Dw. Dunphy On… American Dreaming

Dw. Dunphy June 5, 2008 28

olbermanA couple weeks ago, my colleague Jon Cummings posted his opinions on Keith Olbermann’s current Bizarro-world rantings, exhibiting a vehemence seldom seen from the supposed liberal left. Jon rightly claimed that Olbermann’s spasms were frighteningly right-like and as over-the-top as Bill O’Reilly. At the same time, he said that the underlying sentiment of anger at President Bush, his penchant for being so out of touch with the very country he runs, and his patronizing stabs at letting the little folk think know he commiserates are dead on. I have to disagree.

When I talk to my friends and co-workers, the folks “down here” on the totem pole, I don’t get a sense of anger, certainly not the eye-bulging, vein-throbbing anger of a certain MSNBC commentator. I get despair, and lots of it. I have written in the past about the shell game that is the Economic Stimulus Rebate, saying that our ever-mounting bills, still faltering job market and ever increasing debt-load, would render the whole thing null and void. As we roll into summer (and yes, 2008 is almost half over!) few families can afford that trip to a sunny destination and many are wondering if they can even afford to take the whole family to the movies a couple times this year. Gas prices are shattering records and that 1970s inflation curve economists have been ameliorating us with (“If you do the math, we’re still paying less than we did in ’73! Boo-Yah!”) is rapidly breaking apart. Under the weight of all this, I find those around me are too depressed to be pissed, too burdened to rage. If the true plan from the upper 10% of America was to drive the lower 50% into a suicidal funk, it’s starting to work.

So even though it is oddly cathartic to see Olbermann bitching, ostensibly for our benefit, it is hardly about capturing the national mood. See, America used to be the land of dreams, many unrealized, but it was okay to believe better times were ahead, our lives could turn for the better just like that, and that the much vaunted ‘good life’ could be ours. It doesn’t seem like dreaming is allowed anymore. There are too many gatekeepers to pass, too many toll-takers to pay, not enough air to breathe. We can’t even go for a Sunday drive without fearing the financial backlash on Monday morning. My brother Dan has been in a band, Core Device, for more than a decade and they’re good. As a matter of fact, as metal bands go they’re actually great, and that’s not nepotism. Yet, with a small family of his own to support and a job market that could never provide what he needs, Core Device has been pushed farther and farther into the margins. My friend Tom died a couple years ago. Well, died is a soft-shoe term because he actually killed himself. His business went under, his wife was sick, his bills kept mounting and hope seemed like a fool’s game. My uncle had to take on loans to save his home and now, in a period of his life when he was hoping to retire with minimal debts, is working as a janitor where his boss condescendingly calls him “Pops.”

pintI could go on and on and, frankly, I bet you readers could as well. We’re just too weary for venom and too abused to dream. And that is the unkindest cut of all. My friend Patricio (I call him Patrick) has been looking at the mess this country is in and often wonders, out loud, why he bothered to get his family out of Chile to be here. The immigrant dream, the American dream, the notion of a glorious self-evolution in a land that actually appreciates that sort of thing, these are all coming undone. It is not okay to dream anymore, so it seems. When that mood settles in, so do the vultures. I can’t help but be sickened at the commercials for real estate entrepreneurs, mugging for the cameras, demanding that “foreclosures are the key to your wealth,” and “their misfortune is your golden opportunity!”

I’m equally shocked when the self-help superstars come crawling out of the ground. They have a system and they work it like a Patek Phillipe movement. Step one – identify the malady. The main problem is unhappiness. The symptoms of sadness can be emotional depression, being broke, getting fat because of low self-esteem due to the circumstances, but the target must be as broad as possible to attract the lion’s share of the suckers afflicted.

Step two – create the field of misery. By saying that the problem isn’t your fault, that it is systemic and that you actually are a victim, is to close off the doors. You can’t sell them on your course if they feel they have no part of the problem, so by creating the field of misery, that amorphous conglomeration of isms, doubt and bullshit, you aim the blame back at them. You’re the problem. Here’s the solution.

