What is Obama's plan for the economy?

[RobinFinderson]

I'm trying to figure out what to call it. It isn't liberal. It isn't conservative. What he and Geithner seem to be doing is attempting to preserve the status quo. To do so requires massive investment of taxpayer dollars (much borrowed) for which we citizens should rightfully expect to see a possible return. This is a form of nationalization, but what is the alternative? Let the companies file bankruptcy and let the chips fall where they may? Apparently that option would lead to economic ruin, which in turn would result in a massive welfare state.

So we are nationalizing slowly, hoping not to take more from the private sector than is necessary to protect the nation's economic security. It seems perversely ironic -- we are socializing, not for the protection of the working class, but for the protection of the capitalist markets which have nursed our rise to power and established our quality of life. We are socializing to protect the fat cats, on the apparent belief that their abuses of power is a small price to pay for the American prosperity we have all become so accustomed to.

It is all so strange. Would it be fair to characterize opposing views on the economy as Pragmatists vs. Moralists?

On the one hand we have Obama and his team of pragmatists, who are willing to get taken to the cleaners by Wall Street in the hope of saving/preserving what was working pretty well for a long time.

On the other hand we have moralists who demand that the reckless gamblers lose their shirts, even if that means global economic devastation.

[il Padrino Ute]

Obama calls it change we can believe in.

[byu71]

The guy is brilliant at the art of deception. He had me convinced he was a moderate to left type. Yesterday he said he does not want the government becoming heavily involved in the free market economy. Horse crap.

Did you see Barney Frank's new recommendation. Anyone who does business with the government is subject to compensation review for all employees. Don't tell me that is just Barney. What has Obama shut down the radical dems have tried to do so far.

The way to scare the living daylights out of folks is to make them feel their financial system is collapsing. People aren't going to panic over GM going under. They need the bigger crisis to gain control. The banks and the financial system.

Yea bankers and Wall St. proved to be greedy idiots and a good number of them are democrats along with republicans. The crisis presents a perfect opportunity for revolt. The downtrodden don't rise up by taking up arms, but by allowing the government to gain more and more control.

Take heart though. Your socialist countries like England and France still survive and the people are OK. Canada isn't bad. Heck, even China has it's pluses.

[RobinFinderson]

The guy is brilliant at the art of deception. He had me convinced he was a moderate to left type. Yesterday he said he does not want the government becoming heavily involved in the free market economy. Horse crap.

To call Obama a deceiver means that you know what his real intentions are. So what are they? To me, it looks like he is trying to have the government interfere as little as possible in order to preserve credit markets, which are the linchpin of modern economies.

If he just wanted to socialize everything, for liberal reasons, he could just do that. Instead there is a socializing process which seems designed to protect private capital rather than seize its control.

As a genuine lefty, I wish he would just get on with it, fix education, fix health care, subsidize the production of healthy food for everyone, and let the capitalists have what is left.

There seems to be general consensus that without government intervention, there would be systemic economic collapse. Maybe he is making an (expensive) effort to save the old system so that when it eventually collapses anyway, and we have to make a move toward PEOPLE-supporting socialism (as opposed to the corporate-socialism we see taking place right now), history will say that the switch only took place after a massive effort to resuscitate old-capitalism.

But seriously, you call him a deceiver, but to what end? And what is the alternative?

[byu71]

To call Obama a deceiver means that you know what his real intentions are. So what are they? To me, it looks like he is trying to have the government interfere as little as possible in order to preserve credit markets, which are the linchpin of modern economies.

If he just wanted to socialize everything, for liberal reasons, he could just do that. Instead there is a socializing process which seems designed to protect private capital rather than seize its control.

As a genuine lefty, I wish he would just get on with it, fix education, fix health care, subsidize the production of healthy food for everyone, and let the capitalists have what is left.

There seems to be general consensus that without government intervention, there would be systemic economic collapse. Maybe he is making an (expensive) effort to save the old system so that when it eventually collapses anyway, and we have to make a move toward PEOPLE-supporting socialism (as opposed to the corporate-socialism we see taking place right now), history will say that the switch only took place after a massive effort to resuscitate old-capitalism.

But seriously, you call him a deceiver, but to what end? And what is the alternative?

OK, let me qualify it. He appears to me to be deceptive. He talks like a moderate to left type and is governing exactly how I would expect someone to the left. He seems to have told people not to believe everyone who said he was as left as his voting record indicated. OK, that is my perception. I will deal with that, you don't have to.

We can argue about what incentive is. I think he is doing things that eventually will kill incentive. It will hurt people taking responsibility.

Not to knock Latino's that have come to this country, but they themselves say they have trouble getting their kids to work hard like they did because they expect things to be given to them. Just like the rest of kids I might add.

This is becoming more and more a victim and you owe me society.

[PaloAltoCougar]

The guy is brilliant at the art of deception. He had me convinced he was a moderate to left type. Yesterday he said he does not want the government becoming heavily involved in the free market economy. Horse crap.

Did you see Barney Frank's new recommendation. Anyone who does business with the government is subject to compensation review for all employees. Don't tell me that is just Barney. What has Obama shut down the radical dems have tried to do so far.

The way to scare the living daylights out of folks is to make them feel their financial system is collapsing. People aren't going to panic over GM going under. They need the bigger crisis to gain control. The banks and the financial system.

Yea bankers and Wall St. proved to be greedy idiots and a good number of them are democrats along with republicans. The crisis presents a perfect opportunity for revolt. The downtrodden don't rise up by taking up arms, but by allowing the government to gain more and more control.

Take heart though. Your socialist countries like England and France still survive and the people are OK. Canada isn't bad. Heck, even China has it's pluses.

Random thoughts in response...

Fear has always been a huge lever for lawmakers. Just as W was able to use 9/11 and the terrorist threat to push through his favored legislation, Obama can use the threat of global economic collapse to push his.

We're not in fully uncharted waters here, after the Roaring '20s, people were angry at Wall Street and sought revenge against the fat cats. Congress voted on (and I believe defeated narrowly) a bill that would have required corporate borrowers of government funds to limit executive compensation to $15,000. I think the biggest point of such (often stupid) measures, then and now, isn't so much revenge, as an attempt to restore or reaffirm fairness in the system. Our system works only so long as everyone believes they have a reasonable shot at success, and that, with inevitable and sometimes huge exceptions, justice prevails and the playing field is fairly even.

In another thread, Solon observed that "The Roman Republic was the most complicated political system I've ever encountered. They had at least 4 (sometimes competing) legislative bodies that could pass laws that were binding on all the people, not to mention 10 individuals with 'veto' power. But it worked for 450 years because people wanted it to." Obama's "plan" (and I'm not sure what it is either) may eventually prove to be a disaster, but I voted for him in the hope that he would be better than McCain at restoring a sense of fairness and confidence that we can get through the worst economic threat in our lifetimes, that such confidence would ultimately lead to success because people "would want it to". He may well prove to be a miserable failure, but so far, despite some missteps, I think he's doing reasonably well at promoting a sense of fairness, which is one of the reasons he's been all over the map.

[RobinFinderson]

OK, let me qualify it. He appears to me to be deceptive. He talks like a moderate to left type and is governing exactly how I would expect someone to the left.

Securing private capital at taxpayer expense is a lefty approach to governance? Hardly.

[byu71]

Random thoughts in response...

Fear has always been a huge lever for lawmakers. Just as W was able to use 9/11 and the terrorist threat to push through his favored legislation, Obama can use the threat of global economic collapse to push his.

We're not in fully uncharted waters here, after the Roaring '20s, people were angry at Wall Street and sought revenge against the fat cats. Congress voted on (and I believe defeated narrowly) a bill that would have required corporate borrowers of government funds to limit executive compensation to $15,000. I think the biggest point of such (often stupid) measures, then and now, isn't so much revenge, as an attempt to restore or reaffirm fairness in the system. Our system works only so long as everyone believes they have a reasonable shot at success, and that, with inevitable and sometimes huge exceptions, justice prevails and the playing field is fairly even.

