What the national debate needs: Liberals.
Listening to last night’s New York gubernatorial debate, and the firecracker pop of Jimmy McMillan — the candidate from the “Rent is Too Damn High Party” — it finally struck me what’s missing from our national debate.
True blue, dyed in the wool liberals.
I know, I know. Conservative readers of the In Box are spewing their cornflakes right now, convinced that we already have a cabal of “Marxists” running the White House and Congress.
But of course that’s nonsense.
Barack Obama is — to the dismay of millions of his supporters — an avowed centrist, a middle-of-the-roader, culturally and philosophically comfortable with Wall Street millionaires and Ivy League types.
Put simply, he believes (or acts like he believes) in the status quo, where the economy is defined by big corporations, big agribusinesses, and by trade deals that tend to favor those interests.
He seems to want to tweak the system, make it a little more efficient and maybe a little fairer, but he’s not questioning the fundamental paradigm.
Likewise Harry Reid, majority leader of the US Senate, who is a pro-life, pro-gun Mormon from a tiny rural town in Nevada.
And even Nancy Pelosi –arguably the most liberal Democratic torch-bearer — is a multi-millionaire, married to a real-estate developer and co-owner of a UFL football franchise.
There’s not a Big Bill Haywood or a Eugene Debs to be found in that crowd.
All of these politicians have pushed center-left policies that in less heady days would have been debated and argued over, but would hardly have been the stuff of end-times, hair-pulling controversy.
In the main, their positions seem radical because conservatives have been so skillful at shifting the debate, making time-honored programs and institutions — from unemployment insurance to social security — into spooky bugbears.
And yes, if you think public schools and environmental regulations and Medicaid are Marxist, then the current Democratic Party is too far left for you.
But the other reason President Obama’s positions seem so darned leftist is that we’ve edited all the actual liberals out of the conversation.
We hear regularly from extreme right-wing pundits, from Glenn Beck to Rush Limbaugh, but there simply aren’t comparable voices being heard from the left.
People such as Noam Chomsky and Cindy Sheehan are at least as thoughtful and interesting as, say, Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter.
And yet they are nearly invisible in our wider debate.
Conservatives complain about a liberal media bias, but often the reverse seems to be true. A couple of weeks ago, liberal environmentalists staged a massive international demonstration in support of climate change action.
There were more than 7,000 events — the vast majority of them right here in the US — with far more participants that you see at tea party rallies. But news coverage was sparse to nonexistent.
Liberals also appear to be far more vulnerable when they speak their minds.
In the wake of 9/11, two prominent liberals — Bill Maher and Ward Churchill — said and wrote provocative (and, in my opinion, wrong-headed) things about the attack.
Maher lost his television show (he later resurfaced on cable) and Churchill lost his position as a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
But when Beck and Coulter said equally offensive things about the 9/11 victims and their families, it was laughed off and dismissed as a minor media kerfuffle.
It’s important to note that liberals were once an accepted part of the broader discussion of American life.
It was common for religious leaders in pulpits across the country to raise fundamental questions about the morality and fairness of capitalism.
It was a bit of a shock last year when Pope Benedict blasted modern capitalism in an encyclical letter, arguing that the global recession”requires a profoundly new way of understanding business enterprise.”
But his distrust of “Mammon” was once a far more central message in America’s churches than the current preoccupation with big government.
It was common for political leaders and great authors to talk about the collective shame of poverty, disease and ignorance in our cities and rural towns.
It was common for activists on the left to be heard expressing the same righteous anger about their causes — protecting the environment, advancing racial equality, protecting the rights of women — that we hear now from tea party groups.
Were some of those liberal voices goofy, offensive or extreme? Sure.
Jimmy McMillan wasn’t exactly winning over the Great American Middle with his arguments last night.
But right-wing voices are often just as out-there. Republicans in this year’s race are still backing one candidate who likes to dress up as an SS Nazi soldier in his spare time.
Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller created a media frenzy this week when his rent-a-cops handcuffed a journalist.
But the more eye-popping moment was when he suggested that Americans should model our border security on that of the former East Germany — one of the more efficient communist police states in modern history.
“If East Germany could do it, we could do it,” Miller argued.
If that sort of thing is going to be mainstream, why can’t McMillan and his fellow travelers also play in the big leagues?
Why don’t they get hours of airplay in the media? Why aren’t their faces on the covers of Time and Newsweek?