Step three- manifest the positudity while exiling the negavisitation. In plain English, well, there’s no way to break that down into plain English, and that’s the goal. Guru cures often hinge on a solution that is so vague, so abstract, that thousands of interpretations are possible. It’s a form of plausible deniability. When their cure-all fails to cure-all, it’s not the program’s fault, it’s yours. You didn’t manifest the positudity. You didn’t love the universe enough. You didn’t give your inner child a candy bar. It has nothing to do with our snake oil.

Step four – the executive version. Maybe your negavisitation is unprecedented. Maybe you have uber-negavisitation. Maybe you need the DVD set to go with the book, or perhaps you should come to our seminar. It’s only $600 to attend and the first 1000 attendees get a soda can cozy with our corporate logo screened on it absolutely free. You’d be a fool to let this chance go. Give your dream a chance to live.

The truth is that the real estate gurus, the feel-good gurus and the financial gurus didn’t get their fortunes by practicing what they preach. They got it by selling their paraphernalia to you, pure and simple. Because America is the land of frustrated dreamers, the venues for leeches to bleed the dream dry are plentiful. After all, if we don’t seize the opportunity they’re selling, it’s our fault. If we buy into the refinancing schemes of predatory loan salesmen who, all the while are purporting their mortgages to be “cash-quality-safe”, it’s our fault not theirs. If we elect officials who keep telling us they have the best kung-fu to keep us safe from the marauders at our borders, it’s our fault they lied to us.

Here’s a thought. While we’re not innocent of our current circumstances, we’re also not entirely to blame. If the Wall Street Journal says it is so, and CNN says it is so, and Tim Russert says it is so, we might very well be gullible and prone to the pitfalls of belief, but we didn’t create the lie. Pyrrhic though it may be, even though we fell for the gag, we didn’t make the gag. The true strength of the proposed American dream is that maybe, just maybe, when the clouds part a little, we might be able to breathe easier again. It might require us to re-prioritize things. It might even mean a lowering of expectations. But as dire as everything may be, know that it is not entirely our fault. If we can somehow get past this national despair without becoming crusty, cynical shadows of our former selves, we will have succeeded in our own, personal first step.

And that’s a victory no scam artist can sell you and no governmental gangster can steal away.

Opeth – Hope Leaves

Midnight Oil – Helps Me Helps You

  • JonCummings

    Interesting day here at Popdose. First Bartlett reflects on Bobby Kennedy's death and what it meant to our politics. Then I goofed on some of the symptoms of our currently broken politics (cynicism, diversion and division). And now you've explored the national malaise and its numbing effects on the mind and soul. Jeez, could somebody put up some 1910 Fruitgum Co. MP3s to get us out of this funk????

    I agree with you completely that, as the recession deepens and despair has continued to sink in, the anger of someone like Olbermann seems out of step. The thing is, we SHOULD be angrier than we are at the forces that have brought these troubles upon us — the gridlocked, hyper-partisan government that refuses to pursue real solutions to problems like fossil-fuel dependence; our jerry-rigged financial system that is collapsing before our eyes; the US-based corporations that long ago sacrificed any sense of duty to their country in pursuit of more (ever-weakening) dollars, etc.

    We also should be angry at ourselves for letting it all happen, for not being more diligent to make sure it didn't happen. Our leaders have been offering us Band-Aids and placebos for decades while a tumor grew and festered, and we grasped eagerly at them without seeking a second opinion.

    I still believe that, had the Republicans not dumbed-down impeachment a decade ago, the misdeeds of the Bush administration (both its crimes and its incompetence) would have led to a nationwide boiling-over after Katrina, Gitmo and the disaster of the Iraq war. Instead, with cowardly Democrats leading the way, we've taken anger off the table and replaced it with resignation and a counting down to what might begin in 2009.

    Like all recessions, this one will come and go. What we need to do now–now that we know that propping up an economy with tax breaks for the rich, overly aggressive monetary policies and unfettered globalization doesn't work–is to achieve a recovery that is equitable across the economy, and to resolve to reject the quick fixes that sent us hurtling back into another recession so quickly.

