|
jpn of Seattle
|
 |
« on: August 21, 2008, 05:56:22 PM » |
|
Here's an excellent discussion of Obama's approach to economics: www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?hp=&pagewanted=all What you'll find is that Obama takes a highly practical, non-partisan approach to economics. Having taught at the University of Chicago, home of right-wing economics, some of that thought obviously rubbed off on him. That's why most knowledgable people recognize that Obama is more centrist that Clinton. He's hardly a radical lefty as some right-wingers try to paint him as being. It's a longish article, but if you want to know his thinking on economics, it's worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 24, 2008, 06:13:59 PM by jpn of Seattle »
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
   
Karma: +112/-105
Posts: 1,108
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2008, 07:22:24 PM » |
|
Good article. This pdf from the tax policy center that they linked to on page 5 is interesting as well. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_update_candidates.pdf.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it - Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Gojira
|
 |
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2008, 11:32:09 PM » |
|
Yep, read it too. And I must say, Obama's economic plan gets ever the more interesting. As long as he stays away from the populist economic stances, Obama may have a solid, practical economic plan.
Now about that foreign policy...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our democracy has created an environment of indecision at times of impending crisis.
If life is easy for you, then you aint livin.
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
 |
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2008, 11:01:22 PM » |
|
Wow! An entire discussion on Obama's cures for the economy, yet not one word was said about the unsustainable inflationary abyss and imminent bankruptcy threat that we find ourselves in. Surely, the choice to disregard the most pressing economic problems we have was merely an oversight. While Mr. LEONHARDT is excellent at compiling most of the differing theories behind our failing economy, he hit the wall in the first paragraph of the article when he fell back on that old time favorite "The details are too technical for most of us to understand". I guess that statement explains his propensity toward choosing suppositional economic theorizing as the cure all to what ails us. I admit, though it might be fun watching as the government tries to use a bandaid to keep the dam from breaking, It is still a lesson in futility. Our time would be much better spent addressing the core issues, instead of trying in vain to remove the symptom but not the cause. Neither of the main candidates have even acknowledged the problem. This is the result of having the status quo shoved so far up their ass's that their feet don't touch the ground anymore. And as such, they are out of touch with reality.
The first thing we must do if we want to stop inflation, we must stop the printing and/or electronic transfer of any new federal reserve notes into circulation. Think about it. This is the logical first step. If you quit inflating, it stops inflation from getting worse. But to do this you have to limit your spending, so were not spending more then we take in. Its as simple as that. Theres no tax out there that could be large enough to bail us out. A bail out that would cost an estimated 650k and growing, from every family in America , just to break even. Clearly, an unsustainable amount. This ones going to hurt no matter what and the longer that we put it off the worse it will be. But, we do have some choices that will soften the blow.
If we drastically cut our foreign expenditures. That means closing about 100 of our more then 140 military bases world wide. We would save hundreds of billions the first few years. Stateside, bases been closing like mad, hurting the communities that had grown up around them. Bases on foreign soil are all expenditure, no return. A never ending money pit, costing billions each year, The action in Iraq is costing U.S. taxpayers a billion a week alone. For good or bad, right or wrong, good against evil, whatever, this drain is unsustainable.
Heres another one.
The government has gotten into the bad habit of funding failed government enterprises with borrowed taxpayer funds which burdens ourselves and future generations with the bill. Theres a reason why these business's went under and taking money out of the pockets of future generations does not address those reasons. This practice must be stopped..
If we ceased most foreign entitlements and were forced to default of some of our foreign loans, we could save even more of that money we don't have. Were bankrupt and we had best start acting like it.. Thats what you do when your bankrupt. You don't go down in the basement and print up a few more trillion dollars, do you? Yet that is what the federal reserve does and has been doing. They have also been inflating the money supply by usage of fractional reserve lending, which allows small banks to loan out up to 10 times more money then they have in reserves in the form of an electronic transfer, at interest. Then, the small bank loans it to Joe public at an even higher interest rate. The problem is, is that the fed doesn't fund this with funds already in circulation. They fund it with new money they just made and transfered with a few short key strokes. Its a system that promotes borrowing and makes bankers the riches men on the block, but at the expense of over inflating the money supply. In essence, it robs the currency of its buying power. I will say it again. The rendering worthless of our currency through the fed and our governments irresponsible (if not criminal) over inflation of the money supply, is the single most important economic issue we face today. But its not really that overtly complicated. We need to end the Federal reserve charter. They are the root cause of our monetary failure. The federal reserve charter must be revoked. And we need to default on all of the funds in interest we "owe" them for printing our own damn money.
