Obamanomics
February 15th, 2008 by Peter SudermanFor anyone thinking that Barack Obama might somehow favor less intrusive economic policies than Hillary Clinton, this ought to suggest otherwise:
Clinton and Obama both promised that they would make the tax code more middle-income-friendly and would protect consumers from threats — including predatory credit card companies and rapacious college lenders. Both candidates condemned corporate tax breaks that they say send jobs overseas. Both pledged to protect homeowners and said they would repeal President Bush’s upper-income tax cuts while extending those for the middle class. Both promised to rein in credit card companies that arbitrarily raise interest rates, sending families into a downward spiral of debt.
“I’ve been looking for ways to differentiate these two, and it hasn’t been easy,” said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute.
Meanwhile, Obama just proposed a $210 billion set economic of policies that he wants to pay for by raising taxes on corporations and high-earning individuals. And, in addition to tax hikes, excessive regulation of credit markets, and using public financing to bail out home owners and real estate speculators, Obama wants to play FDR — using taxpayer money to fund public works. This is perhaps not much of surprise to anyone who’s looked into Obama’s favored economic policies before, but it’s becoming increasingly clear where he stands on size of government issues.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I, like everyone here, hate wasteful goverment spending, but the fact of the matter is that the track record for everyone (republicans or democrats) is really sad. It seems that while some of them (Dems) like to spend money on all sorts of social programs, the current flavor of Republicans likes to spend the same amount or more on other things, like expensive Millitary toys, and wars on the middle east and all sort of pointless foreing policies that are really expensive. The big difference between them is how they want to pay for their hobbies.
It is really remarkable that the current administration uses Keynes philosophy to conduct business (like lowering taxes and at the same time increasing spending). What kind of world is this ? I thought that Keynes was frowned upon by the Free Market crowd. So it seems that one party wants to pay for spending with fiat currency materializing out of the blue (I am not saying that is bad or good, just that sounds, too… liberal). While the other wants to pay for the things raising taxes (removing wealth from the private pool to reshuffle it again, oh boy).
At the end is just a matter of taste and how bad you will be hit by any potential tax increases. However, there is one advantage at using taxes to pay for exhuberant expenses. Perhaps that way we can get the people with power to actually force the goverment to lower spending ! If enough members of the elite in this country think that their money is being wasted then perhaps we can produce some change. But if they get a free pass (like actually paying less effective taxes than most of us) then nothing will happen and blogs like freedomtalks will continue existing per secula seculorum.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Gee whiz Obama and Hillary are almost the same…welcome to the bandwagon Captain Obvious. And BTW, despite your hatred of FDR and the New Deal, those programs were (and still are) very popular and sucessful.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Well, it’s probably no surprise that I read what Obama proposed and thought, “Sounds okay to me…”
Funny, we have three conservative bloggers here in an ongoing dialog with three “liberals” (we seem to cover a spectrum), but that’s not what I’m noticing. What has me intrigued is that our two groups just have fundamentally different ideas about the role of government and the meaning of freedom.
I’d like to see some posts on these guys explaining why their version of government is better–indeed, I’d like to know what their vision for an American society would look like, and how their beliefs and policies would get us there.
Let’s say we throw all our eggs into the free-market basket. What’s gonna result from that, and why is it desirable? I get that you guys love the free market. What I don’t get is, why?
February 16th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
“our two groups just have fundamentally different ideas about the role of government and the meaning of freedom.”
Of course that’s the main difference…and nary the two shall meet very often I bet. The free market is pretty much a religion with these guys I think. I think our country has tried unrestricted free markets before, and the ones that did it were called Robber Barons.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
“using taxpayer money to fund public works” What a travesty… How would you suggest paying for public works, have a bake sale? Or maybe bridges and highways should plaster themselves with advertising so they can make enough profit to support themselves. No, you can’t do that, because you’d have to pay someone to do the plastering. Are you really so naive as to think that giving a bunch of tax breaks to rich people and corporations will solve our current economic woes. I think before you start hammering on Obama and the democrats you should answer the question of why, since we we have had the famed Bush tax cuts, we currently in a recession and why we continue to lose ground economically as a country. It might just be you will find we are unfairly taxing the wrong people.
February 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Why are free markets better? Easy answer, capitalism is the rising tide that lifts all boats higher. The Robber Barons were the result of allowing corruption and favoritism to run rampant over free markets. Are free markets perfect. No way. But free markets are better than any of the alternatives. Allowing those who do not contribute to be taken care of with other peoples money only results in gradually increasing numbers of slackers who think it is their right to live off the work of others. We are seeing this happen right here, right now. The Flat Tax is a great idea.
One level tax rate for everyone with one deduction, equal to the federal poverty level for your filing status. According to IRS statistics for 2004 (the latest year for which I could find figures) the bottom 50% of taxpayers (as classified by the Adjusted Gross Income listed on their 1040) only put in 3% of all income tax paid while the top 10% of taxpayers put in around 90%.
Does this top 10% get more protection from our armed forces or a special lane on the interstate or a special college scholarship for their children based on their paying in more tax dollars. I don’t think so. Free markets give everyone in our country the possibility of financial success in life, and also the chance for financial failure. But even those who fail always have the opportunity to try again. No other country allows its citizens to escape so easily from their current situation if they so desire. Does it work for everyone. No, but it works for a higher proportion of those who wish for change than any other system.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
The Robber Barons were allowed to do whatever they wanted to, in part, by a lack of govt. regulation. Look at what Microsoft has been trying to do for quite some time now. A lot of the Robber Barons were very philanthropic too, like Gates is.
I think a mixed economy of capitalism and socialism is the way to go, especially if you want to ensure a better life for the maximum amount of people.
The Flat Tax is a great idea, if you’re already rich that is. If you think the rich don’t have it easier than the rest of us, you’re crazy IMO.