Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Obama vs. McCain: Progressive Voter Guide to the Economy

AlterNet. Posted October 9, 2008.


From the housing crisis to the minimum wage, a look at where the candidates stand on nine important economic issues.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Download this Voter Guide as a .PDF

A Gallup poll released this week showed that a majority of Americans -- 53 percent -- are angry about the financial crisis. And 41 percent are afraid. The system, Americans believe, has failed them.

It only takes a glance at the morning news -- or a look at rising food and gas prices -- to see that these fears and frustrations are not without good reason. Every day, more and more people lose their homes and their health care and see their retirement funds erode. Or rather, they watch as these things get taken from them.

It's infuriating to watch and painful to experience, and it's understandable to be mad as hell. It's OK because when a large enough number of people get angry enough, that's when things start to change.

So, our question to you is, Are you mad enough yet? Because this crisis is about all of us. Are you sure your 401K is secure? Do you know how many of your tax dollars are being spent in Iraq -- a country that's sitting on an $80 billion surplus? Have you considered how you'll pay for your health care if Medicare goes broke?

The answers to these questions aren't pretty. Fortunately, Nov. 4 gives us a chance to change things.

But first we have to know where the candidates stand on the issues that matter the most, like the economy, the environment, health care, immigration and reproductive justice. It's no small task to get reliable information on anything, let alone politics, in an age of campaign attack ads, media bias and outright corruption. That's why AlterNet has put together some handy election guides to help you learn what you need to know about Barack Obama and John McCain before you make a trip to the ballot box. The guides aren't meant to be exhaustive, but they do cover a lot of ground. For the next two weeks, we'll be rolling out an election guide each day, starting today, with the economy.

We hope they're helpful, and we want to hear what you think. Let us know in the comment boards or by e-mailing us at feedback@alternet.org. -- The Editors

Election Guide to the Economy



The country is in a unique moment in its economic history, facing a deep, structural energy crisis, stagnant wages for most, and spiraling costs for health care, education and food.

The housing market isn't expected to hit bottom until the middle of next year, and the fallout from the housing crash now threatens the global economy -- so much so that on Sept. 20, the Bush administration proposed an unprecedented bailout of many of the biggest players on Wall Street, which came on the heels of the government's multibillion-dollar rescues of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG.

There's now a consensus among economists that we have entered a recession. It marks the first time in the post-war era that the country has entered into a downturn before median family incomes had fully recovered from the previous recession. Over the past business cycle, poverty increased by more than 10 percent, and the number of people with employer-based health care dropped by about 8 percent.

The past year has been especially painful for America's working majority. In August, companies' payrolls shrank for the eighth consecutive month, resulting in a five-year high in unemployment.

Whoever ends up occupying the White House in January 2009 will be faced with the epic task of restoring Americans' sense of economic security. What will the next president do about energy? About the mortgage meltdown? What kind of trade policies will he put into place?

Read below for the answers. We've compiled these brief issue overviews to help you make an informed choice in November.



1. SPIRALING INEQUALITY AND ASSAULTS ON UNIONS


The past three decades have produced a historic concentration in American wealth. Economists estimate that 80 percent of the country's inflation-adjusted income growth since Ronald Reagan was elected has gone to the top 1 percent of the income ladder, and the incomes of all but the top 10 percent have actually declined since 1973.

A large body of data across different countries finds a strong correlation between the portion of the work force that's organized into "collective bargaining units" -- unions -- and wage inequality, and that's true in the United States, where the decline in unionization since the 1970s has corresponded with a dramatic increase in inequality.

Slightly less than 10 percent of the private sector work force is organized, but, according to the American Dream Survey (PDF) -- a study of non-managerial wage earners who make up about 80 percent of the working population -- "most American workers believe joining a union can help them achieve the American Dream," and 59 percent would be inclined to join a union if they were protected from retaliation from employers.

That's the leading barrier to labor organizing. According to American Rights at work, a pro-labor group, almost half of all employees report some form of illegal behavior by employers to discourage workers from organizing during votes supervised by the National Labor Relations Board.

