Comments about ‘George F. Will: Ignoring the path to recovery: generational amnesia’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 29 2014 2:39 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

I note that Will's pieces don't attract much comment, probably because they are so rambling and snarky. Will needs to explain why the owners of capital are doing so spectacularly well while the providers of labor are doing so poorly. If the business climate is as bad as Will says it is, capital shouldn't be doing so well.

The answer is that American capital has abandoned their laboring countrymen. If I fault Obama for one thing, it would be his failure to hammer home this point and deal with it straight out.

Jack
Aurora, CO

So the article is posted less than an hour ago, and if there aren't several comments on it in the first few minutes, it's not up to standard? Or perhaps it's evening and folks are doing something else than reading DN on-line?

if Will's comments are rambling(which they aren't) and snarky(not really) then perhaps the perception of his very accurate explanations is the issue. He sums the issues up very clearly and I don't know if anyone else could have done a better job. To recover from the recession, government must get out of the way, stop the crony capitalism that dictates who will get the pass and who gets the shaft, and then the capital will flow. Uncertainty doesn't promote confidence in business expansion(which creates jobs)......but I guess the concept is difficult to understand......for some.

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

"But today's millennials have the consolation of having the president they wanted."
==============================

Those who voted for Obama (twice) were warned. But, to be fair, I don't think Obama is to blame. He's actually been pretty straight forward about implementing the socialistic agenda he has espoused, more or less openly, for many years. The problem is not Obama, it is us!

We are all paying the price for bad choices, before, during and after Obama. His dual elections and the ensuing aftermath merely indicate how badly we, as an electorate generally, need to wise up.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Re: samhill "He's [Obama] actually been pretty straight forward about implementing the socialistic agenda he has espoused."

I wish we had a socialist in the presidency. If that had been the case we would have a much more robust health care system, emergency employment providers like the PWA, and encouragement of Worker Self Directed Enterprises. Under Obama capital calls the shots (mostly).

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

"Ronald Reagan lightened the weight of government as measured by taxation and regulation. Obama has done the opposite."

It's not only what Obama has done, but what he promises to do. Business owners know he's hostile to them. They're not going to take extra risks, knowing that he intends to cut them down and redistribute their wealth.

Roosevelt made the same mistake. Potential job creators in his time decided it was prudent to lay low and wait out his term of office. Thus, the Great Depression lasted years longer than it otherwise would have. History repeats itself.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Re: Nate "Roosevelt made the same mistake. Potential job creators in his time decided it was prudent to lay low and wait out his term of office. Thus, the Great Depression lasted years longer than it otherwise would have. History repeats itself." Well that's one explanation among several explaining the depth and length of the Great Depression.

Economists have not explained satisfactorily the Great Depression. One thing I know for sure is this: Roosevelt cannot be blamed for the depth of the initial collapse - by far the worst in American history. So one could say the reason for the prolonged depression was the depth of the initial hole - not a complete or satisfactory explanation.

But none of you have answered my original question: why is capital doing so well? Business is not sitting this out waiting for the next administration. What they are doing is investing in low wage parts of the world, abandoning the American labor force - my original point.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Yes, Reagan "lightened the load" when it comes to federal income tax. And it did work.

So, what does that teach us? It tells me that if you lower the top tax rate from 70%, it is a good thing.

And one thing to note. If you look at Reagan's tax rates AND tax brackets, it would be obvious to an 8th grade math student that federal income taxes were higher under Reagan then they are today.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

Dear Nate: You are right on target. Roosevelt was a terrible president domestically. He almost ruined this country with his totally wacky economic policies. The only thing that saved us was the Supreme Court that found the New Deal to be unconstitutional. It took many years for this country to recover from the damage done by the Roosevelt Administration. This is just historic fact.

Obama has done so much damage that there is no telling how long it will take us to recover, if ever. Of course, there are always those who will continue to live in denial.

When you hire someone who is incompetent, narcissistic, arrogant and completely off base, you will not get a good result. That is what we, as a nation, have done. Who knows how many lifetimes we will be paying for our foolishness.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

“President Barack Obama, forever young, has convenient memory loss: It serves his ideology.”

George F Will is projecting again, on behalf of America’s plutocrat-controlled Right Wing masses. I’m wondering George, do you submit your columns to the Koch Brothers for pr-approval?

“Ronald Reagan lightened the weight of government as measured by taxation and regulation.”

Wrong! Ronald Reagan was a scourge, and the Reaganomics he left us is holding this nation back.
The economy rebounded during the Reagan administration only because the price of World Oil had plummeted to less than 1/3 the price it had been during the Carter administration, not thanks to Reagan.

The pre-Reagan Demand Side economics that had worked so well over the decades kept taxes progressively lower for lower earners. This makes sense because the less one earns, the more one is COMPELLED to spend that money and put it back into the economy.

Reagan’s Supply Side economics reduced taxes for high earners, who tend to hoard money. Thus, under Reaganomics, the rich get much richer as the economy tanks.

Right Wing Propagandists promote the rich at the expense of everyone else. Thanks for the demonstration Mr. Will.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

You know if this were the 6th year of McCain (who I voted for) in the White House, I'd have to admit that it isn't working and he (McCain) needs to change course to get the economy running up to at least par again. I certainly would not be trying to defend his work just because I had voted for him and he had an R after his name. What good does that do? However, I suspect we will see a lot of either defending Obama, or attacking the messenger (Mr. Will).

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Mr. Will wrote: "There is, however, something new under the sun. The Pew Research Center reports that Americans 25 to 32 — "millennials" — constitute the first age cohort since World War II with higher unemployment or a greater portion living in poverty than their parents at this age. But today's millennials have the consolation of having the president they wanted."

