It was many years ago when I was a salesman at a car dealership that sold Pontiac, Peugeot, and Jaguar cars. My niche was the two imports. One day, a customer was keenly interested in the 1981 Peugeot 505 STI that we had on the showroom floor. I really liked this car. I was a terrific car for highway cruises. He asked a lot of the typical questions and I answered them all, truthfully. Yes, parts can be expensive but that is true with all vehicles in this category. No, we have not had any problems getting parts and yes, our service department is fully equipped to maintain this car. Then he asked me about trade in value, “will this car hold its value a few years from now?” I lied. I said yes. Then he got me painted into a corner with his next question, “Okay, I am interested in purchasing this Peugeot and I have a trade….and it’s a 1976 Peugeot 504.”
My heart sank. His trade was virtually worthless. I tried to have it both ways and I got caught.
Democrats are caught in this trap today when they try to attack the “Trump Economy” and praise the “Obama Economy” when in truth, the former is just an extension of the latter, with a few added insults added to the injuries previously meted out upon the working class.
We told American voters during the 2016 election that the economy was freakin fabulous even though 44% of U.S. workers were employed in low-wage jobs and nearly 80 percent of American workers (78 percent) said they’re living paycheck to paycheck. And all of this happened during Obama’s eight years in the White House.
I watched an interview today where the reporter asked the Democrat running for president how he was going to attack the Trump economy while polls show that 70% of Americans think that the economy is doing well. The Democrat sounded like me trying to explain to the Peugeot owner why his trade is of no real value but the new one will be different.
Democrats should not be surprised that 70% of Americans think this crappy economy is “great”. After all, we told them it was for eight years.
Can we afford to tell them the truth?
Christopher says
Is it just me or do you post different versions of the same diary trashing Dems on handling the economy every couple of weeks?
Trickle up says
Making your point more than once is a lesson the leaders of my party could learn a thing or two about.
johntmay says
Is it just me or do you think that the Democrats have done a splendid job with the economy?
fredrichlariccia says
As a proud lifelong working class Democrat, I’ll take a Democratic economy any day of the week over a Puke economy.
petr says
Is it just me, or have you gone ’round the bend (again) with imputations of a false equivalence?
fredrichlariccia says
I have only one question for all the armchair, delusional, revisionist economic theorists who constantly trash Democrats in the middle of a life and death struggle to reclaim the soul of our country from fascist Trumpism : Do any of you “know it alls” serve crackers and cheese with your ‘whine’ ?
bob-gardner says
So as a lifelong Democrat, Fred, were you a Trump supporter when he pretended to be a Democrat?
fredrichlariccia says
I have never supported the Fascist in Chief Puke. .
Many Frauds have hijacked, or attempted to hijack, the Democratic party.
The Turd Emperor is not the first and it won’t be the last.
By their deeds, not their words, ye shall know them.
bob-gardner says
Exactly, but you are not the only one authorized, Fred, to decide who the fraudulent Democrats are..
petr says
It’s just you, Christopher: It’s not different versions.
SomervilleTom says
I guess you should vote for Donald Trump next November then.
fredrichlariccia says
You’re in the wrong party, dude.
The Orange-headed Buffoon, Baron Golfin von Fatfuk and his Vichy Reputincan Party is your true home.
johntmay says
Why? As I wrote::
Please explain how this virtual identical economy was great under Obama but lousy under Trump?
petr says
Please provide a cite for the contention that any Democrat in 2016 or before said the economy was “freaking fabulous.” (I’m not a stickler for vocabulary, so the actual answer won’t have to include either the words ‘freaking’ or ‘fabulous,’ but will have to include sentiments akin to them…)
I’ll save you a lot of trouble by telling you not to look through your own ramblings in 2015 and 2016 since you said things that were quite at odds with ‘freaking fabulous.’
jconway says
Come on gentleman, surely we can talk about the reality that wages have stagnated for decades without being accused of supporting Donald Trump.
John is saying nothing different than Elizabeth Warren. The intellectual climate here has become increasingly stale. There’s plenty of room for debate without having the Biden bros and Bernie bros shout down anyone who disagrees.
fredrichlariccia says
Hitler built a highway and Mussolini made the trains run on time. So what!
They share one thing in common with the Fascist Monster. Their mutual hatred for Democratic Republics.
All this economic happy talk is just a distraction from the 800 pound gorilla staring us right in the face : When the Fascist tyrants get done destroying the civilized world as we know it, what sane person will want to live in the evil, dog-eat-dog, jungle they are creating?
johntmay says
Why?
jconway says
President Trump is lying when he says these numbers are great and he is solely responsible for them. The great macroeconomy is a direct result of Barack Obama’s clear headed leadership out of the Great Recession. That said-the microeconomy sucks for ordinary Americans. Especially in the Obama/Trump counties of America.
Candidate Trump was right when he said the unemployment numbers undercount people who dropped out of the labor force and undercount areas very hard hit by the triple threat of automation, outsourcing, and the foreclosure crisis. President Trump has simply taken credit for the macroeconomy he inherited from Obama while doing nothing to fix the regions he promised to help.
Particularly in regions that have not yet recovered from the recession. We should want to know why blacks in Akron stayed home while white union members there switched to Trump.
Sanders gets this. Even Bloomberg gets this. John May and No Politician get this. Our nominee should get this if we want to beat Trump. Peddling America is Already Great is a proven loser.
johntmay says
And yet the question remains:
Sixty-one percent of Americans say they are better off than they were three years ago, so how does a Democrat run on improving the economy?
Of course, Trump was/is lying about the economy and yes, the current economy is the result of Obama..
Will a Democrat be honest with the American people and tell them that while Obama stopped the bleeding, he only gave a blood transfusion to the rich.
Can you tell us how many Wall Street bankers were investigated by the Obama Administration? I can. There was not even a single arrest or prosecution of any senior Wall Street banker for the systemic fraud that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis.
Sanders gets this and Warren gets this. And Warren is the only one with hard numbers to prove she will go after this. reclaiming billions from Wells Fargo. Should she become president, there will be more than monetary fines, there will be jail time and the Big Money people in Both Parties are doing all they can to stop this from happening.
jconway says
From none other than Dan Pfeiffer who led Obama’s successful re-elect against Romney who had much better numbers to run against than we do. Hard to beat Trump on the economy by focusing on the numbers, much easier by focusing on the areas and people his policies haven’t helped.
SomervilleTom says
None of us needs to trash Barack Obama to beat Donald Trump.
SomervilleTom says
@[Barack Obama] only gave a blood transfusion to the rich:
This is an egregiously incorrect characterization of the Barack Obama administration.
He avoided a catastrophic collapse of the worldwide financial system — the 1933 banking failures writ large. It is preposterous to argue that such a collapse would have been anything but devastating to the entire American population.
He managed a recovery of the housing market. For nearly every family in the 99%, their home is far and away their most valuable asset. The crash of 2008 wiped out ALL of that equity. The recovery engineered by the Barack Obama administration restored that lost value.
He pushed the ACA through a reluctant congress. Skyrocketing health care costs were far and away the most important drain on working-class families, especially for the very poor. While not perfect, the result was again orders of magnitude better for working class families than doing nothing.
Elizabeth Warren is NOT making your false claim about Barack Obama, because she knows it isn’t true.
SomervilleTom says
I was being ironic.
No man or woman is going to satisfy you. None. You demand perfection and refuse to accept even temporary progress.
The economy was MUCH BETTER for working-class men and women in November of 2012 than it was in November of 2008. I hope there is no argument about that. It was not as good as it could have been if the GOP had allowed state and federal hiring to resume, but the false GOP austerity narrative precluded that.
The economy was MUCH BETTER for working-class men and women in November of 2012 than it would have been after four years of a John McCain administration.
There were no candidates, Democratic or Republican, who offered a better economic plan than Barack Obama during the 2008 or 2012 campaigns (with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton, whom you would have attacked even more loudly). Are you seriously arguing that John McCain would have been better for working-class men and women than Barack Obama? Mitt Romney?
The nirvana of minimum-wage jobs paying enough that one minimum-wage worker can own and support a household with two adults and two children — 3-BR home, car, yard, etc — is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
Any candidate of any party who promises it is lying. Anybody who demands it of a candidate might as well demand that the candidate magically heal the sick, restore sight to the blind, and raise the dead.
jconway says
Was Elizabeth Warren supporting Romney or McCain when she correctly critiqued President Obama for not delivering for homeowners and going too easy on the banks? I think John is engaging in two useful epistemological exercises that are critical for the left to get back in power.
