Obama's Plan For The Economy

tonybeme • Sep 17, 2008 6:40 pm
Do you believe in Barack Obama's Plan For The Economy?

Barack Obama sat down with Katie Couric to discuss how he would get the economy back on track. Obama pointed to a $50 billion stimulus package, overhauling the regulatory system and creating jobs

McCain is not the answer

Image
classicman • Sep 17, 2008 8:42 pm
tonybeme;484870 wrote:
Do you believe in Barack Obama's Plan For The Economy?

Barack Obama sat down with Katie Couric to discuss how he would get the economy back on track. Obama pointed to a $50 billion stimulus package, overhauling the regulatory system and creating jobs


The more I try to find out, the less I know about his plan. Just like his counterpart, these guys are real short on actual answers and long on rhetoric and, well, BS.

I saw the "Couric love fest" and it was the worst attempt at anything remotely close to being paraded as journalistic. It was a mirror image of a Fox interview with McCain.

I'm really upset at the media lately and moreso as I get older. They are supposed to report news and give facts, not this crap. I read this right after BigV's thread on where to check info for factual accuracy. Certainly not CBS.

I'm beginning to think that flipping a coin is as good a way to choose between these two as anything else. Very frustrating.
TheMercenary • Sep 17, 2008 8:58 pm
tonybeme;484870 wrote:
Do you believe in Barack Obama's Plan For The Economy?

I believe it will not work and that he has not fully explained how he is actually going to pay for any of it.
TheMercenary • Sep 17, 2008 9:00 pm
Why Obama Can't Close the Sale
By AL HUBBARD and NOAM NEUSNER
September 3, 2008; Page A23

Even before John McCain shook up the presidential race by tapping Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, polls weren't showing the late-August lead that Barack Obama (and many Republicans) expected. Why so?

It's not because of the brilliance of the McCain campaign. Rather we believe that -- despite the media's best efforts to exempt Mr. Obama's policies from critical examination -- American voters aren't sheep. They pay attention to the candidates and positions and make wise decisions about who should lead the country.

True, Mr. Obama enjoys several advantages. Republicans are struggling nationwide in head-to-head contests. Democrats lead in voter registration, and have a well-funded presidential candidate.

Yet Americans have not committed to Mr. Obama. Why?

Clearly, Mr. Obama's weakness on foreign policy is a factor. He has a knee-jerk preference for diplomacy with China, Europe and Russia over the security of the American people and our closest allies. He hasn't explained his shifting positions on Iraq and Iran, among other hot spots. And he felt compelled to make up for his experience gap with Mr. McCain by picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate.

But here's the thing: It's not that Mr. Obama hasn't been specific enough in his governing plans. To the contrary, he has been very specific about his tax policy, health-care and energy proposals. It's that voters are paying attention and appear not to like what Candidate Obama is saying.

Mr. Obama has proposed a massive tax increase on investors, business owners, and the "wealthy." At a time when the American people rate the economy as the central issue of the campaign, a tax hike doesn't make a lot of political sense. Voters know that a tax hike won't help the economy.

Moreover, Mr. Obama's tax plans would directly or indirectly harm U.S. investors by raising the capital gains and dividend taxes. More than half of U.S. households are equity owners, so Mr. Obama's proposal risks alienating half the population.

Mr. Obama claims to offer a tax cut to moderate-income families, but a significant portion of Mr. Obama's tax plan is a welfare giveaway costing more than $648 billion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center.

How so? He would authorize a hodgepodge of refundable tax credits covering everything from education, mortgage payments, child care and other items for people who do not pay income taxes now.

About 38% of U.S. households pay no income tax today. Under a President Obama (whose policies would shave 15.3 million households off the tax rolls) that share would grow to nearly half of all American households.

We have been repeatedly told that everyone should pay their fair share. So this sounds grossly unfair and like a return of tax-and-spend liberal economics. No wonder there is a lot of doubt about the wisdom of the junior senator from Illinois.

Mr. Obama's health-care proposal is not quite HillaryCare, but it comes close. A national health insurance, heavily subsidized by taxpayers, would be offered to the currently uninsured. Mr. Obama's instincts on health care are always to move more people onto rolls of government-paid and government-mandated insurance, while depriving the marketplace the oxygen it needs for greater innovation, life-saving cures, and efficiency.

Americans have heard the refrain for government-provided health care before and know an expensive government giveaway when they see it.

Mr. Obama's energy policy is to drill less, consume less, tax more, and spend more. With barely a nod to nuclear energy -- the only meaningfully large, carbon-free source of domestic energy -- he is promising a massive increase in domestic, noncarbon-based energy from sources that produce only a fraction of our energy now.

He has also proposed massive tax increases on U.S. oil and gas companies while continuing to cut off vast swaths of U.S. territory to drilling.

Again, Americans are wiser than they are given credit. They know that if you restrict supply and tax production, prices go up.

The economic wisdom of Americans should not be doubted. They can see through Mr. Obama's proposals. They know that they will have to pick up the bill if Mr. Obama sends checks to people who already don't pay taxes; they know a centralized government-controlled health-care system will be more expensive, less efficient, and less friendly to patients and doctors. They know that the most effective way to bring down energy prices is by keeping all our energy options open, including more drilling in the U.S.

And they know that if a candidate has spent his entire career taxing more and spending more, that's what you'll get -- and more of it.

Mr. Obama is wondering why he can't shake Mr. McCain. His problem isn't his plans for the campaign. It's his plans for governing the country. Americans just aren't buying into them.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039919493892941.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
TheMercenary • Sep 17, 2008 9:01 pm
Big Government
Is a High-Stakes Affair
By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN and BILL FRENZEL
August 30, 2008; Page A9

The 2008 election is shaping up to be an extraordinarily high-risk affair. Consider, for example, the risk that Republican losses in the Senate might give Democrats control over both houses of Congress, with unstoppably large majorities. And on top of that, consider the risk that Barack Obama will win the White House with an open-ended mandate for radical but unspecified change.

Who is Sen. Obama, and what would he do with an open-ended mandate? Except for his own media-packaged self-description, the voters still have relatively little to go on.

Mr. Obama's sparse legislative record suggests that he is at the very least a high-tax, big-spending liberal. On the broad issues of the social contract -- those involving personal freedom, America's status in the world, and the role of government versus markets in allocating resources -- he might become the most left-wing, collectivist-minded person ever to be president.

The stakes are so high in this presidential election for a fundamental reason that doesn't get discussed nearly enough: The federal government is so large and powerful. In particular, any aggressive president and Congress acting together have it in their legal authority -- under our presently elasticized Constitution -- to exercise near complete control over the economy. A long line of judge-made law since the Supreme Court's New Deal era decision in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) says there is almost no limit, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, to the regulatory reach of the federal government.

Thus, a united president and Congress can, as a practical matter, do all or any of the following (plus much more): take your money and give it to someone else; tell businesses what to produce and sell, who to hire and what wages to pay; set all commodity, wholesale and retail prices; control all energy supplies, communication networks and financial markets; replace all private health-care with a government system; prescribe the curriculum for all schools; determine which students get a slot in elite universities; diminish political and other speech; and enroll all citizens above the age of 17 either in the military or in civilian corps for periodic instruction and service. Children could be required to spend the summer in government "youth" camps.

Obama or no Obama, alarm bells about the size and scope of government should have been going off for years, but weren't. They may yet, in November -- after it is too late.
TheMercenary • Sep 17, 2008 9:03 pm
Now here's one part of the Obama speech that was particularly clever. As you know, we've been talking about Obama's plan to raise taxes on the very people, small businessmen and women, who are providing about 80% of the new jobs our economy is producing. Obama's response last night was to say that "I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow."

Here, again, is where the ignorance of the American voter comes into play. I can just hear some of my listeners now: "That Neal Boortz said that Obama was going to raise taxes these small businessmen. Obama said he is going to eliminate him. There! I knew it! Boortz is a liar!"

Pay attention now. Obama said he was going to eliminate capital gains taxes. These small businessmen generally don't pay capital gains taxes. They pay income taxes. Obama's plan is to raise the income taxes on these entrepreneurs. Telling the American people that he will cut their capital gains taxes is simply a charade; a charade the uneducated will buy.

Did you hear Obama last night say that McCain describes middle class as someone making less than $5 million dollars a year? Now you may laugh at that idea and think it absurd. Trust me ... there are hundreds of thousands of Obama voters out there who will take that seriously; who will think that McCain thinks that someone making $4,500,000 a year is middle class. Tell me, is that playing on the stupidity of the American people?

Then there's Obama's line about the Republicans and McCain not proposing one penny of tax relief for over 100 million Americans. Sounds good. But if you're educated; if you know the statistics; if you pay attention you will know that the bottom 50% of income earners in this country pay only about 3% of all individual income taxes collected by the federal government. When you get to the bottom 40% that percentage figures drops to zero. Now just what is our current population figure? Around 300 million or so? That would bean that about 120 million Americans have no federal income tax liability at all. Yet there's Obama saying that McCain is offering no tax relief to these people. Relief from what?

There was another line in Obama's speech that is very typical of far-left politicians. Obama seems to feel those with higher incomes in this country have not earned their way. Whatever the wealthy have was given to them, not earned. So Obama tells the adoring crowd that Republicans want to "Give more and more to those with the most, and hope that prosperity will trickle down to the rest." As I said, this is a standard Democrat theme. Wealthy people didn't earn what they have, it was given to them. And since it was given to them, there's nothing really all that wrong with taking more and more of it away from them ... just to even things out a bit. Remember, please, that Obama flat-out said that he wants to raise taxes on the rich not to bring in increased government revenues, but to make things more "fair."

This idea that whatever wealthy or successful people have was given to them is reflected in the idea that people should "give back." Charity isn't recognized for what it is; one individual giving some of what they have earned to another in need. No .. it's just someone giving back some of the stuff that was given to them. Accomplishment and the concept of earning seems to have no place in Democrat rhetoric.

As I was trying to wrap up these notes this morning a Wal-Mart ad came on television. It seems that you can go to some Wal-Marts and get a prescription for one of 300 medications filled for just four dollars. That's for a 30-day supply. If you want a 90-day supply it will cost you ten bucks. There can't be one of you out there who could possibly think that the government could provide these drugs to you for the same price. Yet Obama told us last night that the private sector simply cannot handle our health care needs.

One clear realization after last night. After watching the show in Denver ... and watching the scene at Times Square in New York City last night ... there is a clear sense of mass hysteria over Barack Obama. What fun it would be to walk up to one of those cheering people and engage them in a discussion on the differences between a capital gains tax and an income tax. Wouldn't you just love to watch their expressions as you detail the way that government has intentionally restricted free market involvement in the delivery of health care? What do you think their answer would be if you were to ask them just how you give income tax breaks to 100 million Americans who don't pay income taxes? The blank expressions of the faces of these screaming masses would be priceless.

Boortz

http://boortz.com/nuze/200808/08312008.html
classicman • Sep 17, 2008 9:37 pm
Thats a lot to think about and digest, thanks
tw • Sep 18, 2008 1:32 am
classicman;484907 wrote:
The more I try to find out, the less I know about his plan. Just like his counterpart, these guys are real short on actual answers and long on rhetoric and, well, BS.

Really do not matter. McCain is the front man for George Jr's people. Who is his economic advisor? Listen to Fiorina preach how to fix a company to appreciate how dumb his senior economic advisor is.

Fiorina stood before us and said HP would be more profitable by being #1 in this market or #2 in that market. Any idiot knows you don't buy profits by overspending (ie Compaq). And then the resulting downturn in HP proved that her lack of simple economic knowledge was the problem. This is McCain's senior economic advisor who speaks strangely just like George Jr's people?

Welcome to an economy created by running up massive debts and throwing money at the rich. McCain's people are the same George Jr people who created this economy. Do we keep doing the same for another four more years? Then vote to put George Jr's economics 'experts' back in power.
tw • Sep 18, 2008 1:36 am
Thanks to George Jr, 50% of American companies now pay no taxes - a recent GAO report requested by Sen Leven and other Senators. That reality gets forgotten in the rhetoric about cutting taxes and when ignoring massive debts we now owe to China, Japan, Europe, Saudi Arabia, etc.
glatt • Sep 18, 2008 8:40 am
TheMercenary;484917 wrote:
Clearly, Mr. Obama's weakness on foreign policy is a factor. He has a knee-jerk preference for diplomacy with China, Europe and Russia over the security of the American people and our closest allies.


And how is this a bad thing?
Griff • Sep 18, 2008 5:20 pm
Listen to the Republicans rail against big government while their wars and bail-outs continue. The GOP has no credibility where collectivism or budgeting are concerned. The Republicans choose the worst model for an economy, protecting the large and incompetent against market forces using taxpayers paychecks. Now that "we" "own" AIG I guess free health insurance is on its way... If the choice is between Democrat's regulation or Republican's state ownership the lesser evil is the Dems.
BigV • Sep 19, 2008 11:24 am
I have some complaints, mercy.

First of all, where are your comments, your thoughts on this article? Or the handful of others you post without any of your own input? Especially in this thread, this smacks of backbenching. I'm willing to have a conversation, but if your part consists solely of the critical words of others, I'll have to conclude that you don't know or care about what's going on, and I'll treat your input (or the lack thereof) accordingly.

Since I'm reduced to rebutting ERNEST and BILL'S opinion, I'll start there.

In no particular order...

