Status quo synonymous with Obama's failed presidency by Nancy J. Thorner and Ed Ingold - First published at Illinois Review
The concept of status quo is often employed when referring to political or social conditions or whatever is common sense at any given time. The term is often used in debates between power figures, whose arguments seem equally divided between preserving the status quo or dismissing it. http://reference.yourdictionary.com/word-definitions/Definition-of-...
Whle the favorite mantra of Democrats is that Republicans want to return to the "failed policies" of the past and maintain the status quo. However, that is exactly what Democrats aim to do in the future. Determined as they are to execute the same failed policies of the last four years, it is under Democrats that the dismal status quo is certain to be maintained with the re-election of President Obama.
The policies of the Obama White House depend entirely on the status quo - a fixed, current state of affairs.
When the Democrats boast of increasing the number of jobs and "moving in the right direction", it is based on the fallacy that the pool of potential employees is constant, a "status quo".
In fact, that pool has grown by nearly 11 million people since the President took office. It means that there are nearly 8 million more people out of work than when the President took office. The official unemployment figures do not include those who are not actively seeking work, which would bring the true figure closer to 16%, rather than 8.1% as reported. It should be pointed out that the country is not moving "in the right direction," rather steadily falling behind. http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/385269/20120918/jobless-rate-really-...
Organized labor, a reliable Democrat constituency, holds the traditional view that there is a fixed amount of "work" available, another status quo, and it is their goal to make sure their members get as much of it as possible. Since Democrats seem to share this view (or are willing to pander for union support), they have a mutual admiration bond with organized labor.
The Democrats want to "share" the wealth, and make the wealthy pay "their fair share." This too is based on the premise that there is a fixed amount of wealth to go around, another status quo. If some are more successful, it is only at the expense of others.
A corollary view, a premise of Keynesian economics, is that recessions are caused or extended because people who have money hang on to it and not spend it. As such the wealthy and corporations are sitting on huge piles of cash, keeping it to themselves rather than helping the economy. Democrats feel that If the wealthy are not spending their cash, they'll take it and spend it for them.
This is similar to the Marxist view, that the rich achieve their wealth by "stealing" the labor of the poor. We see from that how the socialistic concepts of "work" and "wealth" coincide. The "solution" is to take from the rich and give to the poor.
The fact is companies and individuals are hanging on to their cash because they see more lean times in the future. It is not recognized by the Democrats because the concept of saving is utterly foreign to them. To them, everyone is "rich" on payday, and to Congress, every day's a payday.
More than a century ago, in 1913, Georgi Plekhanov had this to say about "work" and "wealth" in Utopian Socialism in the 19th Century, which is not unlike the mantra of the present day "Occupy Wall Street" protesters
"Every rich man must be considered as the buyer, every poor man as the seller, of labour. It is in the interest of the rich man to get as much as he can out of the labour he has bought of the poor man and to pay as little as possible for it. In other words, he wants to get as great a part as possible of the product created by the worker’s labour; the worker, on the other hand, endeavours to get as large a part as possible of that product. Hence their mutual struggle." http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1913/utopian-socialism/in...The White House, and both parties in the Congress, subscribe to a balance sheet between revenue and expenditures, then proceed to ignore the "balance", or status quo part. A more accurate picture consists of three parts - revenue, expenditures and deficit.
The Democrats want to reduce the deficit by increasing revenue, while the Republicans want to reduce the deficit by reducing spending. The catch is that neither party really believes this can happen, even if you increase taxes AND decrease spending.
The workaround is that in pol-speak (term coined by Ed Ingold), increasing or decreasing the RATE of change is synonymous with increasing or decreasing the LEVEL of that value. In pol-speak, if I spend less than what I would LIKE to spend, it's a reduction.
The Democrats solution is redistribution of wealth, whether in the form of taxation and handouts, or job "creation" in the public sector. They are going to "build the middle class" by "investing" in teachers, police and firemen, and in our failing infrastructure. They promise to cut taxes on the 47% who don't pay taxes. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/democrats-hit-mitt-rom...
Republicans seek to change the status quo by increasing the nation's wealth through increasing production and productivity. In the process, the jobs will be created and those jobholders will have more money to buy products, houses, and save for retirement. They will also be able to pay more taxes for more teachers, police, firemen and improved infrastructure.
Part 2: Romney rejects the Status Quo