1) Where did we go wrong under President Obama and how can we correct for that in the next Democratic presidency?
2) How can we motivate voters who feel, with some accuracy, that they are increasingly left behind by both parties?
I think these questions are important and should be asked without attacking the loyalty or character of the questioner.
jconway says
In Denmark McDonalds workers make $20/hr, have a union with seats on the board, have a five week vacation, and have their child care and health care needs and college tuition all covered by the state. Denmark actually has a higher GDP than the US. It’s pie is not only as big as ours but arguably larger, it just choose to slice it more fairly. I think that’s a conversation we need to have. Everyone is entitled to the dignity of a good paying job with enough salary and benefits to raise a family.
Can America become Denmark overnight? No. I push back against Berniecrats who think such a move will be easy or even popular. But we can and should get there.
fredrichlariccia says
Denmark’s small, socialist economy supports a happy, prosperous,homogenous people and is admired in the chic, intellectual parlors from Cambridge to San Francisco as a Sanderin utopia that must be replicated here.
But try selling it in ‘fly over’ country of diverse, middle America? Especially those Mid-West battleground states that the Puke won — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan ? Not so much.
Keep dreaming.
jconway says
A) I’m not necessarily voting for Sanders
B) He performed pretty well with those voters in the 2016 primary
C) Hillary ran on the Obama economy and lost those states, probably because they have not done well under Bush, Obama, and now Trump.
Asking why they have not done well and thinking of solutions to their problems is the bare minimal a credible political party should be doing. I would argue it’s why this space exists. To ask those questions and spitball solutions.
SomervilleTom says
@Denmark actually has a higher GDP than the US:
WHAT? Sorry my friend, but you’ve misread something. You may be thinking of per capita GDP.
The US economy is about FOURTEEN TIMES that of Denmark ($2.45 T vs $0.174 T).
Denmark is tiny in population and geographic area in comparison to the US. Denmark does not have racial and ethnic diversity of the US. The pervasive racism of the US is unique to our history of slavery, and greatly complicates any attempts to compare the US to any first-world nation.
Denmark has a lower home ownership rate than the US. There is no legally-mandated minimum wage in Denmark — companies are permitted to set their own wages.
Various sources like this and this report the following about Denmark:
– Typical minimum salary of full-time worker: 17,000 DKK (first source) to €38,596 (second source)
– Highest taxes in the world (typically 50% of gross)
– Free (government-provided) health care
– Free (government-provided) education
According to various currency converters, that annual minimum salary of 17.000 DKK corresponds to $2.4K. The higher minimum corresponds to $41K.
That higher $41K corresponds to a minimum wage of $20/hr for a 40 hour week. At a typical first ratio of 33%, a worker earning $41K/year can qualify for a mortgage of about $125,000. According to sites like this, that gets you a median-priced home in West Virginia in 2019, or perhaps Mississippi. It’s not enough to get that family a home in the 45th position (Ohio).
It’s just NOT a “living wage” by the standards of this discussion.
Is ANY candidate going to propose a typical income tax rate of 50%?
Is anyone going to argue that the top 3 or 5 or 10 universities in Denmark are better than the top 3, 5, or 10 universities in America, even if we restrict the US choices to public colleges and universities?
The conflation of Denmark and US is, in fact, a very good example of how well-intended comparisons produce wildly incorrect conclusions.
An attempt to turn America into Denmark is a rhetorical overreach that does not withstand even superficial analysis.
SomervilleTom says
Saying that the Barack Obama administration did not deliver for homeowners and went too easy on the banks is not the same as saying that we “went wrong” during the Barack Obama administration.
Your first question is therefore essentially a push-poll that presupposes its answer.
The literature is full of useful information about your second question, and so far as I can tell all the campaigns are already using it.
