I’m fond of the drawing in this one. Click on the cartoon to see it a bit bigger.
[spoiler]
The scene shows two women, one of them a bit older and dressed in black skirt, heels, and a blazer, the other one a bit younger and wearing a hoodie, plaid pants, and sneakers.
Panel One
OLDER WOMAN: as an UNEMPLOYED person, you’d be NUTS to vote for the republicans! they’ve got NOTHING to help the unemployed!
Panel Two
OLDER WOMAN: republicans want giveaways for big corporations and they want tax cuts for THE RICH. that’s ALL they care about!
Panel Three
OLDER WOMAN: we’re facing the biggest unemployment crisis since the great depression! it’s CRUSHING our economy! and the gop IGNORES it!
Panel Four
YOUNGER WOMAN: okay, i WON’T vote republican! so tell me- what are DEMOCRATS doing to help the unemployed?
Panel Five
No dialog. The older woman thinks about it, the younger woman waits eagerly.
Panel Six
No dialog. The older woman grins like a salesperson afraid of losing a sale, the younger woman looks annoyed.[/spoiler]
You mean other than extending unemployment benefits through 99 weeks, passing a $780 billion dollar stimulus, and this week in Oregon, the Oregon senate passed a 20 week extension beyond the 99 week federal limit (actually, the vote was unanimous, so I guess that doesn’t count, maybe it would have happened anyway if the Republicans controlled the legislature and the governors office).
Brilliant. Thanks.
Charles, she didn’t ask what the Democrats did two years ago, which is when that far-too-small stimulus you refer to passed. She’s asking what they’re proposing to do now. And the answer, basically, is nothing.
The Democrats have basically written off the unemployment problem, and they deserve to be criticized for it. Even if they can’t pass a bill — and let’s face it, they can’t — they should still be trying to keep the bill alive, and attacking the Republicans on the issue. Instead, ridiculously, the only party criticizing the other for “job-killing” is the Republicans.
(And obviously, the cartoon is about the national Democrats, not about the Oregon legislature. But in any case, extending unemployment benefits isn’t good enough; trying to lower unemployment is necessary too.)
They renewed the extension of unemployment benefits 3 months ago.
You agree that they can’t actually accomplish anything at the national level, but you’d like them to be continuing to talk about how bad the Republicans are. However, that is exactly what you are mocking them for in this cartoon. Additionally, if you really want me to go to the trouble, I will go hunt up videos and transcripts of Democratic representatives and senators on the floor of the senate and house excoriating the Republicans for wasting time on nonsense rather than focusing on jobs. It is certainly happening, repeatedly and routinely. Do you deny that that it is happening? On what do you base that denial? Have you been following the floor fights? I’ll quote Krugman “Jobs do get mentioned now and then — and a few political figures, notably Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, are still trying to get some kind of action.” So the democrats are doing nothing, but one of the three top ranked Democrats is still trying to get some kind of action. Too bad the Democrats are doing nothing, except for Pelosi. Oh wait, Reid is also excoriating the Republicans for not focusing on job creation. Obama hasn’t been excoriating the Republicans, but he has been talking about job creation, focusing both on exports and on the idea of an infrastructure bank. Not, presumably the sort of talk that you think would be effect at convincing the Republicans to abandon their (thus far) effective strategy of heightening the contradictions, but talk none the less.
Do you deny that unemployment benefits are one of the most effective forms of stimulus spending? You seem to in your response above, where you argue that unemployment benefits are nice, but what we need is job creation.
Obviously, the Dems failure to pass unemployment extensions past 99 weeks is tragic, and the failure to do anything to aid state and local governments is a disaster (beyond the effect on social services, government job losses have been eating up most of the gains in private sector employment for the past year), but to claim that the Dems are doing nothing but talk while acknowledging that they can’t do anything more than talk and complaining that they aren’t talking when, in fact, they are, just not enough or in the particular manner you’d like, is all very incoherent and not particularly productive.