    It may take a shift from despair to anger to get us there, though. All's I know is, gas is $4.43 at the local Mobil station this afternoon–up 20 cents from two days ago–and even the denizens of my arch-conservative, well-to-do suburb are starting to get royally pissed off.

  • steve

    Good comment Jon. Your point about being angry at ourselves and the festering tumor is pertinent. Both parties have miserably failed us in even giving a college-try at being less dependent on not just foreign oil, but oil in general. They're all to blame. Sure consumers and their wasteful ways share some of the gas-price blame, but ultimately if we actually had started putting our best brains and some respectable amounts of money towards all the alternative energies out there (and there are many) after the shock of the late 70's oil crisis, we'd be 30 years ahead now and we'd have cars that run on anything except oil and wind, solar, and God knows what else powering half of America. Reagan, Bush “the good”, Clinton, and Bush II – and the Congresses that went with them – they ALL blew it. We need future-thinking leaders and those clowns all blew it on energy.

    I have to take issue with you on 2 points. As far as a recession – we are still not technically in a recession. To be fair things are not good, but recession is defined as a decline in gross domestic product for at least 2 quarters in a row, and GDP actually still went up last quarter – but only 0.6%. What's my point? Well, again, we're not in a recession yet and compared to say the actual recession in the 70's things are actually very good. Unemployment is still a VERY low 5% – historically incredible and enough to make all Europen economies jealous – and interest rates on a home loan are still 6%. Compare those to the 70's and we're doing very well with the economy. We've just been spoiled in the 90s and through 2006. And yes, adjusted for inflation, gas prices are still lower than those dark days in the 70s (when a 30-year loan went for 12% interest!!!) I don't know if you remember those days, but THOSE were some dark times.

    Secondly, I'm not for giving a tax break to folks who make over $250,000. I've run the math, and I think that's the cut-off. Yes, Bush gave tax breaks to those folks. But he also gave tax breaks to everyone – yes everyone else. I'm looking at the federal tax chart right now in front of me from 2002, and a person making 30,000 pays less in federal taxes now than they did under Clinton. Somehow a lie gets reported that his tax breaks were “only for the rich”. It's a lie. Everyone got a tax break. Everyone got a refund – twice. I didn't hear folks complaining about their $600 refund recently (which folks who make over $110,000 didn't get). I'd argue that a sole bread-winner w/two kids making $110,000 is not rich. He ain't hurting, but he ain't rich either. Bottom line, Bush's tax cuts went across the board. And those of lower income got a higher percentage cut in many cases. But a 10% tax cut on 30,000 is less actual money (3K) than a 1% tax rate cut on a fat-cat making $500,000 (5K). So technically more money went in the fat-cats pocket, but the guy making $30,000 got a bigger percentage cut from his salary by far. It's easy to lie with numbers by saying “most of it went to the rich”. The truth on the Bush tax cuts – everyone has lower federal income taxes now than they did during Clinton. Everyone. Again, I'm for rolling the highest bracket back up to 39% (as it was under Clinton) – as long as they allow that income level to be adjusted for inflation. I'm not for rolling back the rest of the Bush tax cuts, because even poor folk got a tax cut under Bush. Maybe they should be made deeper for th poor folk. Under Clinton, the poorest folks still paid 15% federal taxes. Bush's tax cuts added a lower 10% bracket. That's a tax cut for the poor and the media lies and refuses to report it accurately. See this website and better yet, check your own Federal tax books (if you keep your records). The tax tables are in the back and lay the numbers out. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    I don't buy the “not in a recession” stuff. Sorry, but I simply don't. It's death by inches. It's like being stranded five miles out in the desert rather than ten miles out. So what? You're still in the desert. So the numbers conveniently save the administration's behind from time to time: yeah, things are bad but we're not in a recession!

    Still hot. No water. What's the difference?

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Yeah, we're all a buttload of sunshine this week. I think it's inevitable. Watching the politicians jockeying around the far turn, racing their race and playing their game while we're out here in the back nine with broken ankles… and no one's gettin' fat except Big Oil.