If they were, the Great American Conversation would be far more interesting and far more three-dimensional.
Tags: election10
You bring up an interesting point – there is a lot more energy and excitement on the right, unlike 40 – 50 years ago when it was the opposite. Is it the aging baby boomers? As an aging liberal, I feel perfectly comfortable with Obama’s pragmatic governing from the center. I certainly didnt feel that way about Johnson and Humphrey. On the other hand, many of my generation seem to have turned into crabby, intolerant, fearful old men and women.
Why must Obama be painted as a centrist, which he clearly is not?
Are liberals insecure, or what??
I’m not talking about what he must do for political expediency.
In his mind, soul, and being, he is a Marxist. It’s just that he must for expediency do some centrist “talk” because the 80% of the population that isn’t Marxist would boot him out of office, if he did what he REALLY wanted to.
Brian, how can a group that has grown government and spending to this extent be considered as anything other than the liberal lean that you say we are so longing for?? These are progressive liberals, they are not going to do things as quickly as the radical left would like or they would really get skunked. Like the president said the things he has accomplished are just a “first step” there is plenty more to come. Be patient.
On this question:
“Why don’t they get hours of airplay in the media? Why aren’t their faces on the covers of Time and Newsweek?”
It may be because they are boring, and no one really want to watch or hear them save a small radical group. Noam Chomsky – you gotta be kidding, I usually listen to him just for the fun of it, but he will eventually put you to sleep. He is not living in the real world.
If the left wants to get some air time find someone like Sara Palin (I am no big fan). Someone who can connect with regular people not a linguist from MIT.
JDM –
Sorry, but what you write here is simply factually goofy.
Marxism is a specific philosophy of government and society.
Barack Obama has never taken a single action, written a single word, appointed a single adviser, or cast a single vote to suggest that he has any sympathy for it.
His entire economic team is made up of centrist or center-right businessmen and executives.
He continued policies, in almost every instance, that were begun by the Bush Administration.
A case in point, this White House didn’t “nationalize” American industries.
They propped those industries up in the hope (perhaps misguided, but certainly not Marxist) that they would go back to being profitable, private enterprises.
This isn’t a philosophical point; it is factually provable.
The US government has moved aggressively to divest itself of ownership as rapidly as possible.
Bottom line?
Words have meaning. If you can point to a single act on the part of this President as “Marxist” we can have a real conversation.
Otherwise, this is just silly name-calling.
–Brian, NCPR
spectacular post, brian. and excellent reply to jdm, too.
Brian M: we have a Green Party, which largely represents what Democrats used to stand for decades ago. Howie Hawkins even models his Green New Deal on what FDR did. Greens want to be part of the debate, both locally, statewide and nationally. Will you and others in the media allow that to happen?
Replying to JDM is pointless. His rant is so silly. I am not a Marxist but I do know a couple. Taking money from the working class to give to bankers is the most anti-Marxist thing one can do.
Brian Mann:
We don’t know what Obama’s words were while he was editor of the publication in Harvard because you media types hid them from us.
Why do think that is?
Don’t tell me we don’t have evidence, when the potential evidence has been carefully covered up.
We want full disclosure.
In the 2008, Wall Street gave 70% of its campaign bribes, I mean “donations,” to Obama and only 30% to McCain. The culture of financial world may be venal, but it is NOT stupid. It’s governed by one principle and one alone: self-interest. Wall St. felt it in its self-interest to overwhelmingly fund a so-called Marxist?
(rolls eyes)
“But of course that’s nonsense.”
“Republicans in this year’s race are still backing one candidate who likes to dress up as an SS Nazi soldier in his spare time.”
“Barack Obama has never taken a single action, written a single word, appointed a single adviser, or cast a single vote to suggest that he has any sympathy for it. ”
“His entire economic team is made up of centrist or center-right businessmen and executives. ”
So ends the chance for thoughtful discussion.
It occurs to me that one reason people think Obama might be a Marxist is that they’ve never really heard a Marxist talk about their ideas.
If they had, they would know that his ideas have no connection to Marxist ideology. Which is, in a way, the point of my essay.
By the way, the idea of “big government” has very little to do with Marxism.
All kinds of political philosophies embrace the idea of having large, active governments.
The millions of retirees on social security, the millions of farmers receiving subsidies, the millions of Americans drinking safe water that’s been tested by a government scientist are all partaking of “big government” in one form or another, but they are certainly not Marxists or Marxist sympathizers.
–Brian, NCPR
Obama is (probably) a progressive-liberal in his heart, not a Marxist, but he is governing as a pragmatic centrist. It seems like tough economic times brings out the radicals – you can see how a Hitler could come to power in a democracy in really bad times. In South America, left wing radicals get elected occasionally (Arbenze -Chavez – Allende), but the CIA takes care of them – or at least tries to.
“So ends the chance for thoughtful discussion.”
Not at all. Feel free to start one. It’ll be a nice change.
Brian M’s correct point is that most people have no idea what Marxism really advocates (as opposed to the cariciaturish way the label is used in this country).
Brian’s given evidence to back up his contention, as have I… noting that everything Obama has done has strengthened monied interests, an ANTI-Marxist approach.
If you think we’re wrong, tell us what Obama has done that is Marxist and what Marxist principle it corresponds to.
We know the labels. Let’s hear the substance behind them, if there is any.
Marx was actually a pretty insightful sociologist. “follow the money” was his analytical approach.
Just as I thought. I read this, and I figured that Bret and JDM would huff and puff, but wouldn’t deliver any evidence that we actually have any liberal voices in the press or our political discourse.
Come on, it’s the bread and butter of the conservative set! There has to be some hard evidence somewhere, right? Let’s see some laws passed, some people appointed, SOMETHING.
If Teddy Roosevelt (or any other republican before 1960) was around today, Glenn Beck and the rest of the conservative pundits would be denouncing his marxist/socialist tendencies.
Brian M, You’re just saying what I’ve been saying for a long time. The far right has been so successful at redefining the terms of debate that the average person does not recognize that even most Democrats are rightist, albeit less so that the average Republican. Instead most people have fallen victim to the distortion that anyone left of the extreme right is a leftist or Marxist. If you don’t understand the terms you can’t discuss the differences intelligently.
To all, If you haven’t done so before I suggest that you take a look at politicalcompass.org/uselection2008. If you do you will find that Joe Biden and Barack Obama are both right of center. You will also find that Sarah Palen’s political beliefs are the most authoritarian (government intruding into people’s lives) of the bunch.
I think there’s a difference between socialists (who favor nationalization of industry and massive redistrubtion) and liberals. Socialists have never been mainstream in the US. With the far-right, you could argue that many of their views were mainstream prior to the New Deal.
Obama is not a marxist but he is a liberal, except for a couple of issues like same sex marriage and teacher accountability. He does want to redistribute wealth, though not as much as socialists. He favors universal health care, abortion rights, cap and trade, stimulus spending, card check, liberal justices, and many other liberal policies. When I think of centrist, I think of someone like Olympia Snowe or Joe Lieberman. I think they are both different from Obama.
It is typical when someone is losing a debate to say that the problem is that the other side has somehow redefined the terms.
Forget about the terms and labels. Whatever you want to call it most people don’t like it. Plain and simple. When that is the case no matter how you define it you lose.
I don’t mind being singled out with Bret or others who share similar points of view.
What most on this blog have to realize is that you represent a small minority of the general population, even though you share the “majority” view on this blog.
Nov. 2 will be the voice of the majority of the general population speaking.
JDM –
This blog doesn’t represent a small minority of anyone. My argument wasn’t that one “side” or another should win the election. It was simply that we need to hear a more representative cross-section of the national debate.
–Brian, NCPR
There are bloggers for all sides – and especially the left. Other than NPR there really isnt any news institution interested in providing a cross section of the national debate. Mustn’t be much of an audience for it.
Brian,
To answer your why can’t Jimmy McMillan get airplay question, it’s because unlike the ex-witch or East Germany admirer or the Nazi dress-up doll, a major political party won’t nominate him to be on its ticket.
Great post, but a small quibble: You’re drawing a bit of a false equivalence with Ward Churchill, since he in no way represents Dems, or even the left, really. He does rep the crazy, and has a lot in common with the Nazi dress-up doll: he enjoyed passing himself off as a Native American when he actually, well, wasn’t.
but he lost his job.
Thank you James. The more we put people in their tidy little “box”, the less we actually know about them. We just know the label. This is how you get people to throw around names without actually knowing the substance.
