Yang: ‘Return to the Obama Years’ Not Enough for Biden — They Were Left Behind in Those Years,’ ‘They’re Pissed Off’
Late Tuesday on CNN, former Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang, now a CNN contributor, warned that his old opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden could not defeat Trump with just a pledge to return to the years of former President Barack Obama alone.
According to Yang, it needed to start with an understanding of what problems facing the country led to Trump’s presidency.
“Donald Trump needs to be defeated,” he explained. “Forty-two percent of my supporters said they would not support the Democratic nominee in the general, in large part because when I ran, I ran for the problems that predated Trump. Like, Donald Trump would never be our president today if things were going well for a lot of people around the country. Bernie Sanders would not have almost been the nominee last time if things were going well for people around the country. So even as Joe Biden saying, ‘Hey, we need to defeat Donald Trump,’ he also has to say, ‘Look, things have not been working for millions of Americans, and after we defeat Donald Trump,’ we need to get deep into these problems, get our hands dirty and solve them. This can’t be a, ‘Hey, I’m better than Trump’ race. It has to be, ‘Hey. I understand how Trump became our president.'”
Yang told a CNN panel people were left behind in the Obama-Biden years, and they were not happy about it. He called on Biden to recognize that situation and address it, which he said would better his chances in the 2020 general election.
“I think he’s been talking about restoring a culture, tone and a soul of the country,” Yang added. “I was talking about putting more money in Americans’ hands because I saw we decimated entire ways of life in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. And because I was talking in those terms about the real problems these people have experienced, again, 42% of my supporters were not going to support the Democratic nominee. I’m hoping that we can get some of those people to support Joe. But it would be helpful if Joe acknowledged it because one of the weaknesses of saying, ‘Hey, return to Obama years’ is that there are many Americans who were getting behind in those years, too, and they’re pissed off. And so, if you say, I’m going to revert, that loses to that group of people. There are so many Americans who just don’t think their institutions are working for him at all, and Joe Biden’s’s weakness is he represents those institutions. I’m endorsing Joe. We need Joe to beat Trump. But we’ll have a much better chance of that if Joe recognizes that our institutions have been failing many Americans for a long time.”
Obama’s State of Delusion ... OR JUST ANOTHER "Hope & Change" HOAX?
”The delusional character of Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday—presenting an America of rising living standards and a booming economy, capped by his declaration that the “shadow of crisis has passed”—is perhaps matched only in its presentation by the media and supporters of the Democratic Party.”
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2015/01/oxfam-richest-one-percent-set-to.html
“The general tone was set by the New York Times in its lead editorial on Wednesday, which described the speech as a “simple, dramatic message about economic fairness, about the fact that the well-off—the top earners, the big banks, Silicon Valley—have done just great, while middle and working classes remain dead in the water.”
OBAMANOMICS:
The report observes that while the wealth of the world’s 80 richest people doubled between 2009 and 2014, the wealth of the poorest half of the world’s population (3.5 billion people) was lower in 2014 than it was in 2009.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2015/01/oxfam-richest-one-percent-set-to.html
In 2010, it took 388 billionaires to match the wealth of the bottom half of the earth’s population; by 2013, the figure had fallen to just 92 billionaires. It fell to 80 in 2014.
THE OBAMA ASSAULT ON THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS
“The goal of the Obama administration, working with the Republicans and local governments, is to roll back the living conditions of the vast majority of the population to levels not seen since the 19th century, prior to the advent of the eight-hour day, child labor laws, comprehensive public education, pensions, health benefits, workplace health and safety regulations, etc.”
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2015/01/oxfam-richest-one-percent-set-to.html
“In response to the ruthless assault of the financial oligarchy, spearheaded by Obama, the working class must advance, no less ruthlessly, its own policy.”
New Federal Reserve report
US median income has plunged, inequality has grown in Obama “recovery”
The yearly income of a typical US household dropped by a massive 12 percent, or $6,400, in the six years between 2007 and 2013. This is just one of the findings of the 2013 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances released Thursday, which documents a sharp decline in working class living standards and a further concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich and the super-rich.
New Federal Reserve report
US median income has plunged, inequality has grown in Obama “recovery”
The yearly income of a typical US household dropped by a massive 12 percent, or $6,400, in the six years between 2007 and 2013. This is just one of the findings of the 2013 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances released Thursday, which documents a sharp decline in working class living standards and a further concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich and the super-rich.
The report makes clear that the drop in a typical household’s income was not merely the result of what is referred to as the 2008 recession, which officially lasted only 18 months, through June 2009. Much of the decline in workers’ incomes occurred during the so-called “economic recovery” presided over by the Obama administration.
In the three years between 2010 and 2013, the annual income of a typical household actually fell by 5 percent.
The Fed report exposes as a fraud the efforts of the Obama administration to present itself as a defender of the “middle class”. It has systematically pursued policies to redistribute wealth from the bottom to the very top of the income ladder. These include the multi-trillion-dollar bailout of the banks, near-zero interest rates to drive up the stock market, and austerity measures and wage cutting to lift corporate profits and CEO pay to record highs.
The Federal Reserve data, based on in-person interviews, show a far larger decline in the median income of American households than indicated by earlier figures from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.
In line with the figures on household income, the report shows an ever-growing concentration of wealth among the richest households. The Fed’s summary of its data notes that “the wealth share of the top 3 percent climbed from 44.8 percent in 1989 to 51.8 percent in 2007 and 54.4 percent in 2013,” while the wealth of the “next 7 highest percent of families changed very little.”
The report states that “the rising wealth share of the top 3 percent of families is mirrored by the declining share of wealth held by the bottom 90 percent,” which fell from 33.2 percent in 1989 to 24.7 percent in 2013.
The ongoing impoverishment of the population is an indictment of capitalism. There has been no genuine recovery from the Wall Street crash of 2008, only a further plundering of the economy by the financial aristocracy. The crisis precipitated by the rapacious, criminal practices of the bankers and hedge fund speculators has been used to restructure the economy to the benefit of the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Decent-paying jobs have been wiped out and replaced by low-wage, part-time and temporary jobs, with little or no benefits. Pensions and health benefits have come under savage attack, as seen in the bankruptcy of Detroit.
Not surprisingly, the Fed report has been buried by the American media, confined to the inside pages of the major newspapers.
Measured in 2013 dollars, a typical household received an income of $53,100 in 2007. By 2010, this had fallen to $49,000. It hit $46,700 by 2013. At the same time, the average income for the wealthiest tenth of families grew by ten percent.
While median income fell between 2010 and 2013, mean (average) income grew, from $84,100 to $87,200. The report noted that, “the decline in median income coupled with the rise in mean income is consistent with a widening income distribution during this period.”
For the poorest households, the drop in income has been even more dramatic. Among the bottom quarter of households, mean income fell a full 10 percent between 2010 and 2013.
The report reveals other aspects of the social crisis. The share of young families burdened by education debt nearly doubled, from 22.4 percent to 38.8 percent, between 2001 and 2013. The share of young families with more than $100,000 in debt has grown nearly tenfold, from 0.6 percent to 5.6 percent.
These statistics reflect both a historic and insoluble crisis of the profit system and the brutal policies of the American ruling class, which is carrying out a relentless assault on working people and preparing to go even further by dismantling bedrock social programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The data undercuts the endless talk of “partisan gridlock” in Washington and the media presentation of a political system paralyzed by irreconcilable differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.
There has, in fact, been a seamless continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations in the pursuit of reactionary policies of war abroad and class war at home. The two parties have worked hand in glove to make the working class pay for the crisis of the capitalist system.
The Federal Reserve has itself played a critical role in the growth of social inequality in the US. The bailout of the banks, estimated at $7 trillion, has been followed by six years of virtually free money for the banks.
Every facet of American life is dominated by the immense concentration of wealth at the very top of society. The grotesque levels of wealth amassed by the parasites and criminals who dominate American business, and the flaunting of their fortunes before tens of millions struggling to pay their bills and keep from falling into destitution, are fueling the growth of social anger. This anger will increasingly be directed against the entire economic and political system.
The figures released by the Fed reflect a society riven by class divisions that must inevitably trigger social upheavals. The explosive state of social relations is itself a major factor in the endless recourse by the Obama administration to military aggression and war, which serve to deflect internal tensions outward.
The growth of inequality likewise underlies the relentless attack on democratic rights in the US, including the massive domestic spying exposed by Edward Snowden and the use of militarized police to crack down on social opposition, as seen most recently in Ferguson, Missouri.
Democrats unite with Trump to enact massive corporate bailout
In a celebration of bipartisan unity, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on Friday approved by voice vote an unprecedented $2.2 trillion bill to bail out the nation’s corporations and banks, while providing limited and temporary aid to workers hit by the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
The House vote followed Wednesday night's 96-0 approval of the measure by the Republican-controlled Senate. President Trump, who had lobbied furiously for the bill, signed it into law only a few hours after it passed the House just after 1:30 p.m.
The $2.2 trillion estimated cost of the bill, equal to more than half of the entire federal budget and far in excess of the $700 billion bank bailout bill passed in 2008, substantially underestimates the actual scale of the government handout to big business. The biggest single slice of the bill, $454 billion to finance guaranteed loans to big corporations, is designed to be leveraged by the Federal Reserve Board into some $4.5 trillion in loans and subsidies.
