In P&CE, Matt mentioned Paul Volcker's recent endorsement of Obama. This leads me to list the important economics players and endorsers in his campaign. It must kill you right wingers to see this. The team: David Cutler Austan Goolsbee Jeffrey Liebman Richard Thaler (unofficial) The endorsements: Warren Buffet Steve Koch (Credit Suisse) George Soros (no surprise there) Paul Volcker Robert Wolf (UBS Americas) Really, the only reason I'm posting this is as a preemptive strike against accusations that Obama is a socialist. Clearly, that ain't the case.
Just because a few rich partisans like Buffett and Soros support Hussein Obama over Billary (and McCain?) doesn't mean Barak's economic wet dream isn't the redistribution of corporate wealth.
Even a quick galnce at their wikipedia entries shows that none of his "Team" seem like the "Cut government spending" types. If he's trying to establish quasi-socialist utopia here in the US (which is what all you lefties want), he's picked the perfect people to help him. I stand by my statment.
Bo; in fairness there is no "accusation" that Senator Obama is pursuing a socialist course; we all willingly "acknowledge" that he is doing so. Why do we think so? Simply put, because he himself says so in every campaign speech he makes! Taxing the wealthy at a different rate is merely one of the highlights of his plan for the redistribution of wealth along a socialist course; surprising it is that someone like Senator Obama, who claims an interest in Civil Rights for all Americans, wants a class system set up for discriminatory and unequal tax rates; yet another of his socialist credentials. Accusations that Obama is a socialist? Isn't he the one championing this fact?
Yeah, you're right. A politician saying one thing while his staff says another to the interested parties is pretty much status quo. Hardly an agent of change.
Goolsbee has noted that Obama's position is that government programs need to be paid for. Now I'm not going to claim that he's a "small government" type; we both know that's not the case. But it's not like the GOP has been pursuing a small government philosophy for the past eight years either, and that's not likely to change in the event that John McCain wins the race. The last president to balance the budget was a Democrat. I suspect that the next one to balance the budget will also be a Democrat. You guys have had 28 years to demonstrate your fiscal responsibility and have failed every year to do so.
The last president who balanced the budget used Enron like methods to do so. And if 28 years is too long a period of time to try to get our house in order over spending, what's your excuse when it comes to fighting poverty? It's been 60+ years and socialism still isn't working anywhere it's been tried.
You're making the "he used the SS trust fund to balance the budget" argument, right? Clinton, in fact, managed to balance the budget one year without dipping into social security. Good thing Obama isn't a socialist, then, isn't it?
The tech bubble must have been pretty huge then. Also, what was the highest tax bracket during Clinton's "surplus" years? It wasn't nearly as high as during the Carter admin., no?
No doubt this played a role, but there have been booms and bubbles in other eras that failed to yield budget surplusses. True. But are people suggesting a return to Carter- or Nixon-level taxes?
Top rate during Carter years was 70%. Rates 1913-2000: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19 Current top is 35%.
Well, that Obama-Goolsbee flap turned out to be total bullshit. Check out the Canadians' admission that the "memo" contained several falsehoods and misrepresentations and the comments regarding the clearly political motivations behind the original leak.
Love your spin there bo... Canadians wouldn't be so worried about the "leak" if it was totally false would they? So is Messiah for or against NAFTA and does that position depend on which state he's standing in?
From MMFA: * A July 17, 2004, Economist article that reported Obama "wants to 'review' NAFTA to check it includes safeguards for American workers, as well as the environment." * An August 2, 2004, Washington Times article that said, "Mr. Obama is a critic of NAFTA and has said that the United States should 'retool trade agreements to include protections for American workers and the global environment.' " * An October 20, 2004, Associated Press article, which stated that Obama "elieves tariffs could cause other countries to impose restrictions on U.S. goods, hurting manufacturers; wants NAFTA renegotiated to include worker and environmental protections; believes the World Trade Organization helps bring about fair deals that protect workers worldwide." * An October 31, 2004, Chicago Sun-Times article that said of Obama's trade policy: "Opposes tariffs, saying foreign countries might retaliate in kind against U.S. exports; would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement to protect workers and the environment." But what's more important, ITN, is that accusations of flip-flopping will forever ring hollow after the right-wing media tried to steer Romney into the nomination.
[snark]I'm sure Clinton saved a nice chunk of change by not responding to the USS Cole bombing[/snark]. But seriously, perhaps starting to roll back the military budget might have helped. That didn't lead to anyting bad happening right after he went out of office... How would Commrade Hussein pay for all the government projects he hopes to bring about? Eliminating corporate welfare (which I'm not against) couldn't pay for everything. I imagine he'd love to bring the highest bracket back up to early Reagan levels (50%).
Of which the GOP had control of Congress for six. Also, no one here has denied the fact Bush spends money like a drunken Kennedy...
Eric beat me to it. Besides Bill's told me I'm not allowed to mention the one man most responsible in his forum any more. Although maybe that will change if he runs for Ohio Gov, as he's apparently looking into, and wins.
Jesus. For GOP bootlickers, you guys suck at making easy arguments diminishing the balanced budget of the Clinton administration. Clinton had a very hostile Congress willing and able to actually shut down the Federal government twice to help him along in that. No way Clinton balances even his own checkbook without Newt's Congress. Really the best way forward is a divided legislature/executive. NOTHING will get done, which is way better than government "doing something!!!!" because they think they have to.