By Betsy Ross
The American Economy: Real Change
With the economic crisis now foremost in American's minds, pushing back their concerns for the ongoing War in Iraq (a manipulated crisis at it's core, occurring just prior to the 2008 elections mind you), below are some suggestions for getting our economy back on track the "old fashioned," way - by abiding by the Constitution. I am concerned with Obama's suggestions, since as a Constitutional lawyer you would think he might consult it with respect to his policy making before making any more of his mesmerizing speeches. But it is clear this Administration is simply another promise of "change" without substance, that much has been clear since the changes in position he has made on both the war, and his economic plans.
1. Rescind the 700 Billion Dollar fraud of a bailout that was rushed through before the American people could become none the wiser, and which was covered up by the mainstream media acting in concert. This bailout was nothing more than a "payback" for those members of Congress, and the two presidential candidates, for their loans for their campaigns, billed at the American people's expense and will result in inflationary taxes that, no matter what pittance is rebated to the American people in the form of a stimulus package will only stimulate the coffers of the government once again in tax revenue. Obviously, the individual Americans had had it with the two party system that has merged essentially into one in defrauding the American people time and time again for their own agendas and purposes. It is called bi-partisanship, but is actually treason against the Constitution. A Ponzi scheme if ever there was one.
Instead:
2. Call in the loans of all countries whose balance sheets are now in the black, and whose currency is thus now also more stable, for all the foreign aid and loans we have made to them while our own economy has sunk in the process. No more foreign aid unless and until America gets some of those loans repaid, with interest.
3. Recall immediately all non-essential service personnel now serving in Iraq, leaving only the career army and diplomatic corp to oversee the arrangement of the transferring of the costs of the rebuilding efforts to their own government, since we were so very gracious in dethroning their latest dictator rather than abiding by the original Congressional Resolution calling for the capture of those strictly responsible for 9/11....Osama bin Laden and all those who directly gave him aid and comfort. The costs of this ongoing frivolous conflict are putting our children and grandchildren's welfare and continued safety at risk, and also their own economic futures. If Mr. Obama cares about his two daughters, I am sure he would see the wisdom in such a position, unless it is his own financial future which is more important, or temporary political legacy as the "winner" of a "no-win" conflict. How can you defeat any enemy whose personal beliefs hold that dying for their jihad earns them their right in heaven? The logic of this continuing war based on that simple premise continues to astound me, and a good many other Americans.
4. Pass effective legislation calling for accountability of the Federal Reserve, and no more independent actions outside the oversight of Congress, per our Constitution that gives Congress, and Congress alone, the power to print and value our currency. Since that provision was unlawfully transferred by the Wilson Administration, then at the very least also provision should have been included to provide for strict regulation and oversight, not our Congress essentially working for them and their agendas. Also, enact sufficient oversight and regulation of those private banks who are recipients also of loans from the Federal Reserve and their policies in their dealings with the public. No more freewheeling and fraudulent bailouts, especially not for global industries, such as AIG.
5. Repeal the 16th Amendment that affords the majority of legislator's time and now a year around Congress to be bribed and forsake their oaths of office to the American people in favor of corporate and global interests and using their tax dollars in order to so do. We are at this point funding the entire world's economy, and tying our economy into that of other nations is how we got to where we are today, in debt and at the mercy of those international bankers.
6. Repeal the 17th Amendment which then would again afford state legislative election of Senators, so that they again have a voice at the federal levels, and are not simply lobbyists at the federal trough for pork bills as another special interest group. No campaign election fraud with respect to the election of Senators, and Constitutional government once again. Institute the provisions that campaign contributions may only be accepted for House members from citizens, not corporate interests, that live in their districts. No outside state or federal funding. You cannot have a government of the people when the representatives serve outside interests, and not the people at all.
7. Since corporations only pay income taxes on their profits, tax them to the hilt. Then maybe those profits will trickle down to either the employees, or into research and development costs in order to protect their investment the old fashioned way - by reinvesting in it rather than the Boards of Directors and upper level management skimming the profits. Institute regulations that call for investor/stockholder approval of all severance and bonus packages to eliminate "golden parachutes." The investors own the company, so should have a say in the compensation for which these top level management employees are entitled and worth. Not them self-determining, in many instances, their own salaries and severance packages.
Those are just a few, but there are so many more Constitutional abridgements which have been enacted, that it would take days to address them all. But those "Lucky 7" would truly be the legal and Constitutional way to reverse what has brought us to this point, at least initially.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Remembering the Lessons of Economics 101: Why Increasing the Federal Deficit Does Not Mean that Our Kids Must Sacrifice to Pay the Bill
By Robert Kramer
Everyone who took Economics 101 (at least when I took it 40 years ago) remembers their professor asking what at first might have appeared to be a trick question: "When the economy goes into recession, the natural tendency of consumers is to spend less and save their money. Is that a good thing for the economy?"
Sounds logical enough. When your income drops or you face the threat of losing our job, you tighten your belt. How could that not be the right thing to do?
Of course the answer is that such belt tightening is a disaster for the economy. It contributes to the downward spiral of economic activity: less consumer demand, less money invested to create products to sell to consumers, less people hired to make or sell those products, less consumer demand and so on.
Now you can't require that individual consumers spend more when they have less money -- so the answer to ending the recession or restoring growth is for the Federal Government (all of us acting together) to invest more money in the economy and put people back to work. And that's true even if you have to massively increase the Federal deficit.
That critical understanding was one of the chief lessons America learned from the New Deal. But, at least until its massive and irrefutable failure this year, the conservative conventional wisdom that dominated political and economic debate since the mid-1970s has convinced many Americans that deficits are always evil.
The conservatives' success in vilifying deficits as a tool of fiscal policy is all the more remarkable because the Republican administrations of Reagan and Bush II created many times more deficits than all of the other American presidents in our history combined. But it has served their interests, none the less, to pray upon normal people's natural aversion to debt as a weapon in their war to reduce the size and spending of the public sector.
Perhaps their most successful argument has been their claim that when we run Federal Budget deficits that our children will be forced to "sacrifice" in order to pay off the massive debts that have resulted from our "out of control" Government spending.
It may sound obvious that when the Federal Government spends more than it takes in -- and borrows money to make up the difference -- that our kids must ultimately sacrifice to pay the bill. But when you look more closely, this notion is also wrong.
Someone must, of course, always pay the bill for the debt we have incurred. The fallacy comes from the view that future generations must "sacrifice" to do so. In fact, they are often much better off than they would be if the Government "lived within its means' and didn't create the deficit in the first place.
To understand why, you have to think about what we really mean by "wealth" or "well being". Wealth is created when people produce products or services out of the raw materials we find in our environment using the tools we have created for that purpose. Wealth is created by human labor -- by economic work.
The measure of whether or not future generations will be wealthier or must "sacrifice" because of our actions today is whether those actions generate more labor and allow that labor to be more productive in the future. In other words, the amount of wealth we produce is a function of the number of hours we work as a society and the degree to which we increase the productivity of labor so we can produce more wealth per hour.
The more fully we employ our work force -- the more we invest in education, and technological innovation -- the more wealth we create.
When the Federal Government borrows money to put more people to work -- to build bridges, or mass transit lines, or repair schools, or provide health care or to allow people to buy food -- it directly increases our store of wealth and that of our children. That is particularly true if people are working to create products that will be used over many years or increase our productivity -- like a new power grid, new schools, or public transportation. What's more if that deficit is used to jump start the economy to begin the upward economic spiral of more consumer demand, more investment, more employment, higher incomes, more demand and so on, it can exponentially increase the wealth of future generations.
In times of economic recession or slow growth, deficits do not force future generations to sacrifice to pay off our debt. In fact the use of deficits bequeaths our kids wealthier more prosperous lives -- even after they pay off the debt created by the deficit.
Our kids would be in far worse shape if we failed to generate the deficit and allowed the downward spiral of economic activity to continue.