  • steve

    Well, as I stated there is a difference Dw. I'm a math guy and a person who looks at facts, not at opinion or emotion. I laid the facts out. By definition, we are not in a recession. Are we headed into one? Very possibly. I'll admit, it could turn into one very easily. We'll find out this year probably. But words mean things, and if we're gonna use labels let's stick to facts. By definition we are not in a recession and GDP still went up last quarter.

    The fundamentals are still historically good. France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and yes even the UK would LOVE to have our economic numbers. We have 5% unemployment!! Germany has about 20%!!! I agree with you things have turned for the worse in the past 2 years. I blame the Iraq war – flat out. A horrible decision, tremendous blunder, 4000+ brave men and women dead, and costs millions a week. Imagine where our alternative energy technologies could be if even a quarter of that money (Iraq war money) since 2003 went to wind, solar, bio-fuels, wave energy etc. We'd be leading the world in future energy and getting off the Middle East teet. We blew it.

  • steve

    And to correct myself and prove that I'm about facts (not emotion), I typed the previous comment without checking facts. I used to go to Germany a lot for business and they had very high unemployment rate. I saw it on my trips. I assumed it was the same. I just checked and it's much better – ONLY 8.6% now. And get this – it's their lowest since March of 1993!!! I am surprised by that, but our 5% unemployment destroys them.

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/03/business

    If we had 8.6 unemployment, whoever was president would probably be impeached. You think the news is bad now…

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Steve, I'm glad your here and you're reading. Math folks tend to rankle when it comes to gut level guys like me. For myself, “not quite in recession” is a whole lot like being “just a little pregnant”…

    Still, I value the readership of anyone who takes the time to actually reflect on the thing that was written and not just hijack it with sidebar gobbledygook (it's happened many times).

  • JonCummings

    Steve, I appreciate the exegesis on tax policy, and I certainly don't deny that middle- and lower-income voters received a tax cut under Bush. Of course they did.

    However, the problem with your version of the truth is that it ONLY deals with the math of who paid what. It doesn't deal with the macroeconomics of how a government with the size and scope of ours (and I'm just going to ignore for now the conservative fire-spitting over how much Bush has enlarged its scope, both militarily and in terms of entitlements) can operate (especially during a war) with upper-income folks paying too little in taxes, and whether cutting taxes for the wealthy to the extent Bush did was good for the country or not.

    It wasn't. Our nation has proven twice now that trickle-down economics doesn't work; it's a theory that should be dead and buried, consigned to the proverbial dustbin of history. The wealthy and the corporations didn't take their tax cuts and reinvest it in American jobs and workplace benefits and such; they took it overseas and spent it on themselves.

    Their rising tide got more of their yachts in the water, but it inarguably did not lift all boats. While their wealth increased enormously, due in large part to tax savings and moving jobs overseas, middle- and lower-income Americans saw stagnant or lower wages and fewer benefits. The best argument Republicans had was “we've got the highest home ownership in history”; well, look where that went! (I'll choose, for the sake of sanity, not to discuss the absolute, total, and devastating failure of Republican deregulation for the moment as well.)

    By the way, Obama and every other Democrat recognizes full well that everyone received income tax cuts under Bush, and they've pledged to retain those cuts (and in many cases expand them) for workers who earn less than $250,000 a year. That simple truth will be undercut by Republicans every day for the next five months, however, in the usual craven attempt to fib their way to power.

  • steve

    Well, I'm a bit older. I've seen really bad times. These are not it right now, not yet. I think Americans are getting too spoiled and think our standard of living can just keep going up and up and up (it has), and things can just get cheaper and cheaper. They can't. Something has to give. But, in historical perspective, we are as an aggregate better of as a people economically than ever before in history. Our poor people are 100s of times richer than middle class people in 3rd world countries. We need to put things in historical perspective. We have it good. Could it be better – yes. But lets be real, our standard of living CAN'T keep going up. I'm a greenie, and we're destroying the Earth. If the 2.5 Billion people in India and China want to get to our standard of living, the Earth will die. And they are racing to get to where we are. That scares me.

    BTW, y'alls blog is one of the best out there. Keep it up.

  • steve

    Well I'm glad you can state the truth – I've seen your comments and I know you are a strong Democrat. I hate both parties and look at the truth. Actually Jon, your the first Democrat I think I've EVER seen admit that Bush gave tax cuts to the poor. I've truthfully never hear Obama recognize that fact, muchless the media. If you can find a youTube clip of Obama saying that I'd appreciate it. It could change my opinion of him.

    I won't argue with you regarding trickle down. But as you mention the rich sending it overseas, being a Dem, you of course know that NAFTA was a Bubba thing (back by his flip-flopping wife who can't seem to remember if she likes it or not). The reasons you state for trickle down not working are largely a result of NAFTA policies. It's not that simple but NAFTA is a large part of it.

    As for the Rebublicans and spending, your right. They've been out of control. Arguably, Bush can't even be called a Republican the way he's increased government. Now, we have to remember 9/11 DID happen and not many folks think we shouldn't have responded in Afghanistan. Or spent many millions on trying to prevent another attack at home. That spending I have no problem with. It's the Iraq war spending, and the bloated programs that they've thrown money at – all the while racking up record deficits when we can least afford them – that puts Bush in his own category. He's a social conservative who spends worse than a Democrat. But Dems raise taxes when they spend it, Bush did all that and cut taxes across the board. Those numbers don't add up even in Al Gore's “new math”

  • JonCummings

    Would a large-scale admission by elected Democrats that “yes, some of Bush's tax cuts went to the poor” make you change your mind about their tax policies? I'm gonna guess the answer is no.

    So, I guess the rationale is that it doesn't pay a person in Obama's position any dividends to “admit” such a thing when he's trying to advance his economic plan (part of which is a “middle-class tax cut” that he thinks he'll achieve by giving earners under $75k a partial rebate of their payroll taxes).

    But again, this isn't just about the microeconomic fact that middle- and working-class folks didn't pay quite so much in taxes under Bush–a fact that Obama doesn't plan to change, even if he doesn't plan to make you happy by acknowledging it. It's about the macroeconomics of the tax cuts, and the fact that the (nonpartisan) Congressional Budget Office reported in 2004 that “President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families.” It's also about the fact that the tax cuts were bad for the economy, and irresponsible for a government trying to operate with the level of services that we as a society have agreed to.

    When I discussed the fact that the wealthy and the corporations didn't use their tax cuts to invest in American plants and workers, I didn't blame Republicans for globalization or free trade. I DO blame them for having such stupid-assed ideas about tax policy–for instance, that if they threw more money at corporations and the rich, the lower rungs of the economic ladder would benefit as well.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    This is exactly the kind of conversation I hoped for when we made the decision to incorporate current events here. Steve, have you read any of Kevin Phillips' recent article for Harper's about the vagaries of the GDP?

  • steve

    I haven't read that Jefito but it sounds like an interesting read.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Interesting and terrifying at the same time. You can't read it all unless you're a Harper's subscriber, but here's a taste: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2008/Pollyanna-

  • steve

    Jon, to be honest I never said I was against Obamas planned tax policies. Hell, I voted for the man in the recent primaries. To be honest, I'm not jazzed about either he or McCain, but that seems to happen every 4 years :)

    My point about admitting when you think your opponent has done something right is about perception and about being civil and genuine, which would be refreshing in modern politics. There are enough facts to criticize the Bush administration about that we don't need to spin things or mislead people. Criticize him on the Iraq war, the bloated spending, Katrina, etc etc. There's plenty of material to use based in truth. But when folks take something like his tax cuts, which we know were across the board and benefited poor folks too, and spin them or mislead by always referring to them as “Bush's tax cuts for the rich”, they come off as ignorant, emotional, full of hate, and they get ignored by me. They come off as people who are full of deep hatred for the man, who can't be civil and admit that not everything he's done has been wrong. Obama claims he's a new kind of politician. I think he's shown a few signs of that, but as far as being genuine, I liked Bill Richardson. He was genuine. During one early debate a question was asked something like “explain one bad decision you've made in public life” or something like that. This is when there were 8 candidates. Every one of them spun there answer to something like “Well I've made mistakes like any person but I wanna talk about the future and how we can fix this country blah blah blah”. Clinton, Todd, Biden, Edwards – all of them wouldn't answer the question. Slime. Richardson said “When I was governor I decided to …” and to be honest I can't remember the exact decision, but he detailed a specific example. Then he looked in the camera and said “I was wrong on that, I regret the decision” That's genuine, that takes balls. Clinton still won't say the words “I regret my Iraq war vote” and if she finally did and I missed it it took months of prodding. She's slime.

