In my view, nothing ever happens when that person has enough money and power.

Is he the guy who was riding that Japanese motorbike across the desert in the TV ads? Hardly my idea of a "made in the USA" white knight. Another "cut entitlements, cut taxes, privatize Yellowstone, and export jobs" type of the Peter G. Peterson clique. Where do we find such men? If the American political system fails, this will be the reason.

It wasn't that he and New Deal Democrat were perpetually bullish - they are entitled to their opinion and they could have been right - it was, as you said, that they mocked anybody who didn't view this as a traditional recovery. They are still not on board completely, however. Hale Stewart is calling for a tax holiday for the big corporations that have tax-exempted their way to record profits, and now want to "repatriate" their tax-free earnings back to the US. Disgusting. They don't see these tax cheats as part of the problem.

The classic Chinese strategist, Sun Tzu, advises that the best way to win a war is by conquering the enemy without the enemy even realizing that he has been conquered.

The best thing for the U.S. to do is to stop playing the game of neo-mercantilism. The people of the U.S. support protectionism. Protectionism is good, not evil. Protectionism is the American way.

We should immediately impose an across-the-board tariff. Such a tariff can work to balance trade and the budget. It would not be anti-Mexico or anti-China -- it would just be pro-America. It would not stop trade across our borders -- it would just alter the terms of trade in favor of our survival as a nation.

We probably can co-exist with China, we probably must do so. But if we continue to allow the nation to be run by internationalists and foreign interests (including "our" MNCs), we will continue to be exploited.

The concept of full employment as a sustainable expectation for America has been eroded over the decades -- since the Full Employment Act of 1946 and other full-employment legislation over the years. The idea of a full-employment policy needs to be brought out and repeated many times -- by members of Congress, by the White House, on every news channel. How can young people U.S.A. today even imagine such a policy?

Currently, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., (D-Mich.) is promoting renewal of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, which was enacted during the Carter Administration and codified under the Full Employment Act of 1946. Conyers, well known as Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, was first elected to Congress in 1964 and, so, has been around long enough to recall the good old days. (Conyers' endorsement of candidate Barack Obama was a key event in Obama's successful 2008 run for the Democratic nomination and for the presidency.)

Conyers has named the bill (pending without a chance in the current House) "Humphrey-Hawkins 21st Century Full Employment & Training Act" (HR 870) It's described by Conyers as "deficit neutral" by way of being "fully funded by a tax on Wall Street speculation."

Conyers explains the idea as follows: "Wall Street was responsible for the financial crisis that began in 2008 and continues to affect us today. Having already received significant assistance from the federal government, it is only fair that Wall Street now pay Main Street back by helping put America back to work.”

Humphrey-Hawkins, like the 1946 Act, was based on a pump-priming (Keynesian) theory of economics. That's okay, as far as it goes, but the reality is that Keynesian methods cannot possibly work within the current world-system of globalized finance capitalism, without some kind of protectionism -- unless you think that the U.S. is capable of underwriting full employment for the entire planet. The word "training" in Conyers' bill probably goes back to the Clinton administration which approached unemployment as essentially a "training" problem, so that what might have been called "full employment" legislation was described in terms of the need of American workers to be retrained due to rapid changes in technology. The "retraining" projects  were paid out of general funds or out of unemployment taxes and (as "free" trade agreements came into effect) by funds alloted by Congress for workers who had been "temporarily" displaced as a result of "free" trade.

IMO, a full employment policy for the U.S. must begin with a 15% Across-the-Board tariff (or VAT, if you prefer). Having said that, Conyers' legislation probably could be helpful as a short-term measure. Of course, it has the chance of the proverbial snowball in a hot place.

(Yes, I am aware that Greece's VAT, now increased, has hardly prevented the collapse of their economy. The tariff or VAT must be part of a general reform of the financial, tax and monetary system. Greece is a very interesting case, as is the entire thing about the Euro, but I don't think we should generalize it to the United States.)

China needs to be delt with.

The key to Chinese policy is the hoarding of foreign exchange, especially US dollars.

The $500 Billion per year hoarded by China is money taken directly out of the US economy, driving down prices and causing, in itself, 5 million unemployed in the US, and driving many US manufacturers to and over the brink.

See: http://anamecon.blogspot.com/2010/04/effects-of-unbalanced-trade.html

If the Chinese spent the money on US production, there would be no problem, but the CHINESE ARE AT WAR WITH THE US.
Their talk and bluster are just moves on the battlefield. Unfortunately, WE are governed by idiots, guided by the myopic. They do not see 5 million unemployed as casualties of war. They do not see idled and closed factories, an eroding tax base, and a decaying infrastructure, as damage inflicted by the enemy.
Until they acknowledge that they’ve been stupid, they cannot get smart. Assuming they are merely stupid, and not treasonous.

Chinese mercantilist policies are responsible for a great deal of our grief. Until we acknowledge that the destruction of our domestic production capabilities is a problem, nothing will happen

Austerity will leverage the situation, causing disproportionate contraction of US productive interests. China will increase US market share, as US market shrinks.

the direct attacks on so many I really stopped paying attention.

Now is the time to attack Congress and this administration. Case in point claiming those bad trade agreements are going to create jobs. What hog wash! Which I will write up soon.

Hey, just yesterday they were all saying things were good due to the ADP report. Wall Street really wants to put blinders onto the real economy and esp. Americans.

The real ideological "argument" in current U.S. political circles is how much of the national wealth will be redistributed, to whom, and by way of what channels -- the public sector, the private sector, or some combination thereof. It is not about goosing the economy or creating jobs.

Both U.S. parties have displayed unseemly eagerness to starve domestic, non-military/police expenditures. They have repeated various propagandized as reasons for doing this. Both parties use such messaging to conceal the underlying agenda of relinquishing public sector power to redistribute wealth at home so as to permit the private sector (or some P3 combination) to exert even more control in national wealth distribution. Historical economic data evidences to what end of the distribution tail that private wealth tends to flow absent strong public investments, progressive taxation, and regulations.

The only political argument playing at the MSM of your choosing is whether, or by how much, federal tax revenues will be boosted, i.e., how fast the public sector will permit increased flows of wealth to one end of the tail. The political tactics of both parties are designed merely to avoid taking the blame for what will be in the end, bad joint decisions for most of us being shoved to the other end of the economic tail.

According to the MSM, neither side is negotiating ways to create jobs (let alone good jobs) or to boost the real economy, although spokespersons from each side will graciously bend over backwards to convince anyone who asks about such goals that by maintaining their unquestioned adherence to public deficit reduction messages, they will most certainly have fixed all and every problem known and unknown, including jobs, education and housing. I wait with great anticipation to see who will next be honored with "Man of the Year" recognition, or with a Nobel Peace prize.

It should attract attention that this austerity cover is being used in Europe, too. Public austerity measures and attendant propaganda on both sides of the Atlantic, is a concerted political effort to shift the costs of bailouts of the FIRE sector losses in the U.S. and Europe to the great unwashed public body.

Of course nobody says that but that's precisely what's going on. Because no one will tackle reducing inflation of medical care costs, all this cutting is taking money from a host of programs and people and feeding into the excessive medical costs machine.

We're paying too much already and the costs for 2011 and 2012 are predicted to go up around another 8% each year, as I recall.

In other words, at that rate medical care cost will double in ten years. Who's going to stop the insanity?