|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:55 pm Post subject: Obama's SotU: Nostalgianomics |
 |
|
The President's Nostalgianomics
| Quote: |
It doesn't seem unfair to judge him on his failure to actually deliver what he promised:
| Quote: |
[Feb 1, 2009 interview]
Lauer: "At some point will you say, `Wait a minute. We've spent this amount of money, we're not seeing the results. We've got to change course dramatically.' "
Obama: "Yeah, look, I'm at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I've got four years and...
Lauer: "You're going to know quickly how people feel about what's happened."
Obama: "That's exactly right. And you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress. But there's still going to be some pain out there. If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition." |
If Obama didn't want to be judged on the basis of the economy's performance, he shouldn't have let his mouth write checks that he couldn't cash. If it turned out to maybe be a little harder to steer the economy where you want it than he thought it was, then maybe he should lay off claiming that the Republicans drove the thing into a ditch.
But he hasn't. Instead he's complaining that the GOP won't let him steer--pretty rich considering that he started out with a 60-seat majority in Congress, and chose to ignore the economy in favor of passing a health care bill that has gotten even less popular since we passed it to find out what was in it.
There's no real common thread holding all of these proposals together except what you might call "nostalgianomics".
| Quote: |
Think about the America within our reach: a country that leads the world in educating its people; an America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs; a future where we're in control of our own energy; and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded.
We can do this. I know we can, because we've done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. |
What a strange thing to say. "We know how to do this?" Do what? Have World War III?
. . .
As David Boaz said last night, Obama's talk of blueprints was telling. A blueprint is a simple plan that an architect imposes on an inanimate object. Obama really does seem to think that he can manage the economy in the same way. No, I don't think that he is a socialist. Rather, I think that he really believes there are technocratic levers that can make the income distribution flatter, the rate of innovation faster, and the banking system safer, without undesireable side effects.
The problem with all nostalgia isn't even that it's necessarily wrong--by many standards, the 1950s was a great time to live. Rather, the problem is that it almost always wants to turn a transient moment into a steady state--or worse, only "the good parts" of those transient moments.
I had hoped that the last three years had taught Obama the limits of this sort of thinking. But if they have, he certainly hasn't chosen to share that hard-won knowledge with the rest of us. |
Obama's economic vision appears fairly incoherent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've been disappointed in Obama as well but the question begs. Is Romney or Newt an improvement? The choices are going to be one of those 3. We can wish so and so would be in all we want but lets deal with reality. Those are the choices. Who is the lesser of the evils? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| I've been disappointed in Obama as well but the question begs. Is Romney or Newt an improvement? |
No and hell no.
A criticism of the President is not an endorsement of his rivals. I thought this was understood. I mean its an ex-pat board.
Now I don't mind the discussion drifting this way on thread page 3, but lets try to critique the President's SotU.
Yglesias: Liberals and Mfg
| Yglesias wrote: |
When liberals imagine the future, they're implicitly imagining a future in which we relying on robots and Chinese people to produce a larger share of the country's flow of manufactured goods. There is a tension between this and President Obama's valorization of manufacturing leading the charge toward the creation of an America "built to last." And yet in my dialogues with liberals after the speech, it seems to me that among my acquaintances the more left-wing ones were the most favorably disposed to Obama's emphases. |
Or to put it more simply: what the guy on the right said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
My issue with the right and Republicans in general is that the positoin they are using is Obama is bad, vote him out. However, they fail (in my opinion) to state why the alternative(s), Romney or Gingrich are an improvement. If its the same, why change ship? I don't see anything in either of the two leading Republican candidates policy positions that are particularly innovative. Its the same Republican mantra. A mantra that when they get into office they always find a way NOT to do at times such as cut the size of government or cut spending or don't add to the debt. Bush, Bush elder and Reagan have all increased the debt. Republicans will give you a why for each one maybe but the fact remains it was increased. However, the hypocracy is when a Dem does it its akin to being the anti Christ. So, for me their beef is that its not their guy increasing it and it was increased for reasons they don't agree with.
I'm not a Dem. I'm an independent. Dems have their issues as well. I wont get into that. I dont expect ANY of the major candidates to adhere to their policy position. Circumstances, the groups that gave them campaign money and their own lack of integrity and commitment to what is right will see to that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| My issue with the right and Republicans in general is that the positoin they are using is Obama is bad, vote him out. However, they fail (in my opinion) to state why the alternative(s), Romney or Gingrich are an improvement. |
Vote for Ron Paul 
Romney is just an Obama clone, so you'd do just as well to flip a coin in that case... But even if it comes down to choosing between Obama and a person like Gingrich (who, I'll grant, is the nastiest personality of the bunch, but still just working for the same special interests and agenda as both parties), I'll just continue to vote with my feet... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577183250095478594.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
| Quote: |
Obama endorsed the political ruse he calls the Buffett rule, which asserts as a matter of moral principle that millionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than middle-class wage earners. Specifically, Mr. Obama is proposing that anyone earning more than $1 million pay at least 30% of that income to Uncle Barack.
