Democratic Primaries
Related: About this forumSenator Warren is Exactly Right
"Warren is determined to talk about the substance of the issue, whether or not the reporters want to hear it.by Dean Baker
EXCERPT...
For a larger context, consider how the budget is reported. Reporters routinely highlight the budget deficit and the accumulated debt, as though this is the most important feature of the budget. It is at least implicit in nearly all reporting that the country would be better off with a lower budget deficit.
This is also indicated in their choice of sources. An incredibly high percentage of budget stories in leading news outlets (i.e. the New York Times, Washington Post, and National Public Radio) feature comments from Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an organization committed to lower deficits and debt.
News stories on the budget almost never present the countervailing view, which is endorsed by a growing number of economists, that the budget deficit has generally been too small in the years following the Great Recession. The result has been that growth has been slower than it otherwise would have been, causing workers to be needlessly unemployed.
Furthermore, there is now considerable research on the concept of "hysteresis," which means that there are lasting effects of a period of slow growth and high unemployment. The logic is that many of the people who go unemployed for long periods of time lose skills and may end up being permanently unemployed. In addition, less growth will typically mean less investment. This lost investment means the economy will be less productive in the future. Furthermore, there is even a generational impact, since we know the children of unemployed parent(s) are likely to have poorer educational prospects and therefore worse labor market prospects when they grow up.
Instead of the debt and deficit posing a generational burden on our children, as the conventional story has it, the opposite is true. The failure to run deficits that are large enough to push the economy to full employment leaves the country, and our children, poorer than they otherwise would be.
CONTINUES...
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/10/26/senator-warren-exactly-right
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
DownriverDem
(6,206 posts)we are a Center/Left country. If we blow the nomination, trump wins.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Kid Berwyn
(14,651 posts)Dean Baker makes clear Elizabeth Warren holds them, plus possesses a history of doing as she said she would.
FDR thought big, too.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Turin_C3PO
(13,650 posts)center left voters would vote Trump over Warren? Because if they do, theyre a right wing nut, not center or left.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)But the interest payments on the debt continue to eat a bigger chunk of the budget every year. Yes, "deficit" & "debt" are two different numbers. But a larger deficit increases the debt.
Ignoring that simply because of the source of the info is pretty stupid. Fine, go get the numbers from the government; they'll tell you the same thing.
I dont see our current growth rate as too slow. Go at the 4% trump PROMISED (and didnt deliver), and you'll get faster inflation growth, which eats away buying & savings power.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Kid Berwyn
(14,651 posts)78%.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/09/shutdown-highlights-that-4-in-5-us-workers-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html
When three people own as much as half the country, its easy to see why.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/08/bill-gates-jeff-bezos-warren-buffett-wealthier-than-poorest-half-of-us
I agree with Baker and Elizabeth Warren, who think the US government should go back to being, not only, referee, but return to active participant in shaping the future.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)The rich just move their assets, turn them into businesses, split assets, hide assets, buy rare items that arent tracked, etc. There's a ton of ways to do it. When most of the wealth is just stock value, it just isnt the same as actual property or businesses. Look how often we see a big stock drop & the news touts how Bezos "lost" 9 billion today. Its not REAL until its realized. Which it rarely is. But hey, go for it. What happens when the multi billionaires are no longer HERE & we still have the same problems?
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)Link to tweet
We estimate the cost could be covered with a 32 percent payroll tax, a 25 percent income surtax, a 42 percent value-added tax, or a public premium averaging $7,500 per capita or more than $12,000 per individual who wouldnt otherwise be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP. Medicare for All could also be paid for by more than doubling individual and corporate income tax rates, reducing federal spending by 80 percent, or increasing the national debt by 108 percent of GDP. Tax increases on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector by themselves could not cover much more than one-third of the cost of Medicare for All.
But you say, none of that is remotely feasible politically and would have all sorts of negative economic consequences.
Warren actually has an even harder task since CFRB does not exempt the middle class. Therefore, Warren cannot use a 32 percent payroll tax, a 25 percent income surtax, a 42 percent value-added tax, or a public premium averaging $7,500 per capita if they are going to hit the middle class to such an extent that it wipes out savings from removing insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc. This is the equivalent of trying to balance on elephant on the head of a pin.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden