Yet many "conservatives" are in the pocket of big business. Sadly many Democrats are as well. I don't have a problem with CEO's making more than workers. They were making more than workers in the 1950's. The U.S. economy was more robust then and definitely on top of the world. I have a problem with the disparity between what the CEO's make and what the workers make growing so huge, despite many of the companies the CEO's run failing, and our economy not being as robust. The bottom line is the U.S. does better when we have a robust middle class and not a few with almost all the wealth and a small and shrinking middle class.
Just another reason why I don't vote for the hypocrite Democrats. Suckers. Obama's Crony Capitalism It's time to separate market and state David Harsanyi | February 9, 2011 When will you wing nuts stop referring to our economic restructuring as "socialism"? Winning the 21st century is all about business. This week, a pro-business Barack Obama implored the rent-seeking CEOs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to look into their sinister hearts: "Ask yourselves what you can do for America. Ask yourselves what you can do to hire American workers, to support the American economy and to invest in this nation." Have our American businessfolk neglected to ponder the possibility that they could hire more employees and "support" the economy? Somehow I doubt it. But if corporate America is merely a cesspool of mindlessly selfish cretins who refuse to "invest" in the future by creating unproductive jobs to help build the subsidized ammunition we'll need to win future centuries, maybe they just need some prodding. What we need is an economy run by technocrats to guide our business efforts through regulatory agencies, pick winners and losers, and mete out economic justice; business, as the president explained, should "share" their profits. But which corporations are behaving admirably? Whom do we turn to in these dark times? Who can be bought to do the right thing? "Right now, businesses across this country are proving that America can compete," Obama explained, listing a number of businesses that get it, such as Caterpillar, Whirlpool, Dow, and a company named Geomagic. All of these phenomenal success stories (thanks to Ira Stoll at the blog "The Future of Capitalism" for pointing this out) also share, in one way or another, the privilege of feeding at gov'ment's welfare trough. Oh, yes, these exemplars of good corporate citizenry prove they can compete in a marketplace with taxpayer funds. Which will no doubt make them more compliant with the administration's wishes. General Electric's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, whom Obama recently appointed to lead his new panel on "job creation," understands this new reality. One of the nation's most effective cronies, Immelt's company has benefited from government bailouts, waivers, and lines of credit. A real icon of capitalism, Immelt. On a completely separate issue, Immelt has also supported every initiative the president has forwarded from the stimulus—"Bold, visionary action!"—and cap and trade (under which, unlike you, GE would benefit financially), and he embraces all the subsidies that come with the progressive green agenda. It's comfortable, no doubt, to be insulated from failure and market-driven innovation and competition. But even an administration as uncontaminated by greed and corruption as Obama's may become susceptible to political favoritism as it offers an ear and help to those who help it. Now, we hear that the putrid job situation—kept at an illusory 9 percent through an exodus from the job marketplace—has nothing to do with instability created by regulatory overreach in various departments of government. It has nothing to do with a $1 trillion federal deficit or a $14 trillion debt hanging over the entire economy. And it's got absolutely nothing to do with a new health insurance mandate that brings higher taxes and costs with every new hire a company undertakes. If this were true, the administration wouldn't have had to grant more than 700 waivers—40 percent to unions representing only 7 percent of the private work force of the nation—to help companies avoid the regulatory burden and cost of Obamacare even before all the goodness trickles down to the common man. These entities will be very grateful, no doubt. But do we want more corporate welfare or less? Do we want more subsidized industries or fewer? What Obama has been championing might work for GE, but how it would work for the rest of us is a mystery.
Well, may as well put this here: I am disappointed that the president's proposed budget *also* avoids the entitlement programs and the defense budget. I was hoping for something more vigorous from the white house.
Don’t sweat it Bob! According to the GOP, their 1 trillion cut is worth more than Obama’s 1 trillion cut.
Disappointing but not surprising. Given the voting rate of old folks, pretty much all mainstream politicians are scared to be the first to touch old folks entitlements and get on the AARP's bad side. On the other hand, any talks of "tax increase" that would be required to fund these benefits if no cuts are made is also now forbidden.
Hi FB, Thanks -- that link is from January, so I don't think there's anything new in this president's proposed budget (just based on its size) to confront the 40 cents on each tax dollar going to DOD. From your article: "The changes mean that the military would see annual budget increases that barely exceed inflation in coming years and that its budget will effectively remain frozen in 2015 and 2016." So what the January decision meant was a decrease in the budget increases. But you're right, it is a start.
great point. I hate when politicians call a decrease in an increase a cut. I'm glad the paper clarified that, but it shouldn't be labeled as a cut in the first place.
I mean, right? "oooo! barely exceed inflation!" poor babies. talk to working Americans. If we outspend China by a factor of X, all I'm saying is, can we try to outspend them by 80% of that factor? Still grossly outspend them, but that 20% DOD cut, if it's real, would mean 8% right off the total federal budget. That would be very good. I will probably be dead by drone by 5 p.m. PST.
We'll log this post to include with some sentimental music in a touching i-movie at your memorial service.
wow- both lines really skyrocketed up after jan 2009- did something happen then that might explain this trend?
Speaking of proposed cuts and republican/teaparty/libertarian inanity: I like that first bit I bolded, but it's not really strong enough. The implication that this "disconnect" is new or surprising is a total falsehood. The tea party and similar republican "conservatives" have never given a flying **** about deficits or fiscal responsibility - they just hate giving money to poor people instead of aiding rich people even more than the already outrageous status quo. As for the support coming from the libertarian wanker, well it really speaks for itself. American libertarians are really just pro-corporate anarchists - brainwashed fools who dream of someday being that ultra-rich jackass at the top even though the idea is pure fantasy - or, more accurately - utterly impossible courtesy of the policies they promote. It would be ironic and funny accept that everyone else is being crushed right along with them thanks to their ideology-driven neo-feudalist agenda.
As Sam mentioned, GDP (the bottom of the Debt/GDP ratio) dropped dramatically, but in addition to that, Bush got TARP passed, Obama put both wars into the budget, and we had this little recession that needed some attention. Note that the Debt/GDP ratio is STILL not as high as it was during the Great Depression or WWII. In other words, it is not anywhere near its historical peak.