All opinion, no cites, all FUD. Look it up.
TheMercenary;484919 wrote:
Big Government
Is a High-Stakes Affair
By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN and BILL FRENZEL
August 30, 2008; Page A9

The 2008 election is shaping up to be an extraordinarily high-risk affair. Consider, for example, the risk that Republican losses in the Senate might give Democrats control over both houses of Congress, with unstoppably large majorities. And on top of that, consider the risk that Barack Obama will win the White House with an open-ended mandate for radical but unspecified change.

Just like McCain/Palin. Have you not seen the central theme of the Republican strategy? We'll be different bums! I promise! *Radical* and unspecified change. Please. FUD.

Yes, by all means consider the risk (and while you're at it, be afraid and associate that fear with the only name presented here): Obama (fear) Obama (risk) Obama (radical) Obama (high-tax big-spending) Obama (liberal) Obama (high stakes) Obama (left-wing collectivist-minded) Obama (aggressive president) Obama (alarm bells) Obama (take your money) Obama ("youth" camps).

I was going to quote your article... but I was too disgusted by this point to continue. There's nothing of substance here--ZERO. It is all just flinging mud and hoping some sticks. I reluctantly engage this kind of lowness only to refute it by shining the light of truth on it.

You need to raise your game mercy.
Shawnee123 • Sep 19, 2008 11:59 am
"Maybe we should get us some of that reform."
classicman • Sep 19, 2008 1:39 pm
You think his game needs a "change"?
tranquill • Sep 19, 2008 2:20 pm
It's interesting how the Israelis view Obama. He receives much support
both from Jewish liberals and arguably the right-wing AIPAC, but his
middle name bothers Israelis a lot. Also, there are doubts whether he is
really a Muslim apostate. Here is an article which analyzes Obama's
similarity to early Zionists:
http://samsonblinded.org/blog/obama-against-jewishness.htm What do you think of the parallels?
BigV • Sep 19, 2008 3:02 pm
classicman;485362 wrote:
You think his game needs a "change"?


Yeah, I do.

In a thread titled "Obama's Plan For The Economy", lobbing critical, opinion laden articles written by other people with no input whatsoever of his own is just weak. If I wanted to learn about anti-Obama fearmongering, I could go to a lot of places. There could be a place right here in the cellar for it (or a couple more depending on your point of view).

But this game on this court is just weak. He's not in the game. He's just heckling from courtside. Luser.
classicman • Sep 19, 2008 4:38 pm
Oh, tell us how you really feel - lol. Heckling form the sidelines can be a lot of fun and very effective if done properly. I remember one time... oh nevermind.
xoxoxoBruce • Sep 20, 2008 1:45 am
classicman;485362 wrote:
You think his game needs a "change"?

I do too. The game they've been playing in Washington/Wall Street, stinks to high heaven. Dropping the soap in Sheldon's shower would be safer than electing McCain. :eyebrow:
skysidhe • Sep 20, 2008 11:08 am
classicman;484907 wrote:

I'm really upset at the media lately and moreso as I get older. They are supposed to report news and give facts, not this crap.


I've been feeling this too. They are so tabloid it makes me sick. Their political bias is so obvious.

I want to vote for the best person for America. I wish they would put their platform pushing bias away so we can make an informed choice.
richlevy • Sep 20, 2008 11:48 am
skysidhe;485541 wrote:
I've been feeling this too. They are so tabloid it makes me sick. Their political bias is so obvious.

I want to vote for the best person for America. I wish they would put their platform pushing bias away so we can make an informed choice.
I think there are two separate issues. The first is bias. The very best reporters are the ones where you cannot tell the bias. This does not mean that they do not grill the candidates, only that they grill the candidates equally.

In Palin's case, she is getting harsh treatment from the press mostly because she is an almost complete unknown introduced two months before the election who appears to be trying to stonewall any substantive investigation into her record. This isn't a liberal/conservative bias, it's more of a "why won't you tell us anything" bias.

The tabloid aspect is there because that's what many media people think the public wants. Elections are boring, reality TV is popular. Therefore, if the election can be more like reality TV, it will be a ratings winner. Add to that the fact that this is a very important election, and the hype gets ramped up. There is red meat being thrown in from both sides, even though both candidates supposedly disavowed such tactics.

IMO, and this is partisan, I believe that factually, McCain is the worse offender. Maybe it's because I am disappointed to see someone I was considering on crossing the divide for a few years ago revealed as someone who has chosen winning over principle.

He so much reminds me of the Spencer Tracy's character from State of the Union, but I don't think this ending will be the happy one where the character blasts everyone. McCain followed his handlers advice in going negative, and it worked. He's probably going to follow his handlers advice when it comes to policy.

One good quote from the movie.

Mary Matthews: You politicians have stayed professionals only because the voters have remained amateurs.