    As I've mentioned I'm a true independent who loathes both parties. But I have respect for partisans of either party who can admit when their opponent did something right, because it shows that they are genuine, they are not emotionally blinded by personal hate, they look at the facts, and they are not spinning and playing the normal game of gutter politics. So yes, I would love to hear Nancy Pelosi say, “we understand that Bush helped the poor by lowering their taxes, but we'd like to make further tax adjustments that would better their situation even more”. That would garner my respect. That ain't gonna happen.

  • Gary Lucy

    Steve, I'm going to do my best to maintain the civil tone of this discussion, but my head is about to explode. You could not be more full of s#*%. Your allegiance to “The Facts” and “The Numbers” is a cop-out of epic proportions. You're only looking at enough of the facts to make you comfortable. Look at Real Life. You want “Bush gave tax cuts to the poor” to mean that poor people now have more money to spend thanks to Bush's economic policies…when it only means the percentage of federal tax removed from their checks is now a lower figure. The bigger reality is we all have less to spend now as a result of what the Criminal in Chief has wrought, and what we do have is going directly into our gas tanks. ($4-freakin 49 a gallon?!?! I wish my car ran on lattes!)
    The textbook definition of a recession has nothing to do with the reality of living in these times. “Sorry you lost your house–but check the numbers, we're doing quite well on the whole!” Which is another lie that's technically true. It's like saying Bill Gates and I put together have an average net worth of $5 zillion each!
    And even you would have to admit the way the unemployment figures are tabulated is a shell game. They stopped counting the people who've stopped looking. And they don't count the under-employed. In real terms, we're way closer to Germany.
    You can't go Mr. Spock when it comes to Economics, because ironically it's NOT all about the numbers. A lot of it has to do with feelings and attitudes, stuff the Consumer Confidence Index can only kind of measure.
    Tax Cuts are not the panacea Republicans would have you believe. We need responsibility and accountability.
    Now when are we going to get that 1910 Fruit Gum Company you promised?

  • http://home.comcast.net/~rsbrandt rsbrandt

    Clinton would never say she regrets her Iraq war vote as long as it was necessary for her to look more hawkish than McCain. Now, who knows.

  • steve

    Gary, your first sentence shows that you are emotional and full of rage. Chill out. The facts are still the facts. Never has a civilization had it as good as Americans do today.

    “In real terms, we're way closer to Germany” Oh, and it's not possible that their 8.6% number isn't a “shell game” too huh? Get real. Ever been to Germany? I lived there for 3 years. We're much better off. I've been to over 40 countries in my lifetime from Afghanistan to Iceland to China. If you think it's so bad here I'd encourage you to do some traveling.

    And BTW gas is still cheaper than bottled water. We have to stop feeling entitled to having everything cheaper and cheaper, and realize that things in America are good. Folks in most countries would love to be as well off as our poor people.

    As far as the mortgage crisis and folks losing their homes, that's because of fraudulent practices by banks and mortgage companies and needs regulation.

    I'm no Bush fan, I hate him actually and as stated earlier, I think we should keep his tax cuts for the poor, raise 'em back to 39% for the rich, and close loopholes. But bottom line, our economy goes in waves and always will. Right now we are in a trough, which is still not a recession by definition. I can tell that I'm older than you. How old were you in 1977? How old were you when the market tanked in '72? This is nothing compared to that. Hell, it's too bad that gas prices are preventing folks from upgrading their 32 inch flat screen that's only 2 years old to a 52 inch one that has all the new features. Geez, we have it tough. I'd encourge to you joint the Peace Corps and do some work in Africa to see that we are doing just fine. Yes, we have problems, but in the grand scheme of things were are doing great.

  • steve

    And as far as the hardships of “living in these times”, as you put it take a gander at this article.

    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/

    Perhaps the average consumer, who has record levels of debt and saves nothing, should examine their own behavior. America is full of households who have a $40,000 income and a $40,000 SUV in the garage. What the hell are these irresponsible people thinking? Then you see them being interviewed on the local news screaming bloody hell about gas prices for their 15MPG SUV that they have no business buying in the first place. Oh, and college has become too expensive for their kids too, but they didn't think of that when they “had to have” that shiny red Tahoe.

    The average consumer has shown irresponsible and wasteful behavior in recent times, which has everything to do with gas prices, and a lot to do with the situation “in these times”.

  • JonCummings

    I hear you. I'm (sometimes) all in favor of civility, too. Maybe not usually, but sometimes. Anyway, I think the problem with being “honest” about tax policy is that it engenders exactly the kind of difficulty you and I are having here. We're BOTH right, even though we're looking at the issue in precisely opposite ways.

    Yes, the Bush tax cuts saved a middle-class family earning $55k a year about $1,100 in 2004 as compared to 2001 (the most recent stat I could find). And yes, some lower-income people who were paying a little bit in taxes before aren't paying anything now.

    Those are numbers that look nice, ON THEIR OWN, and for many middle- and lower-income voters those individual figures are all that matter. That's why Repubicans have success by saying, “I'm going to lower your taxes.” However, those individual numbers alone don't constitute a tax policy for a $3 trillion government.

    If a Democratic politician acknowledges those individual tax savings under Bush, he might show some “civility” or some balls, but he's undercutting (at least for people who care about nothing but their own pocketbooks) the broader message of Democratic tax policy, which is progressiveness and fairness. For the fact is that, while middle- and lower-income folks got a bit of money back under Bush, as a GROUP they have taken on a larger percentage of the tax burden.

    For every dollar a middle-income voter saved, a millionaire saved more than $50. The Bush tax policy is less progressive, less fair–and, oh by the way, is bankrupting the economy by taking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the coffers. Overwhelmingly (as a percentage), that money is being left with people who have more money than they know what to do with, and with corporations who aren't using the savings to improve anything but their shareholders' bottom lines.

    Maybe it's disingenuous for a Democrat to ignore half the facts when arguing tax policy, but it's just as disingenuous when a conservative does it.

  • JonCummings

    Sorry–hit “post” by accident. Didn't mean to end on a combative note. Meant to end like this: The challenge for both parties is to be honest about what their policies do, both for individuals and for the country. The sad fact is that Obama has plans to spend the revenue from ending Bush's tax cuts three times over, while McCain aims to keep the status quo on taxes and pretend to rein in spending. What's most likely going to happen is a 1993-like scenario, where the new prez realizes that deficit reduction has to come first, and new/old taxes will be required to do it.

  • Gary Lucy

    It sounds like you're giving the Bobby Knight defense: “if rape is inevitable, you might as well lay back and enjoy it.” I guess I admire your optimism…I feel the same way when people put down a movie or CD or something I love because they're comparing it to some imaginary ideal that doesn't exist. But THE TIMES WE LIVE IN aren't a “be happy it isn't worse” scenario. We should all be angry it isn't better. Grrrr! And not everybody is using their credit cards to buy SUV's. Theyre buying groceries and paying their power bill. Steve I like you, I think you're smart, we're Popdose brothers, but you're so damn condescending with your facts and numbers and links and bootstrap-ism. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go wipe this foam off my mouth.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Ladies and gentlemen, economically speaking, America got ass-raped today. I'm looking for feedback from the Popdose readers on how they are, or are planning, to cope.

  • JonCummings

    What I'm enjoying is watching McCain's blundering efforts to insist that what he's offering is “change”–and to turn Obama's rhetoric about “turning the page” and moving forward into “policies of the past”–as if McCain's trying to make Obama sound older than HE is. It's cute. It's not gonna work.

    Gas is gonna be $5 a gallon by the 4th of July, if not sooner. We've discovered in the last week that we can't afford to fly anywhere, because airfares seem to have tripled (or worse) all of a sudden. Steve's arguments about how economists define a recession, and about what constitutes high unemployment, seem a little weaker tonight.

    Of course, just as gas prices skyrocketed, Republicans in the Senate killed a global warming bill. No wind, solar, or cap-and-trade until next January, at the earliest. Rome's burning–fiddle harder, right wingers!!!!!! We're gonna burn you down in November, then start cooling the planet in January.

  • steve

    You're right on that last point – deficit reduction must come. Plus we have to try to cut the trade deficit (related but not the same), mainly with China. That one will be tough because Americans are addicted to cheap Chinese goods.

    On your previous comment, I really think we mostly agree. I'm for making the highest bracket back at 39% as it was before Clinton. I think that was the only bad part of the Bush tax cuts. The rest were good (except that fact that they spent like mad at at the same time). I think you should be careful though when talking about corporations improving their shareholders bottom lines in a negative way. It used to be that stocks were only held by the wealthy. With 401ks and Roth IRAs, well over 50% of adult American own stock. Most middle class folks by far own stock – usually in their employee 401k. So when a company improves their shareholders bottom line, that's not just helping the rich, it helps the middle class too. I'm solidly middle class but have a decent amount of savings in my 401k. About half in stocks.

    Good conversation though. I can't wait for Hillary to finally concede tomorrow. I'm having a concede party!

  • steve

    You're right on that last point – deficit reduction must come. Plus we have to try to cut the trade deficit (related but not the same), mainly with China. That one will be tough because Americans are addicted to cheap Chinese goods.

    On your previous comment, I really think we mostly agree. I'm for making the highest bracket back at 39% as it was before Clinton. I think that was the only bad part of the Bush tax cuts. The rest were good (except that fact that they spent like mad at at the same time). I think you should be careful though when talking about corporations improving their shareholders bottom lines in a negative way. It used to be that stocks were only held by the wealthy. With 401ks and Roth IRAs, well over 50% of adult American own stock. Most middle class folks by far own stock – usually in their employee 401k. So when a company improves their shareholders bottom line, that's not just helping the rich, it helps the middle class too. I'm solidly middle class but have a decent amount of savings in my 401k. About half in stocks.

    Good conversation though. I can't wait for Hillary to finally concede tomorrow. I'm having a concede party!

  • JonCummings

    What I'm enjoying is watching McCain's blundering efforts to insist that what he's offering is “change”–and to turn Obama's rhetoric about “turning the page” and moving forward into “policies of the past”–as if McCain's trying to make Obama sound older than HE is. It's cute. It's not gonna work.

    Gas is gonna be $5 a gallon by the 4th of July, if not sooner. We've discovered in the last week that we can't afford to fly anywhere, because airfares seem to have tripled (or worse) all of a sudden. Steve's arguments about how economists define a recession, and about what constitutes high unemployment, seem a little weaker tonight.

    Of course, just as gas prices skyrocketed, Republicans in the Senate killed a global warming bill. No wind, solar, or cap-and-trade until next January, at the earliest. Rome's burning–fiddle harder, right wingers!!!!!! We're gonna burn you down in November, then start cooling the planet in January.

  • steve

    You're right on that last point – deficit reduction must come. Plus we have to try to cut the trade deficit (related but not the same), mainly with China. That one will be tough because Americans are addicted to cheap Chinese goods.

    On your previous comment, I really think we mostly agree. I'm for making the highest bracket back at 39% as it was before Clinton. I think that was the only bad part of the Bush tax cuts. The rest were good (except that fact that they spent like mad at at the same time). I think you should be careful though when talking about corporations improving their shareholders bottom lines in a negative way. It used to be that stocks were only held by the wealthy. With 401ks and Roth IRAs, well over 50% of adult American own stock. Most middle class folks by far own stock – usually in their employee 401k. So when a company improves their shareholders bottom line, that's not just helping the rich, it helps the middle class too. I'm solidly middle class but have a decent amount of savings in my 401k. About half in stocks.

    Good conversation though. I can't wait for Hillary to finally concede tomorrow. I'm having a concede party!