  • Solution: Raising the minimum wage (see below), strengthening workers' rights to bargain collectively and reforming U.S. trade policy (see below) are all key to "flattening" the nation's income distribution.


  • Obama's position: Obama was a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would make it easier for working people to join a union. He has called for increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation so it grows with the cost of living.


  • McCain's position: John McCain voted against the Employee Free Choice Act and for the National Right to Work Act, a bill that, despite its deceptive name, would have crippled union organizing. He has said, "I think the unions have played a very important role in the history of this country to improve the plight and conditions of laboring Americans. I think that like many other monopolies, in some cases, they have serious excesses."


  • Learn more: Barack Obama's economic plan, John McCain's economic plan, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Economic Policy Institute, American Rights at Work



2. HOUSING AND DEBT CRISIS


According to a forecast by Credit Suisse, a financial services group, 6.5 million U.S. houses may go into foreclosure by 2012 -- a figure that "could put 12.7 percent of all residential borrowers out of their homes." To put that number in context, the number of homes currently in foreclosure is 1.2 million, and that's an all-time high. The bank notes that although the percentage of subprime loans that will go belly-up is very high -- over half! -- the total number of non-subprime loans will be larger. They project that almost 4 million other borrowers won't be able to maintain their mortgages. This has a ripple effect throughout the economy, with construction and a number of service industries taking a hit.

  • Solution: Homeowners in trouble need the ability to renegotiate costly adjustable-rate mortgages before their debt burdens force them out of their homes. They require direct assistance in some cases, and the mortgage industry needs tighter regulation to reign in the "securitization" of mortgage debt. The 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act should also be amended to increase consumer protections.


  • Obama's position: Barack Obama has called for the following:
    1. Create a new Federal Housing Administration Housing Security Program. The senator supports the efforts of Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., to create a new program that will offer incentives to lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages and convert them into stable, 30-year fixed mortgages with a federal guarantee provided for the resulting loans. Obama called this a "backstop," not a "bailout."

    2. Ask lenders to write down loan amounts for more conventional borrowers. Lenders should take action to restructure loans as early as possible when borrowers are at risk of financial trouble or when housing prices plummet. To alleviate lender concerns over tax and legal issues, the senator's plan also calls for legislation that would clarify the ability of servicers to act on behalf of the loans' investors/owners.

    3. Close the bankruptcy loophole for mortgage companies. Under current Chapter 13 rules, judges cannot modify the terms of home mortgages, even if the loan is unfair or predatory. Making this change could prevent as many as 600,000 foreclosures.

    4. Create a new mortgage interest tax credit, which will assist homeowners who do not itemize their taxes. This would involve a 10 percent universal mortgage credit that would effectively cut 10 percent off the interest rate paid by 10 million mostly low-income homeowners.

    5. Obama has also called for bankruptcy reform and tighter regulation of lenders.


  • McCain's position: John McCain's position on the housing crisis is less clear. In late March, he said, "It is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." Two days later, he released a statement saying, "The fact is that there are about 4 million homeowners in danger of losing their homes. We have a responsibility to take action to help those among them who are deserving homeowners." Also in late March, McCain defended himself from Democrats' criticism by saying he'd leave all options on the table. "I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits," he said during a campaign stop in Orange County. He later offered the McCain "HOME Plan," which would allow those with good credit holding a subprime loan for a house in which they live the ability to retire their mortgage and replace it with a lower-cost, government-backed loan. According to McCain's own estimates, 200,000 to 400,000 homeowners would be eligible for the program, but critics have raised doubts about the number because many people holding subprime loans have credit problems.


  • Learn more: Brookings Institution, Center for Economic and Policy Research



3. EXCESSIVE EXECUTIVE INCOMES


According to Sam Pizzigati, "Last year top CEOs in the United States continued to pocket outlandishly large paychecks, $10.5 million on average. That's 344 times the pay of an average U.S. worker -- and 10 times the pay gap that existed 30 years ago." According to a report by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, American taxpayers subsidize executive pay to the tune of about $20 billion each year. Last year, a Financial Times/Harris poll revealed that 77 percent of Americans think chief executives "earn too much." But shareholders have little say in how much top executives are paid, as CEOs generally work with a friendly board of directors, and corporations are able to write off unlimited amounts of executive pay as long as it is classified as "performance-based."

