Sunday, August 24, 2008
Obamanomics
The New York Times Magazine's cover story on Barack Obama's economic philosophy is well worth reading. Barack Obama will cut taxes more deeply for 80% of Americans, and tax the top fraction of 1% very heavily to pay for it. No, the story is not fair and balanced in numerous ways, but it does expose the richness of the economic debate among Democrats and the poverty of ideas among Republicans. If Republicans do not come up with a cogent plan for ending the perception and, yes, the reality, of income stagnation in middle America, they will be in the minority for a long time to come.
6 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Aug 24, 07:14:00 PM:
We have rapidly moved from a producer to a service economy, and any services entity that's not growing is by definition dying.
The left can denomize those who continue to thrive, but eventually there'll no milk left in the great teet of Lady Liberty.
The 'reality' is that people are spoiled and watch too much tv, convincing them that being good people and loving this great nation are not enough without the bling and the trappings of wealth.
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Aug 24, 07:37:00 PM:
"If Republicans do not come up with a cogent plan ..."
T. Boone Pickens: "My dad once said to me, 'Son, a fool with a plan can beat a genius with no plan.' ”
By SR, at
Sun Aug 24, 08:11:00 PM:
Republican plan should be lower cost of living for middle class and stop sending money to our enemies by doing everything we can to promote domestic energy production, alternative means of propulsion for automobiles, and stability of the price of oil. Barrons had an interesting proposal to use the strategic oil reserve to sell when prices are high, and buy when they are low to effectively put a ceiling and floor ocver and under the price of oil. Stabilizing oil will right the economy in a way taxing the productive never will.
By K. Pablo, at
Sun Aug 24, 08:12:00 PM:
What's notable about that article is that it purports to address Obama's economic policy, and only superficially addresses his environmental policy. This wouldn't ordinarily be germane except for the potentially disastrous economic impact of his crackpot proposed environmental regulations.
By JPMcT, at
Sun Aug 24, 10:48:00 PM:
This article had so many logical miscues that it could only have come from the NYT.
"Robert Rubin, the centrist former Treasury secretary" - So Rubin was a centrist....really? It would, perhaps, depend on where the writer's "center" was located.
"They agree that deficit reduction did an enormous amount of good. It helped usher in the 1990s boom and the only period of strong, broad-based income growth in a generation" - The 800 pound gorilla in the room was the Reagan tax cut put income in the hands of the populace and THAT...not Clinton's draconian defense cuts and massive tax increases, led to prosperity. All Clinton did was to invite the recession that began at the end of his term. It must be nice to be able to ignore history.
"changing the tax code so that families making more than $250,000 a year pay more taxes and nearly everyone else pays less. That would begin to address inequality" - Those families already pay MASSIVE taxes completely disproportionate to their share of the total income. Addressing "inequality" should start with a tax CUT...FOR THEM!!!
"free markets aren’t so good at, say, preventing pollution or the issuance of fantastically unrealistic mortgages" - Tell me again why the free market SHOULD address pollution. Is not the current housing/banking meltdown the economic response to unrealistic mortgages?
"Democrats in Congress essentially agreed that to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the government should place a nationwide cap on these emissions and then issue tradable permits giving companies the right to produce them (thus the term “cap and trade”)" - The basic premise of the government sponsored reduction in greenhouse emissions has yet to be rigorously proven to be necessary. Cap and Trade is a power grab...and a blatant one at that.
"Yet laissez-faire capitalism hasn’t delivered nearly what its proponents promised. It has created big budget deficits, the most pronounced income inequality since the 1920s and the current financial crisis" - Capitalism doesn't create budget defecits, SPENDING MORE THAN YOU EARN creates budget deficits.
"he (Obama) didn’t think President Bush deserved all that much blame for the stagnant incomes of the current decade" - Sure, that's why he vilifies him during every speech that his handlers give him to read.
"So over the same period that the rich have been getting much richer before taxes, their tax rates have also been falling far faster than the rates of any other income group" - Well since the "rich" PAY almost ALL the taxes...and the top marginal rates get cut..what did you THINK was going to happen, Sherlock?
"He would then pay for the cuts, at least in part, by raising taxes on the affluent to a point where they would eventually be slightly higher than they were under Clinton" - Tell us what we've won, Don...behind door number one...MARXISM!!!
"Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion on record, the fastest income growth most workers had experienced in a generation and the disappearance of the federal-budget deficit" - As usual, the REAL reason for the Clinton boom...the Reagan Tax cuts...goes unmentioned. The Clinton boom (i.e., stealing money from the affluent to pay your bills) came to a screeching halt shortly thereafter...I wonder whose fault that was?
"There have now been two presidents in the last 30 years — Bush and Reagan — who cut taxes and promised that deficits would not follow" - And what did Congress do with their SPENDING behaviour during these periods? Do I have to say it??
"The current concerns about the state of the planet, he said, required something of a paradigm shift for economics. If we don’t make serious changes soon, probably in the next 10 or 15 years, we may find that it’s too late" - Ah, yes, the state of the planet...if you don't become at least a Socialist, but hopefully a Marxist....you will all die from the heat. Too bad the government doesn't yet have complete control of the data that debunks that blatant lie.
Yeah...a great article...it's not difficult to see why the NYT has enjoyed such economic success over the past few years. Perhaps they hope an Obama administration will make subscriptions mandatory!!
Jeesh!!!
By Roy Lofquist, at
Mon Aug 25, 02:23:00 AM:
Dear Tigerhawk,
I've been watching elections since 1952. Economics issues have not been a factor since the 30's. That's the 1930's for you youngsters. It's the economy stupid? No, it was Ross Perot who garnered 19% of the vote in a three way.
Every presidential election in my memory has revolved around the security issue. Let not your heart be troubled. JSM will be 44.
Regards,
Roy