I think part of it has to do with the denigration of political language in general since the 1960’s. At that time and forward it became popular to call conservatives and even moderates fascists if they were not down with whatever dribble the SDS was spewing at the time. Over time people forgot or simply were never taught what a true fascist was or what that looked like.
On the other side it started to be more common place to call someone a commie when in reality they were simply more liberal. So the terms all went to the extreme. That was okay when we all actually knew it was just name calling, but I think over time people really don’t know what a fascist is or what a real communist believes in.
The far Left has been largely silenced by the Democratic Party in my opinion. I think it would actually help to have far left wing folk speak out more. It is almost like people who are true socialists are ashamed of being a socialist like it is a dirty secret or something. But even now where is the anti-war movement that was so loud and so angry during the Bush years?
mervel:
That was my original point. Where ever on the left of center Obama is, why do those who feel relatively close to his position on that spectrum try to push him to the right of center?
He doesn’t want to cut taxes. (he says words to that effect for expediency, but his desire is to increase spending and taxes).
He wants to control health care from the government.
He wants to redistribute wealth (which he got “caught” telling Joe the Plumber). Why not make it a campaign slogan? “I want to redistribute your wealth”!!?
He wants to dismantle the military (not a politically acceptable position, but that is what he would have if he could).
My point is that someone with these positions can not be elected in this country. Therefore, in order to be elected, he must first lie or misrepresent himself. Then, once elected, he can govern as his instincts dictate.
Now, we see what he is made of, enough people don’t want it that there will be a big push to stop him in 2 weeks, and again in 2 years.
JDM;
Remember the 1970’s we had George McGovern a wonderful man with a great heart, but the guy was far more liberal than Obama; but even here McGovern was not a Socialist.
We have had real Socialists in this country they just don’t get heard very much today. But that is not the fault of conservatives at all it is the fault of the Democrats who want to keep them in a box to ensure they don’t have a third party problem on he Left like the Republicans sometimes do on the Right.
I am not sure how I would categorize President Obama? I don’t think he is as centrist as some would claim I agree with you on that; but he is not a socialist.
JDM,
I am yet to meet somehow who considers themselves a liberal democrat and who thinks Obama is left of them. And polls show over and over that the liberal base in this country is, by and large, upset that Obama has governed from a position that is to the right of them.
So, the question that begs to be asked is… If Obama looks like a Marxist to you, what exactly do you consider all of these people – a good majority of one of our two major political parties – who are to the left of him?
I’m dying to know what is to the left of Marxism in your world view.
Stating one opinion and three provable facts ends the chance for thoughful discussion? These are indeed sad times.
dave:
I don’t think Marxism is the ultimate left. I do think that Obama follows the Marxist ideal briefly encapsulated “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
There are probably lefter things out there.
As I have now said twice before, Obama cannot act out his true beliefs due to political expediency. He would not be electable if he showed his true colors at face value.
Those to the right have seen his true colors. He seems to be walking like a Marxist duck and talking like a Marxist duck at this point, so without the concealed evidence that it obviously out there but not being made public (his Harvard writings, for example), we can assume he is a Marxist duck.
JDM – where has Obama espoused that view? “from each according…) Or even what makes you think he believes that? (in some hidden opinions)
because you could say he has Martian opinions with the same reasoning
I believe some time ago here I tried to define Obama, maybe it was someplace else. Does he have Marxist tendencies? Well, he claimed so in “Dreams of My Father” and people attending college with him say he was an ardent Marxist “just waiting for the revolution”. He befriends and takes counsel from avowed Marxists like Frank Marshall Davis and Sam Graham Felsen. His appointments of people Like Van Jones certainly don’t give the impression of a rabid centrist. But I don’t know if I consider him a Marxist in the sense we would think of Hugo Chavez for example. I think he’s way too timid to try that. But look at what he’s said in his books, what he’s supported doing and what he’s said he wanted to do. He oversaw the handover of Chrysler to the UAW, his people forced some banks to take loans they didn’t need or want, he has said he wants to redistribute wealth. His nationalization of health care under the Healthcare Reform Farce, whoops, Act are not the moves of a traditional Democrat in the Harry Truman mold, certainly not the moves of a centrist with any fiscal concerns.
