Rich vs. poor! Hell, even in Germany, they notice…
Even God can’t believe Congress hasn’t passed unemployment extensions.
Jul 16th, 2010 at 1:07 pm by susie
You know, there’s not much here to disagree with. Ted Rall:
Now Congress is worried about the deficit. So read my lips: no new bailouts, not even one that might actually work.
Some think the U.S. could export its way out of the depression. But a radical restructuring of trade agreements and manufacturing infrastructure would have to come first, followed by years of expansion. U.S. policymakers haven’t even begun to think about the first move. Moreover, the rest of the world isn’t in a position to buy our stuff. The rate of expansion of the economies of China and Japan is slowing down. Germany and other EU nations are imposing austerity measures.
Globalization is key. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, John H. Makin argues that the actions of individual G20 nations threaten to bring the whole system crashing down in a Keynesian “paradox of thrift.”
Makin says: “Because all governments are simultaneously tightening fiscal policy, growth is cut so much that revenues collapse and budget deficits actually rise. The underlying hope or expectation that easier money, a weaker currency, and higher exports can somehow compensate for the negative impact on growth from rapid, global fiscal consolidation cannot be realized everywhere at once. The combination of tighter fiscal policy, easy money, and a weaker currency, which can work for a small open economy, cannot work for the global economy.”
Adds Mike Whitney of Eurasia Review: “Obama intends to double exports within the next decade. Every other nation has the exact same plan. They’d rather weaken their own currencies and starve workers than raise salaries and fund government work programs. Class warfare takes precedent over productivity, a healthy economy or even national solvency. Contempt for workers is the religion of elites.”
One can hardly blame workers for fighting back. Two weeks after hundreds of protesters rioted at the G20 summit meeting, Toronto police are pouring through thousands of photos and are using facial recognition software to track down offenders. They have even released a Top 10 “Most Wanted” list and related pictures of activists.
Whether or not the anti-globalization protesters are motivated by the struggle for liberation and economic equality, they symbolize the industrialized world’s best chance to prevent the economy from continuing its current process of slow-motion collapse. If the system cannot be saved by consumers, business or government, the system itself must be revamped and replaced. Late-period global capitalism’s constant cycle of booms and busts is unsustainable and intolerable. States must regulate and equalize incomes, and control production.
If the cops were smart, they would track down and arrest those people who really are ruining the economy. They could start by listing and releasing the photos of the attendees of the G20.
Jul 16th, 2010 at 12:02 pm by susie
I’m sure y’all are as shocked as I am that Tiny Tim doesn’t want Elizabeth Warren actually in charge of protecting consumers – since she might, you know, actually do her job!
I actually think putting Warren in a more prominent role would be a very smart political move. You want someone this smart and credible as a prominent face of the administration. You never know, some of her credibility might even rub off:
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner’s views.
The financial reform bill passed by the Senate on Thursday mandates the creation of a new federal entity charged with protecting consumers from predatory lenders.
But if Geithner has his way, the most prominent advocate for creating the agency may not be picked to lead it.
Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School whose 2007 journal article advocating the creation of such an agency inspired policymakers to enact it into law, has rocketed to prominence since the onset of the financial crisis as one of the leading reform advocates fighting on behalf of American taxpayers.
A reader turned me on to a flat touch-pad mouse to deal with my ongoing ergonomic problems, and I have to say, it’s a big improvement. (I’m still getting the hang of it.) Here’s to the readers, the depository of all useful information!
Taibbi has such a sharp eye, and he uses it to put the whole LeBron James circus into perspective.
Picture this: You’ve recently been through exhausting rounds of chemotherapy and radiation, you’ve been puking your guts up and your doctor warns you this is a particularly malignant cancer.
Then you find out through some miracle (or bizarre irony) that you’re pregnant.
Your doctor warns you the chemo and radiation has put the fetus at risk. She also says the pregnancy could make it harder to effectively treat the cancer. You have a difficult decision ahead of you.
Hah hah, only kidding! That decision’s already been made for you:
Women’s health and rights advocacy groups responded immediately to yesterday’s announcement that President Obama would exclude abortion coverage from the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (the temporary high-risk insurance pools created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to transition us into the new health care plan). Obama has decided that women in these pools simply don’t need insurance coverage of abortion care even though there is nothing in the new law that dictates this.From the ACLU press release on this:
Even using their own private funds, individuals would not be able to buy policies that cover abortion in these pools. The only exemptions would reportedly be for women who have been raped, who are the victims of incest or who will likely die if they carry the pregnancy to term.
What is perhaps most perplexing about this is that this plan was created to offer temporary insurance coverage to those who cannot afford coverage due to particulary serious health conditions. Women with serious health conditions may be some of the most affected by a pregnancy – the pregnancy may not cause her death but is a woman’s life of so little consequence that it matters not to President Obama if a pregnancy bears an immense burden on her already ill body? As NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Nancy Keenan puts it, “This policy means that women who are part of these pools because they have significant health problems, such as diabetes or cancer, will not be able to access abortion care, even if their health is at further risk.”
Planned Parenthood’s press release calls the rule “harmful to women”:
“The very women who need to purchase private health insurance in the new high-risk pools are likely to be more vulnerable to medically complicated pregnancies. It is truly harmful to these women that the administration may impose limits on how they use their own private dollars, limiting their health care options at a time when they need them most. This decision has no basis in the law and flies in the face of the intent of the high-risk pools that were meant to meet the medical needs of some of the most vulnerable women in this country.”
The Center for Reproductive Rights notes:
“Contrary to assertions by the White House, there’s no current legal basis for the policy. The executive order issued by the President on abortion only addressed rules for segregating funds for abortion coverage in the healthcare exchanges and limits on community health centers. The Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan policy similarly furnishes no legal basis for exclusions in the new high risk pools.”The proposal would not even permit policyholders to use their own private dollars to purchase coverage, as the Nelson compromise allows, and instead applies a Stupak-type ban like the one rejected by Congress. Healthcare reform was a tightly bargained piece of legislation – and with this, the White House is threatening to renege on a fundamental part of its bargain with American women and families who truly need coverage. Excluding abortion coverage from the high-risk insurance pools was not part of the negotiations during healthcare reform, and nothing in the bill compels this result.”
[...] NARAL Pro-Choice America has started a letter writing campaign to urge President Obama not to exclude abortion coverage from the high-risk pools.