  • Solution: Close tax loopholes that effectively subsidize executive pay and give shareholders the ability to block outlandish compensation packages.


  • Obama's position: Obama supports closing one tax loophole related to executive pay, and he sponsored a bill that would give shareholders a nonbinding "advisory vote" on executive pay packages. An advisory roll, however, falls far short of an effective veto for excessively lavish compensation packages.


  • McCain's position: McCain has called for shareholders to have veto power over executive compensation packages, but he has not proposed legislation that would do so. A top adviser to McCain told Reuters that "the senator wants to shine a light on the issue (of bloated executive pay) and is not offering specific new proposals to rein it in."


  • Learn more: Institute for Policy Studies, United for a Fair Economy



4. OFFSHORING AND TRADE POLICIES THAT FAIL FAMILIES


According to Economic Policy Institute economist Josh Bivens, "Jobs are created by American exports but destroyed by imports; hence, the rising trade deficits cause job loss. This imbalance in the U.S. economy heightens economic insecurity by causing workers to search for new work or accept jobs of lower quality, even though some job loss can be partially offset by other influences, as when manufacturing jobs in the late 1990s were lost to trade while construction jobs boomed." Furthermore, "wages are squeezed as imports from lower-wage trading partners reduce demand for domestic workers. Between 1973 and 2006, growing trade with poorer trading partners lowered wages of U.S. workers without a four-year college degree by 4 percent."

  • Solution: 1. Pass the TRADE Act, legislation proposed by a group of progressive lawmakers that would require a review of existing trade agreements and a process to renegotiate existing trade agreements. It also calls for new thinking on labor, environment, investment and food safety to be included in future trade agreements, and strengthens the role of Congress in trade policymaking. 2. Pass the NAFTA Accountability Act, legislation proposed in the House at the end of 2007 that would require proponents of the North American Free Trade Agreement to prove their claims that the treaty helps Americans more than it hurts them and would require that the deal be renegotiated if they failed to do so.


  • Obama's position: Obama has called for amending NAFTA, if necessary, in order to protect American workers, closing tax loopholes that reward companies that offshore jobs, supporting firms that create U.S. jobs and improving transitional assistance for workers displaced by foreign trade.


  • McCain's position: McCain supports current trade policy. He has argued against agricultural subsidies, a key issue for anti-poverty campaigners in developing countries, but he insists on maintaining the status quo.


  • Learn more: Obama campaign site, McCain campaign site, Public Citizen, Third World Network



5. DETERIORATING INFRASTRUCTURE


Aging and overburdened infrastructure threatens the economy and quality of life in every state in the nation. The problem was thrown into sharp relief in recent years, with the Northeast blackout of 2003, the failure of New Orleans' levee system during Hurricane Katrina and the collapse of the I-35 overpass in Minnesota that killed 13 people in 2007. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, $1.6 trillion is required to "bring the nation's infrastructure to a good condition."

  • Solution: Elect officials who will prioritize infrastructure investment over tax savings.


  • Obama's position: Barack Obama has called for the creation of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that would invest $60 billion per year over 10 years for transportation infrastructure projects across the nation. His campaign claims, "These projects will create up to 2 million new direct and indirect jobs per year and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity." He has also called for the investment of $150 billion over the next 10 years for new "green" energy infrastructure. He has promised to pay for these programs with savings gained by ending the war in Iraq.


  • McCain's position: McCain has been largely silent on this issue. He has said that "earmark" reform -- cutting pet projects -- could free up resources to invest in better science education and new teachers. He opposes the creation of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank. Before launching his bid for the White House, McCain sat on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, a key committee dealing with infrastructure issues that has had a key role in determining the government's infrastructural priorities.


  • Learn more: American Society of Civil Engineers, Apollo Alliance.



6. EQUAL PAY


Women make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes, and the Institute for Women's Policy Research in Washington, D.C., estimates that, if progress continues at its current rate, it will take until 2057 for the gender wage gap to close.

  • Solution: Expand enforcement of the Equal Pay Act.


  • Obama's position: Obama is a strong advocate of gender pay equity. He supports improving women's economic situations at every level, from strengthening the Equal Pay Act to increasing investments in women-run small businesses.


  • McCain's position: McCain has said publicly that he supports equal pay for equal work, but his legislative record shows otherwise. McCain opposed a recent Senate bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, seeking equal pay for women. The bill would have made it easier for women to sue their employers for pay discrimination.


  • Learn more: 9to5, National Association of Working Women, National Committee on Pay Equity, Women's Institute for Secure Retirement


7. PAID FAMILY LEAVE AND WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY


The United States is the only industrialized country that does not provide workers with paid maternity/paternity leave. This, combined with other discriminatory workplace policies, can make work-life balance nearly impossible for women.

  • Solution: Create more family-friendly workplace policies and expand the Family and Medical Leave Act.


  • Obama's position: Obama strongly supports expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act and wants states to adopt paid-leave systems. He has proposed providing $1.5 billion in aid to states to assist in start-up costs for instituting a paid-leave system.


  • McCain's position: McCain voted to pass the original Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Since then, he has remained silent on the issue.


  • Learn more: National Partnership for Women and Families, Moms Rising, Progressive States Network



8. MINIMUM WAGE


In 2008, the nation's minimum wage was worth about 20 percent less, when adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1979. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "Evidence from an analysis of the 1996-97 minimum wage increase shows that the average minimum wage worker brings home more than half (54 percent) of his or her family's weekly earnings."

  • Solution: Raising the minimum wage is a crucial step toward pulling working families out of poverty. Of the workers who would benefit from a raise in the federal minimum wage, 53 percent are full-time workers.


  • Obama's position: Obama has voted for minimum wage increases. He is also a co-sponsor of the Global Poverty Act, which aims to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 -- an outcome that would greatly benefit women, thereby also helping families and communities.


  • McCain's position: McCain has voted both for and against minimum wage increases. McCain did vote to increase the minimum wage in February 2007; however, historically, he has voted against minimum wage increases.


  • Learn more: The PEW Forum on Religion and Public Life, Economic Policy Institute



9. TAXES AND DEFICITS


Tax cuts targeted at the wealthiest Americans during a period of runaway spending -- with hundreds of billions of tax dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- have resulted in massive federal deficits. In July, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House announced that it would "leave a record $482 billion deficit to his successor, a sobering turnabout in the nation's fiscal condition from 2001, when Mr. Bush took office after three consecutive years of budget surpluses."

  • Solution: Return the tax rates for top earners to their Clinton-era levels, and offer tax relief to struggling families. Rein in spending, preferably on the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, which are "sunk costs" rather than investments in America's economic future.


  • Obama's position: Obama has called for a withdrawal of most (but not all) troops from Iraq in his first term. According to an analysis of his tax plan by the Tax Policy Center, Obama would cut taxes on the 95 percent of filers who make less than $227,000 per year, and raise taxes on the 5 percent who exceed that number. Compared with current policy, Obama's tax plan would increase government revenues by $627 billion over the next 10 years.


  • McCain's position: McCain's plan would cut taxes on top earners by $23,000 per year. He would also cut taxes for all other Americans, but his cuts would only be deeper than Obama's for those earning between $112,000 and 227,000 -- about 20 percent of the population. Compared with current policy, McCain's tax plan would decrease government revenues by $595 billion over the next 10 years.


  • Learn more: Tax Policy Center, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Download this Voter Guide as a .PDF

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: unions, minimum wage, trade, infrastructure, taxes, inequality, ceo pay, jobs, debt crisis, workplace flexibility, deficits, housing crisis, family leave, equal pay

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't forget positions on rushing $700+ billion unwise debt assumption.
Posted by: aouie01 on Oct 9, 2008 12:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both John McCain and Barack Obama were for rushing the $700+ billion Emergency Economic Recovery Act that is more likely to be most useful to the rich people to benefit from it, than most of the other people who are going to pay the trillion plus dollars to repay that debt.
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

None of the Above ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Oct 9, 2008 12:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure Obama beats the hell out of McCain but Obama's positions are largely Not progressive positions ... This is just the validation of the duopoly government that has ruined this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americans have three choices on November 4th.
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Oct 9, 2008 1:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Vote for McCain and help guarantee getting fucked if he wins.

