Why is it a recession rather than the second Great Depression?

[oladub]

Lorax: "Actually Timothy Geithner is the current Secretary of the Treasury. But, yes, I am aware of Bob Rubin's take on Glass-Stegall, and he has said now it was a mistake to get rid of it.

I am certain that it will be revived in some form to anchor any regulation platform Obama is building."

Geithner is the Treasury Secretary, as you note, but Rubin was the Treasury Secretary in 1995 when the article about him was written. Rubin, Gramm, and others who contibuted so much to wrecking our economy shouldn't be given a second chance. Its sort of like giving W a second chance. Maybe it would work out but there is no particular reason to believe that it would.

Regarding Kucinich; At least Kucinich would have taken out the middle men to make government spending more efficient. However, so far, he hasn't joined 165 other co-sponsors of HR 1207 to audit the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve seems to have lost track of a couple of trillion dollars. Our economy would be better off, were it located.

[Bigb23]

Its sort of like giving W a second chance.

Do we really want to give W. a second chance ? He used up his persona.

[Lorax]

I couldn't agree more that the economy, as it relates to Michigan in particular will never benefit from any policies put forth in the future until we start showing profits in business from tangible goods rather than paper.

Until we resurrect our manufacturing base in ALL areas from textiles, automobiles, energy, etc, there is no chance for long term sustainable growth.

A little protectionism goes a long way, and with the reinstitution of Glass-Stegall, coupled with a tarrif based import/export market, in effect, leveling the playing field for all homegrown industries, then we will be slaves to the corporate fascists who see us as exclusively a world economy.

If we practiced what other G8 nations do, which involves tarrifs on goods made level across the board, we would see an instant increase in growth. It wouldn't even need to be more than a couple of percentage points.

Also, as far as energy is concerned, it's time to force big oil into selling oil drilled on American soil and offshore to America only, rather than offering it for sale on the open market.

The hysterical "drill, baby, drill" of the repugnican reich was disingenuous at best, since they were unwilling to impose restrictions on big oil as to WHERE the oil would be sold, since repugnicans are in the pocket of big oil, they insisted on being able to take OUR oil and sell it on the world market, at a profit for themselves, while our gas prices would naturally keep rising.

Just another way to keep stealing from the American people.

[DetroitDad]

The rest of the world cannot live with the standards that America is accustomed too. We just would not survive. That really means America is going to either have to give up some luxuries, or have them eventually taken. We cannot really defend ourselves from this. The top is always eventually toppled.

If we don't change things ourselves, rest assured that someone will change them for us.

The other issue is that the rich in America seemed to forget where their money came from, I agree. Or, maybe they just don't care? More money can be made over seas where they don't all have cars and twelve speed blenders yet. It's a locust way of thinking.

[ccbatson]

If by "luxuries" you mean socialist entitlements, then yes...we need to give them up post haste. However, Obama is going in the exact opposite direction...a disaster in progress.

[Lorax]

If by "luxuries" you mean socialist entitlements, then yes...we need to give them up post haste. However, Obama is going in the exact opposite direction...a disaster in progress.

So, when are you going to refuse your "socialist" Social Security? How about Medicare? Medicaid?

We'll be sure to let these agencies know you're not interested in collecting when it's time.

Since you're not interested in being taxed, we'll be sure to exclude you from participating in the rest of our "socialist" society.

When your house is on fire, I'll be sure to send away the "socialist" fire department, and when you're robbed, I'll be sure to refuse a visit from the "socialist" police department.

Do you really hear what you're saying?

Maybe you should move to Texas, where the backward mentality of secession is taking root. You and Texas can provide your own military, police, fire, tax collection, hospitals, bridges, roads, etc.

Let's see you get around this one.

[oladub]

Lorax, Your premise that taxpayers who oppose things they do not want or are not entitled to see some of their tax money returned is flawed. Whether or not everyone who expects their Social Security and Medicare money returned will get it is another question. Medicare is expected to run into trouble in 2017 and Social Security in 2037 without higher taxes, or reducing or delaying benefits. So far, politicians would rather be dreaming up additional spending programs than make existing programs solvent.


There are no prohibitions against socialism in the Constitution. Many government financed and run programs are specifically mentioned as are specific ways to raise revenue. If Michigan voters choose to erect a health care program or Warren voters want to have a good taxpayer supported fire department, the 10th Amendment does not forbid it. If the people of Texas or Michigan choose instead to have private health care and privatized fire departments, they can do that too.


Choices made often determine whether specific states will have unemployment rates under 4% as do the Dakotas and Wyoming or unemployment rates three times that high like Michigan. California gave itself a boost by going deeply into debt. I don't suppose that residents of states that chose more prudent governance will be happy to be forced to bail out the spendthrift voters of California.


Senate Feingold has introduced a bill that would nationalize all water. It eliminates the ability of states to control their own wetlands, intermittent streams, etc.. This might sound like a good ideas but won't sound so good if the federal government decides to start piping Great Lake water to the southwest. That is what the state sovereignty movement is about - not succession. Most of the things you mentioned in Texas are already being paid for locally anyway.

[ccbatson]

It is not as simple as refusing the benefits...BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REFUSE TO PAY FOR THEM.

[Lorax]

Actually nearly all local and state governments need supplemental funding to keep basic services solvent, and regularly plug hole in their budgets with federal monies.

The answer really is to socialize all of the basics of living in a civilized society, combined with a regulated private sector.

I do believe in state sovreignty, and think the great lakes states and Canada need to stand firm on keeping water from the Great Lakes from being piped out of region.

That said, I also believe in a single payer health care system, basically a revamping of Medicare, which is already a single payer system, to be an all-inclusive cradle to grave health service which Americans could opt out of if they choose, though would be able to re-enter without penalty should their situation change.

Socialist democracies in Europe do quite well with health care and other social services. We now find ourselves in this country personally paying for EMS services, or indeed police and fire calls in many cities. This was never the case before.

France as an example of their priorities spend 57 cents of every tax dollar on education and culture. This includes the arts, music, dance, architecture and the ongoing restoration of the nations architectural treasures. We could do the same here and have a much better quality of life, and a better educated people who don't fall into the belief system of radical christian fundamentalism and xenophobia.

The hue and cry of the right wing over socializing such things in America would have them screwing themselves into the ground.

Remember when Detroit Edison took back burnt out light bulbs and gave you new ones in exchange? That's when we kept bulb production in the US, which employed Americans, and serviced Americans.

Now with cheap bulbs imported from China, and I use 'cheap' in the perjorative sense of the word, we discard our bulbs to landfills rather than recycle them, and our bulbs don't last nearly as long.

And we pay for them.

Most republicans would term this as a 'socialist' policy, not letting free enterprise find the best and highest use for the production, distribution, of the lowly light bulb.

Look where this flawed ideology has gotten us.

[ccbatson]

How do you propose to have a private sector when everything is socialized [[and going bankrupt so rapidly as to be impossible to fund even if taxes were 99-100% for everyone)?

[Lorax]

It is not as simple as refusing the benefits...BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REFUSE TO PAY FOR THEM.

No, you can't refuse to pay for them.

But you can refuse to accept them. If repugnicans put their money where their rhetoric is, they would say, sorry, I'm not interested in taking Social Security or Medicare.

George Tush asked me to pay for illegal wars, wiretapping my computer, defense spending, hiring fascist right wing corporations for no-bid contracting [[really war profiteering) such as Blackwater, KBR, Halliburton, Bechtel.

I never approved of the way my tax dollars were spent. And I refuse to support a president who wastes lives and treasure on illegal activity.

At least stand up for what you believe in, and refuse to accept that which you consider 'socialist'

[ccbatson]

Refuse to accept what you pay for?? This is not slavery how? This is liberty and freedom how?

[Lorax]

How do you propose to have a private sector when everything is socialized [[and going bankrupt so rapidly as to be impossible to fund even if taxes were 99-100% for everyone)?

It wouldn't be that way if the Bush Crime Family were really conservatives.

The conservatives did this to us. If you were so pro capitalism an anti socialist, then you should have stopped Tush when you had a four year majority in congress. You blew it.

Now the repercussions are a much more heavily socialized democratic system, which, by the way is how Jefferson and Madison set it up in the constitution, so look at it as a return to our strict constructionist ideals.

"...promote the general welfare..."

[ccbatson]

Oh yes it would...all socialized entitlements in history, throughout the world, follow a pattern of increasing costs and decreasing quality and access [[ie rationing) over time.

[Lorax]

Refuse to accept what you pay for?? This is not slavery how? This is liberty and freedom how?

You don't think you have an obligation to your countrymen?

What sort of price do YOU think you should pay for living in this great country?

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport, all have to contribute.

I really suggest a reading or watching of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" to better ground your thinking on what it means to live in a civilized society.

[Lorax]

Oh yes it would...all socialized entitlements in history, throughout the world, follow a pattern of increasing costs and decreasing quality and access [[ie rationing) over time.

Perhaps when Repugnicans are in charge. Socialism, and indeed American style democracy works very well when Democrats are in charge.

FDR and his 'socialist' ideals saved us not only once, but now twice.

Imagine what we'd be going through in this current repugnican caused crisis without the social saftey net?