This amounts to a virtually unlimited backstop for the country's corporate and financial aristocracy, with no real strings attached. The provisions that provide stop-gap assistance to workers who are being laid off in the millions or being ordered to work without any protection against the deadly virus are designed to head off an eruption of class conflict in the short-term, so that the ruling class can buy time and prepare a counteroffensive to place the full cost of the corporate bailout on the backs of the working class. The bill's passage coincides with Trump's push to “open up” the country and force workers back into the plants and workplaces to resume pumping out profits for big business.
The Senate bill was supported by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, one of the two remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, who shelved his “socialist” pretensions to praise the measure as a boon to working people. There was no effort by the “progressive” allies of Sanders in the House, including Democratic Socialists of America members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, to actually oppose the bill.
Ocasio-Cortez railed against the bill during a four-hour floor debate Friday morning, but she failed to follow through with a threat to stall passage of the measure by demanding a roll-call vote. It was a right-wing Republican, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, who sought to delay passage by opposing a voice vote and formally demanding a recorded vote.
With the House in recess, the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy had agreed that they would avoid requiring House members to appear in person to cast votes, under conditions of lockdowns and travel restrictions in large parts of the country and the rapid spread of COVID-19, and seek instead to get the bill approved by unanimous consent. That would have required only a few representatives to be in attendance.
Massie, however, refused to back down, forcing a quorum call to determine whether more than half of the chamber's 435 members were on hand—as they were. He was, however, unable to get a single House member to back his demand for a roll-call vote, allowing the House leadership to push the bill through on a voice vote. There were only a few scattered “nays” amidst the overwhelming chorus of “ayes.”
Following the vote, Pelosi and McCarthy appeared side by side to hail the passage of the bill, cynically casting it as a humanitarian lifeline to ordinary Americans. Pelosi quoted Pope Francis in praising the measure.
The bill includes two main provisions providing aid to workers. It allocates $300 billion for direct cash payments to more than 150 million households. Those eligible, who do not include undocumented workers, will receive $1,200 per adult or $2,400 per couple, plus an additional $500 for each child. This is a one-time subsidy.
In addition, the bill allocates $250 billion to extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks and add $600 per week to the benefits provided by the states. This federal supplement is to end in early August for workers filing claims this week. The bill also makes freelance and gig workers eligible for the same unemployment benefits.
Some $500 billion is to be distributed to defray the costs of fighting the coronavirus epidemic and other social needs. That sum includes $207 billion for state, local and tribal governments, school districts and public transit agencies; $130 billion for hospitals and public health facilities and $45 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Only $16 billion is set aside for hospitals to procure personal protective equipment and ventilators.
The vast bulk of the bill is a massive handout to business, with most of the money by far going to big corporations. In addition to the $454 billion Treasury backstop for Fed loans and grants to corporations, the bill provides $46 billion in targeted loans from the Treasury Department, mainly to the commercial airline industry, with $17 billion carved out for Boeing.
It sets aside $350 billion in loans and aid to small businesses, which are defined as enterprises with up to 500 employees. This could include multi-billion-dollar hedge funds and other financial firms.
There is also $50 billion for an “employee retention tax credit” to companies that keep their employees on the payroll.
There are other windfalls to business buried in the more than 800 pages of the legislation. One that could directly benefit Trump or his associates is the full restoration to the real estate sector of a huge tax break for interest costs and operating losses that was limited by the 2017 tax overhaul.
Restrictions imposed on corporations receiving government aid are largely nullified by caveats. There is a provision barring businesses receiving loans from cutting their employment levels until September 30. However, this is hedged with the phrase “to the extent practicable.”
Corporate recipients are also barred from raising dividends or carrying out stock buybacks to further enrich executives and big investors. This provision, however, can be waived by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, a multi-millionaire and former CEO of OneWest Bank, where he was sued for illegal home foreclosures.
The bill sets the precedent for the unlimited plundering of social resources to prop up the corporate oligarchy, while providing entirely inadequate assistance to working people devastated by the health and economic impact of a pandemic that could have been either minimized or stopped in its tracks. Multiple advance warnings by health experts were ignored, no preparations for such a crisis were made, and the virus was not taken seriously by the government when it erupted in China.
The bipartisan bill does nothing to mobilize the immense power of technology and industry in a planned and coordinated manner to quickly produce and distribute the ventilators, masks and PPE material needed to save lives, and to construct the ICU units and hospitals and train the staff needed to prevent the health care system from being completely inundated.
It does not provide for the mass testing, contact tracing and extended social distancing needed to contain and defeat the disease. Nor does it order the shutdown of all workplaces and factories not providing essential services, with no loss in income for the workers, and safe conditions under medical supervision for those required to work.
These are demands that workers must raise, along with free and equal care for all those affected by the virus and a moratorium on rent, mortgage payments and personal loan payments for the duration of the crisis.