So from my POV he does display some tendencies that might be called Marxist. He might be called a liberal, even a radical liberal from my POV. He might be called a Socialist too. In fact he might accurately be called any of those things using the same criteria Brian Mann uses to label the Republican candidate an SS Nazi. Oh, sure, Brian is smart enough not to come right out and say that, but the implication is plainly there. I mean, come on! The guy dresses up in a Nazi uniform, he shouldn’t be elected! Using that same line of reasoning, that flawless, logical reasoning, all those guys that portray French or Indians or Biritish at Fort Ti or Wm Henry or at the Battle of the Windmill re-enactment in Ogdensburg must be treasonous sobs that want to see the USA back in British or French hands!
On another point, I cannot find any of Obamas economic team that ever worked in business or were business executives. Maybe I missed someone but they all come from academia or Gov’t from what I can see.
Now Brian, I know you choose to avoid responding to my posts, but one of your favorite words is “nuanced”. Seems to me the nuance in this discussion is that Obama is, without doubt, a center right governing President. No, none, zero, nada evidence exists he ever said or even thought of any slightly leftist ideas. Funny, that’s the exact same problem he had with good old Rev. Wright. Sat there for 20 years and never heard a word…
Well then what Democrat in Congress is not a Marxist? If Obama is a Marxist then it would seem that most Democrats are Marxists.
Bret: you haven’t cited on single example of a Marxist policy by Obama or even socialist.
His health care scam was denounced by progressives because it represented a great distribution of wealth from working people to insurance money changers (the only people who benefit from Obamacare). People now are now forced to buy crappy, overpriced private insurance with no guarantee it will actually pay claims. Marxism? Socialism? C’mon. A real socialist would’ve pushed single payer. A liberal would’ve at least pushed the public option.
I’m analyzing his actual actions as president of the United States. The best you can do is cite a few advisors and a few former advisors and what he believed 40 years ago and speculate on what he might be. Weak.
Obama may be a Marxist “at heart”, whatever that means, although I strongly doubt it. But he’s sure as heck not acting like one. And it’s his actions I care about.
Obama didnt “nationalize” health care. Maybe he Federalized it. Everybody is required to get health insurance. Thats hardly Marxist. He has governed as a slightly left of center centrist. When you talk about Marxism, you are talking about utopian communism. The workers taking over and running the factories – the farmers growing the food in cooperatives but everybody sharing etc. No private ownership As with the tea party conservatives, the government was supposed to wither away. I dont see how you can claim that Obama or any of the democrats believe in any of that.
Brian, not Brian Mann:
says that, “A real socialist would’ve pushed single payer.”
Good. Then Obama is your man. He said this in an interview in Oct. 2003,
“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program.” He adds, “We may not get there immediately,” noting the Democrats must “take back” the White House and both houses of Congress
[Washington Examiner]
phahn50 says, “When you talk about Marxism, you are talking about utopian communism. ”
No. Maybe that is your view of Marxism.
The definition that I gave, Bret’s examples, and mervel’s comment seem a little closer to the point we are trying to make.
JDM: As I’ve said before… I judge him on his actions, not his words. He may have been a proponent of single payer in his BELIEFS, but in his ACTIONS he didn’t touch it with a ten foot pool or even utter the phrase ‘single-payer’… I don’t care what he thinks or what he is. I care what he does. Whether Obama is a Marxist is a completely pointless discussion among people with way too much time on their hands (apparently including me). Judge him on his actions. And his actions are very corporatist.
JDM – but your point is wrong. You cant just make up a definition of something. Bret’s point seems to be that Obama has associated with people who might have been considered Marxists at some time. Neighbors and maybe friends. Doestnt make him a Marxist. Bret further argues that Obama’s government did some things during the crisis that might be viewed a socialist – the government took over bankrupt GM and Chrysler. But the federal government never tried (or had any desire to) to run the company. They are selling ownership it as fast as possible. Thats not walking or talking like a socialist duck.
Thanks Brian M., I’ll send that $100 I promised.
JDM says: “He doesn’t want to cut taxes.”
That’s what you say, but unless you’re really rich, JDM, Obama–wait for it–cut your taxes: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299138
Bret says: “His nationalization of health care under the Healthcare Reform Farce, whoops, Act are not the moves of a traditional Democrat in the Harry Truman mold,”
Bret, Harry Truman advocated national health insurance, and was called a–wait for it–Marxist: http://hnn.us/articles/41314.html
Mervel says: “If Obama is a Marxist then it would seem that most Democrats are Marxists.”