In another thread, Solon observed that "The Roman Republic was the most complicated political system I've ever encountered. They had at least 4 (sometimes competing) legislative bodies that could pass laws that were binding on all the people, not to mention 10 individuals with 'veto' power. But it worked for 450 years because people wanted it to." Obama's "plan" (and I'm not sure what it is either) may eventually prove to be a disaster, but I voted for him in the hope that he would be better than McCain at restoring a sense of fairness and confidence that we can get through the worst economic threat in our lifetimes, that such confidence would ultimately lead to success because people "would want it to". He may well prove to be a miserable failure, but so far, despite some missteps, I think he's doing reasonably well at promoting a sense of fairness, which is one of the reasons he's been all over the map.

Believe me I want the guy to succeed and I am not a Rush, Hannity or Glenn Beck doomsdayer. I would like him to give me a glimmer of hope he is a moderate left guy. Maybe like yesterday blaming the GM thing on management and the unions. Of course I know where his bread is buttered and that is the dems. He has to hold onto this ridiculous assumption the executives are mainly republicans.

We will see what we will see. He just scares me a lot more now than he did. I actually wasn't that bummed to see him elected. Especially as an alternative to McCain.

[RobinFinderson]

I would like him to give me a glimmer of hope he is a moderate left guy. Maybe like yesterday blaming the GM thing on management and the unions.

Your issue is that he isn't blaming the right people? I think there is going to be plenty of time to point fingers.

[byu71]

Your issue is that he isn't blaming the right people? I think there is going to be plenty of time to point fingers.

My issue is that he sows the seeds of envy and contempt for rich people. Some rich people deserve much of our anger. If anyone has seen me post over the years on CB they will note I have been one of the biggest complainers about hedge funds, investment banking and Wall Streets urge to screw the public. However, these folks come as much from the democrat side of the political persuasion as they do republicans. Goldman Sachs is a spawning ground for screwing people from the democratic side of the fence.

However there are a lot of entrepreneurs out there who are growing small companies and in a position to through there efforts make some good money. Why lump them in with the robber barrons. Why raise their taxes so it is harder for them to accumulate wealth.

How this for a start. Let's single out movie stars and the folks in the media. Anything 1 million let's tax them at 70% for a start.

[RobinFinderson]

My issue is that he sows the seeds of envy and contempt for rich people. Some rich people deserve much of our anger. If anyone has seen me post over the years on CB they will note I have been one of the biggest complainers about hedge funds, investment banking and Wall Streets urge to screw the public. However, these folks come as much from the democrat side of the political persuasion as they do republicans. Goldman Sachs is a spawning ground for screwing people from the democratic side of the fence.

However there are a lot of entrepreneurs out there who are growing small companies and in a position to through there efforts make some good money. Why lump them in with the robber barrons. Why raise their taxes so it is harder for them to accumulate wealth.

How this for a start. Let's single out movie stars and the folks in the media. Anything 1 million let's tax them at 70% for a start.

Poor rich people.

[byu71]

Poor rich people.

Your ignorance on the issue is telling. There is nothing poor about them. If you don't like them, doesn't really bother me. The problem with humans is though we don't do things out of the goodness of our hearts. We do things for our own self interests. That may involve money, our need to be wanted, our need to be respected, etc. Whatever it is, very very few do it out of the goodness of their heart.

Unfortunately the need to be wanted or respected isn't as good a motivator as the money needs. Fine line here. There is good in going after money and bad, as with anything.

However, the good is that some who are very good at it the legitimate way provide others a way to meet their needs. Like you though a lot of people don't get it. Like the girl who worked as a Secretary for one of my friends. He said to her he wasn't voting for Obama because his taxes would go up. She said she was voting for him because hers would go down and she didn't care if his went up. He told her she would if he has to lay off some people.

[RobinFinderson]

Your ignorance on the issue is telling. There is nothing poor about them. If you don't like them, doesn't really bother me. The problem with humans is though we don't do things out of the goodness of our hearts. We do things for our own self interests. That may involve money, our need to be wanted, our need to be respected, etc. Whatever it is, very very few do it out of the goodness of their heart.

