WR - Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

WR (http://forums.webrats.com/index.php)

- Edge of the Hole (http://forums.webrats.com/forumdisplay.php?f=34)

- - Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign (http://forums.webrats.com/showthread.php?t=144803)

Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

In the last couple of weeks, Senator Obama has really changed his views.

When he said Change, everyone ws say Change from the current course.
And BOY is that correct. Not to mention how much Obama has CHANGED his own direction.

First, he stated that no matter what, he would withdraw the troops in the 1st year. Then he CHANGED his view to 18 months, and that is still under consideration. But all he will do, is move all those folks to Afghanistan and then leave a ton of people there trying to clean that mess up.

Next, he CHANGED his mind on OIL Drilling off the coasts!!! He felt the pressure and saw he would lose votes, so he CHANGED!!!

but my biggest scare is his TAX changes.

Quote:

Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
July 29, 2008
What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?

The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.
To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left.
Also, by 1995 the country had a Republican Congress to limit President Clinton's big government agenda, whereas most political pundits predict strengthened Democratic majorities in both Houses in 2009. Because newly elected presidents usually try to implement the policies they campaigned on, Mr. Obama's proposals are worth exploring in some depth. I'll discuss taxes and trade, although the story on his other proposals is similar.

First - taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens.
The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!
Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)
On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner or later, would seriously damage the economy.
On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike in the marginal rate with no deductibility of state income taxes. Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more than 40%.

Now trade. In the primaries, Sen. Obama was famously protectionist, claiming he would rip up and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Since its passage (for which former President Bill Clinton ran a brave anchor leg, given opposition to trade liberalization in his party), Nafta has risen to almost mythological proportions as a metaphor for the alleged harm done by trade, globalization and the pace of technological change.

Yet since Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In short, it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged
Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border environment. But perhaps I am not objective, since Nafta originated in meetings James Baker and I had early in the Bush 41 administration with Pepe Cordoba, chief of staff to Mexico's President Carlos Salinas.

Mr. Obama has also opposed other important free-trade agreements, including those with Colombia, South Korea and Central America. He has spoken eloquently about America's responsibility to help alleviate global poverty -- even to the point of saying it would help defeat terrorism -- but he has yet to endorse, let alone forcefully advocate, the single most potent policy for doing so: a successful completion of the Doha round of global trade liberalization. Worse yet, he wants to put restrictions into trade treaties that would damage the ability of poor countries to compete. And he seems to see no inconsistency in his desire to improve America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and turning his back on more than six decades of bipartisan American presidential leadership on global trade expansion. When trade rules are not being improved, nontariff barriers develop to offset the liberalization from the current rules. So no trade liberalization means creeping protectionism.
History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.

I fear that McCain could get us into some trouble, but not nearly as bad as Obama! Tax us to death!!!!!!!!

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

To be fair, Professor Boskin has clarified his position to be a little less critical, however the Obama proposal still does not bode well from a taxpayer's standpoint. Pay special attention to the "After-Tax Return Per Dollar Of Earnings" lines as well as the footnotes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://online.wsj.com

Obamanomics Clarified
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
August 4, 2008; Page A13

In my July 29 op-ed ("Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession1"), I was among the many who took Barack Obama's statements that he would "end the Bush tax cuts for the top incomes" too literally. I interpreted this to mean a return to the pre-Bush tax rates of 39.6% on ordinary income and 20% on capital gains.

The Obama campaign has now clarified that he proposes to do this for labor earnings, but not for capital gains and dividends. I am told that Mr. Obama declared last year that he would raise these rates to "no more than the Reagan rate," by which he apparently means to 28%, from the current 15%. Mr. Obama would thus raise the tax rate on capital gains by about three times as much as President Bush cut it, but he'd preserve at least some of the Bush reduction in the double-taxation of dividends.

(Continued below.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by continued

The 28% rate on capital gains was the price President Ronald Reagan paid to pass the 1986 Tax Reform Act that lowered the top marginal tax rate on ordinary income (including dividends) to 28%. The capital gains rate was cut to 20% in 1997 under President Bill Clinton, and again to 15% in 2003.

However, Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the top marginal rate on wages (also interest, rent and royalties, etc.) more than 40% above the corresponding Reagan rate of 28%. Mr. Obama would thus give us the worst of both worlds: tax rates on ordinary income 40% higher than Reagan and on capital gains 40% higher than Clinton.

Raising the rate on capital gains to 28% would greatly reduce the ability of firms to minimize double taxation by returning cash to their shareholders through repurchases. As for dividends, the Obama plan would nearly double the tax to 28% from 15%.