2. Vote for Obama and hope you won't get fucked.

3. Don't care if you get fucked by voting for somone else or not voting at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McBush
Posted by: RedFoxOne on Oct 9, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it very hard to believe that anyone with an inkling of common sense would be taking McBush/failin seriously. Pretty much everything out of McBushes mouth lately is either made up as he goes along or is just an outright LIE. How can anyone trust a man whose word obviously means NOTHING?

Jiff
Is your ISP Spying on you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: McBush Posted by: donl51
» RE: McBush Posted by: nochicagoboys
Forgive debt
Posted by: EJW on Oct 9, 2008 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Across the board for US citizens and companies, forgive all debt. Doesn't take money to do and will free up lots of money in our local economies --- seems like a win/win to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Forgive debt Posted by: nochicagoboys
» I have.... Posted by: EJW
» RE: I have.... Posted by: nochicagoboys
Debt
Posted by: EJW on Oct 9, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not just forgive all the debt for US citizens and start over. It doesn't cost anything and would free up huge amounts of money for our local economies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Debt Posted by: Spot
» RE: Debt Posted by: struths
» RE: Debt Posted by: EJW
» RE: Debt Posted by: mhd
» RE: Debt Posted by: nochicagoboys
The Other Half of the Glass
Posted by: Direct Democracy on Oct 9, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The system is working like a Swiss watch for the Bush administration, the bankers and the rich.

Progressives need to stop wringing their hands, pissing and moaning and flagellating themselves and get ready to mount the ramparts.

FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Machines Will Steal Election for McCain-Positions Are Irrelevant
Posted by: 911FalseFlag on Oct 9, 2008 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cyber Security Expert: Hackers Planning To Steal Election For McCain

Spoonamore says electronic voting machines represent national security threat, Israel, China and Russia have capability to rig presidential outcome

Paul Joseph Watson
[1] Prison Planet
Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Stephen Spoonamore warns in a new interview that electronic voting machines represent a national security threat and that hackers are already planning to steal the 2008 presidential election for John McCain.

Spoonamore is a GOP member and a lifelong Republican, having worked on election campaigns with Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg. He also has 20 years worth of experience in encrypted and networked communications systems for banks, TV, telecommunications, EMS, Military and other uses.

In an ten part You Tube interview, Spoonamore warns that hackers are planning to steal the election on behalf of the McCain camp and even predicts the margin of victory, that McCain will make a “shocking recovery” and win 51.2 percent of the vote with three electoral votes over Obama.

“This is a national security threat,” said Spoonamore, “it is very possible for a foreign government to begin manipulating that transmission of code just as they attempt to do fairly often with our financial data….we deal with it every day on the commercial side,” he added, noting that China, and not the American people, has a greater chance of choosing the next U.S. president.
Watch his videos on www.911insidejob.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Age of Positivity and Community is coming!
Posted by: thinkverybig on Oct 9, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your help is needed. If you're ready for change, please share this video with all of your family and friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM58nqX1ehE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN_pGy_1bEg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD0iAQN7VPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpfHz_WeXHw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH9BtZwTyHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVGsuNecYg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UssvnQMn-EM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdfvQmh3b90

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Enn5yiY-0



Go to youtube and do a search for "thinkverybig" and watch all of those videos. The one called "We Must Change" would be fitting to recite at Obama's Inauguration.