Also, while the nice person in your cartoon voted Democratic, it is unfortunately the case that not enough people did. Had they, the Dems might actually be able to do something further about job creation.
1) Charles, consider yourself banned! Banned, banned, banned! You are banned, your parents are banned, anyone you live with is banned!
2) I’ll cop to some incoherency in my earlier comment on this thread. But let me regroup and try and explain myself better.
3) There has not been one serious attempt at stimulus by the Democrats since two years ago. (Surely you’re not claiming that the unemployment extension, important as it was, was a serious stimulus bill?) On the contrary, the 2010 jobs bill was pretty much a joke.
The leaders of the Democratic party have given up on stimulus entirely; the only thing they’re debating about is how big the budget cuts will be. The point of the cartoon is correct: The Democrats are not making any serious proposals to bring down unemployment.
4) Yes, Pelosi is an exception. I could pretty much put an asterisk next to every other criticism of the Democrats I’ve made for the last two years saying “except Pelosi.” Unfortunately, until Democrats retake the House, Pelosi is the least important part of the leadership.
5) Let me quote more fully than you did from the same Krugman column (emphasis added):
There is no way that Krugman column can be interpreted as saying the Democrats have been wonderful on unemployment, and the only problem is the Republicans.
6) “Oh wait, Reid is also excoriating the Republicans for not focusing on job creation.”
Gee, that’s nice. Too bad, under Reid’s leadership, the Democrats in the Senate proposed an entirely inadequate stimulus package two years ago, and haven’t even bothered proposing a serious stimulus since.
I do want the Democrats ripping into Republicans over this issue, but that’s not nearly good enough. The Democrats can’t credibly criticize the Republicans for doing nothing to reduce unemployment, when the Democrats themselves haven’t offered a serious stimulus bill in two years. (Which is, again, what this comic strip is saying.)
Yes, probably no Democratic bill could pass. It’s also the case that no Republican bill could pass. That hasn’t stopped Republicans in the House from proposing bills, though, and I think that strategy makes a lot more sense than preemptive surrender. A major stimulus bill from the Democrats in the Senate probably wouldn’t get past the filibuster — but at least the country would be discussing the need for stimulus, rather than only discussing the need for budget cuts. That would be an improvement.
And if the Democrats would propose and fight for serious job-creation bills, maybe more people would see a point in voting for them.
I agree, good drawing. I particularly like the smile on the first speaker’s face in the last panel…the smile of helpless, speechless failure to come up with ANY good examples.
Ampersand, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to stop posting in this thread as our site owner has made it clear that he no longer welcomes your participation on Alas due to the inclusion of Charles S in your domestic arrangements. Thank you for your contributions to our site, and we wish you well in the future.
I was actually at my union’s lobby day at the capitol in Minnesota recently. I’m pretty much an anarchist (yes, there are labor anarchists–anarcho-syndicalists, or “red” anarchists) , so have very little time for the Democrats, though less for the Republicans. And yet, if we didn’t have a Democrat as governor, Minnesota would be Wisconsin, no doubt about it. And I, in deep contradiction of everything I normally believe, am very, very glad we’ve at least got someone who will veto the worst of the GOP budget cuts. And they are GOP budget cuts; the Democrats are spineless, but it’s the GOP that’s after my job and healthcare; it’s the GOP who wants to sell off state services and bring in private prisons. If the GOP disappeared off the face of the planet–should we be so lucky as to get a timely alien abduction–we’d still have problems but I wouldn’t be looking at losing my job. So I don’t know what to think.
I noticed that there was a lot of very frank speaking among union members about the Democrats–the general take was that Democratic losses were, indeed, because they had been “screwing the base for the last eight years”.
So, Frowner, I figure from your posting that you work at a State job, not a private industry one. You say “it’s the GOP that’s after my job and healthcare; it’s the GOP who wants to sell off state services and bring in private prisons.”
How are they after your healthcare? Do they want to end it? Or do they simply want you to increase your personal contribution to it? If (as I suspect) the latter, how much do you put towards your healthcare now and what does the GOP want to increase that to?
