One take on Obama's raise taxes on "the rich" plan:
Raising taxes on the wealthy, especially via higher rates on investment related income, is an easy populist position, always earning a cheer from significant elements of Obama's base. All well and good, since budget proposals do often cater to one's political allies.
There's a flip side, however.
Post-partisan hope and change doesn't succeed by expanding existing fissures in American politics; it seeks - at least rhetorically - to achieve the converse.
Accordingly, consider these three stories:
- Why The Street Hates Geithner
- Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More
- Jim Cramer is advising his viewers to "Obama-proof" their portfolios
The unsteady course of the last few weeks is what created that first headline. What happens if that angst in the financial community with the competence of the Obama Administration on these issues intensifies?
The anti-investment ( = anti-growth) nature of Obama's proposed tax & spend budget created the 2nd headline, and is not appealing to serious people on both sides of the aisle who understand disincentivizing capital is not the way to promote economic growth. For now, it's the Larry Kudlows of the world complaining. Yet, if such anti-growth policies progress in the legislative process - in the budget, healthcare policy, energy reform, etc. - will such complaints become more mainstream and widespread?
Lastly, Jim Cramer is a lot of things, but he's also more than open to Democratic governance. Encouraging investors "Obama-proofing" one's portfolio, however, is not exactly signaling a warm embrace of Obama's policies thus far.
Kudlow's lament included this:
Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters -- especially hedge-fund types who voted for "change" -- are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.
Yes, hedge fund managers did indeed support Obama en masse. If such possible rebellions unfold, it would be a marked shift from the Clinton era, when the financial and business establishment were largely content with 42's triangulation with a GOP Congress.
If the economy remains less than robust and if the establishment business community becomes increasingly restive with Obama, will that cause 44 more problems than which can be made up for by the David Horseys of the world cheering for standard-fare liberal dogma?
The first article you cited basically makes the case that the Feds should quit playing around with capital infusions and just seize the insolvent banks which probably includes some giants like Citicorp and BofA. Management should be replaced and shareholders wiped out (they basically already are). Then the banks can be restructured into healthy entities and sold to new investors, allowing the govt to recapture at least some of its costs.
No argument from me on this point and I think you would find many on the left calling for it. Since you cited the article, I'm wondering, do you agree?
Posted by: scottd on February 28, 2009 03:28 PMMy point in linking to the article was it serving as an example of a mood of unhappiness with Administration, after high hopes for both Obama & Geithner. I wasn't expressing a preference for or against any part of the detailed debate that unfolded in the meat of the discussion of the article.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 28, 2009 04:27 PMIs anyone else struck by the odd fact that the party that looks to Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber for leadership constantly berates a graduate of Harvard Law School as an "empty suit'?
That same party who claims to love America and refer to themselves a patriots are now openly advocating armed rebellion against the lawfully elected government of America.
You folks are starting to scare me.
People are seeing this Harvard Law School graduate screwing up their lives and maybe their children and grandchildren's lives in a mere month in office. He's doing just what I always knew the Dems would do once they regained power, use every excuse to extend the reach of government and their socialist dreams. He's terrified people with his constant fear-mongering. They've quit spending, companies are losing money and laying people off. Aren't you paying attention?
They're overeaching as I believe was Hinton's point. Right now there are a lot of Obama voters who had no idea what they were voting for. The do now and they don't like it one bit.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 28, 2009 06:07 PMBy the way George W. Bush went to Yale.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 28, 2009 06:59 PMI didn't say anything about all Harvard Law graduates being Marxists. You are blowing my comments out of porportion in the same way you just called Palin and Huckabee "flat earthers".
It's hardly worth the time having a conversation with you.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 28, 2009 07:14 PM
I do believe he's the same person that in an earlier thread became obsessed with "Republicans shoving religion down our throats" if my memory serves.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 28, 2009 07:29 PM
Tea bags and pork rinds:
The Toddler in Chief
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Way to go bambi.
Hope and change dude!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 28, 2009 07:43 PMNow, let me speak about President Obama for just a second. President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have ever witnessed. He has extraordinary talents. He has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass. No, seriously. No, no, I'm being very serious about this. It just breaks my heart that he does not use these extraordinary talents and gifts to motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be. He's doing just the opposite. And it's a shame. [Applause] President Obama has the ability -- he has the ability to inspire excellence in people's pursuits. He has the ability to do all this, yet he pursues a path, seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes earners and punishes -- and he speaks negatively of the country. Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill. Barack Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night in a corner of America that's very obscure. He's constantly telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worst times are ahead. And it's troubling, because this is the United States of America. Anybody ever ask -- I'm in awe of our country and I ask this question a lot as I've gotten older. We're less than 300 years old. We are younger than nations that have been on this planet for thousands of years. We, nevertheless, in less than 300 years -- by the way, we're no different than any other human beings around the world. Our DNA is no different. We're not better just because we're born in America. There's nothing that sets us apart. How did this happen? How did the United States of America become the world's lone super power, the world's economic engine, the most prosperous opportunity for an advanced lifestyle that humanity has ever known? How did this happen? And why pray tell does the President of the United States want to destroy it? It saddens me.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 28, 2009 07:51 PM
I don't this is what anyone at Sound Politics wants to hear. Try S/P or other liberal blogs where it's standard uncivilized fare.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go enjoy the Marquez/Diaz boxing match.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 28, 2009 08:03 PMPlease save your money, buy gold and have a year's worth of food saved as you will need it!!!
