Throughout this year’s campaign season, the Republican Party promised to reduce the nation’s rapidly growing debt by slashing federal spending for everything but the military. But permanent fiscal austerity of the kind embodied by the Ryan budget and the Romney/Ryan campaign platform would exacerbate the biggest economic problems facing the country—inequality and unemployment—while also depriving the federal government of the tools it needs to correct them. By denying the government’s responsibility for the overall health of the economy, the Republicans’ fiscal and monetary policies would expose Americans, rich and poor, to the dramatic swings of the business cycle. The U.S. economy used to be much more volatile. Before the New Deal and World War II, there were bigger crashes and longer recessions. The regulation of business (especially banks and financial markets), the creation of a safety net, and countercyclical fiscal and monetary policy have all dramatically improved economic outcomes, and have led to a long period of economic growth and shared prosperity. In the postwar period, a rising tide really did seem to lift all boats.
Starting with the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s, however, the Republican Party—too often with the support of some Democrats—began to dismantle the policies that had promoted greater equality and kept recessions short and shallow. As worker protections were removed, real wages stagnated. With the deregulation of banks and financial markets, the incomes of the top one percent began to skyrocket and financial markets became much more unstable. Unregulated financial innovations—which were said to reduce risk—turned Wall Street into a casino. Investment banks, whose primary function had been to direct capital to real businesses that could make productive use of it, grew fat on reckless speculation. Washington, meanwhile, looked the other way, persuaded that the only restraint the financial sector needed was provided by the market itself.
Just four years after the crisis on Wall Street, the GOP has succeeded in rehabilitating this dangerous illusion. The central argument of the Romney/Ryan campaign has been that the government is getting in the way of economic progress. Government spending, they say, is crowding out private investment. High taxes and regulation are discouraging entrepreneurs. On this view, the real cause of unemployment is unemployment compensation, which takes away the incentive to find work. Likewise, welfare programs don’t relieve poverty; they make it worse. And health-care costs are high mainly because of tax benefits for employer-provided health insurance. Whatever the problem, government intervention only compounds it, and the market is always the solution.
Advertisement
Paul Ryan has adopted an “originalist” interpretation of the U.S. Constitution as his guide for understanding the proper role of government in the economy. But our twenty-first-century economy has little in common with the economy our founding fathers knew. Back then, there wasn’t much the government could do to promote economic growth, besides enforcing property rights, providing law and order, ensuring a sufficient supply of (slave) labor for plantations, and taking land and natural resources from the Native Americans. Since then, the government has gradually taken a more active role in promoting the country’s economic development—from helping to develop Wall Street to subsidizing the railroads and the oil industry. With the New Deal, the federal government came to the assistance of workers, just as it had previously come to the assistance of rich industrialists. This eventually led to the middle-class majority that emerged after World War II.
Nearly every major technological development in the past seventy years can be traced back to government spending. It was research paid for by the government that led to computers and the internet, to the Green Revolution in agriculture, and to many other advances in science and technology that have greatly improved our standard of living. Of course, the government did not accomplish these things alone—businesses and universities were necessary partners—but few of the most important scientific discoveries and technological advances of the past century would have occurred without the government’s involvement.
One can obviously find examples of government interventions that were harmful to an economy, but no modern country has achieved economic success without a strong and active government leading the way. On page 42 of his most recent budget plan (.PDF), Ryan states that “no economic system in the history of mankind has done more to lift up the poor than America’s commitment to free enterprise.” In fact, most other developed countries have done a better job of lifting their citizens out of poverty. There is more upward mobility and less poverty in countries that make sure all their citizens have access to health care and higher education. So Ryan’s claims about the success of laissez-faire economic policy find no more support in other countries than they do in other periods of America’s own history. Whatever the intuitive appeal of his pet theory, it runs counter to the available evidence.
The central argument in Ryan’s budget is that we need to cut government “spending so the economy can grow.” Now, it is possible for government spending to crowd out private spending, but only when the economy is at or near full employment. In such cases—for example, during World War II—an increase in government spending will either come at the expense of the private sector or cause inflation. (During the war there were price controls and rationing to prevent inflation.) Today, however, when over 12 million Americans are still unemployed, there is no reason to think more government spending would inhibit private investment or lead to runaway inflation. And with so many people looking for work, it makes no sense to cut public-sector jobs hoping that will eventually lead to more private-sector jobs—as if only jobs that help an employer make a profit are acceptable. Jobs are jobs, public or private. A public-school teacher is no less employed—and no less well employed—than a banker or a sales clerk.