I am interested in is your comment about how they want to sell off state services. While it’s clear to me that some state services should continue to be operated by the State (for example, while I’d need to research the issue to take a specific position I’m willing to accept the concept that perhaps private operations of prisons is a bad idea) I don’t see that once the State starts providing a service that it automatically a) was a good idea at the time and b) should always be operated by the State and never should be privatized.
The fact that the State may want to ensure that a service is provided does not, to me, require that the State operate that service itself. Consider a service that all ends of the political spectrum seem to agree is a governmental function; building roads. You say you were at the State capital. Did you drive an Interstate highway to get there? The Federal government ensures that those highways are built to certain specifications. But they were not built by Federal Highway Commission workers, they were built by private contractors. Another government function is picking up and hauling away trash. My local village contracts that out.
So my question to you is, what is there inherently bad about “selling off state services”? Or are there specific issues of which services are being sold or who they’re being sold to? As a Chicago area resident I’ll certainly understand the latter can involve official or political corruption.
For a more directly on topic post:
What policies do you think the Federal, State and local governments should pursue to increase employment? The general concept on the left seems to be (and if I’m misrepresenting your viewpoint please correct me) that by increasing “government spending” we can stimulate the economy. In response I ask:
a) What should the government spend money on? “Government spending” includes welfare and unemployment payments, after all, but I don’t see how those increase employment.
b) What are the effects of the increased deficits that increasing government spending leads to? How will those deficits be paid off?
c) What are the effects of increasing taxes on individuals on employment?
d) What are the effects of increasing taxes on corporations on employment?
First of all, not lay off hundreds of thousands of people.
That said, it’s mostly up to the federal government, because it has the ability to borrow money. States, by and large, can’t do that effectively.
They should increase food stamps (both payouts and eligibility), increase work-share programs, expand unemployment eligibility, increase infrastructure spending, and increase aid to state governments. These are the policies that economists have calculated do the most for stimulating the economy.
All of these increases should be made temporary, by linking them to the unemployment rate. When unemployment dips below, say, 7%, these increases should begin phasing out, be mostly phased out at 6%, and entirely phased out by the time unemployment reaches 5%.
Okay, let’s take food stamps, as an example. If you give me $100 of food stamps, I’m going to spend it at the local grocery, and so will hundreds of other food stamp recipients. The grocery then has a big increase in its income, which it spends on buying more supplies, paying its employees to work longer shifts (or hiring new employees), etc. The suppliers and employees then spend more as well, becoming more likely to spend money on business (for the suppliers) and on going to a movie or buying comic books (for the employees). All those businesses then have more money to spend, etc, etc..
How could that not create employment, Ron?
The effects of temporary stimulus on the deficit are pretty minor, in the long run. This is for two reasons: First of all, it’s temporary spending. What really causes the deficit to skyrocket is when we have permanent programs that aren’t paid for, and that go on year after year after year, forever. (See, for example, the Bush tax cuts, or the Bush prescription medication law).
Second of all, the best way to beat the deficit is to have a really low unemployment rate. This is because deficits are caused not only by spending, but also by low revenues. The more people work, the better the revenue situation will be, and the lower deficits will be. It’s not a coincidence that during the Clinton administration, when unemployment was down almost to 4%, the deficit was eliminated.
Third, extended unemployment hurts our long-term revenue situation. Every year that someone is unemployed lowers their average income, not just while they’re unemployed, but for the rest of their life. This has a terrible impact on future US revenues (as well as, you know, quality of life for ordinary Americans). The more we can shorten unemployment, the better our long-term revenue situation will be.
Depends on which individuals. For lower-class people, the effects on employment are probably bad, which is why we shouldn’t raise taxes on ordinary Americans until unemployment goes down. (The payroll tax holiday wasn’t as effective as stimulus as a giveaway program like food stamps, but it was reasonably effective).