Here's a community organizer that's reached out to over 20,000 youth and has a goal of touching a million by teaching them the game of life using the game of chess. Click below to watch video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLFENGymr34

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you want Progressive, VOTE NADER OR MCKINNEY, GOD DAMN IT !!!
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 9, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who still thinks that Obama/Biden are even remotely progressive is a fucking blind fool and ought to be smacked ! Sorry to sound a bit too rough but I am sick and tired of people lecturing others that if you want progressive, only Democrats will deliver. There are true progressives that just happen to be outside the two party duopoly god damn it !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What if... Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: What if... Posted by: Maxemum
» Choose To Enact Change? Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: Choose To Enact Change? Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: What if... Posted by: lenioui
John McCain's TERRORISTS in Arizona
Posted by: X-POLYGAMIST WIFE on Oct 9, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John McCain's supports Arizona's Taliban because they all vote Republican.

Watch the video:

http://www.bankingonheaven.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Just More of the Same
Posted by: websmith on Oct 9, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's hard to imagine that we will be able to borrow all of the money that these guys want to spend, let alone have the dollar be worth a penny if we do.

Both of these guys are offering major tax cuts. Tax cuts cost money and neither one of them has said how they're going to pay for them. Obama's tax increases on people making over $250K per year is not going to do it. This will lead to more borrowing and an increase in the national debt that will soon be $11 trillion, which will lead to inflation, which means we will all pay for the tax cuts. It doesn't matter if the tax cuts are for business or Citizens. We will pay.

This is business as usual at a time when our economy is collapsing. "Look", "my friends", this is total madness.

It's past time to stop doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results each time.

http://ewebsmith.com/self/StandUp.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does any of that really matter?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Oct 9, 2008 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all know what their REAL economic positions are:

Give $700,000,000,000 of our borrowed money to the same banksters that broke the economy, just so they won't pull the trigger, which they pulled anyway.

Add to that another $150,000,000,00 in pork and Republican tax giveaways, to bribe protesting Republicans, and a few progressive Dems, into voting for it.

THAT'S their real economic policy, both the same. In fact, the Democrats bought the plan wholesale, made it their own, and then pushed it through over the dead bodies of protesting Republicans. Bush never got such service from his own.

Obama & Biden both voted for it, no surprise by now; Obama worked the phones persuading reluctant Dems to vote for it. He owns it now; that's the Obama economic plan: pure, outrageous, unprecedented graft.

The Democratic Party, and their nominees, just took the Progressive Democrat "strategy" out in the alley and shot it in the head. If we don't get the message after that performance, we need neurosurgery. Something isn't connected.

HOW MANY BETRAYALS DOES IT TAKE?

If you'd like to see a real, progressive economic proposal, check out Cynthia McKinney's at http://votetruth08.com/.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's an elephant in the room.
Posted by: Gary Kleppe on Oct 9, 2008 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Health care is key to the economy. You mention it in your preamble but don't list it as an issue. Going to a single-payer system would solve the number one cause of bankruptcy in the country.

The Iraq and Afghanistan problem is sort of another elephant. You say we should "rein in spending" on them, but don't suggest the obvious way of doing that, which is to get out of both countries, forthwith and all, preferably then putting the people responsible for getting us into them on trial for war crimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reaganomics
Posted by: JSquercia on Oct 9, 2008 10:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The source of our problem can be traced back to Reaganomics . His destruction of Unions and his reducing the Top Marginal rate from 70 to 50 percent As well as his deregulation . I believe he eventually cut it 28% . During WWII and I believe in the Eisenhower Administration the top rate was 91%
This has created an inquality unmatched since the Robber Barons Era . They wealthy decided that rather than Invest in traditional Manufacturing activities they would instead invest in Financial Services as the returns were greater . The problem compounded as in effort to attract more Capital those in Financial Services Industry created ever more exoctic instruments that lacked any intrinsic

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How they got started. Posted by: CosmoViking
» RE: eaganomics Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
Neither of these two candidates is progressive.
Posted by: lindat on Oct 9, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're just two corporate-owned, AIPAC-led patsys there to serve the establishment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mad as Hell!!!!!!
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Oct 9, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, I am mad as hell! Just electing Sen. Obama to be President is just a start! Instead of listening to those that are promoting the fear, lies, and still don't have a clue/plan eg. McShame/Failin, maybe you can work your way past it and vote for Sen. Obama! No, I am not naive, what I understand is that it is going to take the collective will of all Americans! It will mean that we the people will have to roll up our collective sleeves - write your elected officials and hold their collective feet to the fire, it will mean that we all have to pay closer attention to the issues! It will mean a shared sacrifice by all Americans, not just the 80% that may just be getting by!