Posted by: Tim on February 28, 2009 08:22 PMSpeaking of blowing things out of proportion...
Posted by: Mike H on February 28, 2009 09:02 PMYou are obviously disregarding all current facts on where the United States stands on our current problems with being in serious debt. Why would Hillary go to China and specifically ask for them to continue to purchase our bonds? Republicans have not been crying 'wolf' for the last 50 years per your previous remark!! Please be prepared for a major disaster with Obama being President!! Otherwise please explain why we will not have a disaster.
Posted by: Tim on February 28, 2009 09:07 PMCrusader - you have refused to answer my question on why we will not have a financial disaster with Obama?
-Posted by Crusader at February 28, 2009 07:15 PM
Birthday Poll: Fewer Than 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution
A new poll released just in time for Charles Darwin's 200th birthday found that only 39 percent of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," and just 24 percent of those who attend church weekly believe in that explanation for the development of life on Earth.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 28, 2009 09:32 PM
No kidding.
And there my fellow travelers is the credo of the left, the guiding principles of the democraps in power.
Remember that statement folks and remember to quote it when they whine and moan about "evil" "selfish" conservatives: you have just witnessed a rare honest, if despicable, liberal.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 28, 2009 09:38 PMHmmmm... So why post at all on this thread since you are only concerned about yourself? That aspect of your personality has nothing what so ever to do with any Republican or Democratic positions!!! Again, please tell us about your concerns on the potential Obama financial disaster that will affect all of your friends.
Posted by: Tim on February 28, 2009 09:55 PMYet you have no compunction against welfare, food stamps and redistribution of wealth via onerus taxes.
Thanks for proving the liberal hypocrisy we all recognize.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 28, 2009 09:58 PMYou have yet to answer my question of your concerns on the potential Obama financial disaster that will affect all of your friends. Are you a totally absolute Libertarian only concerned with your own welfare and nobody else? Your remarks equivocate many different attitudes that make no sense and have no relationship to any particular political or religious positions
So please answer my question about your Libertarian thoughts about the potential Obama financial budget disasters that are looming with your 'body politic'.
Posted by: Tim on March 1, 2009 12:10 AMYou've got to excuse Crusader's lunacy; after all, he did descend from a pit of primeval ooze.
Anyone who could possibly believe that everything in nature that we see, hear, smell, taste and touch just came about by accident has a lot more faith in the false religion of evolution than Christians do in almighty God.
This is an obsession of the far left. In my observation it is not part of the libertarian agenda other than some may regard Christianity as a threat to their belief that government not interfere with a woman's "choice" regarding abortion.
It is the far left that lives in constant dread of Christianity, and constantly mocks creationism as Crusader does relentlessly. It the largest of the many clues he leaves that he's not exactly any sort of Republican, or libertarian.
My favorites last night was when he totally lost it, started using the f-word and asked me, "we're you in the military?". When I told him I was leaving to watch boxing he commented, "
Go back to your retarded boxing match."
Libertarians and Republicans don't make those kinds of comments and judgements. Marxists, and far leftists do. They can't help themselves.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 1, 2009 08:58 AMPosted by: Daniel on March 1, 2009 11:53 AM
Let's see- do I work my butt off to give the lion's share to Obama... or go golfing.
yeah- that will be a tough one for high income earners.
Posted by: Andy on March 1, 2009 12:19 PMIs there a distribution of wealth and income that leads to healthier, or less healthy societies? If you take your money to Dubai, your daughter comes back to the U. S. to school, and because you have "let the standards in the U. S. go", she gets raped and murdered? Or do you send a security team with her?
Does using pyramided capital for maximum growth (meaning material growth) look good in the short term--but then if it turns into serious climate change, do you screw your own descendants just as much as everyone else's? What if the web of economic production and civilization is more delicate than you think, and it falls apart, and your grand kids get to cannibalism a half-generation after than the grand kids of the poor do? Has the growth you drove been worth it.
I suggest some broader perspectives. There are big risks, perhaps, lying ahead. Prudence usually beats sheer denial any day.
The part of it that bothers me the most is that the MSM glosses over the fact that just raising those taxes on the rich isn't nearly going to pay for all the new spending and regulations that Obama has imposed. "Closing the tax loopholes" isn't going to pay for it either. It's trillions of dollars in obligations, and no way to pay for it. Eventually, everyone else's taxes are going up.
Posted by: Palouse on March 2, 2009 07:43 AM
I won't miss him.
Posted by: Paddy on March 2, 2009 10:08 AM