By fits and starts Franklin Roosevelt learned these lessons during the Great Depression. His willingness to generate deficits early in his first administration gradually put the brakes on the economy's downward slide, until advisors convinced him that he must cut the deficit. That caused the economy to slide back in to deep recession until it was rescued by the massive deficits generated by World War II. After Pearl Harbor no one questioned the absolute necessity of fully employing everyone in America -- and all of our plant and equipment -- to produce what was necessary to win the War -- even if we had to generate deficits to do it.
Clearly in some circumstances excessive Federal debt can crowd out other debt, drive up interest rates and choke off economic growth. A recession is not one of those circumstances.
Next month President Elect Obama has proposed that Congress consider a large jobs and economic recovery program that is intended to create or preserve 3 million jobs -- and jump start our economy.
Some Republicans will argue by analogy that when times are tough you don't increase your spending, you tighten your belt and live within your means. That may be a good idea for an individual. It's a terrible idea for a country.
When times are tough for a community or country, we need to do whatever is necessary to put everyone to work producing more wealth. That's what will determine the economic well being of future generations, not the size of our deficit.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on Amazon.com.
Everyone who took Economics 101 (at least when I took it 40 years ago) remembers their professor asking what at first might have appeared to be a trick question: "When the economy goes into recession, the natural tendency of consumers is to spend less and save their money. Is that a good thing for the economy?"
Sounds logical enough. When your income drops or you face the threat of losing our job, you tighten your belt. How could that not be the right thing to do?
Of course the answer is that such belt tightening is a disaster for the economy. It contributes to the downward spiral of economic activity: less consumer demand, less money invested to create products to sell to consumers, less people hired to make or sell those products, less consumer demand and so on.
Now you can't require that individual consumers spend more when they have less money -- so the answer to ending the recession or restoring growth is for the Federal Government (all of us acting together) to invest more money in the economy and put people back to work. And that's true even if you have to massively increase the Federal deficit.
That critical understanding was one of the chief lessons America learned from the New Deal. But, at least until its massive and irrefutable failure this year, the conservative conventional wisdom that dominated political and economic debate since the mid-1970s has convinced many Americans that deficits are always evil.
The conservatives' success in vilifying deficits as a tool of fiscal policy is all the more remarkable because the Republican administrations of Reagan and Bush II created many times more deficits than all of the other American presidents in our history combined. But it has served their interests, none the less, to pray upon normal people's natural aversion to debt as a weapon in their war to reduce the size and spending of the public sector.
Perhaps their most successful argument has been their claim that when we run Federal Budget deficits that our children will be forced to "sacrifice" in order to pay off the massive debts that have resulted from our "out of control" Government spending.
It may sound obvious that when the Federal Government spends more than it takes in -- and borrows money to make up the difference -- that our kids must ultimately sacrifice to pay the bill. But when you look more closely, this notion is also wrong.
Someone must, of course, always pay the bill for the debt we have incurred. The fallacy comes from the view that future generations must "sacrifice" to do so. In fact, they are often much better off than they would be if the Government "lived within its means' and didn't create the deficit in the first place.
To understand why, you have to think about what we really mean by "wealth" or "well being". Wealth is created when people produce products or services out of the raw materials we find in our environment using the tools we have created for that purpose. Wealth is created by human labor -- by economic work.
The measure of whether or not future generations will be wealthier or must "sacrifice" because of our actions today is whether those actions generate more labor and allow that labor to be more productive in the future. In other words, the amount of wealth we produce is a function of the number of hours we work as a society and the degree to which we increase the productivity of labor so we can produce more wealth per hour.
The more fully we employ our work force -- the more we invest in education, and technological innovation -- the more wealth we create.
When the Federal Government borrows money to put more people to work -- to build bridges, or mass transit lines, or repair schools, or provide health care or to allow people to buy food -- it directly increases our store of wealth and that of our children. That is particularly true if people are working to create products that will be used over many years or increase our productivity -- like a new power grid, new schools, or public transportation. What's more if that deficit is used to jump start the economy to begin the upward economic spiral of more consumer demand, more investment, more employment, higher incomes, more demand and so on, it can exponentially increase the wealth of future generations.