Ryan also claims that the poverty rate is increasing because of higher expenditures on programs like food stamps and that unemployment is high because so many people are receiving extended unemployment benefits. As with his argument that economic growth is low because of federal spending, Ryan is once again confusing effects with their causes. The high unemployment rate is due to insufficient aggregate demand, not to unemployment benefits spoiling potential workers. Making unemployed people more desperate for work by cutting their benefits will not create new job openings, and cutting benefits will only hurt the economy by further reducing demand. After all, the unemployed spend whatever money they get from the government, and spending is precisely what the economy needs more of right now. In fact, unemployment insurance is one of the most efficient forms of economic stimulus: according to the Congressional Budget Office, it has a 1.45 multiplier effect. By this measure, unemployment benefits are 3.65 times more effective at stimulating the economy than tax cuts for the wealthy and 7.25 times more effective than corporate-tax breaks. Just as important, most evidence shows that benefits to the poor are much too low to create a disincentive to work, and that tax rates on the rich are nowhere near high enough to discourage them from working more.
Ryan’s obsession, the deficit, is yet another area where he has confused cause and effect. The high deficits the government is now running are the effect of a weak economy and a lack of jobs, which together cause revenue to decline and expenditures to rise. The best way to reduce the deficit is to create jobs. Cutting spending now would cause the economy to shrink again, raising joblessness and thus increasing the deficit. The experience of European countries that have adopted austerity policies demonstrates what would happen here if the Ryan approach were followed. Of these countries, only Germany has seen any success—and this is because of growth in its export market. But not every country can improve its trade balance, for the simple reason that for every country running a trade surplus, there has to be a country with an equal trade deficit. Ironically, Greece’s economic problems have helped Germany’s exports by reducing the value of the euro. But as the economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China slow down, Germany will run out of places to export its manufactured products. At that point it too will face rising unemployment rates, just like the rest of Europe.
While Ryan’s proposal to cut federal aid to the poor will cause an immediate increase in unemployment, his plan to transform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid into block grants could end up being even more damaging. Ryan is worried that these programs are growing too fast; turning them into block-grant programs could limit this growth, but only by reducing eligibility or benefits. Such a move would also limit the government’s ability to stabilize a faltering economy. Entitlements are what economists call “automatic stabilizers”—changes in expenditure that kick in automatically to counter the boom and bust of the business cycle. While economists argue about the effectiveness of discretionary fiscal policy (when Congress votes to raise or reduce spending or taxes in order to slow the economy down or speed it up), few debate the effectiveness of automatic stabilizers. The problem with discretionary fiscal policy—for example, the stimulus package of 2009—is that it takes too long to work. It can take months to realize that you’re in a recession, months more to reach an agreement on what to do about it, and then another few months for the new spending to kick in. This is why there was so much emphasis in the 2009 stimulus package on “shovel-ready programs”: when the economy is in a steep decline, you want the spending increase to take effect as soon as possible. With automatic stabilizers, there are no lags. As soon as the unemployment rate starts to rise, spending on unemployment benefits increases without delay. Likwise, when the economy starts to grow again and the unemployment rate falls, spending on benefits falls off too. Most important, when the economy goes into recession the federal deficit goes up, providing stimulus to the economy and balancing the shaky portfolios of banks and corporations, as they move out of risky assets and into safe government bonds. And when the economy nears full employment, revenues increase, spending falls, and the supply of government bonds declines along with the demand for them.
This “portfolio effect” played a major role in stabilizing the financial system during the 2008 financial meltdown. Turning entitlement programs into block grants to the states would keep such programs from growing in response to greater need during a recession, or it would require special congressional action to increase the block grants. But even if Congress was willing to do this (which is far from certain these days), the economy would have to wait for months, if not years, for the adjustment to take effect. Thus, turning these federal entitlement programs into block grants would not only hurt the poor; it would make the entire economy significantly more unstable. Under the current system, the government is prepared for predictable downturns. Under the Romney/Ryan plan, the government would at best be playing catch-up.