That is the problem. People voted for a man who had no experience, whose stated agenda was to turn America into an inferior country, who had open hostility to anyone who opposed him on anything. But, people voted for him anyway.

We can blame the economic depression on the people who were so foolish. Yes, Obama caused it, but he would never have had the opportunity if the citizens were responsible enough to vote for someone who believed in America.

No business is going to expand with Obama threatening to tax them out of business.

Actions have consequences. Obama is the consequence of voting. Stagnation is the consequence of having Obama in office.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"whose stated agenda was to turn America into an inferior country"

Really? Obama "stated" that? Cmon Mike, Dont embarrass yourself.

who had open hostility to anyone who opposed him on anything. But, people voted for him anyway.

"We can blame the economic depression on the people who were so foolish. Yes, Obama caused it"

Obama caused the economic depression? Had to have been as a Senator, because it began before he was elected president.

FT
salt lake city, UT

@ Marxist
"But none of you have answered my original question: why is capital doing so well? Business is not sitting this out waiting for the next administration. What they are doing is investing in low wage parts of the world, abandoning the American labor force - my original point."
As someone who works for a large international corporation and has insight into it's labor you are correct. Companies took advantage of the recession to terminate American workers and invest in overseas labor. For those jobs to come back to America we'll have to lower our wages to compete. The world is a lot smaller than it was when Reagan was in office.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

If only George's imaginary economy were reality. But it isn't. And if President Obama can be blamed for anything, it is for pushing too weak of a government intervention. The reason we have such a stagnant job market is because the Republicans were pushing European-style austerity measures instead of government stimulus. But it is the Republican way to blame Obama for everything.

So, what it Will's solution? Simply more Reaganomics. More supply-side, trickle-down nonsense. The GOP really hasn't come up with a different economic theory, even though thirty years have proved how disastrous the Reagan Revolution has been. Will sees less regulation and lower taxes as a solution to our job woes. Please. Businesses aren't overly burdened by regulation, and taxes are already too low. Businesses have plenty of cash to hire people. Why don't they? Because there is insufficient demand. Why is there insufficient demand? Because American corporations have shipped too many jobs off to the Third World. If they would hire Americans and pay them decently, there would be more consumer demand and, therefore, more incentive to hire even more Americans. Wake up, George.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Hey Happy . . .

“ . . . attacking the messenger (Mr. Will).”

Mr. Will is a messenger alright. George is a dutiful errand boy for the likes of the Koch brothers and their ilk, bringing the word down from up above for the consumption loyal sycophants who worship at their feet.

No happy, it’s not the Ten Commandments, but “Conservatives” treat the words of Right Wing propagandists like it’s the word of God.

Hey Mike Richards –

There is absolutely no way you can logically blame GW’s Great Recession (and it’s hideous Tea Party infested aftermath) on President Obama.

Obama’s Jobs’ Bill of 2011 would have had this nation sitting pretty right now, employing millions of Americans building infrastructure and in support industries, if only regressive Republicans in Congress had not shot down what would have been an extremely sensible and productive law.

Face it man, “Conservatives” are America’s enemy number ONE . . . They’re just too willfully unaware to realize it.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

"It's not only what Obama has done, but what he promises to do. Business owners know he's hostile to them. They're not going to take extra risks, knowing that he intends to cut them down and redistribute their wealth."

Just plain goofy. I am sitting right now in a conference with 140 business leaders talking about global markets. If George Will or Nate think we are working under the same economic paradigm that we did when Reagan was president, they are the problem, not the ones pointing out the solution.

Case and point, India and China. In the time of Reagan, both of these countries represented next to no economic power. Today, both represent the single largest growth of wealth that we have seen in the last 50 to 100 years. Half of want used to be a powerful IBM is now owned by the Chinese. China is the second largest automotive market in the world. They didn't show up on the charts in 1981.

The only lesson we will learn from returning to the rules of 1950 or 1981 is how a once powerful British Empire imploded by ignoring global changes. Returning to the past will not work.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

UtahBlueDevil –

“Returning to the past will not work”

That depends on what we return to.

Returning to higher taxes for higher earners makes all the sense in the world.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

We won't get more jobs unless there's more demand and we won't get more demand unless there's more money available to the poor and middle class to spend on goods and services and we won't get that until there's less wealth inequality in this nation. Tax cuts... what'll that do? The rich have plenty of money they're sitting on, the issue isn't a lack of that. They aren't creating jobs because they aren't stupid, they know there's insufficient demand; why create jobs when there's no need (on the business side)?

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Cats
"The only thing that saved us was the Supreme Court that found the New Deal to be unconstitutional."

Unemployment spiked again when his New Deal programs were being pulled back. The thing you say saved us is what made it drag on even longer. What ended the Great Depression for good was World War II which in effect was a really massive stimulus program.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@happy2behere
"I'd have to admit that it isn't working and he (McCain) needs to change course to get the economy running up to at least par again. I certainly would not be trying to defend his work just because I had voted for him and he had an R after his name. What good does that do?"

Here's the thing though... it's one thing to get liberals to say we need to change course (I'll say that). It's faulty to assume saying that means "oh I guess we should try what the Republicans are saying". To me, as noted in my other comment, the problem is a lack of demand caused by high income inequality. So my course change is something more progressive not something more conservative so in that frame it'd be illogical for me to support a Republican in 2016 (presuming they have similar ideas to the current Republican party of course). As for defending Obama, well... that's simple. Your party keeps trying to block the things I think will help. Why should I blame Obama for that?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments