calfoxwc Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism. By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. Martin KozlowskiThe illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown. Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs. To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined). Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit. Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets. As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better. Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices. The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them. The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound. A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness. The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers. Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation. New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government. From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history. Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster. On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not. Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 You are turning very un-American on us, Cal. For shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Now, don't you go redefining terms like "American", Mr. mz the pussy. You might confound me. Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush. pro-fess-or. of economics. Senior fellow at the Hoover Inst. Oh yeah. Obama is scaring people. Even, scaring some Dems. BOO! @@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 You are turning very un-American on us, Cal. For shame. What was un-American about that article? It was biased, sure, but un-American? Be serious. Any Dems here want to defend Obama's plan to run deficits indefinitely (they have projected annual deficits for every year through 2019, and they dont move towards 0.)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Now, don't you go redefining terms like "American", Mr. mz the pussy. You might confound me. Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush. pro-fess-or. of economics. Senior fellow at the Hoover Inst. Oh yeah. Obama is scaring people. Even, scaring some Dems. BOO! @@ Obammy is becomming Jimmy Carter, Part II. God help us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 What was un-American about that article? It was biased, sure, but un-American? Be serious. Any Dems here want to defend Obama's plan to run deficits indefinitely (they have projected annual deficits for every year through 2019, and they dont move towards 0.)? You're right, Toop, while biased as the day is long, it wasn't un-American. Cal, in his gloating over Obama's (read: America's) failures (his opinion, keep in mind), is. Me, I'm pretty un-American anyway, so I couldn't care less............... PS Any President/politician who says they want to "balance the budget" is a lying sack of shit. Why on Earth would they want to do that?????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 PS Any President/politician who says they want to "balance the budget" is a lying sack of shit. Why on Earth would they want to do that?????????????? Looking for a 2nd term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 A fag from LA who hates the military and is un-American. You are a disgusting piece of waste, of that no doubt. Just remember who you risked your life defending (well, cleaning latrines for), pal. "What a country!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Oh, mz the pussy, I'm not gloating. I'm worrying. Believe me, seriously, a LOT of people ARE worrying about Obama's mis-steps and incrediblely irresponsible spending, including saying "no pork" with a ton of pork. It looks like Obama and top Dems think other people are very, very stupid, and that they can say one thing, and do another. How many Dems is it now that hadn't paid their taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Obama is like a bag man paying off all of his buddies who got him elected. He dosn't give a shit for joe six pack, he will be taken care of for the rest of his life and wont have to think about having the responsibility of paying for all of this irresponsible spending. Some try to say he is like Reagan, BS, Reagan told americans to Save Save Save. Obammy says Spend Spend Spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Obammy looks like he is shaping up to be a real loser. He is not qualified to be President, that is obvious. How did this fool get elected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 including saying "no pork" with a ton of pork. One man's pork is another man's chicken. Or something... All I'm saying is, complaining about "pork" is like throwing a Hail Mary pass...it's a last-ditch desperate effort. You know that. If you don't like what's going on, and if you think you have targeted the correct scapegoat, then go for it. You do have your forum. But to think some politician is going to make your life better...come on. My life will be pretty much the same under Bush as it would have been under Obama or McCain. How many Dems is it now that hadn't paid their taxes? Probably equal to the number or GOPers. And if you disagree with my assertion, let's see some data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 You got to be the most boring mofo to grace this forum, that I will give you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Stay tuned, mz the pussy. I hope and pray we all will be okay during Obama's reign. But, like T sent to me, some dolts are trying to throw overwhelming costs and bureacracy at small family farms. Initiated by Monsanto and other major companies' lobbyists. Done for them by... Dem liberals. Food prices may skyrocket. Buy and stock up on non-parishable dry and canned goods now. I am really concerned we may crash. Meanwhile, in an unheard of move, the local Timken Roller Bearing co ... layed off 400 people. First time, ever. Not good. If things do crash, we're working on a tentative plan to help friends and neighbors with produce this summer. I really wish we had large sugar maple trees. Always wanted to make that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Probably equal to the number or GOPers. And if you disagree with my assertion, let's see some data. maybe not equal, but i agree with ya. seems like, and im generalizing here, that dems dont mind raising taxes cause they dont pay them...... very analogous to the reps demonizing gays because they're all in the closet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 maybe not equal, but i agree with ya. Probably proportional. And seemingly more rampant in the Obama administration, as opposed to the parties in general. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310/ap_on_..._re/wall_street yea ..... OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310/ap_on_..._re/wall_street yea ..... OK sounds like "nationalization" or rather emergency capital infusion with you know RULES/REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT as a contingency in order to right the ship the Republican deregulation laissez faire principles broke in the first place is NOW starting to show signs of positive movement..... slowing down foreclosures and giving Bk judges the ability to also halt more toxic debt to be added to banking portfolio's instead of a massive government buyout must be a bad thing. You would think the republicans would be pushing this instead of fighting this..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Tupa your party does not have ANY legs to stand on talking about defecit spending.... 2 trillion and counting for a over reaction toward a criminal act... deregulating meaning the enron loophole by Graham and his buddies led us to this point in the first place. The only organization now that has a chance to correct a self feeding feedback cycle is the government investing in ourselves.... I like how the defecit spending national debt doubling party in control for the last eight years is suddently trying to cry foul. Leading by example is something your party has forgotten about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 What pork? Pork barrel spending is: 1.Requested by only one chamber of Congress; 2.Not specifically authorized; 3.Not competitively awarded; 4.Not requested by the President; 5.Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; 6.Not the subject of congressional hearings; or 7.Serves only a local or special interest. Sorry, I don't see how spending money on all kinds of infastructure across the US is pork. Especially when it is all part of the same bill; not attached to a completely unrelated bill. Educate yourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Tupa your party does not have ANY legs to stand on talking about defecit spending....Leading by example is something your party has forgotten about. Yet the Republicans have no say at all now. And you've been bitching like a girl for 8 years about it. So lead, now that you have power, or STFU. Show those damn Republicans you mean business!!!!! WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 What pork? Pork barrel spending is: 1.Requested by only one chamber of Congress; 2.Not specifically authorized; 3.Not competitively awarded; 4.Not requested by the President; 5.Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; 6.Not the subject of congressional hearings; or 7.Serves only a local or special interest. Sorry, I don't see how spending money on all kinds of infastructure across the US is pork. Especially when it is all part of the same bill; not attached to a completely unrelated bill. Educate yourselves. Keep telling yourself that numb nuts. Educate yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spunkonmyback DPOY Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 What pork? Pork barrel spending is: 1.Requested by only one chamber of Congress; 2.Not specifically authorized; 3.Not competitively awarded; 4.Not requested by the President; 5.Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; 6.Not the subject of congressional hearings; or 7.Serves only a local or special interest. Sorry, I don't see how spending money on all kinds of infastructure across the US is pork. Especially when it is all part of the same bill; not attached to a completely unrelated bill. Educate yourselves. In reguards to the nearly 800 billion dollar spending bill: 1. Okay, the bill was past by both chambers so I'll give you that. 2. Did anyone actually read the whole bill? The bill was past but its hard to say each person/place/thing that got money from it was specifically known by anyone except the creators of the bill. 3. $1,000,000 for a frisbee golf course and a few hundred thousand for dog parks. There wasn't any compepting in this, it was just given out. 4. I never heard Obama specifically want dog parks, frisbee golf course, STD prevention, and energy efficient golfing club houses. 5. $787,000,000,000. Enough said. 6. It was rushed through the house, senate, and Obama's desk becuase it supposedly needed past right away to save the economy. 7. See what was mention in #4 for specifics. They don't really seem to help anything but local cuases and special interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 3. $1,000,000 for a frisbee golf course and a few hundred thousand for dog parks. Yes, but it was for Retarded kids and Retarded dogs....... Seriously. Who knows what this was about, but in an 800 BILLION dollar bill you're complaining about ONE MILLION dollars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Keep telling yourself that numb nuts. Educate yourself. Truth hurting a little? No amount of name calling can change the facts. But I appreciate your efforts, no matter how pathetic they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 In reguards to the nearly 800 billion dollar spending bill: 1. Okay, the bill was past by both chambers so I'll give you that. 2. Did anyone actually read the whole bill? The bill was past but its hard to say each person/place/thing that got money from it was specifically known by anyone except the creators of the bill. 3. $1,000,000 for a frisbee golf course and a few hundred thousand for dog parks. There wasn't any compepting in this, it was just given out. 4. I never heard Obama specifically want dog parks, frisbee golf course, STD prevention, and energy efficient golfing club houses. 5. $787,000,000,000. Enough said. 6. It was rushed through the house, senate, and Obama's desk becuase it supposedly needed past right away to save the economy. 7. See what was mention in #4 for specifics. They don't really seem to help anything but local cuases and special interests. But the point is that it is helping local causes across the entire nation, all from the same bill. It would be pork if it were passed for any reason other than trying to stimulate the nationwide economy under different circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 But the point is that it is helping local causes across the entire nation, all from the same bill. It would be pork if it were passed for any reason other than trying to stimulate the nationwide economy under different circumstances. Is spending trillions on an unwinnable war, pork? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Is spending trillions on an unwinnable war, pork? If it is it's Obammy's war now ain't it? Nancy Pee Lousy promised to de fund it. And didn't even try. Obammy is following the Bush plan. And promising more in Afghanistan where there is nothing to win at all. So what's your beef? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 K, if all you want to do is throw out stupid one liners, you are showing you don't have anything else to offer. Way too much, k. Try having some posts of substance. ps. If you were funny at all, I wouldn't complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spunkonmyback DPOY Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Yes, but it was for Retarded kids and Retarded dogs....... Seriously. Who knows what this was about, but in an 800 BILLION dollar bill you're complaining about ONE MILLION dollars? Good point, its not like spending $1,000,000 of others people money for your own personal gain is a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.