For rich people, in our current economic situation, it doesn’t matter much at the margins, since rich people tend to put whatever extra money they have into savings, and currently increased savings doesn’t lead to increased hiring. (See the graph here again; note that both corporate tax cuts, and the Bush tax cuts, are extremely ineffective as stimulus). So raising taxes on the wealthy would probably be a good idea; it would reduce the deficit a bit without hurting employment. But if conservatives want to put this off until unemployment drops below 7%, that’s okay with me.
The evidence seems very mixed. Sometimes the corporate tax rate seems linked to lower unemployment, sometimes to higher unemployment. My guess is that unemployment is largely determined by other factors entirely.
I’m not a moderator, but I urge banning both Charles and Ampersand on general principle.
But seriously: Great cartoon, very funny. And a thoughtful rejoinder by Chaz and counter-argument by Ampersand.
What this really reflects is the conflicting position our two party system puts us in. The fourteen Democrats in Wisconsin who left the state to protest Scott Walker’s union-busting deserve our praise and support. As do any of the Democrats in national government who rise up consistently to fight for and defend the rights of the poor, the working class, women, children, the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities, sexual minorities — in fact, anyone who isn’t a banker, an investor, or a corporation. You know: the people.
The problem is that the Democratic Party is just as beholden to corporations as their rivals; it’s the people (defined above) who give them the electoral edge, and so receive election year lip service and catering to their interests — but that’s not enough to fend off the corporate lobbyists who push one compromise after another until legislation that might benefit said the people is so weakened, it becomes nearly useless (cf. health care reform). I am glad for folks like Anthony Weiner in the Congress who fight for the people; but for every one of him, there are many more Chris Dodds. For every Elizabeth Warren, there are many more Tim Geithners.
Instead of waxing intellectual about the insignificant politics of the cartoon, why not discuss the more important issue it brings up; Who wears plaid pants with what seems to be a sweatshirt hoodie? It’s not like she’s one of those teenagers who thinks it looks cool to wear pajamas in public.
Ampersand, did you really just ban Charles because he disagreed with you? Censorship much?
That’s absolutely my goal! All people who disagree with me must go!
Speaking of which, I understand that there are some people out there who think that Jack Kirby’s artwork in the early issues of “Fantastic Four” was better than Ditko’s artwork in the opening pages of “Amazing Spider-Man” issue 33, even though it’s obvious to anyone with even a minimally functioning brain that the opening scene of ASM#33 was the absolute peak of that entire period of superhero comic book artwork. All those people: BANNED!
Also, anyone who thinks that “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” isn’t a much better TV show than “Angel”: BANNED!
Anyone who thinks “Watchmen” is the greatest graphic novel ever created: BANNED!
Anyone who thinks that Stephen Sondheim isn’t the greatest songwriter ever: BANNED!
Anyone who doesn’t agree that I’m a damned handsome man: BANNED!
Am I missing anything?
What if we think the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” movie was much better than the TV series?
Banned like a roll-on deodorant!
Wait a minute. Last time I checked, *I’m* in charge of this blog. And I say everyone is unbanned!
Except for Amp, whose enforcement of critical norms vis a vis Buffy vs. Angel is a sickening act of cultural hegemony. BANNED!
Robert, you are banned. Your unbannings are hereby voided. If you wish to discuss this further, please communicate with me here.
Everyone participating in this thread is banned. In fact, everyone everywhere is preemptively banned from posting on Alas. No, make that the internet. Everyone is banned from posting anything anywhere on the internet, retroactive to the beginning of time.
So there.
Just when I finally finished crafting a perfect comment? Bummer.
Ha! I defy the (three, that I can count) bans on me and post anyway! You can’t stop me! You are powerless against my moustache!
Is it just me, or has this thread become slightly silly?
It’s just you. This thread has, in fact, become moderately silly.
[I have no idea why this comment got moderated. But I’m sure the software knows what it’s doing. So, you’re banned. –Amp]
[Moderately silly. Heh.]
Crap. Now my comments get moderated. I knew I should have restrained myself.