Yes, you are your brothers/sisters keeper, and while you may have issues with: the conservative/ fat/ skinny/ liberal/ gay/ straight/ rich/ poor/homeless/ Asian/ Muslim/ Christian/ Hindi/ handicapped/ non English speaking/ redneck/ progressive/ illiterate/ middle class/ Hebrew/ cigarette smoking/ alcoholic/ drug addicted/ ex-con/ environmentalist/ abortion providing/ hippie - we are all in this experiment in a democratic republic together! We will either sink or swim together, so get over yourselves already, and let us get to work!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mad as Hell!!!!!! Posted by: Maxemum
Question
Posted by: CosmoViking on Oct 9, 2008 1:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this the ultimate "economic hit" (read the book 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman'), and if so, then also a first IMF/World Bank move to further monetary centralization on a global scale as envisagned by some -- Illuminati style?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Question Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Question Posted by: CosmoViking
» RE: Question Posted by: nochicagoboys
One Question
Posted by: Coa on Oct 9, 2008 1:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I only have one question: why didn’t this article factor in the cost of war? It seems obvious that this high priced item is affecting the economy. We have a huge money pit; almost 15 billion dollars per month goes to war with no end in sight. Should I mention the number of people, who have been killed, on all sides? As this article clearly points out: our economy is in trouble, ignoring the war and billions of dollars and its effect on the economy seems short sighted. Is the war the elephant in the room?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One Question Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: One Question Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: One Question Posted by: Coa
Game over for sovereignty
Posted by: blogbooks on Oct 9, 2008 2:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How do you bring about true globalism and one world government without fighting WW3?

Well, you create a global economic system upon which everyone is dependent for survival, then you crash the system and nationalize all the banks.

Welcome to 2008.

All major banks are being "nationalized", i.e. direct government control of the global economic system.

Is this the "New World Order" mentioned by Bush #1? Concerted efforts by international banks around the world. The take over of all failed banks. Take overs by whom? You can rest assured the central bankers aren't being "taken over."

The Central Banks are making another power grab and bringing about the next stage towards true, totalitarian, one world government under their corporatist/fascist system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Game over for sovereignty Posted by: CosmoViking
» RE: Game over for sovereignty Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
You call this a progressive voter guide?
Posted by: holypigeon on Oct 9, 2008 3:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is the discussion about third party candidates? Shame on you AlterNet for doing as the rest of the media does! If you're gonna label anything progressive, you'd better paste the faces of McKinney/Clemente or Nader/Gonzalez all over it. This "guide" is a joke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nader
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Oct 9, 2008 4:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nader Nader Nader.

What was telling about the debate was not what was discussed, but what was left out. They both want to drill baby drill, without even any lip service to the environment, marine life, mercury in fish. Both want "clean coal" technology and nuclear power (yikes). Both allowed social security to be couched in the neo-CON term "entitlement", and even then neither one really said anything about it. When asked to prioritize energy, the economy and social security, Obama said "energy, the economy and education". Nice dodge Ho bama! Then there was the weird "fine" for people who don't buy insurance (stolen from Hillary, and when he disagreed with her on that point during one of the primaries debates, the crowd cheered, yet he went on, in politician fashion, to steal the idea, which makes me think it's something that insurance lobbyists want). Both want to spend tons more taxpayer money, just in different ways.

I'd urge anyone to go to votenader.org and see what's really possible, if only we all believe and act together.

Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader

It could have been Cynthia McKinney, but as Nader complains, the Green party isn't organized enough, and she won't be on enough states' ballots.

Love and kisses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nader or Ron Paul Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: Nader or Ron Paul Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Yes, I'm angry ...
Posted by: Daniel35 on Oct 9, 2008 8:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all because the wrong issues were put forth here. They don't include the two crises we seem to have forgotten about, the one involving the whole biosphere, 'global heating', and the one that's probably too little and too late to save us from that, peak oil, which we're seeing as high fuel prices, no doubt a factor we've ignored in the collapse.