The Republicans also claim that the tax system’s complexity is a major drag on the economy, and that simplifying it will lead to greater growth. History tells a different story. In the four years before Reagan simplified taxes (1983 to 1986), the economy grew at an average rate of 4.8 percent; in the four years following the simplification (1987 to 1990), the average growth rate fell by a third to 3.2 percent. While no one supports an unnecessarily complex tax code, there is no evidence that the current number of tax brackets is inhibiting economic growth. The charts in Ryan’s own budget show that high marginal tax rates on the wealthy are not a barrier to economic growth or job creation: the economy created more jobs in the 1970s, when top marginal rates were very high (between 70 and 90 percent) than it did in the 1980s, ’90s or 2000s, when rates were much lower. Over 20 million civilian jobs were added in the 1970s, compared with 18 million during the ’80s, 14 million during the ’90s, and just under 3 million from 2000 to 2009. Most economists who have studied the disincentive effects of marginal tax rates think they would have to be higher than 60 percent before they would become a disincentive to economic activity. (The top rate is now just 35 percent.) The fact is that when marginal rates go up, most people work more to keep their after-tax income from falling.
The Republicans’ use of the debt as an excuse for gutting entitlement programs they never liked in the first place is part of a long tradition of plutocrats taking advantage of the disastrous effects of their own policies to push through even more disastrous policies. As G. K. Chesterton noted long ago:
The key fact in the new development of plutocracy is that it will use its own blunder as an excuse for further crimes. Everywhere the very completeness of the impoverishment will be made a reason for the enslavement; though the men who impoverished were the same who enslaved. It is as if a highwayman not only took away a gentleman’s horse and all his money, but then handed him over to the police for tramping without visible means of subsistence.
Like the Great Depression, the Great Recession had many causes, but the most important cause of both was income inequality. When too much money goes to the very top, not enough money circulates in the real economy, where it would create jobs and raise people’s standard of living. Compensating for this problem requires higher levels of private investment and more debt, public or private. Not coincidentally, these were the things that fueled the last economic boom, which came to an abrupt halt in 2007. When reality finally caught up with the real estate market, only government borrowing was left to keep the economy from imploding. The only real path to lasting prosperity is more economic equality—making sure the average American has enough money to pay for the things the economy produces. Only by addressing inequality will we be able to lift up the poor, create jobs, and raise standards of living without the help of another bubble.
Wow Mr. Clark, talk about a straw man, you just created a straw monster! You are partly correct in that there is a lot of money on the sidelines, but only partly. The other part is the "unknown" of Obama Care and all related expenses. CEO's are very concerned how or if they will be able to afford the additional costs, or fines, per employee associated wtih Obama Care. Also factor in just the price of doing business when the price of gas increases.
Next factor in the real engine of economic growth, small business. Between health care, increasing regulations and taxes under Obama, in addition to the double employment (additioinal 10%), taxes the self employed are obligated to pay, a self employed person under Obama can't stay in business being average, considering the high profits one needs to make to make self employment worthwhile.
Any intelligent business person will tell you that President Obama has been the biggest job and small business killer in American History. And, if he get's re elected, it will be a business wipe out.
Please, spare us the Aquinas and JP II misinterpretations, being the Catholic left hardly has any credibility when it comes to "Church Teachings." When you guys get the teaching on abortion, birth control and same sex marriage right, well, then maybe we can start an intelligent discussion instead of wasting time blowing up straw monsters!
I already wrote in my first post why "getting out the way" is the best thing government can do to facilitate job creation. We don't need a President to do anything other than remove the agenda driven regulations and excess taxes, all with a stroke of a pen. The American People will do the rest, I assure you, all while government does its job of keeping us safe.
And for the record, who do you think pays for all of those "government salaries?" Econ 101: starve business, consequently you starve the government and all of America; everyone loses.
Thank you wholeheartedly, Joseph J. Dunn. I find your posts far more persuasive.
Patricia, your heated analysis leaves many questions unanswered.
First, you claim that the country will be at its best, both socially and economically, when government "gets out of the way". In saying this, you ignore the fact that our nation experienced major growth in the post-WWII years when taxes were at their highest levels. The rate of growth after 1980, when goverment began "getting out of the way", was slower than the rate of growth of 70's.
Second, you claim that it is non-sense to say that deregulation further exposes Americans to the dramatic swings of the business cycle, and that the overall health of the economy is best served when government "gets out of the way". How is it "healthy" to unnecessarily expose Americans to boom/bust cycles? How is that better than providing stability through government intervention and stimulus in economic downturns? How is an unregulated economy better for all of America when 90+% of the growth is achieved by th top 1% of income earners? All the statistics are there, but you make your claims without addressing any of them. Seriously, your analysis seems to be more of a political rant.
Third, you claim that it's time to end welfare for everyone but the elderly, disabled and those not able to work for other reasons. The system is already structured that way. It's called "welfare to work". Those on welfare who are able to work have a time limit for which they can receive benefits.
Charles Clark, I never considered the thought of corporations sitting on money until after the election, but I suppose it's a possibility. We know the stock market has nearly regained all its losses since the crash and corporate profits have skyrocketed. I've wondered for a while why they're sitting on the money. I know that they are demanding more from a smaller workforce, but why? It's obviously not because they are overtaxed. My worry has been that Romney might be elected and pass his tax plan. It might create some level of stimulus, and it will definitely short change the federal government of future revenue. It will leave America in more debt, and more vulnerable for the inevitable crash. Of course, that crash will come when Romney is long gone.
Large corporations are indeed sitting with trillions in cash (and short-term securities including government bonds). The same phenomenon occurred during the Great Depression. That history allows us to understand the phenomenon, if we want to. As Professor Clark writes, "If this money were spent unemployment would drop significantly."
First, we need to bring facts into the discussion. For example, Apple, Inc., is one corporation with a very sizeable amount of cash on hand. With high demand for its products, Apple spends large sums on manufacturing, and large sums on research and development of new products. Apple certainly does not seem to be stinting on spending, which creates jobs, but the cash reserve remains large. Now, if Apple is to disburse some of that cash which exceeds its forseeable needs, that cash will be distributed as dividends to Apple shareholders, or used to buy back shares from shareholders who want to sell. The shareholders can then take their dividends or capital gains (after paying income taxes) and spend, re-invest, or donate that cash as they decide best. Some of those shareholders are charitable foundations, union pension funds, university endowments, etc., who would make similar decisions about the cash they receive. We might cosider what policies might encourage Apple's board of directors to decide that increasing the dividends or buybacks is in the best interest of shareholders, consistent with their fiduciary duty as directors.
Why might other corporations with less robust sales and profits hold large cash reserves, instead of investing in product research, or buying a small company with a promising new technology, thus opening a path to hiring more people? Professor Clark points to one possible explanation, that business leaders may be concerned about threats to the economy, such as the uncertainty about Europe's economic health (i.e., if we build it, will they be able to buy it?). America's current innability to address the January 1 fiscal cliff is a similar concern (how much after-tax, disposable income will households at all income levels have when higher income taxes kick in?)
Ultimately, the board of each corporation will decide, based on the circumstances of their individual company, what disposition of capital porvides the best long-term, after-tax benefit to the shareholders (middle-class savers, institutions, and wealthy individuals). So, if we resolve the fiscal cliff questions, will the resolution involve higher taxes on corporations and investors (which includes 47% of American households)? Or will we adopt some reforms that encourage investment?
FDR addressed the build-up of cash, which he viewed as a societal evil, by enacting an "excess surplus" tax as part of the 1936 Revenue Act. His intent was to flush out cash, by forcing corporations to pay out larger dividends, which could then be taxed a second time as personal income. It quickly became known popularly as the "Devil tax" for its many unintended damaging consequences, and it was repealed a year later. Clearly, a more enlightened view of cash surpluses would have been more productive.
The statement that "Like the Republicans in Congress, they (leaders of corporations wih cash?) are doing their best to make sure the economy does poorly to help defeat Obama. Keep the masses poor so that they know their place." That statement is illogical. Corporate execs, who get paid mainly in stock shares, are intentionally sabotaging the economy, which has a negative impact on share prices? Board members, who are exposed to personal liability if they sabotage their shareholders, are conspiring to weaken the economy? That statement is also slanderous, as it accuses entire classes of people of unethical, immoral, and probably criminal actions, with no foundation or in disregard of easily discoverable truth. We should be offended by such statements, and reject them as loudly as we would reject any statement that "the poor are lazy" or "the unemployed won't help themselves." Beyond the statement that all men are sinners, general pronouncements of guilt upon any class of people have no place in the realm of civil discourse.
We have a century of knowledge that can help show a path forward, and ways to advance the common good, and avoid mistakes that, in the past, have caused misery to so many.
Guglielmo Marconi, who's innovative thinking made radio a practical technology, and who's work anticipated, as early as 1933, the modern cell phone, had worthwhile advice:
"Science demands a flexible mind. It's no use interrogating the universe with a formula. You've got to observe it, take what it gives you and then reflect upon it with the aid of reason and experience...I like to be out in he open looking at the universe, asking it questions, letting the mystery of it soak right into the mind, admitting the wonderful beauty of it all, and then think my way to the truth of things." We might well do the same to find the best ways to promote the common good.
Joseph J. Dunn
To Jeff Keller:
Jeff I will only briefly answer your questions, mostly for the reasons that it won't serve any of us to get into a lengthy economic debate. Most are common left talking points consequently have already been addressed in just about every conservative blog out there.
For example, trying to convince me or any other conservative that the Carter Years were better for America than the Reagan Years, good luck with that!
As for 90% of the growth only benefiting the top 1%, it's simply outlandish. I could give you a million reasons why that isn't true, but as I said, it's all been debated a zillion times, and a zillion and one isn't going to change anyone. Funny though how no one on the left ever seems to be concerned about the wealth of the democrats, especially the ones who have become insanely millionaire-rich while in congress, started with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
As for the "Welfare to work", sorry, but Obama gutted that a few months ago. .That being said, I'm referring to ALL "welfare", from hughly profitable Sesame Street (actually got a million dollars in stimulus money even their CEO admits they didn't need), to the plethora of green energy, crony "Obama Campaign Donors" who pretty much got the rest of it, with the majority, in addition to Solyndra, already having gone bankrupt.
I'll tell you where another large chunk of "welfare" money is going, albeit rightly, is to the age 50 and over unemployed, the too young to retire, get SS, or medicare, but too old to get hired. Where do you think this group of baby boomers are going after their unemployment runs dry? To disability/welfare! God forbid we ever raise the retirement age, the country will for sure be bankrupt. The only hope for folks in that age group is to start a small business. Unfortunately, in the "Obama business economy", it's simply too expensive and risky for most. Many people, men and women, still raising families, have been downsized and unable to get rehired. People are seriously hurting out there, and that's one group that is hardly ever discussed.
This is where I would like to take the discussion to a different level, beyond "economics." I know it's a long shot, and FWIW, none of it is personal. I don't doubt for a minute that most or all of you are decent and intelligent people.
I would like to challange all who disagree with me, especially Catholics, to perhaps consider that maybe it's the policies of the president that is the major problem. And maybe, ask youself, who do you answer to at the highest level, your ideology, your President, or God? For the first time, even Christian African Amercian Democrats are starting to think voting democrate.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/20/bishop-jackson-black-churchgoers-shaken-by-obama-backing-gay-marriage-video/
I don't claim to know or judge anyone's heart, but I know what the democratic platfrom stands for: Same sex marriage, abortion, birth control, and no God (Oh wait, maybe God got put back in after not polling well). For all the faults of the Republicans, at least they don't have a platform that supports intrinsic evils (social issues and wars are prudential judgements, not intrinsic evils).
My point again, (which btw, yes I've noticed it's always ignored), is perhaps it's time to consider asking how as a Catholic if you plan to vote democrate, you can do that? There is no dispute that it's primarily an anti-Christian platform.
Either we are Catholics or we aren't. If we are, then we all need to walk the walk, and vote "Catholic", not race, ideologoy, or party. I'm not saying that economic priciples don't matter, only that most economic problems aren't a matter of bad economics, merely the obvious consequences of removiong God.
Even if voting Republican isn't an option, moral theology teaches that "doing nothing" is the better choice than the wrong choice.