Right, right, stop it. This thread’s got silly. Started off with a nice little idea about Democrats being the same as Republicans, but now it’s got silly. This man’s hair is too long for a vicar too.
Perhaps this thread can get a grant.
And that’s not even a proper Keep Left sign….
Perhaps it’s time for something somewhat different. Substantially different, even. Or more.
RonF@11 – there’s a bill in the house right now which proposes replacing my good health insurance with an HSA with a $5000 deductible and some kind of $10,000 out-of-pocket expense deal.
For me, that will increase my health expenses by thousands of dollars every year, making it almost as though I have no health insurance at all. Because the early onset of a treatable eye disease runs in my family, I get an expensive eye doctor’s visit every year. I will almost certainly be diagnosed soon with this disease, and require two more annual specialists’ visits minimum plus expensive monthly medications. The alternative is early blindness; even with treatment my mother went blind in her early sixties and had to go on disability. Believe me, the addition of an extra $5000 minimum in health care expenses will be virtually the “end of insurance” for me–as well as literally the end of the good insurance that was one of the reasons I took this (low-paying, well-below-industry-standard) job.
Luckily, there’s another bill in the house proposing a 5% pay cut! So if the GOP has its way, not only will I have an extra $5000 in health expenses every year, I’ll have less money to pay them with!
That’s if I keep my job, since the GOP wants to cut 5000 state jobs by 2015.
And if I keep my job, we’re looking at a continuation of the wage freeze, while food goes up right along with everything else.
Seriously, RonF, I have a state job and I am eating ramen for dinner every night–that’s one of my cost-saving measures right now. I normally walk and bike with occasional bus use; I’ve been busing as little as possible to save the fare, which meant walking 1.5 miles home carrying two full bags of groceries and a case of ramen last weekend, walking my five mile round-trip walk through new-fallen snow yesterday, etc etc. Note the luxury I live in, on my fat state salary! I’m trying to build up more savings so that I can keep emergency savings (for emergencies or retirement) and still have additional usable savings (to keep the mortgage, which is a modest one, paid) if I lose my job. I hope that I won’t blow through everything I have and still lose the house.
That’s my reality–a college degree, hard work and tax-paying got me here, and now I’m being threatened by these rich politicians who have guaranteed think-tank and law firm jobs if they ever decide to give up running the state.
And yes, I oppose privatizing state services. When state services are outsourced, the state is used as a transfer mechanism, taking tax dollars and handing them on to corporations. Those same corporations use their profits (especially under the new corporate lobbying laws) to push for policies that maximize their profits regardless of the public good. There comes to be a revolving door between the legislature and corporate boards. Nowhere is this clearer than the influence that prison corporations have had on crime and immigration policy.
When the state is a provider of essential services, there is some accountability in how those services are apportioned and to whom, flawed though it may be. And those despised state employees–when they’re dishing out the services, they’re not thinking about how to maximize returns to stockholders by minimizing services to citizens, because state services aren’t trying to squeeze out a profit.
Three? Does that mean you’re disagreeing with me about Spider-Man #33?
No, I think Buffy and Angel are closer together in quality than you do.
I know, I know, BANNED!
What are the mechanics of moderating a blog? I image you mods have a big red “Banned” switch in front of you. But is it a toggle switch?
Banned: Whatever authority you had to comment here, I rescind it.
Banned banned: I rescind my rescission of your authority to comment here; go ahead.
Banned banned banned: see Banned.
Banned banned banned banned: Now, now, play nice with Pebbles; you don’t know your own strength….
This might go better with music.
I am banning myself from this thread, effective immedi
The best episodes of “Angel” were better than the best episodes of “Buffy,” except for “The Body” and “Hush.”
And, Frowner, I go on a lot about my mom and dad who were both public school teachers, but my mom’s husband just retired at 66 from a really crappy lowly state clerk position, and only the fact that he’s also a vet and they’re now both covered by Medicare is keeping them middle middle class.
Good use of Javascript for hide/show of the script.