Obama has repeatedly talked about all his welfare programs..matching people on savings accounts...tons of new spending on govt programs...typical socialist ideas...then he comes out and says he believes in the free market? Instead of relying on the government to do what the free market cant since the free market is unfair and caters to the rich, now he believes in it? I call that a politician saying what people want to hear in order to get more votes...plain and simple...whats the problem? Is that a good enough explanation?

I'm also shocked at how many of you believe him when he says this...do politicians all tell the truth nowadays? When did that trend start? Or is Obama "not your typical politician"?

6/11/2008 3:20:18 PM

The only people that insist Obama is a socialist are Rat, TT, and Socks

I don't think anyone else really believes he is pulling a 180

vv

6/11/2008 3:21:22 PM

Quote :

"matching people on savings accounts"

i asked about this in another thread a while back. i'm curious to see where this comes from.

6/11/2008 3:21:24 PM

Quote :

"kwsmith2, So when you say that he "supports" the Free Market, what you really mean is that his proposals are less invasive than other more progressive politicians? I see. Well rather than me trying to argue that Obama's proposals for further government intervention are infact "big deals", maybe you can help me see how Obama supports the Free Market in more than just words. What policy proposals has he made that would reduce government involvement in the market? Or was it really just that one speech that "impressed" you? He really does speak so well. PS* I don't see how you get that from the context of Obama's speech, since he actually didn't say anything like that. But whatever. If the gas tax is really that important to you, would you be suprised to learn that Obama actually actively supported a state gas tax holiday as IL State Senator? http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/06/gas_tax/"

Well what I mean is that he says and his approach seems to suggest an appreciation for the free market in principle. I think this is meaningful because there is a significant portion of the public that believes that the free market as system is a bad idea; that profit comes inherently at the expense of workers and that corporations are generally forces of social ill.

Obama is distancing himself from that.

I mean Hillary for instance said that the unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation. Now while I don't believe that she is as leftist as that statement sounds it certainly is not distancing her from the anti-free market forces.


As for being impressed by Obama. It is his recent appearances, the speech in Raleigh, his interview with Harwood and his interview with Maria Bartaromo that have impressed me. For most of the early campaign I was a Hillary supporter basically because I believed her actual policy couldn't be that different from Bill.

It was only when it became clear that Hillary was not going to win that I started to take notice in Obama. Which is why I am saying that he is starting to impress me.

[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 3:32 PM. Reason : quote]

6/11/2008 3:22:33 PM

Quote :

"Obama has repeatedly talked about all his welfare programs..matching people on savings accounts"

This is socialist?

What if instead called it a refundable savings tax credit for the middle class that will help the middle class keep more of their money when they save and build wealth? Would that be socialist? Because mechanically its the same policy.

6/11/2008 3:28:06 PM

and the latter would be championed by many of the people on the right, especially if it was established by bush or mccain.

6/11/2008 3:34:27 PM

does anyone have specifics about this savings account thing?

6/11/2008 3:35:19 PM

kwsmith2,

Then I agree with you that he probably isn't a private-property-hating-socialist. Of course, he is still not free-market enough for my New Democrat tastes. But maybe my expectations are too high for this election.

6/11/2008 3:38:18 PM

^^ http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/09/news/economy/obama_economy_changetour/index.htm?cnn=yes

Quote :

"To boost retirement savings, he has also proposed a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000."

6/11/2008 3:55:02 PM

thanks.
i wasn't sure if this was referring to the older plan of opt-out retirement savings at workplaces

6/11/2008 3:56:44 PM

Quote :

"my New Democrat tastes"

is that what you call preferring a war hawk over the democratic nominee?

question: would Hillary Clinton / Joe Lieberman be your dream ticket?



[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM. Reason : ]

6/11/2008 4:36:43 PM

is that what you call preferring a socalist over the republican nominee?

does it sound any better when i do it?

6/11/2008 4:38:56 PM

dear little analogy-challenged, stoned, non-voting troll. shut up. no ones talking to you.

6/11/2008 4:57:26 PM

actually everyone in the thread has been talking to me throughout page 1...on the other hand, the only person talking to you is...me...but i'll leave you alone if thats what you want since all you want to apparently do is call me names for pointing out your onesided description of the candidates

6/11/2008 5:07:37 PM

^^ you can't do that in here--you should know that, as you're one of the people who wanted such a policy in place.