When commentary is offered that is egregiously incorrect, we do a disservice to everybody by pretending it is accurate.
jconway says
I guess you disagree with Elizabeth Warren then and think she’s voting for Trump. It’s my vacation week anyway, maybe I’ll come back here when we’re all voting for Bernie or Bloomberg in the general.
fredrichlariccia says
“maybe I’ll come back here when we’re all voting for Bernie or Bloomberg in the general.”
Not so fast, my utopian whipper snapper.
The ‘fat lady’ is still warming up her vocal chords and it ain’t over ’til it’s over. And yours and the media’s Edicts pronouncing the death of Joe Biden and others is both premature and arrogant.
I want to see and hear more and I’m still proudly “Riden with Biden.”
SomervilleTom says
@I guess you … think [Elizabeth Warren] is voting for Trump.
I just wrote exactly the opposite. Ms. Warren has said that the Barack Obama administration did not do enough for homeowners and went too easy on the banks (for example, no lenders were forced to eat the problem loans they made, the entire burden was pushed to the borrower).
She did NOT say that “we went wrong” during the Barack Obama administration. There is a middle ground between saintly purity and Donald Trump.
I like Ms. Warren, a lot. I think she will be much more aggressive and effective towards clawing back wealth from the ultra-wealthy than any other candidate, including Bernie Sanders or Mike Bloomberg. I think she’ll be MUCH more aggressive and effective than Barack Obama was.
That is, in part, because — unless a complete melt-down happens between now and November — she will not face a world financial system teetering on the very brink of utter and total collapse with bits of turf slipping away between her feet.
That is also why the powers that be, including the mainstream media and explicitly including the NYTimes, Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC will do all in their power to keep her from being nominated or elected. Sexism in the media is particularly difficult to overcome when it works to advance the wealth and power agenda that media has always pursued.
Part of why the media loves Mr. Sanders this time around is that he brings lots of telegenic rage and anger and hasn’t made his pitch even a tiny bit more possible or pragmatic today than it was in 2016. Mr. Sander’s is a perfect foil for Donald Trump and the Trumpists in the WWE-style exhibition that today’s media has turned this campaign into.
The media is in a total quandary about Mr. Bloomberg because he is VERY wealthy, has poured all sorts of wealth into the media, and so he’s VERY good for the bottom line — while at the same time he’s poured those enormous contributions into areas that significantly advance the Democratic Party and progressive agenda. He’s the largest single donor to Planned Parenthood. He spent TWO HUNDRED MILLION dollars on Democratic House races in 2018 — all but six of them women. He’s bankrolling enormous swaths of the gun-control movement. He’s a HUGE Sierra Club contributor.
There is a lot to dislike about Mike Bloomberg. There is also nobody — not Tom Steyer, not George Soros, not Bill Clinton, not Bill Gates, NOBODY — who has done more to financially support the issues and causes that progressive Democrats care about.
We don’t have to marry him, work for him, or drink beer with him. During this hopefully brief period while the Trumpists are destroying everything that matters and while money IS power in American culture, Mike Bloomberg is a guy who gives every appearance of bringing a juggernaut to bear against Donald Trump and Trumpists.
America and FDR did not like Joseph Stalin in 1942. We welcomed him to our side in the fight against the Axis powers anyway. As a result, we had several decades in which to fight the Soviet Union in the cold war. We would not likely have had that opportunity if we had not allied with Stalin for WWII.
I like Elizabeth Warren. I think Mike Bloomberg will win, and I think we’ll all be glad he did.
fredrichlariccia says
BHO must be listening in : ” Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation.” President Barack Obama. 2/27/20 in response to the current debate on BMG between utopian, economic revisionists and his fierce, admiring realists. 🙂
seascraper says
1. Economy in the Democratic primary is the economy controlled by the Federal Government. Electability arguments are over who will wrest control of those jobs away from Republicans and towards us. It’s about government jobs and government support of certain companies.
2. I never hear anything from the Democratic candidates about two huge influences on the private economy: the Fed and trade.
3. When I hear the Democrats talking about diversity and inclusion, I know that the money they are talking about spending, as a white guy, me and my family, we are not going to see any of it. The attitude is that I must be doing great, as a white man and a business owner I should accept any burden because I’m privileged and I’m just sailing through life. So all the talk about great new programs and all this spending means nothing to me.