In times of economic recession or slow growth, deficits do not force future generations to sacrifice to pay off our debt. In fact the use of deficits bequeaths our kids wealthier more prosperous lives -- even after they pay off the debt created by the deficit.
Our kids would be in far worse shape if we failed to generate the deficit and allowed the downward spiral of economic activity to continue.
By fits and starts Franklin Roosevelt learned these lessons during the Great Depression. His willingness to generate deficits early in his first administration gradually put the brakes on the economy's downward slide, until advisors convinced him that he must cut the deficit. That caused the economy to slide back in to deep recession until it was rescued by the massive deficits generated by World War II. After Pearl Harbor no one questioned the absolute necessity of fully employing everyone in America -- and all of our plant and equipment -- to produce what was necessary to win the War -- even if we had to generate deficits to do it.
Clearly in some circumstances excessive Federal debt can crowd out other debt, drive up interest rates and choke off economic growth. A recession is not one of those circumstances.
Next month President Elect Obama has proposed that Congress consider a large jobs and economic recovery program that is intended to create or preserve 3 million jobs -- and jump start our economy.
Some Republicans will argue by analogy that when times are tough you don't increase your spending, you tighten your belt and live within your means. That may be a good idea for an individual. It's a terrible idea for a country.
When times are tough for a community or country, we need to do whatever is necessary to put everyone to work producing more wealth. That's what will determine the economic well being of future generations, not the size of our deficit.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on Amazon.com.
FedEx Super Bowl Ads Latest Victim Of Economy (VIDEO)
By Danny Shea
Perennial Super Bowl advertiser Federal Express has pulled out of the upcoming event for the first time in 12 years, citing the economy. In an entry on the company's blog, Director of Advertising Steve Pacheco explained the company's rationale:
Carrier Pigeons, 2008 (Super Bowl XLII):
Moon Office, 2007 (Super Bowl XLI):
Stick/Caveman, 2006 (Super Bowl XL):
Ten Things, 2005 (Super Bowl XXXIX):
Alien, 2004 (Super Bowl XXXVIII):
Marooned, 2003 (Super Bowl XXXVII):
The Wizard of Oz, 2001 (Super Bowl XXXIV):
Perennial Super Bowl advertiser Federal Express has pulled out of the upcoming event for the first time in 12 years, citing the economy. In an entry on the company's blog, Director of Advertising Steve Pacheco explained the company's rationale:
As a country, we are in unprecedented economic waters. And as a responsible employer of more than 290,000 employees and contractors worldwide, there is a time to justify such an ad spend and a time to step back.FedEx, which uses ad agency BBDO New York, has been a Super Bowl advertiser since 1989 with classic spots, which Pacheco runs down in his blog:
As FedEx employees, we, like millions of people at other companies, are being asked to do more with less. Our most vital asset is the thousands of FedEx team members who truly enable the world to work, absolutely, positively, every day. In the ultimate medium when where the message is king, being in the game simply sends the wrong message both to employees and other FedEx constituents. A Super Bowl ad buy is not where we should put dollars at this time although, in the past, the value of doing so for FedEx has been indisputable.
To name a few, giant carrier pigeons wreaked havoc and tossed cars in our CGI city, the Stanley Cup wound up in Bolivia, we learned that the cherished Castaway package contained a survival kit, blank color bars surprised all when we learned the network did not use FedEx one year and the EMMY award-winning "Stick," featuring the FedEx cave men, showed us that FedEx rocked the prehistoric age.Pacheco said FedEx looks forward to advertising in the Super Bowl again soon, but until that time comes, check out some of their ads throughout the years below:
Carrier Pigeons, 2008 (Super Bowl XLII):
Moon Office, 2007 (Super Bowl XLI):
Stick/Caveman, 2006 (Super Bowl XL):
Ten Things, 2005 (Super Bowl XXXIX):
Alien, 2004 (Super Bowl XXXVIII):
Marooned, 2003 (Super Bowl XXXVII):
The Wizard of Oz, 2001 (Super Bowl XXXIV):
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