I have a manila envelope stuffed with bills from countries around the world. Thailand, China, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Japan, Africa, Spain, Mexico, Brazil, etc. all worthless... some have collector value, but no intrinsic value. Our dollar will soon be in that manila envelope with all the other fiat currencies because thats what happens to fiat currencies. Your thinking, not my fiat currency, but yes, your fiat currency too.
We need to consolidate and account for all the precious metal in all our treasuries and reserves and issue new dollar certificates into circulation redeemable in said gold, silver, copper and platinum. Federal reserve notes can be fazed out slowly, or they can die all at once. Its what we do now that dictates which one its going to be. Our money has to have a value of something more then just the goods and services they can be redeemed for. The dollar has to represent something more tangible than just a piece of paper for the simple, easily understood reason that after all is said and done, it will still just be a piece of paper. a piece of paper with perhaps collector value, but no intrinsic value. As long as we allow our dollar to be anything less then certificates of deposit, inflation will rob us of of our savings, drive prices up, and bring the quality of life down.
So, no...I guess I'm not interested in Obama's economics....
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 22, 2008, 11:07:48 PM by Retro Fit »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
suedanim
Newbie
Karma: +4/-0
Posts: 5
|
 |
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2008, 11:15:32 PM » |
|
I found this article very helpful in understanding further, not just Obama's economic plan, but McCain's and a good bit about why Reagan's didn't work. It certainly sounds as though Obama and his team have looked at the last 30+ years and come up with a less reactionary, more stable plan that won't pinch anyone too hard. This section of the article helped me understand a bit better ... It’s helpful to start with a little history. When Reagan was elected, in 1980, tax rates on top incomes were so high that even liberal economists now say the economy was suffering. There simply wasn’t enough of an incentive for rich people to start new companies or expand existing ones, because so much of their profits would have gone to the federal government. Someone making the equivalent of $5 million in 1980 — in inflation-adjusted terms — would have paid a combined federal tax rate of almost 60 percent, according to research by Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, two academic economists. (These calculations cover not only income taxes but also payroll taxes, capital-gains taxes and others.) Reagan, by the end of his second term, had cut this rate to about 35 percent. Clinton raised it above 40 percent, but the current President Bush has reduced it to 34 percent. So over the same period that the rich have been getting much richer before taxes, their tax rates have also been falling far faster than the rates of any other income group.
Dating back to Reagan, Republicans have packaged tax cuts on high earners with more modest middle-class tax cuts and then maneuvered the Democrats into an unwinnable choice: are you for tax cuts or against them? Obama, however, argues that this is the moment when the politics of taxes can be changed.
To do this, he is proposing tax cuts for most families that are significantly larger than those McCain is offering, along with major tax increases for families making more than $250,000 a year. “That’s essentially a major part of our economic plan,” Obama said. “But it’s also a political message.” Economically, he is trying to use the tax code to spread the bounty from the market-based American economy to a far wider group of families. Politically, he is trying to drive a wedge through the great Reagan tax gambit.
The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has done the most detailed analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans, and it has published a series of fascinating tables. For the bottom 80 percent of the population — those households making $118,000 or less — McCain’s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama’s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign. A couple of things that have always escaped me completely and are just fundamentally unfair about Reagan or Republican economics. 1) If trickle down economics didn't work during the 80's, why would it work now, especially during a massively expensive wars, major natural and manmade disasters with unprecedented borrow and spend policies? I mean, why try it again on a good day? and 2) Why is the middle class required to carry the heavier burden proportionally? I just don't understand the logic of that... because what appears to be happening is those of us who were middle class in 2000 are now... just more and more in the ranks of the working poor.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
   
Karma: +114/-147
Posts: 1,953
|
 |
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2008, 06:42:49 AM » |
|
I found this article very helpful in understanding further........
This section of the article helped me understand a bit better ... Welcome. Please provide a link to your source. From posting rules: 12. Credit all sources of non-original material Failure to do so is considered plagiarism and will be deleted, unless corrected promptly.
13. Limit reproduction of copyrighted material Link to sources. Reproduce only enough to make your point. Do not post overly long articles and then say "What do you think of that?" (Nobody will read this).Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
suedanim
Newbie
Karma: +4/-0
Posts: 5
|
 |
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2008, 08:14:03 AM » |
|
I found this article very helpful in understanding further........
This section of the article helped me understand a bit better ... Welcome. Please provide a link to your source. From posting rules: 12. Credit all sources of non-original material Failure to do so is considered plagiarism and will be deleted, unless corrected promptly.
13. Limit reproduction of copyrighted material Link to sources. Reproduce only enough to make your point. Do not post overly long articles and then say "What do you think of that?" (Nobody will read this).Thanks. My response was about the article posted in the opening post of this thread. I quoted from that link and referenced the source.. I thought..by saying that I'd found the article useful. But... if you want every response about an article linked back to the original post... then I'll do that. I've been posting in political forums for many years and ALWAYS link to all information I use. I'm very thorough like that. I just didn't know that in this forum links to information about articles from the opening post were required. From jpn of seattle: Here's an excellent discussion of Obama's approach to economics:
[www].nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?hp=&pagewanted=all The above is the source of my quote and what my comments were in response to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
   
Karma: +114/-147
Posts: 1,953
|
 |
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2008, 11:45:16 AM » |
|
My apologies.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
 |
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2008, 12:24:27 PM » |
|
I found this article very helpful in understanding further, not just Obama's economic plan, but McCain's and a good bit about why Reagan's didn't work. It certainly sounds as though Obama and his team have looked at the last 30+ years and come up with a less reactionary, more stable plan that won't pinch anyone too hard. I'm afraid the time for "pinching" is far behind us. It's time for mass amputations. A tad to "reactionary" for you? Perhaps if people had been a bit more reactionary from the get go we wouldn't be in chapter 12 now. Nice, stable chapter 12. I found this article very helpful in understanding what chapter 12 means to the candidates elite...I keep picturing McCain and Obama pouring each other shots of Macallan 1926 and throwing stacks of hundreds on the fire Bush lit with the bill of rights. How cozy. Oh, welcome to the forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
 |
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2008, 11:46:09 PM » |
|
A couple of things that have always escaped me completely and are just fundamentally unfair about Reagan or Republican economics. 1) If trickle down economics didn't work during the 80's, why would it work now, especially during a massively expensive wars, major natural and manmade disasters with unprecedented borrow and spend policies? I mean, why try it again on a good day? and 2) Why is the middle class required to carry the heavier burden proportionally? I just don't understand the logic of that... because what appears to be happening is those of us who were middle class in 2000 are now... just more and more in the ranks of the working poor. Suedanim, The name,"Trickle down economics" was a catch term. Reagan's rich buddies wifes called Nancy complaining of their horrendous tax burden. So, Nancy comes to Ron and relays her friends plight. Ron hands the idea to his team, they come up with the trickle down crap. The rich get their tax break. Taxes are raised on the middle class, and life goes on. But, these tax burdens are only one nail in the middle class's coffin. The rest of the casket is hammered shut by massive government growth and over spending. Imagine if you could continue to use your credit card even when it is maxed out. If you could, you might be tempted to over spend and get yourself into trouble.. Well, the governments had a no limit credit card and they have gone crazy with spending, only problem is that we foot the bill for the governments lack of control and we are forced to pay for every penny they borrow from the fed and foreign governments. And we pay twice.. We pay interest on new money made by the fed before it even goes into circulation and then we pay again because of the inflationary loss of the moneys buying power. The more money the fed throws in the mix, the more prices will rise until you will need a wheel barrel full of money to go buy a box of tampons. It sounds surreal but it is basically the fate of every fiat currency...When you hear about the dollar losing value in foreign markets it is caused directly by the fed and the government debasing the currency. This is the killer of the middle class. This is the killer of the U.S. dollar.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|