in Washington began during his presidency. So while I agree that there are strategies that President Obama could have implemented but didn't, I also believe that we are dealing with a broken political system that no one person can fix. I want politicians who tell me why my own self-interest should be sacrificed for the larger interests of this country. In trying to seek consensus, President Obama tries to bring out the best in each of us, but that has its pitfalls, which we are experiencing with people in power who are disingenuous.
So while you ask why government isn't putting people to work, we have to ask who will pay for it? That is where we are right now. The details that President Obama proposed in his jobs bill may not be enough or may ask sacrifice from those not willing to put country before self-interest. When you have a political party screaming class warfare, and the President's political party pulling the legislation apart because it asks for sacrifices from those in their districts, we wind up with inertia once again.
I look to the media not just to talk about strategy but to inform me about what will work and what will not work. Not just in the context of political will, but in the context of solving complex problems, where no one President, no Congress, has all the answers.
So, you tell me, why isn't the government putting people to work?
Thank you for your insights
High income earners as "job creators"? Please see Oct.4, 20ll NPR Morning Edition interview with Bill Freeza "Venture Capitalist Warns of Job Creation Myths". In no uncertain terms he debunks the myths.
High income earners as"job creators"? Please listen to the Oct. 4. 2011 NPR Morning Edition interview with Bill Frezza "Venture Capitalist Warns of Job Creation Myths". He states clearly that business has no obligation to the well-being of the country.
Mr Frezza is right, when he says that "business has no obligation to the well-being of the country." Unfortunately, you and Chris don't get it. When Steve Jobs created all of those high paying jobs, it was not because he was interested in the countries well-being! It was because he was successful in his pursuit of profits. His company grew he needed more employees. On the other hand when we have benevolent politicians who want to harness the nations resources for the social good (i.e. LBJ), the typical result is to create dependency. I leave Chris Mathews with a famous quote - "when you place equality before freedom, you end up with little of either".
I agree with Mr. Frezza on one point: [Job creators have been] lumped in . . with the hedge fund moguls and the criminals on Wall Street. All have been put in one, big pie and told that they're the problem.
Job creators aren't the problem; that is just convenient rhetoric to avoid dealing with the problem of wealth not earned. If progressive tax rates are offensive, then lets look at how we can recapture some of the income generated by those who participate in transactions that helped to create the crisis we make.
Job creators won't create jobs without demand for their products and services. It is not a zero sum game - if the jobless have jobs they will consume the products that job creators create. The government is part of that mix, because there are jobs that the free market won't find attractive.