[oladub]

Lorax, "Actually nearly all local and state governments need supplemental funding to keep basic services solvent, and regularly plug hole in their budgets with federal monies."

Why should they unless they have been invaded, struck by a huge natural disaster, of some similar occurrence? That's what state budgets are for. If states need to be 'regularly' plugging holes in their budgets with federal money, they have either spent too much or not taxed their own residents enough. The federal government's only financial advantages are its printing press, ability to devalue money, and its superior ability to pass obligations on to future generations. Otherwise it just has to tax state residents like any state government before returning money to states.


Lorax, Maybe you should throw away the rest of the Constitution if "promote the general welfare", at least as you perceive what the general welfare is, overrides the rest of the Constitution anyway. What you perceive as the general welfare apparently does not include freedom of religion at least for Christian fundamentalists. Medicare is already horribly underfunded and states can have their own health care programs if they so desire. Jefferson and Madison were anti-federalists. Your guy was Hamilton who advocated for a powerful central government.


Why not compromise and have a state health care program, 'socialist' if you wish, and leave the financially bleeding, bankrupt federal government out ot it? That way you could have your extra measure of socialism without violating the 10th Amendment.


Hoover and FDR allowed a government created financial bubble to morph into a decade long depression. Presidents Bush and Obama are following the same pattern - all in the spirit of the 'general welfare'. If you "refuse to support a president who wastes lives and treasure on illegal activity" that must mean that you are no longer supporting President Obama for fighting undeclared wars among other things. Congratulations on your progress!

[Lorax]

You're getting it wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin!

I will begin with this- perhaps the budgetary problems are from the high cost of supporting the PRIVATE SECTOR. Repugnicans welcome corporate welfare when it comes their way, via the largesse of repugnicans in congress, i.e. Henry Paulson saying he needs 700 billion bucks or there will be anarchy in the streets [[fearmongering). Or the unnecessary freebies [[subsidies) extended the oil industry, etc.

Take health care, why does an aspirin here in Miami at any hospital cost 20 bucks? A box of neoprene gloves 70 bucks? Because of the uncontrollable theft of private sector health insurance.

Working in unison with hospital corporations, they approve the costs of these items because it gives them an excuse to raise rates on those who pay- you and me, then point the finger at each other saying each are to blame.

Another good example are the no-bid contracts with Halliburton, now a UAE based corporation, having moved there from Texas to evade paying taxes in the US. Wow, how American is that?

The repugnicans didn't meet a war profiteer they didn't love doing business with. And we didn't even get first-rate service from these fascist organizations. They have routinely killed our soldiers in the barracks showers in the middle east due to the shoddy workmanship linking ungrounded electrical lines to water pipes.

What we need is a Scandanavian based health care and education model to work from, since it is the closest to the system we already have in place. You on the right need to get over your paranoia over 'socialism' and stop treating it as a dirty word.

What we have is a collapsing, greed-driven capitalist system that when left unregulated gets us where we are now.

Think how it would be if we didn't have FDR's safety net in place right now. A little more humility might suit you better.

[oladub]

Lorax, Agreed. Let's end all corporate welfare. No subsidies to any corporation for anything. Don't re-elect anyone who voted for Bush's Wall Street bailout for starters. If you did, you aren't being sincere.

No bid contracts with Halliburton and Xe are good examples of corruption. But why stop there? Let's get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan pronto. Halliburton is but a parasite and symptom of a worse disease.

Let's stop making corporate medicine so profitable too. Use some capitalism to attack medical corporatism. Let motel units be attached to hospitals to cut some patients' costs and have Walgreens , across the street, send someone over with aspirin. Insist on tort reform to reduce doctor, hospital, insurance, and administrative costs to make medicine more affordable. Make more medicine available over the counter to reduce pharmacy costs. Tolerate more non-traditional medicine. Allow cash only/ no law suit contract medical practices for $45 doctor visits.

If you still want to go the Scandinavian single payer route, first consider that a Scandinavian single payer system does not exist. What exists are five separate State medical systems serving their respective residents. The Scandinavian states have populations ranging from 320,000 [[Iceland) to 9.2M [[Sweden). Michigan, by comparison has a population of 10M. Our least populous state is Wyoming with over 500,000 people. So if you want a single payer system similar to the Scandinavian states, get one in your home state. What is holding you back? Washington D.C. is broke and hasn't yet even figured out how to finance Medicare.

[Lorax]

Well, I guess the alternative is to continue down the road we're on and see how long it lasts.

That's apparently your answer to fixing an obvious problem.

Or perhaps you really don't think anything is wrong with our for-profit medical system.

I do, and so do 70% of the population.

The majority are unable to pay for their medical care, and work increasingly for employers who either don't provide it, or opt into a crappy HMO or PPO which will fight you every step of the way, trying not to pay, and when the hospital corporation comes after you for the balance, then bankruptcy is the only option.