Mother Teresa often remarked that the "poorest" country in the world is the US, referring to our "spiritual poverty", obviously so "starved" most can't recognize the only food that will feed and heal.
To Patricia:
Why is it that conservatives are anti abortion yet have no problem sending young Americans to illegal war at the drop of a hat to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents half way around the world? Do you not recognize a glaring inconsistency or down right hypocrisy on their part?
As for the roots of the 2007/2008 finacial crisis it can be traced directly back to as you would have it for "government getting out of the way". The argument from Wall street was rescind Glass / Steagal so banks become more competitive. After the unprecedented economic melt down the same fraudsters who packaged up the junk mortgages and sold them as AAA investments to unsuspecting foreign investors continue to insist on no government regulations not even watered down Frank / Dodd.
Romney and Co. are on the same wavelength. What they want is continued tax payer bank bailouts when they experience catastrophic losses i.e. socialism for the rich. Do these crooks ever get enough? If the US government caves in to their demands we'll see a repeat in our future. Had the government been in the way we would certainly not be in this predicament.
One final point you should be asking yourself. Why is it that Canada which has tight government bank regulations came out of this crisis totally unscathed. Why has the Canadian financial industry suddenly become the envy of the world. Remember it was Jamie Diamon as well as other bank fraudsters who brow beat the head of the Bank of Canada to loosen up the Canadian banking regulations prior to and after the collapse. Go figure! Canadians thank their lucky stars that Diamon's advice was rejected outright.
But then I'm sure the tin hat right wing nuts in the US will scoff and claim nothing but socialists north of the border. In their reality no country can possibly have universal health care for its citizenry and also practice pure capitalist free enterprise. Government after all has no business in the health care business as this is the road that leads to socialism. Perhaps they are right. After all Romney a week ago promised that no one needs to die because they are uninsured. They only need to show up at the ER. Naturally the uninsured plebian will be forced to wait 5 hours before being treated unless he bleeds all over the floor. It demonstrates once more what world he and Paul Ryan live in.
Patricia:
Prudential judgement starts with understanding, in this case economics and CST. An exchange of ideas and perspectives is one way to do that. However, merely insulting anyone who disagrees with you, or saying things like "Please, spare us the Aquinas and JP II misinterpretations, being the Catholic left hardly has any credibility when it comes to "Church Teachings" makes any dialogue impossible. I thought that was the point of these comment sections. If you want to trade insults or try to score economic debating points then its just another video game without the graphics.
BTW, I have given talks numerous talks on JPII economic writings (including at the Vatican) and never had anyone suggest that I misirepresented him or anyone else in the CST tradition. Certainly many disagree with my analysis of the economy, which is fair game, but your response should be based on sound reasoning and evidence based analysis. At least this is what I try to teach my students. I would certainly fail anyone who's critique consisted of ad hominem attacks and unsupported assertions (zillions, really). You seem to have the time and energy to write long posts, why not have an actual exchange of ideas (I won't call it a debate, as I have no interest in scoring debating points). As my vocation is teaching, I think it would be a service to many readers to have a serious dialogue.
My statement on Aquinas' views on property are either right or they are wrong (or they can be partically right or wrong) and I don't see what the Catholic left, or Nancy Polesi has to do with it.
Hi Charles:
Firstly, I was very careful, at least I thought, not to attack you personally. If you took it that way my sincere apologies.
Being that it was obvious you are on the side of the left, I made a general statement that trying to proclaim a church teaching, even if it was in context, (which I still argue was not), has no merit when you are supporting an anti-God Party Platform that disents on at least 3 dogmatic church teachings. You should know more than most, that no single church teaching can ever stand alone; it's all or nothing. You should also know that more than one Pope, most recently Pope Benedict in his first encyclical, stated (parapharased), that if we don't respect life in the womb, all other social justice issues one proclaims to embarce are phony.
The fail proof bellwether for anyone sincere on social justice is the way they treat the unborn.
In fariness to you, we didn't discuss the other issues, but as a teacher, even if you do happen to be aganist abortion, birth control, and or same-sex marriage, you have an obligation by your faith to speak out against them. The fact that you didn't, and clearly are not on the side of Romney, leave a reasonable deduction that you are at least OK with them.