And more immediately, I'm angry because these crises and this latest collapse, like many in human history, were because of excessive greed and lack of foresight (and besides, most of the solutions given are insufficient, or just wrong).

I see myself as a "Gaian", meaning my first priority is to the larger community, ultimately Gaia, the Earth's biosphere, on which we're all dependent. Secondly to humanity as the most important species, whether as Gaia's brain, or cancer. I'd like to say my third priority is to country, but these days I'd have to specify which aspect of it. And so on down through various levels of community to me as an individual. I tend to judge various aspects of society by these values.

I'm not "afraid" of the economic crisis, because I've been preparing for it for about 40 years, while at the same time preaching about it. I'm not preparing by gathering money, but gathering survival skills (free lance handyman skills for instance), attitudes, independence from the American economic system as well as class system. More recently I'm also gathering things I might not be able to buy a few years from now. But I'm very afraid of the environmental crisis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes, I'm angry ... Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Sarcastic Posted by: pdxjoe
RE: Progressive Voter Guide to the Economy
Posted by: payday_loan_advocate on Oct 15, 2008 12:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the most watched events in recent television programming was the presidential debate, “town hall” style. Like many other Americans, I tuned in to watch despite my disillusionment with American government over the last couple of decades. I watched it without many expectations, knowing that no matter how direct a question was asked, the responses would be somewhat non-committal, and sound bite ready. The major news journals in the United States were certainly taking notes, as the New York Times depicted the debate as “90 minutes of forced cordiality” and the Boston Globe stated that it was “mercifully free” from the personal attacks I was beginning to get used to and tired of. It certainly was full of tension and made for good T.V., to say the least. McCain continues to pursue policies nearly identical to George W. Bush despite his “maverick” status, such as off shore drilling and staying the course in Iraq. (The irony is astounding: what makes him a maverick is that he wants to do the same things as one of the most unpopular presidents in living memory. The BIG joke is that he is rebelling against the American public.) Obama relied heavily on criticizing the Republican Party, stating that they were the ones that created this mess and he’s going to get us out of it. If we had to go by what they actually said, there’s no telling just which one is the best for getting our economy out of these turbulent times. Obama’s position on “predatory lending” is not a good solution – it’s sure to lead to more unemployment - is more a declaration of intent to appease the banking industry.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Financial Terrorists
Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson on Oct 19, 2008 8:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush has become a financial hit man. It's like they (Nixon, Bush,Cheney, etc.) did to S. America. The World Bank rapped their economy and resources to pay down the debt. They used a "economic hit men".

A book has been written about it by the same name..."Confessions of a Economic Hit Man". He turned states evidence.

My husband who has a MBA and me a BS in business think Bush dropped a "nuclear financial bomb" on the world's economy.

It was worse than 911 by these financial terrorists.

Jefferson said,"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies."

Impeach Bush and Paulson who have already abused the trillions given to them in good faith by our Congress to solve the "bailout crisis". They want more and more. Try them under RICO for robbery and fraud against the American people.

Am I angry? You bet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

9 solution Clinton era tax rates ok, Johnson era tax rates better
Posted by: whealeydj on Oct 23, 2008 12:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a better solution would to bring back pre-Reagan graduated income tax so that higher earners pay higher percentage in income taxes since they can afford it.
in general excellent article on issues between top 2. it might have been nice to see Barr,Nader and McKinney postioons

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I could'a sworn...
Posted by: A. James on Oct 24, 2008 8:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that when I looked at my ballot there were FOUR CANDIDATES for president. If the staff of Alternet has a shred of integrity, they had damn well better tell me what these folks have to say. It is a disgrace that a media outlet that purports to be progressive would block the voices of politicians who speak to the concerns of other citizens. You do a disservice to concerned citizens who actually feel that they have a stake in the political process by artificially circumscribing the discussion. Shame on you Alternet. I expected better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement