DOWNLOADS: (351)

PLAYS: (3253)

Embed

Rachel Maddow and New York Magazine's Frank Rich did a wonderful job of giving her viewers a little history lesson for those who were not already aware of the struggles, protests and turmoil that Americans experienced in similar times of severe income disparity, a government that was only responsive to the ultra-rich and and uprisings that eerily resemble what we're seeing now with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Sadly, most Americans are not taught about the protests by the Bonus Army during the Great Depression as Maddow and Rich discussed here, nor are they taught about the history of our labor movement and the violence that was inflicted on them as well, before we finally got some laws in place to keep workers from being abused by their employers and some rights to protect them in the workplace.

If there's anything you can say about the success of the Occupy Wall Street movement, I agree with Maddow: It has at least changed the conversation in America about our economic policies and the fact that the poor and what's left of the middle class were pretty well being ignored by our corporate media before these protests started taking root nationwide. I'm grateful to both Maddow and Rich for segments like this that do take the time to educate the public about some of our history that most in the media and in our schools would rather ignore.

Here's Rich's article -- The Class War Has Begun.

Transcript of Maddow's opening describing some of it below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (221)

PLAYS: (414)

Embed

From CNN's In the Arena, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich weighed in on the second GOP presidential "debate" held this week and the fact that all of the Republicans sounded like they were reading a page from Herbert Hoover's economic playbook.

Sadly it appears the only politicians in Washington who aren't reading it right along with them is the progressive caucus in the House.

SPITZER: You know, I think that's exactly right. I mean the party has moved towards Ron Paul, not vice versa.

Secretary Reich, let me ask you this. Did you hear anything last night? We heard very much the same thing from all the candidates about cutting taxes, deregulation. Anything there that gives you as an economist comfort that jobs would be created because of the policies they were espousing?

REICH: Eliot, I don't see the logic. You can't create jobs if consumers are scared, they have a huge debt load, their wages are going down, their jobs are disappearing, they're not going to spend. And if you say government has got to cut spending, where's the spending going to come from?

I mean, there's a fundamental kind of logical flaw at the core of this. You know, after the debate last night I went back to the "Great Speeches of America," a volume I have on my -- on my bookcase, and I looked back at Herbert Hoover's statements after the great crash of 1929 and leading up to the election of 1932.

And what he was talking about was cutting public spending, balancing the budget, privatization, deregulation. I mean, his statements, Herbert Hoover and his secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon, could have been -- well, they could have been the speech writers for the Republicans last night.

SPITZER: Look, I agree. Much of what they're talking about sounds like Hoover.

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: As a factual matter, one of President Hoover's speeches is in your volume of "Great American Speeches"? This is news to me.

REICH: Well, great in the sense of influential.

SPITZER: All right. OK. I just wanted to make sure this --

(CROSSTALK)

GERGEN: Well, I just want to -- I do think -- you know, for the historical record I think it's worth pointing out in 1932 in Pittsburgh, Franklin Roosevelt gave a famous speech calling for cutting spending and balanced budgets. Herbert Hoover wasn't alone in that. But --

(CROSSTALK)

REICH: David, you're absolutely -- you're absolutely right. And I -- but I think that the important thing is that we learned a lot. I assumed we learned a lot during the 1930s, '40s, '50s. I mean, even Richard Nixon has said we're all Keynesians now. And to go back to the 1920s, pre all of that learning, is absolutely -- I mean, it's just extraordinary.

DOWNLOADS: (131)

PLAYS: (235)

Embed

Digby did an excellent job of laying out how deficit hawk Paul Ryan was touting Herbert Hoover's economic policies during this interview on Hardball and rather than repeat too much of her post here, I'd just recommend that you go over to her place and read the whole thing, but I'll include a few snippets here.

Randy Fanboy Thinks he Invented Hooverism:

Matthews asked Paul Ryan (R-AynRandFanboy) today if we should let the Bush tax cuts expire. [...]

I suppose there's something to be said for consistency, but this perfectly illustrates just how radical Republican "thinking", such as it is, really is on economics. I suspect that he believes he's rejecting Keynesianism for Randism and that he's very cutting edge. But the truth is that this is not new, even by Rand's stale 50 year old philosophy's standards. [...]

Never say that Ryan or Hoover didn't want to end the economic crises they lived through. But they both believed that government should have balanced budgets with low taxes above all else, and that the people needed "tough love" or they would decline into indolence. [...]

The difference is that Hoover didn't know any better and didn't have the lesson of the Great Depression to fall back on and Ryan does. He apparently missed class that day (or made it up by reading Amity Schlaes puerile garbage for extra credit.) And anyone who knows better can do nothing but scream at the TV --- "he's actually trying to put us into another Great Depression" --- when they hear him say these things, as I just did.

As our own Jon Perr pointed out, Ryan is just repeating the Republican lie that President Obama will raise taxes on small businesses.

In February, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) regurgitated the long-debunked talking point:

"I don't think raising taxes is a great idea, and when our good friends on the other side of the aisle say raising the taxes on the wealthy, what they are really talking about is small business."

Of course, they're not talking about small business. As CNN concluded in October, "fewer than 2% of small business owners would pay more under Obama's plan." But in case there was any doubt about the Republicans' deception on the point, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center quickly put it to rest:

Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike.