Exactly, Mervel. And if those are the best revolutionaries modern Marxism can produce, Karl Marx is on a rotisserie in his grave right about now.
Just kidding, of course. As a dedicated Socialist/Communist/Marxist/Pinko I don’t believe in the exchange of money between individuals. Everything is owned by the State because the State are the People and the People will provide in equal measures through the instrument of the State for all necessities. Peace and Correct Thinking Comrade!
Okay, okay. Kidding again.
JDM, you must be some kind of psychic because you seem to know what people are thinking in spite of any lack of evidence in action. You and Bret are unconvinecable at times. Facts be damned!
There are a couple of examples of REAL Leftists in public office today that Brian M. missed in his post; Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich. And sometimes they are a couple of the most sensible guys we’ve got.
He is not a “centrist” or “middle-of-the-roader”. The “dismay of millions of his supporters” is not due to him being a “centrist”, It is due to their cartoonish understanding of political history. The left/right meme is an illusion as both extremes have totalitarian tendencies. The only difference is what vision they want to force onto the rest of us by use of the power of the state. The fact that Obama is “comfortable with Wall Street millionaires and Ivy League types” says nothing about his political leanings. You never heard of George Soros?
You forgot big unions. The United Auto Workers got about 65 percent of Chrysler and 17.5 percent of General Motors. Obama’s actions are more in line with fascist corporatism not unlike Mussolini. Calling Obama Marxist, although technically incorrect, is a distinction with little difference. It is Brian, the concentration of power in a few hands that is the significant and dangerous similarity. The state does not have to own the corporations to control them anymore then the Mafia had to own the corner store to control it.
The wealthy supporting someone like Pelosi or Obama does not make them “centrist”. What the wealthy get for their support is a myriad of laws and regulations that are easily absorbed by the big corporations but present significant barriers to new competitors attempting to enter their market. It is a symbiotic relationship that benefits both the large corporate structure and the politicians. Make no mistake, the power of the state always trumps the money of the wealthy.
For all of you who insist that Obama is not a centrist, I am a liberal. I know lots of people who are liberals. I have yet to find any of them who believe Obama is in the same political spectrum as they are.
Have any of you looked at the Supreme Court? When Justice Stevens was appointed to the court he was considered a conservative or maybe a centrist but by the time he retired he was considered a liberal. He insists that the change was not in his views but in the shift of the court to the right.
If a rock is in a river and sometimes the river shifts it doesn’t mean the rock has moved.
Obama cut taxes for 95% of Americans. You just don’t notice it because he didn’t give you a $400 check like GWB. Instead it was small increments in your check. I’m going to assume JDM makes over $250,000 and therefore didn’t get the tax cut.
Gut the military? That’s a old line used by Republicans. I beleive it was Rumsfeld that wanted a small more agile military that relied on technology instead of people. RINO.
Healthcare should be single payer just like the rest of the developed world.
Sorry folks, like I said from my POV he has some of those tendencies, from yours he’s practically Ronald Reagan or Calvin Coolidge. Some of the arguments here are just the same as was used regarding Bush. You guys surprise me.
Bret, stop it, nobody said he was Ronald Reagan. We’re just saying he isn’t a crazy liberal like many on the Right believe. If you took the blinders off you wouldn’t be surprised as often.
On another subject:
“Jimmy McMillan wasn’t exactly winning over the Great American Middle with his arguments last night.”
I don’t know. Have you looked for a rental lately? The rent is too DAMN high!
(Don’t tell my renters who actually get a very good deal)
NITV makes some good points. In one of my graduate business school classes the professor asked for a show of hands what political party is more favored by BIG business. Invariably the hands would go up for the republican party. This of course is a myth. The democratic party is far more favored by large corporations than the republicans. One reason is that regulations, you can’t argue that the current administration is increasing business regulations on a very large scale, can give an artificial competitive edge to larger companies. Problem for the economy short-term is that we all know that it is smaller businesses that create jobs, not large companies. Case in point, the stock market has recovered nicely and the job market is still in the toilet. Till we get the mix right, fewer (smarter) regulations and lower taxes we will continue to see job growth lag and people suffer because of it.
Our own state is a good example. Too many complicated regulations and fees, combined with high taxes and you see what we get.
He [Obama] befriends and takes counsel from avowed Marxists like Frank Marshall Davis
Proof please.