Session 12 & 13

The economy today is in horrible shape, worse than its been in a very long time, even for people who never before thought of themselves as poor.  Of course, the book defines poor in terms of material deprivation, and for some of the newly-“impoverished” middle class, it might not have reached that stage, perhaps more of a debt crisis.

Speaking of debt crisis, how to reconcile the intense criticism of the out-of-control federal debt with the inexplicable views on tax breaks for the rich. There is consensus on continuing tax breaks for everyone up to $200k/individually or $250k/family, notwithstanding the adverse impact on the deficit, but how to explain the push to extend tax breaks for the tiny percentage of super-rich?

Besides unemployment, which is a natural and justified concern, the Obama administration was slammed also for the stimulus and “bailouts,” even though much of this began under Bush. Every economist I’ve heard interviewed agrees that the stimulus helped to avoid another Great Depression.  As for bailouts, is the criticism because some of it went to banks—which I can understand—or for any federal spending to prop up the economy? This question is relevant because I wonder whether there is any political viability in reforming further, let alone increasing, any programs to help the poor? Would people view that differently because the recipients are in need? Or is any spending anathema?

It seems like everyone will be focused on cutting back, if only to preserve their political careers, letting the poor (and most others) fend for themselves.