I voted for Obama but I think he truly believed this. That he was for the oppressed and it was his job to take as much as he politically could manage away from one group to give to the other. Trump hasn’t done much and much of what he did just disappeared, but he is at least not trying to cut me down.
johntmay says
Nearly 1 in 3 American workers run out of money before payday—even those earning over $100,000
Are we to assume that this was not the case three years ago and it only happening now because “he” is in office?
That would be telling a lie to the American people. .
nopolitician says
The economy is pretty good for older well-educated people who live within commuting distance to large megalopolises (such as Boston, DC, Seattle, Chicago).
The economy is mediocre for younger, well-educated people in those same areas (not as good because starting pay hasn’t kept up with the cost of housing nor with the cost of obtaining said education).
The economy is mediocre for older, well-educated people in areas outside those listed above – but more precarious, as industries consolidate into large megalopolises. In other words, you may have a good job, but if you lose it, you probably won’t find another without moving – which is much harder to do when you’re older, married, and have kids and/or elderly parents.
The economy is not good for younger, well-educated people outside the areas listed above (not many new job openings). This forces them to uproot themselves for a mediocre situation. This greatly impacts the psyche of those areas, because those areas become more and more poor, and see their children leaving.
The economy is not good for most who are not well-educated in any area, especially if you have children. Living wage in Boston is $33.66/hour if you have two children. If you are that person (or family), your kids will go to public schools that are very different from public schools in communities comprised of people who earn well above the median wage.
This economic segregation – both regional, and by community within a region – is a fundamental problem because it alters people’s perception of reality, and makes it too easy to write others off. “People are having a hard time Lawrence? Well, they should have gotten an education like I did, in 1970”. “Schools are performing badly in Fall River? Well, they should increase their taxes and fund them better”.
I urge people to rethink their view of the issues that face voters – the economy is not “good” for everyone, and if the Democratic message is “yes it is”, then that is not only a losing proposition, but it means that the party that is supposed to look out for all people, not just the most successful, has abandoned its purpose.
SomervilleTom says
I agree with nearly all of this, and that’s why I upvoted it. Your first five paragraphs make the case for a revolutionary upheaval of our economic system — but not the kind of vague “To the barricades” posturing of Mr. Sanders.
Your first five paragraphs describe why we need to tax wealth vs income. We need to tax extreme wealth while it is retained, and we need to tax extreme wealth when it is being transferred to the next generation.
Only one national candidate has proposed the first part of that. No candidate has proposed the second part. BOTH must happen.
Which Democratic candidates assert that the economy is good for everyone? Certainly Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are making just the opposite claim. Joe Biden is muddled, and while I suspect Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar of feeling that way, I don’t remember either publicly saying so.
In particular, I haven’t heard ANYBODY say “People are having a hard time Lawrence? Well, they should have gotten an education like I did, in 1970”. What I hear instead is something along the lines of “The barriers to success of young people suffering in Lawrence today are higher than they’ve ever been. Education is far less accessible to them in 2020 than it was to me in 1970. That’s why it is FAR more important for government to intervene in 2020.”
Similarly, I haven’t heard anybody argue that taxes in Fall River should be increased. What I hear instead is something along the lines of “Schools are performing badly in gateway cities throughout the state, while the effective tax rate of wealthy residents of towns like Carlisle and Dover gets less and less. We should raise taxes paid by our wealthiest residents so that we can address the economic suffering of our least affluent.”
None of the national candidates argues that government should only pay attention to the most successful — it’s the other party that has been doing that for forty years.
petr says
I don’t remember it this way. Nor do I remember you saying anything remotely consistent with this…
In fact, I remember the aftermath of election 2016 when ‘it was the economic anxiety, what made them do it!‘ being the passive-aggressive-whatever-you-do-don’t-call-em-either-racist-or-sexist explanation for the result of the vote. This, it appears, was a plausible excuse to excuse their racism/sexism and nobody, least of all any Democrat I ever heard tell, denied the reality of economic anxiety. We only denied that Donald Trump could ever be the cure for any and all such economic anxiety.
I remember the Democrats talking up education and job training SPECIFICALLY to deal with those hurt in the economy and I recall you trashing Democrats for that.
Talk about trying to have it both ways…
Whatever it takes to bash the Democrats, it seems, is alright with you.