As for an economic discussion, perhaps you missed my point that I tried several times to make: maybe the issue isn't the economy as much as it current presidential policies combined with a plethora of American spiritual poverty.
I made the statment that when Romeny wins, Nov. 7th will be the start of the biggest economic recovery in American History. I even agreed with you that yes, there certainly is plenty of money on the sidelines, but not driven by avarice but fear and caution. There is nothing in church teaching that would requrie any company, or person, to go for broke against a potential 2nd term wildcard president with a 4 year record of financial disaster, a self admitted "re distributor" (not just to the US, but worldwide), and, totally "non transparent" on how or what he plans to do in then next 4 years if re elected. Who in their right mind wouldn't be cautious?
Not too long ago on another post on CW, I posted this tape, where Obama in his own words, is seen race baiting a group of Africian American Preachers, in outright deceit and hypocrisy. I hope you watch the whole 7 minutes, consequently, ask yourself, why couldn't he be deceiving me?
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/index.html#/v/1875964675001/does-2007-tape-catch-then-sen-obama-in-a-lie/?playlist_id=1040983441001
All said, with all due respect to you, to debate "ecnomic theory", which I realize is the topic of your post, is from my point of view, a non-sequitur. Again, not because ecnomic theory doesn't matter, only that it's not the root of our current problem nor will our current problem be solved simply by "good economics." It's we the people who need the fixin'!
To Paul and abortion, war and Canada:
For the record, I hate war as much as I hate abortion and capital punishment. That said, I'm sorry you can't see the distinction between an American Citizen who volunteers, and an innocent unborn who has his/her life sucked away by anothers' "choice."
As for Canada, I suggest you try out some "free speech" up there and let us know how that works for you! Last time I checked it was the "American Revolution" not the French, from which we won our American Values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not "equality" to be like our non-exceptional neighbors and Europe.
Only in freedom can any person or country be exceptional, no price is too high and no fight not worth fighting to keep it.
Patricia:
1st: I think Paul's point was all the innocent lives lost due to Bush's immoral invasion of Iraq. Their babies are as precious to our Lord as ours. And it was our tax dollars being used, with the bombs being dropped in our name.
2. I did not write the article to support Obama, even though I will grant you that pointing out the complete nonsense of the Romney/Ryan proposals and rhetoric isn't being neutral. There are good reasons to vote against Obama, but these are not because Romney has a better economic strategy, for Romney is just Bush all over again. The advisors for Romney on domestic and foreign policy are the same as Bush, and since Romney seems to have no firm convictions, I feel that they will take over again. It will be tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation. While no politican will ever say this outload (because it makes politicans look weak) it takes 5-10 years to get out of a financial crisis, thus everything needs to be done to prevent one. We should not go back to the policies that caused the last one.
Outside a few issues, Obama's policies have been consistently moderate Republican, and for Romney to attack Obama's health care reform is the height of hypocracy, as his healthcare reform (as well as other Republican proposals) were the model of Obamacare. No president has been better for Wall Street. I would have supported putting the lot on trial, as we did with the S and L fraud of the 1980s when 1000 people were convicted.
And if you are upset with race baiting then the behavior of the Republican party over the past four years should cause you outrage, especially their efforts to restrict the vote for minorities and the poor.
And I know it is difficult for a Catholic voter when one party core issue is keeping abortion safe and legal and the others core policy is helping the rich get richer and punishing the poor. As Catholics we are called to defend human life from conception to natural death, which means we have to call out bothsides when we disagree with them and I think work with those who agree with us on particular issues on those issues. We should also be honest: it is not that the Democratic party will do much to help the poor, they just aren't going to declare a war on them; and it is not that the Republican Party is going to defend life; they are just not going to have tax dollars go to pay for abortions. Expecting either party to do more is "irrational exuberance".