And as Jon also noted, when Paul Ryan is touting their ideas as an alternative for the federal budget it's nothing but a windfall for the wealthy.

Transcript via Lexis Nexis below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (367)

PLAYS: (461)

Embed

From The Cafferty File:

President Obama has the chance to use tomorrow's State of the Union address to reset his agenda and refocus the attention of the American people.

It's been a rough week for the president and his party - since the Democrats lost control of Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. Without their filibuster-proof majority, the president's signature issue of health care reform is on life support.

And the public doesn't appear too disappointed about that. A new poll shows 70 percent of Americans think the Democrats' loss of their super-majority is a good thing.

Meanwhile the president is expected to announce a three-year freeze on all non-security federal discretionary spending. He claims this could save $250 billion over 10 years - which is a start, but still just a drop in the bucket considering the country's $12.5 trillion debt.

And, expect some liberals - you know, the president's base - to push back hard. Already critics on the left are calling the proposed spending freeze a mistake of historic proportions. Some compare Mr. Obama to Republican Herbert Hoover, who failed to pull the U.S. out of the great depression.

Others liken this to Democrat FDR's move to cut back on government spending in 1937 - the economy tanked and so did the Democrats in the following midterm election.

There's lots more on the president's plate too, like the jobs situation - which doesn't show many signs of turning around. Unemployment is at 10 percent… up from seven percent when Mr. Obama took office.

Here’s my question to you: What should Pres. Obama emphasize in his State of the Union address tomorrow?

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (205)

PLAY (255)

From Late Edition Dec. 21, 2008. Ed Rollins slaps Bush pretty hard for the damage he's already done to our economy.

BLITZER: David Gergen, did President Bush do the right thing by bailing out Chrysler and GM?

GERGEN: Yes. He had backed himself into a corner and had to act and I think Dick Cheney put it well when he said had Bush had not done this, he would have been remembered as the Herbert Hoover of his era.

And it was unfortunate they had to come to this thing. But the real point is here, he's not only been forced to do that, but he has punted this to Barack Obama. Obama now faces a ton of huge decisions in the first 90 days of his presidency. BLITZER: There's no doubt, James, that he did punt in effect because by March 31st, if it doesn't look like it's working out, it is all going to be up to the president-elect and the new Congress to decide what to do.

CARVILLE: They're going to run out of money before March 31st. And right now, auto sales, everybody, doesn't matter, not just American carmakers, Japanese or European carmakers also are down 35, 40 percent. I don't think anybody thinks that is going to change between now and March and David is right, they have the ball and they're going to have to figure out what to do with this and it's going to be quick, very quick.

BLITZER: So Ed Rollins, the $14 or $17 billion in this initial bridge loan as it's called, that could escalate. That could go up to a lot more money given the overall state of the economy and the low demand for new cars right now.

ROLLINS: I think there's no question if you're going to try to save this industry, which is an industry in real problems, you are going to have a lot more money that is going to be thrown at him. I think that's a lot of the objections of the Republicans.

I think the problem the president made here is he let it go to Congress. The Congress, his own party, basically, didn't want it. There's a few weeks before the new president comes in and this president is trying to be relevant. He doesn't want to be Herbert Hoover, he is going to be Herbert Hoover. I don't care what he says, or what Dick Cheney says, this president has damaged this economy and is going to go out with a tarnished record. I think the critical thing here is let the new Congress take charge and let the new president take charge and move it forward. Unfortunately, it is on their watch and it is a mess.

DOWNLOAD (58)

PLAY (190)

Rachel Maddow agrees with Dick Cheney:

Given what just happened to the emergency loan that didn't get made to the Big 3 auto makers, I owe a debt of thanks to Dick Cheney, not kidding for reminding us all why it is so important to keep Hoover in mind right now.

[snip]

And how does Hooverism or neo-Hooverism apply to us on this big full moon Friday night in 2008? Well last night Senate Republicans who spent the last eight years setting huge piles of taxpayer money on fire for nothing in return with two ill-advised endless wars they decided that they were the party of reduced spending and fiscal responsibility.

Hell, high water? Feh! Last night, with both hell and high water all around, Senate Republicans killed $14 billion of emergency loans to save GM, Ford and Chrysler. Why? Because they've apparently looked back at the Great Depression and decided that Hoover is their role model. Of course the government shouldn't spend money to shore up its economy and save jobs in a downturn! That might make economic sense. Couldn't do that!

The Senate Republicans are counting on our economic and historical ignorance to win short-term political points for refusing to spend government money on something that it hurts to spend money on. Nobody wants to bail anybody out. But sometimes, you have to. And frankly they are seizing the ideological opportunity to crusade against the unions and against the very idea of Americans making good wages at their jobs.

[snip]

So we're facing a looming three million job economic sink hole. Even if you don't care about those specific workers, those specific American lives, those specific American companies, those specific jobs. Even if you don't care about that everyone fears that a three million job sink hole could suck the world into a depression. Not just us. And in the face of that the Senate Republican caucus decided to block the rescue plan to make a principled point about how much they want to be like Hoover in the Great Depression. And how much they want to lower American wages.