While watching Barack Obama deliver his audaciously ambitious speech on the economy yesterday, I was reminded of the scene in The Dark Knight when Batman decides to catapult himself from one skyscraper to another, high off the ground in a pitch-black sky, guided by the fluttering wings of his batsuit.
Thanks to movie magic, Batman naturally landed without a scratch. In all likelihood, Obama won’t be that lucky. Washington isn’t Hollywood; the political denizens of the capital tend to act out their own scripts. There is no “director’s cut” in Washington. Yet here is Obama – and you’ve got to give him credit for cajones – declaring in a speech that not only should Congress enact the most far-reaching economic recovery plan in American history, in accordance with the priorities that he has outlined, but that it should swiftly enact the plan without the partisan sniping and horse-trading that is the traditional life’s blood of Capitol Hill politics.
In other words, the president-elect wants to reverse the economic crisis and erase what he calls “the worn-out dogmas…the old ideological battles” – all in one fell swoop. Whew. This is I gotta see.
This is truly a leap into the dark, as evidenced by the speech: “For if we hope to end this crisis, we must end the culture of anything goes that helped create it – and this change must begin in Washington. It is time to trade old habits for a new spirit of responsibility. It is time to finally change the ways of Washington…The true test of the policies we pursue won’t be whether they’re Democratic or Republican ideas, but whether they create jobs, grow our economy…For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs…"
He continues: "That’s why I’m asking Congress to work with me and my team day and night, on weekends if necessary…That’s why I’m calling on all Americans – Democrats and Republicans – to put good ideas ahead of the old ideological battles, a sense of common purpose above the same narrow partisanship; and insist that the first question each of us asks isn’t ‘What’s good for me?’ but ‘What’s good for the country my children will inherit?’”
Did you catch that? Obama is asking Congress to work weekends. That alone would truly change the culture of Washington.
Most striking were the speech passages where he sought to woo both liberals and conservatives. He tacked left, and probably unnerved the right, when he defended the massive federal spending (currently, around $500 billion) in his recovery plan: “It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy…” (So much for Bill Clinton’s decade-old declaration that “the era of big government is over.”)
Conversely, he also tacked right, and probably discomfited the left, when he reiterated his proposal to cut taxes on a massive scale (by roughly $300 billion), in order “to get people spending again.” His package would include big tax breaks for businesses, thereby presumably reassuring congressional Republicans that he’s not an old-school programmatic liberal. (Indeed, he insisted in his speech that “our goal is not to create a slew of new government programs.”)
And he probably unnerved everyone on the Hill when he demanded “an economic recovery plan that is free of earmarks and pet projects. I understand that every member of Congress has ideas on how to spend money. Many of these projects are worthy, and benefit local communities. But this emergency legislation must not be the vehicle for those aspirations. This must be a time when leaders of both parties put the urgent needs if our nation above our narrow interests.”
Here’s my translation of that particular speech passage: “Back off, hacks. I know your first instinct is to festoon this bill with goodies for the folks back home. I know you want to bring home the bacon and grease your re-election bids, but, please, give it a rest this time, OK?”
We’ll see how that one goes. It’s tough to re-train political animals. Certain behavior is ingrained in their nature. Personally, I’d love to teach my dog not to bark when the doorbell rings. Not gonna happen.
Nor does it appear, at this point anyway, that the lawmakers are willing to set aside their ideological predilictions. (Perhaps for good reason; the big problem at the moment is that nobody has a monopoly on what recovery mix would actually work.) Liberals on the Hill are insisting that Obama’s package is too timid, that it doesn’t go far enough on the spending side; as Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa complained yesterday, the Obama plan has too much of the old Republican “trickle down” philosophy). Meanwhile, conservative Democrats and the Republicans are worried that Obama’s spending package is too fiscally risky, that it will spread too much red ink on the books. (House Republican leader John Boehner asked yesterday, “how much debt are we going to pile on future generations?” – which is quite humorous, considering how the GOP majority, in cahoots with George W. Bush, piled on the debt in the old days.)
Obama, at least for now, does have one significant advantage: He is broadly popular, whereas Congress is not. He’s sitting at 63 percent in a new national poll (with only 18 percent of Americans viewing him negatively). Congressional Democrats are perceived favorably by 41 percent. Congressional Republicans, by 24 percent. And Obama’s recovery plan gets a thumbs-up from 79 percent. He’ll have a honeymoon, and he has the biggest megaphone, one that he uses well. The message, it would appear, is that Congress would be foolish to grind up his plan in the usual sausage-making fashion.
All this, and he hasn’t even taken the oath of office yet. Only then, when the hard work truly commences, will we get the first real indications of whether he can leap between buildings – or whether, in the more traditional manner, he is a president governed by gravity.
Posted by Dick Polman @ 10:47 AM
Permalink |
96 comments
We will be lucky if the nitwits in Congress don't ruin this oppotunity to put us on the right path. They've done nothing for eight years and now all of a sudden they are going to start flexing there muscles. It is almost painful to watch.
Realistically, they've done nothing for 10 years. Since the far right prosecution of Clinton's extramarital affair began, there has been just about nothing that has come out of congress except for an unresearch agreement to launch the Iraq war and a blank check for the bank bail out.
Since the repeal of Glass-Steagall, courtesy of Repub. Sen. Phil Gramm and then signed by Pres. Clinton, the deregulation at the behest of the moneyed interests in Washington has been running full steam ahead - the little guy be damned.
Hopefully this bill results in the infrastructure projects where we all benefit instead of the bridges to no where and the extra highway exit for one homeowner.
I'll believe it when I see it...
Obama has to take advantage of that megaphone and keep talking directly to the people if Congress can't break its old habits as we work our way out of crisis. He was elected to fix things and should get the first swing. If he's right, great, we'll get things moving. If not, we'll try something else. But, above all, now we need bipartisanship. Some Repubs are making noise to challenge him on everything to reassert Repub influence. That would be a mistake.
Really I agree and have to reiterate this moment is of up most importance - the status quo won't give in without a fight but hopefully they will even see the wisdom in a sustainable and equitable future for all - not just the oil barons and their minions.
Sipey thinks he can handle the Chameleon "All by himself".
I am still waiting for somebody, anybody, to explain to me how you measure a job as being saved. Unemployment is now at 7.2%, does that mean that Obama has already saved jobs since unemployment is not 7.5%? What is a saved job?
I don't necessarily know how you measure it, but if a company decided on not having a layoff based on getting work from an infrastructure project, that is saving a job.
I wish Obama the best of luck. It all sounds good in a speech and I think we should gives his idea a shot. I hope our 'House of Lords' ie. congress will work for the country's best interests, but they have had many chances before($700 billion bailout, etc) and blew it in partisan bickering. He will get the most backlash from his own party in Congress. Tax cuts to get the economy moving again, where have we heard that before? Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be his main problem, not the weakened Repubs! I applaud his 'no pork' plea, but one man's pork is another man's job creator. It should be interesting.
i am neither left or right wing, Rep or Dem. but love him or hate him, you have to think at least a little bit that Obama and his cabinet, realistically, could probably do a much better job for the country than the congress right now. the Reps are down and out and i'm sick of the Dems acting like they have the moral high ground because of Abramoff and wide stances. they dont. if they did, they've done nothing with it. i wish the entire Congress would all take a vacation for a year or two and let Obama and the cabinet sort things out. now, i know that's not possible and i know the down sides of that, so spare me the lectures. but jeez, does anyone else have the sense that all this good feeling of hope and change may go for naught?
tom: yet you have no problem declaring that tax cuts pay for themselves. You have no problem declaring "well, the economy would have only grown by x% if we hadn't cut tazes ..." even though there's no way to determine it. Funny, according to the CBO, Bush's tax cuts COST the government revenue. Even if you buy into the Laffer Curve (despite a distinct lack of empirical evidence), it's a CURVE - there is a sweet spot where revenues are maximized. Cutting taxes beyond this LOWERS revenue - and no one has ever determined what that "ideal tax rate" is.
Waaaahhh!!! The media treated me mean and that's why I lost the election!!! I am NOT a lying, corrupt, small-time, slime ball politician. I am smart! And intelligent too!! You betcha - you'll see when I beat Obama in 2013!!! ;-) ;-) Anyhoo: Unemployment Hits 7.2%, 16-Year High - Like Father, Like Son. Good Riddance Bush!!!
Waaaahhh!!! The media treated me mean and that's why I lost the election!!! I am NOT a lying, corrupt, small-time, slime ball politician. I am smart! And intelligent too!! You betcha - you'll see when I beat Obama in 2013!!! ;-) ;-) Anyhoo: Unemployment Hits 7.2%, 16-Year High - Like Father, Like Son. Good Riddance Bush!!!
Still_Independent reminds me: Tom, are you a Supply Sider?
Don't envy Obama here. He's caught between the new conservatives (neo con trickle down voodoers) and the other side which consists of Harry Reid and Nacy Peolsi (among others), the ones that want to punish the Republicans for the last eight years. Obama's got to stand fast against these factions that only seem to want to fight each other to make sure neither of them win. There is a third faction however, those of us in the middle that only want to fix these problems and know it won't happen overnight. Obama has to have patience and stick to his guns against those that would sabotage his efforts.
"...Congressional Democrats are perceived favorably by 41 percent (of Americans).." You'll have to quote your source on that one, Pinocchio.
A Friend, I googled it and Polamn is right on the percentages! I hate to admit it, http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm , look on the top and it gives a link for the breakdown. It is more like 37 and 25, and from back in early December, Congress as a whole has a rating in the low 20's! I don't know how 37 and 25 equal low 20's, but that is what it said:)
JTL, neocontrickledownvoodooers! Now that is a new one & very clever shot at the Repubs, I don't know whether to be offended or impressed?
Tom - I believe the "saved job" is a reference to the proposed $3,000 tax credit to businesses to hire or retrain a worker. I infer retraining leads to retaining as opposed to outsourcing. Yep. It's a stretch as there isn't a metric for a "saved job" per se, which you've noted numerous times. ********* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/08/obamas-tax-plan-hits-democratic-wall/
Polman, where do you get your stats? You state 79% of people approve of Obama's plan. I heard it was not going to be available for review on-line until after the 20th. A real laugher about the 41%. Weren't the politicians just sworn in this week. They have been off since Thanksgiving. Are you saying that 41% of Americans didn't know Congress was not in session; therefore they were doing a good job.
I think one big advantage Obama has over Congress is that he was elected by the large majority of Americans who are sick and tired of the partisan, do-nothing, pork barrelling Republicans AND Democrats in Congress, and they know it. He can use that mandate as a big stick to beat them over the head with if people on either side show signs of sliding back down into the swamp of vengeful partisan backstabbing, and maybe actually accomplish something positive for a change.
It's a mistake to assume that Reid and Pelosi have much discretionary power. They don't have the heft of old-time legislative leaders like Tip O'Neill, etc. They don't have his kind of long-term experience and it's a different era in Congress. The Congress, especially the democratic side, is fragmented because of the decline of the party machines. Both leaders seem to me to be just passive actors trying to put together plans that will get majority approval, rather than actively engineering that result. Obama should be able to handle them if he can keep the public on his side.
One advantage Obama has is that the entire economics profession, right, left, and center, is scared spitless by this crisis and (as in 1929) their existing sacred doctrines give them no ghost of an idea of what to do. This makes it difficult for opponents of the Obama plan to provide intellectual support for something different.
According to Polman Obama may, just may, compare favorably to a comic book character. Inspiring.
q
NEPhilly: neocon tickle down voodooers. Meant to mean the new breed of republicans that call themselves conservatives. They started with Reagan. They seem to believe in a huge military budget along with heavy support of the top 15 getting tax cuts while the rest of us get higher taxes or at least the tax rates stay the same (no cuts). They also think it's fine to meddle in our personal lives. All of this quite definition of what I used to think conservative meant: small government, blanaced budgets, strong militarily, non obtrusive government. I would hope you wouldn't be insulted by the term neocon trickledown voodooers. It probably doesn't pertain to you.
Tom - FoxNews reports that Obama's stimulus plan includes... (wait for it...) "tax credits for business investment in plants and equipment." Maybe the president-elect has been reading your posts. ****** http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/09/obama-new-layoffs-need-urgent-action/
Meant to say top 1% of course. neocon trickledown voodooers: Started with Reagan, who had a high defecit and led to George Bush. sarah Palin is one too.
Conservatives and a strong military--actually, from 1789 until the 1940s, conservatives were isolationists who believed in only a minimal standing army. It was only when the right finally bought into the anti-communist crusade that they switched to a "strong-military" position. Somehow this conservative view has survived the death of communism--why? Belief in a strong military is not really compatible with belief in small, limited government--ready your history books.
James, I always thought the correct term was "tinkle-down economics"...because that's what always ends up happening to me when the voodoo economists get to be in charge.
Trickledown is another way of saying, give us all the money and we will let you have enough to get by on. Or we want the whole cow and you can have the scraps that fall on the butchering floor.
Dick, if you want to teach your dogs not to bark at the doorbell, you need to change their energy from dominant-pack-leader to calm-submissive. It takes repetition. Obama is only trying to do the same thing. If Caesar Millan teaches us anything, it's that anything is possible, no matter how out of hand things seem.
Comment removed.
No earmarks..."insist that the first question each of us asks isn’t ‘What’s good for me?’ but ‘What’s good for the country...'"
Sounds like McCain.
liberal- the anti communism fight was bipartisan before 1965. Ever listen to old speech by JFK? We will" bear any burden, pay any price to defend freedom" Just a few short years later our institions of higher learning were overuun by communist sympathizers and communists and the left has embraced our enemies ever since. Wether that's Carter embracing Hamas, Sean Penn embracing Sadaam Hussein or Danny Glover hugging Hugo Chavez or Jane Fonda visiting the North Vietnamese. The left has been a useful idiot to any and every enemy of the United States since the 1960's
Obama had better deep six the card check bill or he will squash any hope of a recovery. The card check bill seeks to ban secret voting on wether to unionize. Essentially a passage would mean union bosses could coerce people to vot to unionize. get the facts at www.unionfacts.org
Great piece. Just for the record, "cojones" is the correct spelling.
Swedesboromike: Don't forget the heartwarming photo of that legendary leftie in 1983 Donald Rumsfeld presenting Saddam Hussein with a gift of golden spurs from President Reagan, who vetoed the Senate's 99-0 resolution to condemn Hussein after the Halabja Massacre. During the many long years in which Hussein was building his arsenal of chemical and bioweapons, and using them on his own people, Reagan and his cohorts turned a blind eye, and indeed covertly assisted Hussein in his weapons buildup. All of this is documented in the Congressional Record. In other words, there have been plenty of right-wing icons being "useful idiots" to enemies of America, along with those on the left. The irony is that it was the Americans (along with various European allies) in the 80's who actually strengthened the power of Hussein (among others), and then left it to their successors to have to turn around and undo the damage. And thousands of American soldiers and their families, and even more Iraqis, continue to pay the price. See if you can find a record of any major conservative American stating opposition to Reagan's policies in Iraq back in the years when Hussein's horrific crimes against his people were reaching their zenith, or working to prevent his accumlation of chemical and bio-weapons. I can't. As long as he was useful to us, they didn't care about the suffering of his people. Suddenly, when he marched into Kuwait, the same guy who got the golden spurs from Ronald Reagan was the new Hitler.
Mousikos, or should I refer to you as dumb a&&... I believe the latter is more descriptive and accurate! Once you remove your lips from the behind of Polman and Obama you'll realize that neither are as smart and informed as you originally thought! "Obama's war" in Afghanastan will show the world how intelligent 'The One' is! Hopefully, Obama will figure out that Pakistan is a different country than Afghanastan and won't approve bombing a nuclear country without consulting the military! BTW, Obama's policies closely resemble his intellectual counterpart, Hugo Chavez... anyone notice?!?!?!
JGD, or should I say DITTO HEAD: Remember, Rush Limbaugh said: you don't have to think. I'll TELL you what to think!!
Swede, once again you demonstrate the tendency of the right (to be fair, all ideologues) to rewrite history to fit your script. There was no influx of communist sympathizers to US universities in the 60s. Try to name even one major faculty member who fits this description. Most of the communists on faculties were from the 1930s and are now dead. The new left of the 1960s was misguided, dysfunctional, intellectually muddled, and a lot of other bad things, but they weren't communists. Most were staunchly anti-Moscow; they believed the Kremlin was almost as bad as the Pentagon. The most fervent beliefs of these people like feminism, diversity, etc., are totally incompatible with communism.
JGD84, I noticed you didn’t refute anything that mousikos said. You just insulted mousikos. I’m not saying everything mousikos said is right, but we did help them with their weapons build up. Why don’t you present your evidence to prove mousikos is wrong in what was stated or is it easier to hide behind your PC and type things about people you probably don’t have the guts to say to their face? Obama will be trying to clean up the mess in GWB left in Afghanistan and hopefully unlike GWB he will listen to the advice of the generals and we can get that country cleaned up.
All we will hear for the next four years is it the Republicans fault even after our money is worth nothing because Obama just keeps printing more. Thank the lord we have the least experienced man ever to hold office at the helm when we really need it.
Greeny: What we need is the kind of experience that Bush and Chaney have, and this would never have happened to begin with. They have more than 16 years experience, and were just going to let a few rules allow this new guy to take power? Bush is right rules and laws, like the Geneva Convention, cannot be allowed to hinder what's right, no?
mousikos- I think the Reagan admin. was originally hopeful that Hussein would be more pro western but by the late 80's we sold arms to Iran. Quite frankly I think we wanted the Iran-Iraq war to end in a stalemate. We had problems with both regimes. What you are doing is searching for a moral equivalent in order to criticize your own country. The left always is quick to fault America first. There are a lot of atrocities going on. Do a couple google searches on what is going on in the Sudan, the Congo, and Somalia.
Liberal- Academia is over-run by socialist ideologues. by the 1960's professors were routinely teaching anti-Americanism in the classroom. Today these students are former terrorists like William Ayers. Professor of Education at the University of Illionos holding the title of Distiguished Professor and Senior University Scholar. Most employers would not hire Ayers with his criminal background but not worry Academia has spot for this lost soul.
Talvenada: What????? If your trying to say(and I cant tell by what you wrote) Bush had more experience and still screwed things up, I agree. So why would we go with less? Obama will be an abortion on this country. We will regret his presence. When his four years are done Jimmy Carter will look like a great President(for those of you who dont know it the Carter years were horrible, very high unemployment, very high interest rates and very high taxes). The funny thing is I will make out like a bandit in the Obama Administration. I will get alot better pay and benefits while most of you will probably lose you jobs. Oh to everyone: EVERY TIME THEY HAVE CUT TAXES THE ECONOMY HAS EXPANDED, CHECK THE FACT
Smike mousikos isn’t criticizing the country, he is criticizing the policies of politicians.
There is no one alive that has experience for the mess we are in now. It would be new territory for whoever was in office.
USA#1, I was criticizing 'mousikos' because of how naive his comments were... SHOCK, countries and politicians are motivated by self interest... NO! You're kidding me... NOBODY knew that! I should add you to the dumb a&& list! Reagan did EXACTLY what he should have done in the 80's and W did exactly what he should have done during the Iraq war. Maybe next time you'll shock the world and tell everyone that politicians don't always tell the truth... I'm waiting for the next comment for some more brilliance!
Comment removed.
This is kind of a telling comment by SMike: "The left always is quick to fault America first. There are a lot of atrocities going on. Do a couple google searches on what is going on in the Sudan, the Congo, and Somalia." Our atrocities are better than their attrocities!
GREENY: Obama has no experience! .............. ARK: He's a lawyer, which means he's tainted and unqualified! .............. JDC: The 'Pubs always do EXACTLY the right thing, like Hoover, Nixon and W! ......................... We MUST have Neo-Con 'Pubs running things now and always, no?
SMike, are you mad? I work in academia. There are liberals, yes, but those who are communists? None whom I know. Socialists? Same. Perhaps you think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a socialist/communist. Greeny, good grief. I don't think anyone could do a worse job than G. Bush. At least Obama has a strong intellect coupled with a pragmatic character.
Nigel: Don't you know? --- Democrats are racists, Sean Penn & Jane Fonda had more influence on building up our enemies than Ronald Reagan & Donald Rumsfeld, and liberals spend every waking moment looking for ways to destroy America. Get a clue, woman...!
liberal...you make me laugh. Pelosi is definitely engineering results in the House by per getting passed a repeal of past reforms. True it was never mentioned by the author, but Pelosi has done away with term limits for committee chairmanships, done away with the "vote to recommit", which enabled a minority party to get a bill back into committee that they wanted further debate on, has done away with allowing minority amendments to majority bills, and has limited debate on all majority party legislation. I am sure all those new House Conservative Democrats recruited to run in the past few years are just overjoyed, especially with the repeal of chairmanship term limits. However, I call that trying to engineer results. Apparently she was peeved because the Republicans were able to stop tax increases and some other bills last session with the "recommit" procedure. So much for her "civility, integrity, transparency and bi-partisanship".
swedesboro...the "Employee Free Choice Act" does eliminate the secret ballot, but that is not the worse part of the bill. What else it does is allow, after a short negotation period, for the union to seek binding arbitration on a contract if they and the employer cannot come to terms. What this does is allow the union to hold the employer hostage, since they do not need to negotiate knowing an arbitrator will give them raises. So why bargain in good faith? Another bill, I believe just passed by the House, is to allow women to sue a company based on pay inequity going back decades. For example, the case it referenced "Ledbetter" went back to 1980 on pay inequity. Some of those accused of bias were dead, so they could not testify on their own behalf. Most of the business leadership had changed (at times even ownership had changed), so policies in effect no longer existed. The Supreme Court ruled a statute of limitiations applied on bringing this type of suit. The House just voted to enact legislation doing away with that statute of limitations. Let the games begin.
Here is a question for my liberal and moderate Obama followers. If this "Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act" he wants passed is such an economic stimulus plan, why is it, as David Gregory stated this morning on the Today Show, that they do not believe the plan will do anything to reverse unemployment until nearly two years from now? I thought economic stimulus was going to "jump start" and "deliver a jolt" to the economy...so why the delay in stemming job losses? This is not my thought, but as I said, the words of David Gregory this morning on the Today Show (and we all know what conservatives David Gregory and NBC are these days).
Obama would not even be president had the leftists actually allowed the leftists in Michigan and Florida vote. President select Obama is just that. A selected ideologue by left wing activists.
To interrupt our left/right debate to say something really important:) Go Eagles go!
nigelthemastiff- Since you work in academia you should teach your subject and not tell students what to think. And I don't think that you should employ the likes of William Ayers and Ward Churchill. What sayeth you?
JTL, one other thing I forgot to anwser you about, I am a neocontrickledownvoodooer:)
NE Philly- I don't think I could handle an Eagles victory. I am a displaced skins fan who cannot stand the obnoxios Eagle fans. lol visit my blog at
http://draftdude.blogspot.com
smike, the wife is a displaced Redskins fan too:) I just couldn't take another Giants Superbowl (I had to hold my nose and root for them last year vs. Patriots)! Everyone in the division has won a Superbowl, but us:) Great games yesterday, huh? I'll check out the website. Take it light:)
Tom--Pelosi's procedural changes are first of all just "inside baseball" in the Congress and don't represent new legislation; moreover, most of them are simply the same rules the republicans adopted when they were in the majority. With a strong executive, Congress will most likely fall in line. The president and his mermidons will be able to influence legislative elections in almost all of the districts in the country, so the legislators often have no choice but to fall in line. To see an example of this in action, all you have to do is look at the republicans when they were in power in Congress.
Liberal- Just " inside baseball " huh? So basically Pelosi was just fibbing when she told us of a new bipartisanship and transparancy that would take place under her leadership. I am amazed that this woman keeps getting re-elected. She tells us how good unions are but not one United Farm Workers is employed by her vineyard in Napa Valley and not one member of the Hotel and Hospitality Union is employed by her hotel in California. Pelosi is a hypocrit.
NE Philly- I am amazed the Cardinals beat the Panthers. If philly beats NY then the Eagles have a real shot at the Superbowl. I am getting nervous. If the Eagles ever win the Superbowl I shall never be able to listen to WIP610 again.
smike, I usually listen to 950 ESPN or the 660 WFAN anyway, because I can't take 24 hour Eagles talk, 365 days a year (of course when I'm not listening to Rush or Hannity ha, ha, ha :)! I can't stomach Eskin and like to hear about other sports and teams as well:) Delhomme stunk yesterday and that play clock ran out on the Ravens last drive! Tennessee didn't deserve to win after all those penalties and turnovers but, they should have been able to challenge that clock like they can in basketball! In any case, may the football gods smile on the Eagles today:)
Tom, are you a Supply Sider?
Djoko-lately liberals have been making the supply side case with stimulus packages that included tax cuts for business
Not quite, SMike, cutting taxes as part of a wide-ranging plan to stimulate economic activity (what is being done now) is one thing; a belief that all economic performance depends solely on tax cuts is another. Where we are now is partly attributable to Supply Side thinking under Bush. Tom makes many economic pronouncements; I'm just trying to understand where he's coming from. So far he has not replied. He probably has missed by query, so I'll keep after it till he sees it.
Djoke- I think we all want the government to run a surplus or at least a balanced budjet. The question is how to we get there. High taxes that stiffle economic activity will increase revenue to the federal government. I maintain the government should be run more like a business. For example the innuagaration should be a pay to attend event and the government should take every opportunity to sell something to the 4million people expected to attend. There is easily a billion dollars to be made on Jan 20th. We shoud have corp naming rights for our national parks and monuments
uuggh. I meant to say that high taxes that stifle economic activity WILL NOT increase revenue to the government. I wish this site had a way to edit a post
SMike, First, Supply Siders don’t want a surplus or balanced budget; they believe deficits don’t matter and both these situations would have them straining for a tax cut (as would any other situation, but particularly in these cases). Me and Obama are NOT looking for high taxes. We want tax cuts for the vast majority of workers and hikes to 1990s’ levels (35-36%) for the rich boys. That’s not high! But it will bring in some revenue. History has proved that marginal rates under 40% have NO effect on economic activity. As for charging for the inauguration, that’s a Repub-type idea, and you missed your chance with Bush in there for eight years. But of course lobbyists gave so much to Bush that he didn’t need to charge anyone. And which business should we run the government like: Enron, AIG, Lehman Bros.? And if it messes up, with the president get a golden parachute?
How about those Eagles!
HEY, SMART GUYS: Obama & Bush say we HAVE to do something, because doing nothing will be our end! Conses say let the market fix itself, which is do nothing, let it play out; and trying to fix things will be our end!! What if they are both right? That we're done if we do, and done if we don't?
Hey, Tal, what does "done" mean?
The 1929 thing was fixed only by WWII. So history tends to indicate we need government spending on a very big scale to shake off a crash of this magnitude. The argument that the market economy will fix itself is just repeating classical economics arguments circa 1930 that have repeatedly shown themselves fallacious--for example, the claim that you can't have substantial unemployment in a free market since any unemployment will cause wages to fall and then firms will hire these cheaper workers, etc. It don't happen.
Djoko- What exactly does rich mean? Household income of $ 200,000 is not rich. Now if you want to take all the Rich liberals money from the likes of George Soros, Oprah, Barbara Steisand. I am fine with that just stay out of my wallet. Cause I am not rich. The problem with this tax the rich is it is never quantified. $ 200,000 income around a major city is not a lot of money.
DJOKO: It's not the fun kind! It means we're in for economic disaster of biblical proportions!
There's little evidence for the incessant right-wing assertion that raising federal income taxes stifles economic activity. I've watched federal tax laws (increases and decreases) since 1969, and none of them provide support for this thesis. The Kennedy tax cuts in the early 60s do provide some support for the argument, but remember that the top marginal rate was 91% before these cuts. The Kennedy tax reforms also included the investment tax credit. Clinton raised the top brackets in 1991 and an economic boom followed. I think it's a fundamental fallacy to say taxes hurt the economy, because it all depends on how the government spends the money. The government often spends most of the increased tax revenue on things like education and transportation that increase economic activity more efficiently than private spending and investment. For example, individuals may spend the money from a tax cut on a larger house. This does not have anything like the impact of government spending on research and development, for example. You can always argue that it's better in principle for individuals to keep their own money--that's a bona fide conservative argument--but it's a very different argument from the unsupportable assertion that tax cuts are good for the economy.
Swede, if you earn $200,000 per year this puts you in the top few percentage points for income earners. How is this not rich? I understand from my own personal situation that this kind of money does not go as far as one might like. But how would you like to be in the situation of half the population that gets by on less than a third of this? You need a little more social self-awareness.
SMike, the government will keep its hands out of your pocket when you give back all the benefits you get as a member of this country. So selfish!
MORE FOR SMART GUYS: Not in my backyard for everybody means no volunteer FD for anybody. No taxes means no schools, no police, no jails, no FD, etc.
SMike, I'm just getting back online since yesterday. Here's the deal. The University of Georgia system just recently conducted a study (implemented by an outside research firm) to learn how students felt about the issue of being pressured and "taught" liberal philosphy. Overwhelmingly (I can't remember the number,but it was something like 80 percent), students said that their professors presented a number of viewpoints and encouraged them to discuss/debate them. Very few felt that their grades would be affected if they didn't espouse the same point of view as their professors. Again, I don't remember the exact numbers, but those who felt pressured in that way amounted to four or five percent. Most faculty members believe it's their job to present a number of ideas, both liberal and conservative (if in an appropriate class like political science), and then teach students how to think them through. And that's the gist of education. Teaching students how to analyze and think for themselves. Obviously, some parents believe their children are being brainwashed. Those are usually the ones who feel that if their children encounter different ideas they will be corrupted. But that's what college is supposed to do -- challenge students to think analytically about their beliefs. Apparently, even in Georgia, that's happening in a rather unfettered environment.
liberal....those "rules" to which you refer that Pelosi repealed were actually put in place by the Republicans in 1995 after Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. Pelosi is going back to the rules of pre-1995 when democrats ruled Congress and people like Dan Rostenkowski were chairman of a committee for many years.
Djoko....supply siders believe tax cuts spur economic growth which will increase revenue to the federal government and we can "grow" our way out of deficits. However, this is only possible when spending is either reduced or controlled, which has not happened. Had Bush and the Republican Congress not spent like they did we would have maintained our surplus...just look at the revenue collected. However, now with Obama suddenly deficits do not matter (see the NYT article) and we could have trillion dollar deficits for years to come. Funny how the party that chided Bush for his $400 Billion deficit was horrendous now wants trillion dollar deficits as part of our economic recovery. Bill Clinton must be experiencing shivers down his spine.
Djoko....supply siders believe tax cuts spur economic growth which will increase revenue to the federal government and we can "grow" our way out of deficits. However, this is only possible when spending is either reduced or controlled, which has not happened. Had Bush and the Republican Congress not spent like they did we would have maintained our surplus...just look at the revenue collected. However, now with Obama suddenly deficits do not matter (see the NYT article) and we could have trillion dollar deficits for years to come. Funny how the party that chided Bush for his $400 Billion deficit was horrendous now wants trillion dollar deficits as part of our economic recovery. Bill Clinton must be experiencing shivers down his spine.
Here is a little tidbit for all you tax cut naysayers. According to research conducted by Christine Roemer (she is Obama's selection to head his Council of Economic Advisors), every $1 of tax cuts yields $3 of economic activity, twice the amount that $1 of government spending yields. This as reported on MSNBC just about 3 minutes ago.
Liberal...first of all, Clinton did not raise any taxes in 1991, Bush 41 raised taxes and a recession followed. Bush 41's tax increase did stifle economic growth. Clinton raised taxes in the late 1990's, but his tax increase plan also contained cuts so it was offset by other reductions. According to research conducted by Christina and Davidn Romer, a tax increase raises revenue as a % of GDP by 1% in its first year, then lowers revenue as a % of GDP by 3% two and a half years later. That is not because the economy is growing, since a growing economy would increase revenues. You are in academia I suspect...you should know this research conducted in 2007.
Tom--maybe I didn't make this very clear, but the argument is primarily about the effect of the top marginal tax rate on the economy. In 1991 Clinton raised the top marginal rate, but the total package was actually a tax cut, a fact that was obfuscated by the republicans at the time, to Clinton's chagrin. An actual tax cut can be beneficial to the economy if it is broad based; a tax change that focuses on the top rates and primarily affects the investing class, such as the Bush cuts, is not the same thing. Anyway, you are right that Roemer has published a paper with the 1%-3% conclusion, but in order to do the complicated math, she has to define tax cut in such a convoluted way that there's not much practical value to the conclusion--read the paper and see if you agree with this.
Tom--I'm not an academic but I've been reading the academic tax literature for many years, and my conclusion is that the experts can't really come to any clear conclusions about taxes and the economy other than very obvious ones (e.g., 100% taxation is bad). The situation is too complex, like most situations in the economy, as we are now seeing in the current financial crisis which was totally unanticipated by most academic economists.
Good stuff, Liberal. Tom has a rep of presenting only that half of the arugment that buttresses his point.
can't see updates again ..... :(
tom: after reading this ridiculously long paper, and dredging up math skills unused for 20 years, I have two comments. First, the numbers you're quoting are for what they consider "exogenous" tax cuts. Basically, they attempt to reduce the INTENT of the tax cut. The ones they’re looking at could best be termed "philosophical" ones, i.e. they are made without respect to current economic conditions. The authors admit that cutting taxes, for example, to forestall or reduce a recession HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON GDP. Second, even accepting the fact that $1 in tax cuts increases GDP by $3, the tax cuts still wouldn’t pay for themselves, which has been the contention of several of us all along. Marginal EFFECTIVE income tax rates would need to be above the 33% level, which they aren’t, and that’s ignoring the fact that huge portions of the GDP aren’t subject to income taxes, anyway. Thanks for making our case. Perhaps you should have read more than a “tidbit”.
I didn't think you were a neocontrickledownvoodooer NE Philly. I know you are a conservative but I find I can actually read your posts without wanting to throw up so I was thinking you are more moderate than a lot of the posters here. If 'big business' could be trusted to invest the money they save in taxes back into THIS country (rather than off shore or out source), then perhaps it might work. Thta isn't, however, what they do. You can't expect people or businesses to do that. They will be greedy and try to use that money to make more money. The theory doesn't work. Politicians are supposed to make policies that benefit ALL Americans, not just the richest ones. Unfortunatley they are easily bought off by lobbyists to write laws in 'big businesses' favor. Personally, I think that is immoral and wrong.
I didn't think you were a neocontrickledownvoodooer NE Philly. I know you are a conservative but I find I can actually read your posts without wanting to throw up so I was thinking you are more moderate than a lot of the posters here. If 'big business' could be trusted to invest the money they save in taxes back into THIS country (rather than off shore or out source), then perhaps it might work. Thta isn't, however, what they do. You can't expect people or businesses to do that. They will be greedy and try to use that money to make more money. The theory doesn't work. Politicians are supposed to make policies that benefit ALL Americans, not just the richest ones. Unfortunatley they are easily bought off by lobbyists to write laws in 'big businesses' favor. Personally, I think that is immoral and wrong.
96 comments | View All By Latest | Paginate Comments
- American Spectator
- Blogs for Bush
- Campaign Standard
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Outside the Beltway
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Altercation
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Carpetbagger Report
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Katharine Seelye Online
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- The Stump
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Blog Roll
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
Archives
Categories