Arguing for economic policies that center on defending human dignity and promoting the common good means raising issues that usually get ignored. Here is an example of an attempt (in a different context, at the United Nations): http://www.zenit.org/article-31967?l=english
We believe that the truth will set us free, and Jesus is that truth. Tonight Romney said America is "the hope for the world". Well, this is a statement no Christian could accept. Whitewashing of American history is not the truth. (Romney saying that America doesn't dictate to countries, America frees countries from Dictators. Seriously, Iran had a democratically elected government in the 1950s and the CIA working wiith the British overthrew him and set up a dictator. Chile, Guatamala, Dominican Republic, Ghana, etc) looks like to me that we have put into place more dictators than we have removed, and some we did both). Romeny (and many others) idealization of America looks like idolotry. A truely great country could admit their mistakes (like invading Iraq) and learn from them.
Patricia.
Feel free express any factual data you think you've obtained from conservative blogs. I usually learn more from these discussions than I express, and I don't usually read conservative blog posts. I've honestly never seen anyone debate whether more than 90% of the income gains in America over the last 20+ years went to top income earners. It is a statistical fact. I suppose some might debate the causes of the occurrence, but not that it has occurred. I've debated with some conservatives that claim that if we tax top income earners at 100%, it will only cover the federal budget for 6 months. However, that only supports the need for some cuts. It doesn't dispute that we need new sources of revenue.
Also, instead of disputing the statistics that show the American economy grew at a higher rate throughout the 70's than 80's, you reduce your argument to partisan comparison between Reagan and Carter. You completely dodged the point of the statistic. Professor Clarke's original claim was that the 70's saw greater economic growth than the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. That includes 8 years of democratic presidency under Clinton, and the 70's had 4 years of Republican rule. The point was that taxes were much higher back then, and it didn't inhibit economic growth. Clark also states that wealth was distributed more evenly. Again, this is widely accepted by economists. Of course, as Mr. Dunn points out, racism was much more prevalent during those years, and average white incomes were much higher than average minority incomes. Still, the gap between the top 1% and average Americans is exponentially higher today.
As for welfare to work, I don't consider Obama's proposition to amend welfare to work rules for states that submit better alternative plans to be “gutting” welfare to work. That is a proposition Romney once supported before his bid for the presidency. Another claim you make is that the economy will improve if the government just “gets out of the way”, but you do not provide any support for that claim other than the proof we will see when Romney is elected. Obama already got the economy on the right track, and even if
I am glad to hear that you despise war as much as abortion and capital punishment. I was beginning to think you equated Republican ideology with Catholicism. Believe me, I am well aware that the Democratic party is not consistent with Catholicism. However, I reject your statement that it would be better not to vote at all if I could not vote for a Republican. I believe we need to weigh the policies and proposals of candidates in accordance with our faith. The Church encourages Catholics to vote. Yes, the Church also informs voters of the “intrinsic evils” which we should concern ourselves when voting. The Church also recognizes that Catholics may have limited options in which all candidates support some intrinsic evil. Years ago, Cardinal Ratzinger informed a bishop that Catholics could indeed vote for a candidate that supports some intrinsic evil so long as the Catholic did not vote for that candidate for her specific position on that intrinsic evil and the reasons were proportionate. Romney wants this campaign to be about the economy, and I have no doubt that he will make his destructive economic policies top priority if he wins. As for his pro-life views, Romney has already made it clear that he will not pursue any abortion related legislation if he is elected. Why should I give any weight to his pro-life views if he claims he has no intention of pursuing any pro-life policy?
You say that as Catholics we must speak out against the evils of the democratic party. I associate myself with Democrats for Life of America, I make my position on abortion very clear, and I have sent a petition to the president asking for an accommodation to the HHS mandate. Yet, you seem to defend the Randian Social Darwinist economic philosophies present in your party. You don't challenge it, or even claim to view it as an evil that is lesser than the others you make your top priority. You embrace it. Here's a link to On All our Shoulders. More than 150 Catholic theologians and scholars collaborated to produce this document challenging the Tea Party economic libertarianism you propose. We need a consistent ethic of life, and as they wrote in this article, “Our concern is that Ryan and his Catholic supporters, must be informed—as prochoice candidates and Catholics who vote for them are perennially and appropriately reminded—that some of his positions are fundamentally at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
http://www.onourshoulders.org/?fb_action_ids=3925305016691&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
Here is also a link to Democrats for Life of America. Most members are Catholic, and DFLA takes stances that are much more in accordance with Church teaching than either party as a whole.
http://democratsforlife.org