6/11/2008 7:06:20 PM

you're right, Duke.... put me in the box.

but don't forget the others. for instance, you'll find tons of examples for Twista to go in the box, too. if you want me to compile a dozen or so examples before i go down, i'll be happy to.

FWIW, I'm sorry for letting the troll get to me. its just hard to take him serious when all he does is squat and take a dump in every thread.

6/11/2008 8:32:53 PM

i doubt you'll find many posts of mine that do nothing but name call and talk shit with absoutely no reference to a topic like your first post in this thread (a thread in which i was participating just fine throughout the entire first page and 2nd)...i might call someone dumb and then explain my side of the argument...but i don't just blatantly make attempts to talk shit to people and add nothing to a topic...or create complete bullshit threads like your "why you republican asslicks are a bunch of retards" thread...you continue to act like everyone else is the problem and refuse to take any blame yourself...ironic too, since you were the main proponent of getting theDuke to start suspending people for the exact offenses you just committed...i mean i got 10 days suspension for pic bombing a thread and you dont hear me complaining...but all i ever hear you doing is complaining about other people when you're equally as guilty as all of them

besides...you can just log in as JoeSchmoe while you're suspended so whats the big deal? bring your hateful and demeaning posting style to that particular alias for awhile?

---------------

now maybe we can get back on topic like we were before you came into this thread

6/11/2008 8:39:33 PM

well, if i suspend one of his names, i'll get the other one, too.


i've tried to start relaxing the moderation again, though...letting little things slide, at least from generally good posters, and letting things go with a warning sometimes. hopefully we can keep it that way.

now enough about that. back to this otherwise valid thread.

6/11/2008 10:32:49 PM

It's no suprise that Obama thinks the solution to most problems is more gov't control.

He says he'll pass a middle class tax cut. I remember another democrat presidential candidate who promised middle class tax cuts and then, like lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, told us- once he was elected-that the economy was in too bad a shape for any tax cuts.

Obama makes it sound like the 99% of people he claims are suffering- are suffering because the 1% are doing well.

"I'm a pro-growth, free market guy" I hope the GOP latches onto this ridiculous claim and runs with it. Taxing an activity results in less of that activity. Taxing the rich will result in less investment...thus less growth. He tells us that the "burdens and benefits" of the global market must be "fairly" distributed. The Free Market has nothing to do with fairness.

This guy is an arrogant, socialist, class warrior of the worst kind. Hopefully Americans will see through him in time.

6/12/2008 12:28:11 AM

Quote :

"This guy is an arrogant, socialist, class warrior of the worst kind."

I disagree entirely. You can perceive his policies to be "arrogant, socialist, and class warrior" in nature, but Obama as a person? I don't see arrogance. I see a guy advancing policy he genuinely perceives ot be ni the best interest of the country. Bottom line - You don't like him b/c he's a liberal democrat. Fine, but spare us the standard right-wing bullcrap talking points.


Also, I'm sick and freaking tired of the intellectually lazy rhetoric about "more gov't control." Spare me. Here's a thought - some government control is prudent, if not outright necessary. An evolving economic system invariably needs a new set of rules. Does it really take a market catastrophe like the Great Depression or the sub-prime mortage crisis to make you guys realize that?

Look, we get it: more regulation = more gov't control = more taxes. But let's try to remember that there's a flipside to that coin. Stop pretending that the market would be better off if we simply did away with all the regulations. Besides, if the GOP was that much better at running the economy we wouldn't be in all the shit we're in currently.


Lastly, before you respond to kwsmith2's posts, please remember that he's the only one in this thread with some actual expertise in economics. Not that you shouldn't argue with him, but the feeble attempts to pwn him so far have been laughable at best (and downright pathetic at worst). IMO he's still the only guy in TSB with any fucking idea of how the economy actually works...

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 1:06 AM. Reason : [Edited on June 12, 2008 at 12:59 AM. Reason : d]]

6/12/2008 12:52:27 AM

ive just become a kwsmith2 fan.

nice blog: http://modeledbehavior.blogspot.com






[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 4:40 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2008 4:38:32 AM

Quote :

"Anyway point is, the system (Health Care) is a train wreck and I think it would probably be more efficient to move to a government controlled system than what we have now. "

Quote :

"Barack Obama delivered a speech on economic policy yesterday here in Raleigh that may ultimately be looked upon as the renaissance of American liberalism. "

kwsmith2 may be a hero at the Chapel Hill School of Government, but statemetns like the above are not going to gather much favor from free marketeers and classic liberals.

Back to Obama.

He had to fire his scandel-ridden VP advisor Jim Johnson this week. Another lapse of judgement?

His promoting of a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies shows his lack of knowledge on economics.

Quote :

"but Obama as a person? I don't see arrogance"

When he won the nomination, he told the crowd that this was the day the Earth started healing and the sick were cared for. Nothing arrogant about that.

6/12/2008 10:21:09 AM

Actually he said it was the time, not the day

As in the generation in which policies would be in place to make these things start happening

It's flowery rhetoric but you're just being dense if you're really trying to play it off as him saying he'll cure the lepers and turn loaves into fishes

6/12/2008 10:54:03 AM

Quote :

"kwsmith2 may be a hero at the Chapel Hill School of Government, but statemetns like the above are not going to gather much favor from free marketeers and classic liberals. "

Did you hear the speech. It was pretty free market focused. Again there is the issue of the excess profits tax but I am interested to hear exactly what it is that going to be taxed. You could desgin something that might be called an excess profits tax that wasn't that bad.

I know a lot of people are concerned about health care. But the current system is not a free market system and I don't think there is any chance we are going to get a free market system. The question is of the options available which is the most pragmatic.

I think that we people hear anything about economic justice or redistribution they immediately think this has to be socialist in nature. What makes Obama's speech so impressive his that he talks fluently about non-socialist approach to equality.

We have been talking about this in economics for 50 years but it has largely be ignored on the outside.

6/12/2008 11:54:15 AM

This...

Quote :

"He had to fire his scandel-ridden VP advisor Jim Johnson this week. Another lapse of judgement?"

...is completely irrelevant in this conversation, since it has nothing to do with economics or his so-called arrogance. If you want to talk "lapses in judgment," fine. Let's start with McCain's "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" crack. Then there's his support for tax cuts, proposed by members of his own party, which previously he not only voted against, but publicly denounced. These same tax cuts failed to sustain economic growth needed to make up the lost revenue and subsequently put the country in the financial sinkhole we're in currently.

Yeah, I'm hapy to talk about lapses in judgment.. when it's actually relevant...

Quote :

"When he won the nomination, he told the crowd that this was the day the Earth started healing and the sick were cared for. Nothing arrogant about that."

You're really stretching. Look, feel free not to like the guy's policies, but quit trying to make him out to be a total jackass. Twist his words all you like. It doesn't change the fact that your own preconceptions about Obama and his policies drove you to cherry pick vague, sourceless speech references to validate your argument.

6/12/2008 12:49:36 PM

Quote :

"I think that we people hear anything about economic justice or redistribution they immediately think this has to be socialist in nature. What makes Obama's speech so impressive his that he talks fluently about non-socialist approach to equality. We have been talking about this in economics for 50 years but it has largely be ignored on the outside. "

- kwsmith2

Indeed, ignored! It isn't like any President led the fight to improve America's redistribution system through economic incentives! I mean, no one in any major political office supported eliminating a major welfare program like Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and to replace with a system that decentralized and that set time-limits on benefits to provide a better incentive to quickly re-enter the work force. Oh wait! Democratic President Bill Clinton did exactly that!

Obama, on the other hand, does not seem to recognize the importance of incentives in any of his major proposals. Health care is the best example. He wants to force private insurance companies to offer health care packages through garunteed elidgability BUT not mandate that everyone buy health insurance. He apparently doesn't understand the type of incentives this creates. This encourages people to avoid buying health insurance until they are sick, which only leads to higher premiums for the people that actually buy health insurance (which then only encourages them to avoid buying health insurance as well or at most look to the lower cost government-offered options).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html

It's hard to see how the private health care insurance market would be sustainable in this type of environment. In fact, it seems like it would be likely to collapse and leave us with a defacto medcaid-esque single-payer system. Something you said you wanted to avoid!!!!

So let's see if we can reign back in your rhetoric a bit. Can you actually name any MAJOR POLICY PROPOSALS by Barack Obama that led you believe he actually understands the importance of economic incentives. OR was it just that one nice speech?

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 1:29 PM. Reason : ``]

6/12/2008 1:14:55 PM

Quote :

"EarthDogg : kwsmith2 may be a hero at the Chapel Hill School of Government, but statemetns like the above are not going to gather much favor from free marketeers and classic liberals. Back to Obama. He had to fire his scandel-ridden VP advisor Jim Johnson this week. Another lapse of judgement? His promoting of a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies shows his lack of knowledge on economics. "

Jesus, EarthDogg, if you're going to argue Economics with a professor of Economics, you need to do better than spouting some vague Thomas Paine / Ayn Rand homilies. Yeah, okay, you've read the John Locke webpage. good for you.

and then ... Jim Johnson??? whats that got to do with economic policy? dude, you've got nothing. People are becoming embarrassed for you.

Seriously, please. Just stop.




[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM. Reason : ]

6/12/2008 1:23:35 PM

I'll even help you out. Here's a nice article by the Obama-friendly New Republic on his economic policy team. He has some pretty impressive people working for him that's for sure. But it's not really clear how their expertise has been worked into Obama's policy proposals.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4d40a39e-8f57-4054-bd99-94bc9d19be1a

The article goes on at length about the "sociology" and personalities of Obama's policy team, but not much into Obama's actual policies. In fact, here is the only proposal the article mentions that Obama's economic team had any direct effect on...

Quote :

"one key behavioral finding is that people often fail to set aside money for retirement even when their employers offer generous 401(k) plans. If, on the other hand, you automatically enroll workers in 401(k)s but allow them to opt out, most stick with it. Obama's savings plan exploits this so-called "status quo" bias. "

A good idea, indeed. But not exactly awe inspiring or enough to convince me that Obama himself is guided on major issues by a deep understanding of economic. In fact, I believe his previous statements lead one to the opposite conclusion.

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ``]

6/12/2008 1:25:16 PM

Tax Policy Center/Brookings Instutite/Business Week: Most Pay More Under McCain than Obama

Quote :

"Format: Income M - Avg. Tax Bill Change O - Avg. tax Bill Change Difference Over $2.9M McCain: -$269,364 Obama: +$701,885 Difference: +$971,249 $603K and up McCain: -$45,361 Obama: +$115,974 Difference: +$161,335 $227K-$603K McCain: -$7,871 Obama: +$12 Difference: +$7,883 $161K-$227K McCain: -$4,380 Obama: -$2,789 Difference: +$1,591 $112K-$161K McCain: -$2,614 Obama: -$2,204 Difference: $410 $66K-$112K McCain: -$1,009 Obama: -$1,290 Difference: -$281 $38K-$66K McCain: -$319 Obama: -$1,042 Difference: -$723 $19K-$38K McCain: -$113 Obama: -$892 Difference: -$779 Under $19K McCain: -$19 Obama: -$567 Difference: -$548 Source:Tax Policy Center"

Conclusion: >80% of Americans pay less taxes under the SOCIALIST'S proposed tax system

Related:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2008/db20080611_220050.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_24/b4088081624555.htm

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 1:44 PM. Reason : what an odd socialist...]

6/12/2008 1:42:58 PM

With that chart after one raise I am nearly at the break-even point between the two policies. Looks like I am better sticking with McCain as i do not expect to get fired and having to settle for a lower waged job.

6/12/2008 1:46:01 PM

LOL

Why not just say: "I didn't really want to vote for Obama, so it makes sense for me to support John McCain."

6/12/2008 1:57:26 PM

Quote :

"This guy is an arrogant, socialist, class warrior of the worst kind. Hopefully Americans will see through him in time."

Agreed.

Quote :

"His promoting of a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies shows his lack of knowledge on economics."

I guess he never read about Jimmy Carter doing the same thing.

6/12/2008 1:58:33 PM

Socks``, perhaps you're just frustrated from debating people who are rabid Obama supporters, I don't know. However, you seem to be picking a fight here based on nothing.You're aruging as if I am saying that Obama rocks and everyone else sucks.

I am saying that I was impressed on several points. I understand what Bill Clinton did as president. As I said before, his policies were why I was supporting Hillary.

6/12/2008 3:50:39 PM

Not picking a fight. Just wanting you to elaborate on your comments. You said that contributions of economics on income distribution had been "largely ignored". I disagreed. You said that Obama outlined a very "non-socialist approach to equality" and I simply don't see it. And I gave examples that seem to suggest the opposite (not that he is a socialist, but only that his policies do not suggest he understands the contributions of economics as one might hope).

This is a pretty civil discussion. You say one thing, I disagree and list my reasons. I did not call anyone any names and I ain't blacking any eyes. If you care to respond, that's cool w/me too.

6/12/2008 4:21:02 PM

^
No problem we will just keep a running analysis as he outlines his economic policy over the course of the next few weeks.

6/12/2008 7:24:28 PM

Quote :

"Did you hear the speech. It was pretty free market focused. "

I agree with you that he is eloquent. But at one moment, he declares himself "a Free Market Guy" and then wants to tax the capital gains of successful people merely on the grounds that it is "fair."
That's not what a Free Market guy does.

Quote :

"You could design something that might be called an excess profits tax that wasn't that bad."

You can design all sorts of tax ideas to transfer more and more money from the populace to the gov't. And who has the moral authority to decide when profits become excessive? Keep in mind who owns the stock of these oil companies...lots and lots of regular people. Obama is taxing away their "excess" profits. That's not what a Free Market guy does.

Quote :

"...concerned about health care. But the current system is not a free market "

Agreed. But why do we automatically look to go'vt for the answers? Obama's solutions to almost every problem requires more gov't involvement, not less. That's not what a Free Market guy does.

Quote :

"What makes Obama's speech so impressive his that he talks fluently about non-socialist approach to equality."

Obama's policies aim to control our actions more, not free us up to decide for ourselves. HE wants to use taxes to punish the successful for achieving more than others...to transfer their earnings to those who didn't earn it. The aim of capitalism is not to make everything fair and everyone equal. Those who wish to do this are not Free Market guys.

I do not mean to attack you, or Obama, personally kwsmith2. Just robust discussion..right?

6/12/2008 8:23:47 PM

Quote :

"But why do we automatically look to go'vt for the answers?"

Because Health Care doesn't fall from the fucking sky for one, and because "sit and wait for the Holy Free Market to deliver us from evil" doesn't resonate well with uninsured cancer patients...

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 12:14 AM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2008 12:14:02 AM

^ This is simply a market externality, like pollution, that is clearly identified and can be dealt with separately. It does not mean that a free market system still is not the best option. Thus far, each plan I have seen that moves us towards a free market includes provisions to aid debilitating illnesses. It doesn't make much sense to forgo the efficiencies of a free market over an externality that can that can be directly targeted.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 6:54 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 6:54:06 AM

Oh, you'd like to get technical?

Then allow me to retort.

What incentives does the free market provide an insurance company to cover an uninsured cancer patient's illness?

6/13/2008 12:06:07 PM

The same incentive that any company has to honor its debts: its agents signed a contract which the cancer patient can have enforced in court (including a free market court, if you are a believer in anarcho-capitalist dogma).

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/13/2008 1:12:07 PM

Please read the question before you try to answer it.

No contract exists between an insurance company and an uninsured cancer patient.

6/13/2008 1:15:09 PM

Does a contract exist between Apple Computer and an owner of a newly purchased Apple computer carrying a one year warranty? Do you see Apple failing to pay warranty expenses simply because a contract doesn't exist? In the long run, Apple would not exist as a successful company without establishing trust (not too mention the lawsuits that would ensue). These same principles apply to all industries, including health care.

Besides, what my earlier post was getting at was that if there is a sliver of the population with preexisting conditions that is unable to obtain private insurance in the free market, there are a number of ways to narrowly target the problem. There is no reason to forgo the efficiencies of a free market because of an easily identifiable externality, which can be separately targeted. Pollution is another example of a negative market externality. The US government correctly deals with pollution with separate, narrowly targeted policies rather than scrapping the entire free market system.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 11:49 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 11:47:14 PM

Quote :

"What incentives does the free market provide an insurance company to cover an uninsured cancer patient's illness?"

You know there were plenty of charity hospitals in previous times. The poor could go to these for treatment. Doctors had more free time, didn't have to spend their days filling out forms for the gov't.

Most people paid doctors directly, and bought very affordable insurance for big problems. The free market in health care worked pretty good. But politicians wanted more power and control over our lives and started monkeying with the system.

Obama and his ilk will cause health care to fall from the sky, and splat like bird poop.

6/14/2008 12:49:05 AM

Quote :

"Doctors had more free time, didn't have to spend their days filling out forms for the gov't."

Or warding off those horribly overdressed pharmaceutical salespeople...

"Ask your doctor about SHUT THE FUCK UP...."

6/14/2008 2:41:51 PM