One the news I heard this report quoting President Obama's speech in Wisconsin blaming Republican for the recession. He wants voters to ask themselves "do I want to invest in our people, in our middle class and making it stronger, and our infrastructure and our education system and clean energy -- is that one vision, or are we just going to keep on doing the same things that got us into this mess in the first place." There are two parts I would draw our attention too--His plan and the blame.
Obama says he is investing in our people, middle class and infrastructure, education and clean energy. Raising taxes on the middle class in the form of increased health care cost and with environmental legislation they are going to ram through, increased energy costs. He also will allow the Bush tax cut expire which is a raise in taxes. I don't think money is well spent toward infrastructure and education so throwing more money at it is not necessarily a good thing. And clean energy is unproven and not cost effective, and only will be when the competitive market gets there. I think President Obama's progressive policies are making the recession longer than what the "somewhat" free market economy would correct. Raising taxes prevent private investment to grow the economy, increase spending straddles generations with crushing debt, and redistribution of wealth steals money from one pocket to give to another, not really growing the economy either, and is mostly a payoff to his donors and supporters the unions and liberal organizations.
Now to the later part, the blame. What things happened under the Bush years and republican led Congress that were bad and led to the financial crisis? This is a very misunderstood subject, and I am going to let the comments answer it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I could understand if you called Obama's views wrongheaded or misguided, but I hardly think they justify calling him a liar. I don't think that type of overheated rhetoric is very productive.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the stimulus is concerned, I agree that it won't have the long-term stimulating effect that both Bush and Obama hoped it would. Hopefully this will be the end of Keynesian experiments.
As for the blame game, I think it's a cheap shot to blame it on Bush. For the real cause of the financial crisis, here's a primer: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money
Why is a lie overheated rhetoric? When do I call it a lie? When do I call someone a liar? The liar part is when President Obama blames Republicans. I think it was progressive democrats that created the housing bubble which lead to financial crisis, both of which have been poorly handled.
ReplyDeleteIs it any surprise that I call a politician a liar? I call republicans liars too, like I did Senator Bennett when he came back to Utah campaigning as a conservative. Or Bush when he was selling TARP saying if we don't do this the economy will be crushed. That was a lie, and misguided and wrongheaded. I think we shouldn't lower our expectations of politician, rather we should expect and demand honesty for all.
That just proves my point. You believe that progressive democrats created the housing bubble, and I believe there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Does that mean you're a liar? No.
ReplyDeleteCalling someone a liar is a prime example of "rhetorical extremism that render[s] civil discussion impossible."
http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/the-mormon-ethic-of-civility
The Bush tax cuts were created with the idea that they'd expire, so I don't consider letting them expire constitute a "raise in taxes" when they're just returning to their pre-discounted levels. Besides, they are only expiring for those families making more than $250k and individuals making more than $200k. That *is* leaving more money in the middle class's pockets. Let's be honest, if you make more than that, you're not really middle class, especially when the average American income is about $34k.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about clean energy being unproven, but we have to start somewhere. I mean, why do you have a hybrid if you aren't trying to "feel-out" cleaner energy? Part of investing in other forms of energy is to determine if it is viable over the long-term. It's not something we're going to just "know". It takes time, research, and risk. Our history shows that we only really have used one type of energy up to this point - oil. We have to attempt to change that somehow, to the benefit of all.
I agree, throwing more money will not fix education in and of itself, but if better educators and programs can be supplied along with more money (especially in poverty-stricken areas), I think it would go a long way towards improving public education. Not everyone can afford to send their kids to private school and not everyone can homeschool their kids (due to a range of factors, up-to-and-including their own incompetence). Money by itself solves nothing, yes, but coupled with excellent educators, money is the difference between dated textbooks vs. newer technology, antiquated methods vs. improved processes, etc.
I will admit that I don't know who is to blame for the economic recession...and I'm not sure that it can be attributed to either party alone. There are a lot of things that go on and a lot of money spent on BOTH sides that is wasteful. When Obama inherited the recession, there were already 44 million jobs lost, so we can hardly blame that directly on him. That's not to say that I'm saying it's all Bush's fault, either. Bush did start two huge wars that cost a ton of money, though, so I'm sure that has contributed at least a little. Either way, last I heard, the recession is over. We may not be booming, but we're not sliding back anymore, either. And quite frankly, I think it should hurt all of us a bit. Then, we might be smarter as individuals when it comes to credit, spending, and saving - both individually and as a community/state/country.
One party is not to blame for all the current ails of society. Rather, it is a nice mixing and distorting of the two parties that have brought us to this point. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have got it wrong. Perhaps they ought to change their names...
Republic-rats and the Demo-cretins. I jest. : P
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe tax cut expiration also affects small businesses that file individually. The $250,000 plus isn't their own earnings. It pays for the business and the employees. They will feel the most pain. President Obama knows this is the case, but wants the revenue and is truly lying when he won't acknowledge this aspect.
ReplyDelete@Sandy: That's a pretty compelling argument, but the numbers are a bit fuzzy over how many businesses it would actually affect (McConnell says 50%, Obama says 3%, but there's no actual way to know). I don't know what to think about the "Obama wants the revenue" comment. For what? Some evil scheme he's hatching to destroy America?
ReplyDeleteI actually do think the tax cuts should be renewed across the board, but for a different reason. Typically it is considered less effective to cut taxes for the wealthy because they tend to save more of it than middle class earners. Saving doesn't have a direct stimulating effect. But where do they save it? Not under a mattress. Most of them invest it in the market, which means that they are providing capital to businesses. That DOES stimulate the economy.
I tend to side more with "Brad" and "Some guy" on this discussion. There is definitely plenty of blame to go around for both political parties and the Washington political establishment in general... not to mention the American people in general who have been so wasteful, run up so much consumer debt, failed to save, and have spent beyond their means for so long... all of the above is what got us into the recession...
ReplyDeleteAnd while I agree Paul that probably most politicians lie in a variety of ways on a fairly regular basis, I don't know Obama's mind or heart and can't say whether he is a liar with regards to his comments regarding the recession (I think he believes what he is saying to be true, though many disagree on the facts/details)... but I think the more important issue is the nature of the public/ international policy he is pushing/endorsing and what that means for the country... on that note, I agree with Paul...
With regard to the comment about throwing more money at infrastructure and education, I actually disagree. It is certainly not prudent to just throw more good money after bad, but investing in the future of this country through infrastructure and education is VERY important in my opinion... the key word is prudence... and that is where I get nervous... I don't have much confidence in most of my elected officials to do the prudent thing...
Hi Brad, I agree wholeheartedly with you regarding the wealthy stimulating the economy. They can do it with less taxes and importantly--stability in regulations. As for Obama, his ideology is redistribution and government growth. He is sincere in his beliefs, but sincerely wrong.I personally put the moniker 'evil' on that doctrine. For it is truly about power and control.
ReplyDeleteThank you Brad, Some Guy, Sandy, and Jon and Jacque for your comments. I appreciate the discussion. I see that we may not agree on everything, but I respect the opinions shared. More importantly having discussion is part of what makes an informed electorate.
ReplyDeleteI would like to mention a couple of principles that may be better to discuss and I will try to do this in future posts. I hope we may have good participation. Free market capitalism versus Keynesian policies. Small limited government versus big government.
I stopped reading the above comments due to lack of time and partly interest so continue reading with that in mind if this merely reiterates or repeats something prior.
ReplyDelete1) Any/all emotionally charged words need to be left out in order to accomodate/facilitate a rational discussion.
2) The economic meltdown was a result of several factors; legislation requiring a loosening of private industry safeguards to prevent "risky" lending, the incentives created by public/private industry to lend to risky investors, the inaccurate assessment of risk in the financial sector on said investments(the AAA rating), and irrational behavior by consumers and producers in the market(building well beyond market indicators).
So...Both the public AND the private sector share some responsibility for the blame. I'd hardly blame one political party or another. I do believe the catalyst for the problem was the legislation which released the reins on otherwise reasonable lending requirements/standards.
As for "immoral profits" being made...Garbage. Without profit there is no industry/innovation/employment/healthcare...ANYTHING.
Hey Paul, you mentioned Obama's pledge to invest more in our nation's infrastructure. That area of government spending is one that I go back and forth on because, in general, I am all for cutting spending, shrinking the size of government, etc. But on the other hand, from a selfish standpoint, the industry that I work in is directly benefitted by increased government spending on infrastructure projects, particularly transportation projects. It's an inner debate that I constantly grapple with.
ReplyDeleteI like you would love for my industry to be hugely successful. Most civil engineers, especially since land development is on life support, depend on government agencies. One conservative principle that I think it essencial is to saving our nation as a free republic and from the crushing debt is small government and a return to federalism. It has always been ironic to me that federal government and federalism share the word federal. But I think the USDOT should be eliminated and so should federal funded projects. Perhaps they had their time to develop the interstate highway system, but now that it is constructed, now each state should be responsible in payment, expansion and maintenance for their own roadways, transit systems, and collaborating with neighbors.
ReplyDelete