I have revised the table that accompanied my op-ed showing the negative effects on the after-tax returns on investments to reflect the clarification. It is also available at http://www.stanford.edu/~boskin/2. Please use the new table for reference purposes.

I'm glad to hear that Mr. Obama is willing to retain at least a portion of the Bush tax cuts on dividends. But nearly doubling the tax rates on capital gains and dividends to 28% is a terrible idea that would damage fragile financial markets and the economy.

Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; he was chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers in the George H.W. Bush White House. (The Journal has frequently invited the Obama campaign to explain its tax plans in our pages, and we gladly repeat the invitation publicly here today.)

hmmm...38 cents per dollar of earnings. Why work? Let's all just go on fucking welfare at that rate.

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

BDJ - Thanks for posting the chart.
Also, some info indicates Sen. Obama is considering raising the Dividends / Capitol Gains to OVER 30%!

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

Man, I think I need a shaman to help break this stuff down. Normally, I let lots of things fly by and give them little attention; however, with this chart and breakdown, I fear for my wallet.

Things are tough enough as they are. If this were to come to pass, just what the hell will I receive after the heavy taxation?

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmb

More Government Control (He has already promised that), and more unemployment.

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerockhead

More Government Control (He has already promised that), and more unemployment.

I need these things as much as I need a flat tire, blown head gasket, or leaking roof.

I like having some change and paper in my pocket so I can buy things. Personally, I think when I buy something, it helps the economy. Do politicians ever think about the tax dollars generated by these purchases? In general, if the economy is good, most other things are going good, too.

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmb

The Government does think of that, They think of how much better it looks to the people paying them off. They always spend more then they have, and blame the other. Both Parties do this so well.

Vote in NEW Congress members each and Every Election.

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

Joe, you preach time and time again about electing new members into our government each and every time, yet you "seem" to back a candidate for president who embraces all the failures of our current president. I am confused. I DO agree that Obama has changed his stance on a lot of things I wish he hadn't, and as I will be voting for him, I hope that mother fucker produces his promises about getting us off oil and into renewable energies. But McCain doesn't seem to want to get on that bus, and that is one of the reasons why he is not my choice.

Another thing I will add for the record is that McCain has flip-flopped just as much as Obama, and I never see any of the republicans posting that in here.

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

Well, I do not see McCain flipping as much as Obama.
I Can tell you, McCain is more Middle of the road, then Obama or Bush.
McCain WILL keep taxes reasonable, even though the Democratic Congress will try to spend the hell out of our money (they are already doing that).

Obama is not a strong leader yet, he now has Biden (who's Son is corrupt in other areas) who is back stabbing McCain (an old friend). However, Biden does have more leadership qualities then Obama.

As for NEW Congress Member's, there are far more running then just the two - McCain and Obama, and Congress makes more laws then the President, and with Pelosi in, we are in for some hurting.

As for the Independent, they seldom get enough votes to even count, and it is doubtful they would ever get elected. So, We are down to TWO!

Obama, who IS going to raise taxes AND create MORE government, afraid to go to War for anything, will create socialized Medicine, and lie more about his plans. Or McCain - Who is willing to go to War with Iran, keep taxes low, only pull out of Iraq when we are there too long, ensure the Military gets fair pay Raises, push our debt deeper, piss off Nancy Pelosi, and die of a heart attack or Tumor in his third year.

Also, We need to see who McCain is going to have as his VP, hopefully it is someone smart and like able, to take over.

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerockhead

I have to assume that the reason you see less flipping from McCain is due to your sources of news, and your views that you believe to be correct. Just like the left wings blindness to some of Obama's faults due to their news choices and beliefs. If we went 1 for 1 on the flip flops, our numbers would be about the same, sad isn't it.

While Obama will probably raise taxes, you dont know that McCain will not do the same if he gets elected, not matter how much he may promise. Our national debt is so fucked up right now that the money to fix it has to come from somewhere, and the Bush administration knew this, that is why they have been so quiet about things lately. They are hoping to slide out unnoticed, but I digress.

I don't know enough about Biden yet to debate him, so I will keep quiet about him right now. But I would like to see your sources about his son being corrupt, out of curiosity, is his son important really?

Pelosi is a strange bird, I do like that she is standing her ground about drilling offshore, but in other aspects I do not like her approach to things, guess that is common though with any elected official.

I think saying someone is afraid to go to war is an assumption rather than a fact, as no one really knows how they will act if they have to make that decision. What I do think is that he will not keep us in pointless IRAQ, and will not hook his buddies up by invading another country....Iran. You may never have to fight in a war, and neither will I, but I dont want my son and any other children I have living in a world that the current regime is bringing upon us. By that I mean the reduction of our liberty with the excuse of protection.

You think he will make it 3 years? IF, he gets elected, I'm willing to bet, with the mountain of problems he will inherit, his stress level will blow out his heart, or a give him an anurism, in 1.5 - 2 years max. That goes for Obama as well. The next pres has a shit load of stuff to fix, I sure wouldn't want to follow up the fuckhead in office right now.

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

Typical ultra-liberal viewpoint that the only way to put revenue in the coffers is to tax tax tax.

The best way to do it is by cutting spending, and there are lots of places to do that in Gov't. - which McCain has addressed and made legitimate propositions to do, and Obama has not.

Obama keeps talking about giving this incentive to these people & setting up that program for those people and universal healthcare for everybody - which does not sound like cutting back on spending in any way shape or form. The only spending reduction that tool talks about is prematurely bailing on the war and then I guess the money to pay for all his social(ist) reforms is going to flow from that. Right.

Oh and Hunter Biden, I believe, was a well-paid officer and lobbyist at MBNA at the time his dad was pushing bankruptcy reform through the Senate - to the dismay of his Democrat compatriots, Obama included. You can thank Biden & Biden for the current laws that protect credit card companies & other predatory unsecured lending institutions from people who would attempt to discharge their debt through bankruptcy. Thanks to Biden & Biden these people can't get a fresh start by declaring bankruptcy, they can just suck it up and pay those usury interest rates until the day they die - and then their kids can pick up the remainder.

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

Quote:

Originally Posted by BackdoorJesus

You could just as easily link McCain with Phil Gramm, who was until recently his chief financial advisor, and the man responsible for drafting the overwhelming majority of his financial policy. He has supposedly been relegated to a lesser status, but he's still been seen with McCain on several occasions. Gramm, when a Senator, was one of the primary people who were responsible for what is happening now in the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Here's an article to back up what I'm saying, from Politico no less, a unbiased news source.

he general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today’s economic turmoil.

“A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business had changed,” the Illinois senator running for president said in a New York economic speech. “But by the time [it] was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.”

Gramm’s role in the swift and dramatic recent restructuring of the nation’s investment houses and practices didn’t stop there.

A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm.

Later, he became a major player in its government affairs operation. According to federal lobbying disclosure records, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006.

During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.

For his work, Gramm and two other lobbyists collected $750,000 in fees from UBS’s American subsidiary. In the past year, UBS has written down more than $18 billion in exposure to subprime loans and other risky securities and is considering cutting as many as 8,000 jobs.

Gramm did not respond to an e-mail and was unavailable for comment, according to a UBS spokesman. The bank has no official position on the subprime crisis, the spokesman said, but is a member of the Financial Services Roundtable and other industry groups that are actively lobbying Congress on the issue.

Now, some housing experts and economists see Gramm’s thinking in the recent housing proposal from McCain, the Republican Party’s presumed presidential nominee. Gramm is often a surrogate for the Arizona senator, particularly in meetings focused on the economy. And McCain has hinted he’d consider the former Texas senator for Treasury secretary in a McCain administration.

McCain delivered an economic speech Tuesday that had Gramm's input, but it was written by domestic policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

“Sen. Gramm was one of dozens of folks whom Sen. McCain has consulted on the housing issue, including Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman from eBay," said McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers. "They've been friends for years, and he values Sen. Gramm's advice."

In the speech, McCain rejected the type of aggressive government intervention in the economic meltdown that has been embraced by his Democratic opponents — and even some Bush advisers.

“I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers,” McCain said. “Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.”

McCain’s campaign later clarified that he would support programs for “deserving” homeowners and reforms that would improve transparency and accountability in capital markets.

Andrew Jakabovics, a housing expert at the liberal Center for American Progress, said McCain’s interpretation of the crisis puts little blame on investment banks for their role in packaging the subprime loans into dangerously complex and ultimately hard-to-value financial instruments.

“I’d characterize this as the deux ex machina theory of financial products,” Jakabovics said. “He views this as a market problem that manifests at the local level as housing, meaning he’s more likely to argue in favor of these guys when they argue for deregulation.”

Wall Street firms are increasingly under scrutiny for contributing to the economic downturn by packaging and selling risky mortgage securities. When the home loans tied to the mortgages defaulted, investors and the banks lost billions, contributing to a widespread credit crunch.

“I think [McCain’s] attitude is the market can basically handle this and government doesn’t need to be heavily involved,” said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard and Poor’s.

McCain and Gramm have a long political history. The two became close when they worked together as senators to defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 1993 health care plan, holding meetings at hospitals and clinics across the country.

In 1996, McCain was national chairman of Gramm's unsuccessful presidential bid.

In 2000, the duo had a rare parting when Gramm backed his home-state governor, George W. Bush, for president instead of McCain. But they’ve reunited in this presidential race.

Gramm stood by his former Senate colleague in his worst days last summer when his campaign went broke and his candidacy was all but written off by political observers.

Gramm, who had joined the campaign in March as a domestic policy adviser, was among those who helped cut staff and shrink the budgets. He traveled with McCain in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and stumped for him in Georgia.

And as far as Iraq, didn't we just agree to a timetable for withdrawing by 2011? Seems like Obama is making all the policy decisions, and he's not even President yet!

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

Quote:

Originally Posted by BackdoorJesus

There you go with the labeling again. Like I've said before, I do not subscribe to one facet or party when it comes to how I think this country should be run. Both sides have their goods and bads, only this time the Dems have a better grip on the pulse of this nation and where its people want to go. More jobs by investing in renewable energies, ending the money drain that is Iraq, and concentrating more on the defense of this country, rather than on the offense in multiple countries. And all of those will dramatically decrease government spending. The only idea I've seen from the McCain clan is the $3 million battery thing.

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

Well, Obama has "Revised" his Stance once again.

He gave a very good speech tonight, I listened to some, then got tired of the same old Political BS All these clowns say. Blaming other's for the bad thing, and not saying how he stood on many things, or why he did NOT try to change it as a congressman.
Anyway..

He has CHANGED his stance on Taxes, PROMISING to LOWER taxes for 95% of the people (said this before), and added "Lowering the Capitol Gains Tax on small businesses".

He also said he would take a STRONG stance against Iran developing Nukes, and against Russia's Aggression. Stuff he has NEVER stated before.

Now, is he saying this due to his poor polling number's? Or is he REALLY Going to do this??

Is he LYING like the other Dems?? (Edwards, Billy C, Hillary, Teddy K, Etc)

I do not know. I have to wait and see.

He also slammed the Shit out of McCain, and once again, just like the Dem's are doing, claimed McCain's tenure will be EXACTLY like Bush's.
I guess if they say it enough, they will believe it.

Re: Obama Nomics and his "CHANGE" campaign

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerockhead

Well, if you had been paying even just a little attention outside your sphere of misinformation, you'd have realized that Obama has been promising to cut taxes for 95% of Americans all along. As for Iran and nuclear proliferation, Bush has once again taken his cue from Obama regarding Iran's desire to supposedly acquire nuclear weapons. Wasn't there a bill introduced sometime last year specifically about nuclear proliferation, I forgot who the sponsored that bill....Oh yeah, it was Obama! As far as his stance on Russia, didn't that situation just happen recently, it's hard to have a stance on something that hasn't happened yet.

It's funny that the positions that Obama has reiterated for as long as I can remember regarding Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and other foreign policy conundrums are now being embraced by the Bush administration--the Iraqi timetable for instance. I'm wondering what the next foreign policy decision President Bush will lift from Obama's playbook.

Also, why do you consistently feel the need to CAPITALIZE everything? When I read your posts, I sometimes get lost and think I've stumbled into a 12 year-old's blog. Exclamation points work really well, and get the point across equally well. Your boy, McCain picked his Vice Presidential choice today right, Sarah Palin--clearly as a way to attract disenfranchised Hillary supporters because she's a woman. So you have essentially the same ticket on both sides of the aisle, crusty McCain with the experience on the Republican side, with Palin the inexperienced one---and Obama with little experience on the Democratic side, with Biden having a wealth of experience. Yes, I'm admitting that Obama doesn't have much experience, but I don't think experience matters as much as the ability to make the right decisions the first time, as opposed to what Bush has done the last eight years. After all, the President surrounds himself with experts in virtually every possible field, to offer him every conceivable option, even ones that he may not agree with.

One more thing, please stop with the whole Obama will do etc, etc, etc... You, or anyone else doesn't know what is going to happen within the next six months, or certainly not when Obama (hopefully) is President, or McCain for that matter. It's almost impossible to know what either candidate will encounter when sworn in as the next President, but it will be one of the most challenging times this country has ever faced.