Sort of fitting that a man who taught at the University of Chicago and who has Larry Summers for an advisor would use economics for more than just balancing a national budget.
I wish he would start with that.
- push to eliminate US nuclear weapons
- encouraging an international currency and removing the US dollar from a position of power
- spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession
- increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton
- letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan
- taking over private businesses and forcing out their CEOs
I guess you always need a Carter to usher in a Reagan.
...And bring on the drive-by downmods with no responses.
> push to eliminate US nuclear weapons
I have seen no evidence of anyone in the administration suggesting any such thing.
> encouraging an international currency and removing the US dollar from a position of power
Ditto.
> spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession
What's the problem with that? Be specific.
> increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton
'to the highest levels since Clinton' means 'to a higher level than after Bush's tax cuts.' Was the economy, and the federal treasury, in better shape in 2000 (when Clinton left office) or eight years later?
> letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan
Given that this happened two days ago, it's a little early to assess the administration's response.
> I have seen no evidence of anyone in the administration suggesting any such thing.
Really? What about: "Obama Calls for Nuclear Free World, Says U.S. Will Lead" (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200904/200904060...)
Search Google news for US nuclear weapons.
> > spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession
> What's the problem with that? Be specific.
Uhm... Spending huge amounts of money that the USA doesn't have isn't such a good idea?
> > increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton
> 'to the highest levels since Clinton' means 'to a higher level than after Bush's tax cuts.' Was the economy, and the federal treasury, in better shape in 2000 (when Clinton left office) or eight years later?
When Clinton left office there was a recession (in 2000 and 2001). It was called the dot com bubble.
Oh. Also take into account that the Democrats controlled Congress the past few years. So maybe it is the Democrat's fault for the current mess?
> > letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan
> Given that this happened two days ago, it's a little early to assess the administration's response.
Didn't Obama want to cut ballistic missile defence?
As for $3.55 trillion for 2010 - unfortunately, I think it's probably necessary. Global manufacturing and trade are falling at rates faster than any seen during the Great Depression. Debt levels are higher now than back then. Deleveraging will take quite awhile. And while some have claimed Japan's deficit spending during its lost decade failed, since growth petered out at 1%, Richard Koo of Nomura makes a fairly convincing case that this was actually a success: they averted a full-scale depression, after all. (http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/04/richard_koo_on.htm...)
Saying that Obama has increased marginal tax rates to the highest level since Clinton is a cheap rhetorical trick. I don't think top rates going from 36% to 39.6% represents the tipping point between capitalism and socialism. And lower top marginal tax rates under Bush certainly didn't create a booming economy. This is the worst economy in 80 years. Also, remember that under Eisenhower, top rates were as high as 90%. However, those top rates only applied to individuals with incomes around $75 million in today's dollars. I think there's a convincing argument to be made for introducing more brackets at the top of the tax bracket - lumping in people making 300k with people raking in several million a year makes little sense. Nate Silver made this case a few weeks ago. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/missing-1000000-tax-b...)
Forgive me if I'm not scared about Obama firing CEOs of bailed out firms. Like it or not, certain companies are judged to be too economically, socially, and politically important to fail. If we're going to bail out these firms, getting rid of the incompetents who brought them onto the dole seems like the obvious first step. I wish Obama would get rid of Ken Lewis and the other banking geniuses who played such a large role in bringing on this collapse.
Letting North Korea "get away with firing a missile over Japan." This is disingenuous on so many levels. First, it was a dud, not a missile. Second, it's not as if George W. Bush or Clinton was able to deter North Korea either. Kim Jong Il is determined to starve his people to develop weapons. Short of going to war - which would devastate Seoul and kill millions - there are no good options aside from pressing the Chinese to press North Korea more forcefully.
And finally, you are aware that ballistic missile defense does not actually exist, and likely won't exist in the near future, right? It's something Reagan made up and threw untold billions of dollars into to scare the Soviets. What's the point of pouring money into a nonexistent technology - especially when we are going bankrupt? Ballistic missile defense might be a bigger scam than Bernie Madoff.
Also remember the vast array of shelters and the like that went away with the Reagan tax rate cuts. If you're going to argue that someone isn't telling the whole story, it's poor form to leave out huge details.
Getting rid of incompetents sounds like a great idea. Too bad that Obama isn't interested.
We're still waiting for the politcal class to take a hit. (Barney Frank anyone?)
Heck - we're still waiting for Obama to fire advisors who ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground.
> What's the point of pouring money into a nonexistent technology
It's unclear how being able to hit and destroy ballistic missles in certain cases is "nonexistent technology".
Nope - it's not deployed, but ....
Also perhaps we've studied history and realize that Reagan was a terrible president, lied through his teeth, and hurt the United States in a lot of ways, while Jimmy Carter went on to do a lot of good, and maybe we're offended by your little smirky statement.
During the 8 years that Reagan was president the US economy grew by over 30%. This is an amazing feat.
> while Jimmy Carter went on to do a lot of good
Really? Do you think Carter was a good president?
I wonder who created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Rela...)
which had a pretty big hand in the sub-prime meltdown.
Carter wasn't good in office, but after leaving he did incredible things. And he always, always, took what he did seriously.
I dislike superficial things such as that. The whole smooth talking and celebrity thing is not for me. But in all fairness, the president that is the most like that is Barrack Obama.
One thing that was good about Bush was that he was not very charismatic. This allowed people to judge him by his actions (and no cult of celebrity existed around him).
The cult of personality that you build around a lot of politicians (esp. Obama) will be bad for you in the long run.
> and there was that Contra thingie that he outright lied about
Here is a quote from WP:
> While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[4] there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that he authorized this plan.
I would not be surprised if he did not know what was happening. The CIA did a lot of things that would fall into a “morally grey area” during the cold war. A lot of these things needed to be done.
> Carter wasn't good in office, but after leaving he did incredible things.
Admittedly he did better than Al Gore, but what did he really accomplish? His habitat for Humanity project is for me stupid.
Why would you get foreign volunteers to build a house in a country with high unemployment? The economic effects was not thought through well – it would disadvantage labourers in the country.
Where?
Here are a few quotes:
> Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.
> Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University, in an opinion piece for CNN, calls for “getting rid” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that “pressure banks into subprime lending.”[60]
> asked if the CRA provided the “fuel” for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior
> CRA, which passed in 1977, had no causal role in the subprime meltdown that started in 2007.
Uhm... You know that it was "strengthened" (Expanded) by Clinton twice?
But that was a different, more responsible era than the last administration.
[1] Not that Bush Sr. and Clinton deserve no credit, of course, Some folks have unfairly vilified Bush Sr., but the fact is, economists agree that the US was emerging from recession before the end of his administration