These critical needs at every point collide with the priorities of the profit system and private ownership of the means of production. The coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated all over the world the life-and-death need for the working class to put an end to capitalism and replace it with socialism.
Home Buying Boom Lost Steam in November As Sales Unexpectedly Fell To Slowest Pace Since June
The homebuying boom of 2020 appears to have lost some steam in November.
Sales of newly built homes fell sharply in November to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 841,000, according to data released by the Census Bureau Wednesday. That was below the estimates of Wall Street’s economists and 11 percent lower than the downwardly-revised October pace.
New home sales make up for a small part of the overall housing market but can have outsized impacts on the economy. Homebuilding is labor-intensive, requiring workers up and down the skill-ladder. New homes get outfitted with new appliances, driving sales of durable goods. Even car sales are correlated with new home sales.
A report on previously owned homes released Tuesday showed falling sales as well. Together, the reports suggest that the housing market is dimming.
Sales fell in all parts of the country, led by a 43 percent decline in the Midwest. Sales in the West fell 17.3 percent. Sales in the South, the biggest market for new homes, fell by just 1.9 percent. They were down 2.5 percent in the Northeast.
The median price of new homes for sale was $335,300, a decline from October but 5 percent above the year-ago level. Sales held up better at the higher end of prices than at the lower end, with sales of homes priced over $750,000 actually rising a bit.
Steeply rising prices may be cooling the desire of some city-dwellers to move into the suburbs in search of more space, privacy, and safety from violent crime.
Despite the slowdown in November, new home sales were up 20.8 percent year-over-year in November. Year-to-date sales are up 19.1 percent. So although the market cooled, it remains hot by historical standards.
Household income and spending declined in November, so part of the sales decline may be due to tightening financial constraints on families. Rising unemployment and layoffs may also be discouraging families from locking money up in a home purchase.
The seeming victory of Joe Biden, who has promised radical new housing policies aimed at reshaping the suburbs, may also be discouraging homebuyers. The prospect of higher capital gains taxes and higher income taxes could also weigh on demand for housing.
The monthly data on new home sales can be volatile and is frequently subject to large revisions. Most analysts would look to longer-run trends rather than assuming a major shift has occurred because of a single report. In the November report, however, the higher sales of earlier months received significant downward revisions, which may indicate that some of the strength of the housing market was exaggerated by inflated numbers.
Consumer Sentiment Tumbled in Late December
Consumer sentiment in the U.S. deteriorated in late December but remained above its November level, the University of Michigan’s survey of consumers showed Wednesday.
The biggest shift from the mid-month reading came in the current conditions gauge, reflecting the surge in infections following Thanksgiving weekend and the return of lockdowns.
The second and final December reading of the consumer sentiment index fell to 80.7 from the preliminary reading of 81.4 earlier in the month. In November, the index had fallen to 76.7.
Economists had expected a higher reading of 81.
Much of the gain compared with the prior month is due to Democrats becoming more hopeful, a shift that has outpaced Republicans turning negative.
“The improvement was due to a large and rapid partisan shift, with Democrats becoming much more positive and Republicans much more negative,” the survey’s chief economist, Richard Curtin, said.
Curtin described the partisan shift:
The largest change was in long term business prospects, as twice as many Democrats as three months ago expected a continuous expansion over the next five years (54% up from 27%), while that same favorable expectation was nearly cut in half among Republicans (32% down from 60%).
The measure of current conditions rose to 90 in the final December reading from 87 last month. This was a move down from the mid-month level of 91.8 and is 18.7 percent lower than the year ago level.
The index that measures expectations for the next six months rose to 74.6 from 70.5 in November and remained largely unchanged from the mid-month level.
The pandemic has opened up a gap between how consumers see their own current personal financial situation and their assessments of the overall economy, according to Curtin.
Curtin explained:
Trends in how consumers evaluate their own finances and how they assess changes in the national economy have followed a close association over the past half century. Since the start of the pandemic, however, a huge divide has grown across households in how they assess their own personal finances: the finances of those that continue to be employed and working at home have remained positive while those who have lost jobs and incomes have been quite negative. Growing inequalities have also been due to rising home and stock prices. In contrast, nearly everyone has reported negative assessments of current conditions in the national economy.
This is evidence for what has been described as the “k-shaped” recovery, with some consumers doing much better than others. It might also explain why consumer spending has been more resilient than expected.
Curtin says the data suggests the economic growth will be shaky for some time.
“While the rollout of the vaccine has been greeted as the beginning of the end, the end of the pandemic is still on the distant horizon in terms of a return to normalcy for consumer behavior, even among the most favored households. Precautionary motives will continue to shape both economic and personal behavior,” Curtin said.
No comments:
Post a Comment