Jim Hightower: Why Obama and Dems Seem Incapable of Taking a Firm Stand on Anything

[marmar]

AlterNet / By Jim Hightower

Hightower: Why Obama and Dems Seem Incapable of Taking a Firm Stand on Anything
The Obama-ites seem incapable of firm stands. They excite us by boldly addressing our economic woes. But when it comes time to follow through -- it's droopsville.

March 11, 2010 |


You know what we need to juice up the performance of our weak economy? Viagra.

Yes, America needs a new Viagra, specifically targeted to stiffen backbones -- in particular, the limp backbones of Barack Obama's team, as well as the flaccid spines of Democratic congressional leaders. Where's the drug industry when we really need it?

The Obama-ites seem incapable of firm stands. They excite us by boldly addressing our economic woes, then they seduce us by proposing stout actions. But when it comes time to follow through -- it's droopsville.

Take America's job crisis. Obama and the Democrats eloquently empathize with the plight of struggling families who are falling out of the middle class. They point out that after Wall Street banksters crashed our economy and created the Great Recession, which began in December 2007, the number of jobs available to Americans has plummeted by more than 8.4 million. Since then, another 2.7 million jobseekers have come into the workforce. That leaves us in a hole that is 11.1 million jobs deep.

The White House and Congress correctly note that our economy must not merely stop losing jobs, it must create more than 400,000 new positions a month for the next three years just to get us out of this hole. Nothing is more important, they tell us, blowing kisses of compassion and promising satisfaction. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/economy/145977/hightower%3A_why_obama_and_dems_seem_incapable_of_taking_a_firm_stand_on_anything

[MannyGoldstein]

1. This is Dead Wrong

They've taken stand after stand in relentless pursuit of income inequality.

[Warpy]

3. Junking a system, even a brutally bad one like Reaganomics,

is a deeply scary proposition. The human need to paste together something that's gone beyond the replacement point is universal and it's why none of our institutions has ever worked particularly well.

I'm afraid things will have to get truly desperate with a mob at the gate before they take any sort of a bold stand against galloping fascism.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. +1

As always, spot on from you Warpy.

[Donnachaidh]

5. +1000 n/t

[fasttense]

2. Tax cuts and more tax cuts, that's the ticket to nothing.

"In fact, the Democrats' response is even weaker than it appears. Rather than directly creating jobs that pay workers, the $15 billion is going into tax breaks for businesses. The convoluted hope is that the money will "encourage" the recipients to hire a few people who're suffering from long-term joblessness. This trickle-down approach is even more pathetic than trying to fight a house fire with a squirt gun, for it doesn't even put the squirt gun in the hands of the people caught in the fire.

What the Democrats have done is to pass a do-nothing Republican bill."

If I wanted tax cuts as the solution to our unemployment problem, I would have voted for a Real RepubliCON, not a fake republicon.

"Sure enough, after a lengthy romancing of their Republican colleagues (who are devout believers in an abstinence-only job-creation policy), the Democrats finally made their move last week."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. As several small business owners have pointed out in various online forums

they're not going to hire new people unless they see an increase in business. It makes no sense to hire people to stand around waiting for customers who don't come or to make products that no one orders.

Besides, hiring people is done with pretax money.

[canoeist52]

6. They've stood tall for the corporations that put the in office.

They don't need viagra. They need truth and compassion pills.

[PurityOfEssence]

8. Even corporatist molly-coddling like this could be made more effective by tying it to the intent

All of these Reaganite "incentives" are based on a ridiculous and flimsy leap of faith that's trotted out as a justification as if it's truth. It's like tax cuts: the theory is that if you give a tax cut to the rich, they'll use the money to invest. Says who? Same with the banks: give them money and they'll lend it. Right. They KEEP it to tidy up their balance sheets and buffer themselves from the impending nightmares they've set in motion.

Whenever "free market" giveaways like this are proposed, the proclaimed intent should be specifically tied to the goodies. Any tax breaks should be premised upon the monies being invested in the market. Hey, if that's what will happen automatically, how can there be any argument about requiring it?

I'll just put my Napoleon hat back on and go drool in the corner now...