Unfortunately the need to be wanted or respected isn't as good a motivator as the money needs. Fine line here. There is good in going after money and bad, as with anything.

However, the good is that some who are very good at it the legitimate way provide others a way to meet their needs. Like you though a lot of people don't get it. Like the girl who worked as a Secretary for one of my friends. He said to her he wasn't voting for Obama because his taxes would go up. She said she was voting for him because hers would go down and she didn't care if his went up. He told her she would if he has to lay off some people.

Your magical ability to infer my ignorance on the subject, based on three words, is truly remarkable.

From my POV, Obama seems to be dumping tons of public dollars into a system with the primary purpose of PRESERVING the engines of capitalism, and not the other way around. Like I said, it is expedient socialism for the purpose of securing capital.

Your problem with Obama is that he appears to be anti-wealth. However, if the world economy were to collapse, all of the amassed wealth in the world would become worthless. Obama is attempting to preserve the old systems that rewards the fat cats. He is trying to quell populist anger with one hand while he attempts to rescue the wealthy with the other hand. The entire enterprise is expensive, so he is raising taxes. He raises these taxes on the wealthy because they are the ones with the wealth. The wealthy are also the greatest beneficiaries of a rescued financial system.

Seriously, Obama is looking out for the wealthy, but as is typical, the rich want their money protected and other people to foot the bill for that protection.

[byu71]

Your magical ability to infer my ignorance on the subject, based on three words, is truly remarkable.

From my POV, Obama seems to be dumping tons of public dollars into a system with the primary purpose of PRESERVING the engines of capitalism, and not the other way around. Like I said, it is expedient socialism for the purpose of securing capital.

Your problem with Obama is that he appears to be anti-wealth. However, if the world economy were to collapse, all of the amassed wealth in the world would become worthless. Obama is attempting to preserve the old systems that rewards the fat cats. He is trying to quell populist anger with one hand while he attempts to rescue the wealthy with the other hand. The entire enterprise is expensive, so he is raising taxes. He raises these taxes on the wealthy because they are the ones with the wealth. The wealthy are also the greatest beneficiaries of a rescued financial system.

Seriously, Obama is looking out for the wealthy, but as is typical, the rich want their money protected and other people to foot the bill for that protection.

I am trying to perform the same magic you do. "Your problem with Obama" as per above is a magical ability on your part to categorize my feelings. The fact I can do it in 3 words may indicate my magic is a little finer tuned than yours.

Seriously, Obama is looking out for the wealthy and the privileged. My worry is he is setting things up to stifle those who would like to climb the old latter of success and become wealthy.

Whose opportunity to become wealthy do you think a 5 % increase in the tax rate on those that make over $250,000 a year really get hurt. The young entrepreneur who has just now gotten to the level of making $250,000 a year or the Kerry's of Heinz fortune who already have $100 million or more. Perhaps maybe the Kennedy's who already have their's socked away made off of ripping people off by Joe Kennedy.

Again how about the entertainment folks who have zillions and make zillions. How about you and I join up battling the rich. If someone has a net worth of $15 million, then let's tax them at 70% on anything they make over a million. If we are truly going after the rich, let's get those who aren't really creating anything.

[Hallelujah]

Believe me I want the guy to succeed and I am not a Rush, Hannity or Glenn Beck doomsdayer. I would like him to give me a glimmer of hope he is a moderate left guy. Maybe like yesterday blaming the GM thing on management and the unions. Of course I know where his bread is buttered and that is the dems. He has to hold onto this ridiculous assumption the executives are mainly republicans.

We will see what we will see. He just scares me a lot more now than he did. I actually wasn't that bummed to see him elected. Especially as an alternative to McCain.

Agreed. I was hoping he would succeed for the sake of all of us. And I wondered how he would keep the moderates (which helped him get elected in the national election) and the left wingers (which helped him get the Democratic nomination) both happy.

Seems like he is leaning LEFT, big time! I guess he's hoping that the moderates help him keep a majority in the senate/congress in 2010.