Roosevelt’s “New Deal” déjà vu: President Barack Obama wants an infrastructure program to help prop up the obviously weakening economic stimulus initiatives. Large-scale rail transportation improvements are certainly needed in a country so dependent upon motor vehicles, but that alone won’t be enough to pull them out of the economic crisis. The same was true of Obama’s first and far more comprehensive stimulus program; it staved off a worst-case scenario, but it’s no longer enough. The fact that even an $800 billion stimulus package is insufficient comes as no surprise. The Republican Bush era left behind an economic trash heap — the banking and real estate crises along with monumental personal debt drove the American economy into a deep depression.
The Japanese example taught us that stimulus programs that are too small and start too late lead only to long-term dependence. The world’s third largest economy is still stuck in a deflationary cycle and its national debt has ballooned beyond belief. The United States, at least for now, is in a better position to take remedial action. Yet the conservatives, those responsible for the crisis who have thus far opposed every one of Obama’s remedies, sense they’re gaining traction. America's miserable financial situation, of all things, is their main source of ammunition despite the fact that the collapse is due more to Bush’s war policies and tax breaks than to Obama’s stimulus spending. What’s needed is an economic fresh start with a strong welfare state and a strengthened tax base. But the pundits are predicting a conservative rollback instead.
Roosevelts »New Deal« lässt mal wieder grüßen: US-Präsident Barack Obama möchte ein Infrastrukturprogramm auflegen, um die offenbar erneut einbrechende Konjunktur zu stützen. Größere Eisenbahnprojekte hätte das Land mit der schlimmsten Automobilisierung sicher dringend nötig; doch dies würde nicht reichen, um das Land nachhaltig aus der Wirtschaftskrise zu führen. Das galt schon für Obamas erstes, weit umfangreicheres Konjunkturprogramm, das sicherlich das Allerschlimmste verhindert hat, aber auch nicht mehr. Dass selbst 800 Milliarden Dollar als Stimulus nicht reichten, verwundert nicht: Die republikanische Bush-Ära hinterließ einen ökonomischen Scherbenhaufen – die Banken- und Immobilienkrise sowie private Überschuldung haben die US-Volkswirtschaft in eine tiefe Depression gestürzt.
Das Beispiel Japan lehrt, dass unzureichende und zu späte Konjunkturprogramme nur in die Dauerabhängigkeit führen. Noch immer hängt die drittgrößte Volkswirtschaft in der Deflation fest, die Staatsverschuldung hat aberwitzige Dimensionen erreicht. Die USA sind – noch – in einer besseren Lage, um gegensteuern zu können: Doch die konservativen Krisenverursacher, die bislang jeden Reformversuch Obamas zu blockieren versuchten, verspüren Aufwind. Ausgerechnet die schlechte Finanzlage, die eher den Steuergeschenken und der Kriegspolitik Bushs sowie der Wirtschaftskrise als dem Konjunkturprogramm geschuldet ist, dient ihnen als Munition Es bräuchte einen wirtschaftspolitischen Neuanfang – mit einem starken Sozialstaat und einer gestärkten Steuerbasis. Doch die Auguren sagen eher einen konservativen Roll-back voraus.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
The madness lies in asserting something ... contrary to all evidence and intelligence. The method is doing it again and again, relentlessly, at full volume ... This is how Trump became president twice.
It wouldn’t have cost Trump anything to show a clear intent to deter in a strategically crucial moment; it wouldn’t even have undermined his efforts in Ukraine.
Guess again, the primary cause of the disaster was the Community Reinvestment Act enacted years ago, under Clinton, that forced banks to give loans to people who did not have the ability to repay the loans. The financial problems did not begin until Democrats retained control of Congress in 2006. It took them two years to tank the economy, which they then blamed on Bush. The factors in the economic disaster that Bush is responsible for are the liberal spending programs that he sponsored like the Senior drug spending and No child left behind.
Free markets naturally have highs and lows, but disaster is the result of interfering with those natural occurrances. You are right about the roll-back…we are going to roll back all socialism.
If free markets don’t work, why was the U.S. the most prosperous, successful and generous nation when we actually practiced those policies and not a single socialist nation has ever achieved anything?
Best regards,
Gail S
http:\www.backyardfence.wordpress.com
Guess again, the primary cause of the disaster was the Community Reinvestment Act enacted years ago, under Clinton, that forced banks to give loans to people who did not have the ability to repay the loans. The financial problems did not begin until Democrats retained control of Congress in 2006. It took them two years to tank the economy, which they then blamed on Bush. The factors in the economic disaster that Bush is responsible for are the liberal spending programs that he sponsored like the Senior drug spending and No child left behind.
Free markets naturally have highs and lows, but disaster is the result of interfering with those natural occurrances. You are right about the roll-back…we are going to roll back all socialism.
If free markets don’t work, why was the U.S. the most prosperous, successful and generous nation when we actually practiced those policies and not a single socialist nation has ever achieved anything?
Best regards,
Gail S
http:\www.backyardfence.wordpress.com