When YOU end up fighting with your insurer to cover basics, then you'll understand that they are in the business of maximizing profits at the expense of people's health. Period.

Take the profit out of health care, and we'll have a chance.

Doctors will go into the profession because they have a calling to heal, not a calling to buy a new Mercedes.

Costs will come down, and with oversight, hospital corporations will have steady, long term profits, will know what they're going to make, and provide long term employment for their staffs.

There is only an upside to this, especially in light of what we have now.

For-profit health care is for the rich only. The new technologies and sophisticated treatments are available only to those who can pay. If busting your breastbone is a cheaper way to open heart surgery, then that's what you're getting.

It's a shame you side with people like former repugnican congressman Bill Frist and his family who own perhaps the largest health care corporation on earth, and pocket billions annually.

As we like to say, Fristing America, one patient at a time!

[oladub]

Gee, Lorax, I was largely going along with what you previously wrote, offering both how to make health care more affordable by introducing competition and consumer choice while not discouraging you from having a more socialist one payer state plan such as Scandinavian countries have. I don't .know how you could suggest that I was going down the same road. You haven't even suggested how the federal government plans to finance its hugely underfunded Medicare program before it takes on Obamacare.

Doctors will go into the profession because they have a calling to heal, not a calling to buy a new Mercedes

Suffice it to say, you don't know anything about the quality of the young people coming out of medical school today. I would personally love it if they all cut back to 40 hour work weeks if we get Obamacare. Hope you can find a short line.

[Lorax]

Like I said in my previous posts, I'm still saying- a single payer system is best, and should always be the default position in health care. People should also be able to opt out of it if they prefer to pay for private insurance, or if their firm provides it.

However, it will be hard to beat a cradle to grave system that's paid for through taxes, and would have been paid for for nearly 20 years with the money the Iraq war has cost us so far.

Not entering into wars of choice to satisfy the greed of a few oil companies will provide all the money we need to have a single payer system.

There is plenty collected in taxes, it's how it's currently spent that's the problem. Once it's reallocated, we already have a single payer system set up in Medicare- a simple expansion of the system to include all Americans can be achieved, but we need the political will to do so.

"Obamacare" as you call it is a misnomer. Obama is certainly not a progressive, which most of the electorate who put him in office are, but rather he's more like a traditional conservative in the sense of say, a Barry Goldwater. Just as Clinton was more of a conservative than Bush 43.
The current crop of neocons are more fascist leaning, and are in a league of their own.

Obama has no intention of supporting a single payer, much to the disdain of the progressives who put him in office. And no doubt any reform of our health care system will fall far short of true reform as it's needed.

The sad perception is that the ideas of the repugnican reich matter, and they will attempt to bring along repugnicans in the reform process, when all they will do is slander Obama, refuse compromise, and the product we'll get will be some ineffectual hybrid of what we should be getting.

The big pharma lobby will of course, have it's way, and we will continue to be slaves to the corporatists.

[ccbatson]

Be painfully practical here....Medicare is imminently going to go bankrupt owing 62 Trillion in payouts over the next 15...maybe 20 years. If you reduced the haemorrhage by 90 percent, you might buy a couple of years [[presuming the impossible...that socialist entitlements cost less, not more over time)...but it is still terminal.

Absent the political will to phase out the doomed entitlement, we are left with terminally ill patient [[Medicare) that is highly contagious [[threatening to take down other corners of the economy).

Our options are to let it die a natural and slow/painful death while protecting the rest of the economy [[freeze expenditures at an affordable amount)....translates into heavy rationing/gridlock, and a tiered system. Vainly try to extend its' life [[at more cost). Or, wean off of it by a graded phase out [[the best solution and the least likely).

These are the only options. No amount of debate can change that as the horse is already way out of the barn [[most people just don't see it that way...yet)

[Lorax]

Like I said, less war spending, less repugnican bullcrap, and there will be plenty of money left. Oh, and tax the corporations who establish offshore tax evasion havens, and there will be even more in the coffers.

It's all about cracking down on corporate corruption, ending corporate welfare, and no more war spending.

[Detroitej72]

Like I said, less war spending, less repugnican bullcrap, and there will be plenty of money left. Oh, and tax the corporations who establish offshore tax evasion havens, and there will be even more in the coffers.

It's all about cracking down on corporate corruption, ending corporate welfare, and no more war spending.

Call me cynical, but I don't think we'll see the end of the offshore tax havens anytime soon. Those companies pay millions to politicians on both sides of the aisle to keep their gold hidden from the IRS. Its up to us little folks to bear the tax burdens of the rich and powerful.