The White House says that if a millionaire household's effective tax rate falls below 30%, it would have to pay a surcharge�in essence a new Super Alternative Minimum Tax�to bring the tax liability to 30%. For those facing this new Super AMT, all deductions and exemptions would be eliminated except for charity.
The Buffett rule is rooted in the fairy tale that taxes on the wealthy are lower than on the middle class. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office notes that the effective income tax rate of the richest 1% is about 29.5% when including all federal taxes such as the distribution of corporate taxes, or about twice the 15.1% paid by middle-class families. (See "How Much the Rich Pay," January 23, 2012.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| My issue with the right and Republicans in general is that the positoin they are using is Obama is bad, vote him out. However, they fail (in my opinion) to state why the alternative(s), Romney or Gingrich are an improvement. |
Vote for Ron Paul
,,, I'll just continue to vote with my feet... |
Ron Paul won't be nominated. I don't believe in not voting. Not judging others who don't but I personally feel it plays into the power structure's hands for one and I feel like I have a less of an argument to complain when I've opted out of the process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| My issue with the right and Republicans in general is that the positoin they are using is Obama is bad, vote him out. However, they fail (in my opinion) to state why the alternative(s), Romney or Gingrich are an improvement. |
Vote for Ron Paul
,,, I'll just continue to vote with my feet... |
Ron Paul won't be nominated. |
If you and everyone else chooses to believe in self-fulfilling prophecies spoon-fed you by the corporate media, then I guess not.
If he's not nominated, then vote independent. I mean if you want to talk about "feeding into the power structure", what on earth do you think voting for either of the establishment candidates (who are placed before you by the power structure, like Obama was) does? Having the illusion of choice is little different from having no choice at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577183250095478594.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
| Quote: |
Obama endorsed the political ruse he calls the Buffett rule, which asserts as a matter of moral principle that millionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than middle-class wage earners. Specifically, Mr. Obama is proposing that anyone earning more than $1 million pay at least 30% of that income to Uncle Barack.
The White House says that if a millionaire household's effective tax rate falls below 30%, it would have to pay a surcharge�in essence a new Super Alternative Minimum Tax�to bring the tax liability to 30%. For those facing this new Super AMT, all deductions and exemptions would be eliminated except for charity.
The Buffett rule is rooted in the fairy tale that taxes on the wealthy are lower than on the middle class. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office notes that the effective income tax rate of the richest 1% is about 29.5% when including all federal taxes such as the distribution of corporate taxes, or about twice the 15.1% paid by middle-class families. (See "How Much the Rich Pay," January 23, 2012.) |
|
Buffett's statement was made in protest of the carried interest designation of hedge fund income being designated as capital gains instead of ordinary income. Originally, Obama conflated carried interest designation with overall tax rates paid by the middle-class and those paid by the wealthy.
But Obama's new rule, that those making $1million/year should never pay less than 30%, actually does accurately derivate from the Buffett rule. What it will do is destroy the favorable capital gains distinction for those making $1million/year, which is exactly the reason why Buffett pays a lower rate than his secretary.
The WSJ unsurprisedly conflates the term millionaire with those making $1million/year. Wiki defines millionaire as:
| Quote: |
| A millionaire (originally and sometimes still millionnaire) is an individual whose net worth or wealth is equal to or exceeds one million units of currency. |
Most millionaires make less than $1million each year, but do have $1million in net worth or wealth. Indeed, the White House has phrased the principle this way:
| Quote: |
| �Billionaires should not pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle class. He�ll talk about details tonight,� Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer tells ABC News. |
The WSJ goes on with further red herrings, such as calculating the effective tax burden of the top 1% in comparison to the middle-class. Well guess what? Most of the top 1% are neither quite billionaires or those making $1million/year.
$343,927/year makes it into the top 1%
| Quote: |
Think it takes a million bucks to make it into the Top 1% of American taxpayers?
Think again. In 2009, it took just $343,927 to join that elite group, according to newly released statistics from the Internal Revenue Service. |
$1.4 million/year puts the earner into the top 0.1%. So Obama's Buffett rule will tax substantially fewer than the top 1%, and probably more like only the top 0.25%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In order to be in the top 1% of income in the District, you have to make more than $600K. There goes that dream of mine.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| In order to be in the top 1% of income in the District, you have to make more than $600K. There goes that dream of mine.... |
I thought you lived in Cali? I guess you've moved.
| sirius black wrote: |
| I don't believe in not voting. Not judging others who don't but I personally feel it plays into the power structure's hands for one and I feel like I have a less of an argument to complain when I've opted out of the process. |
I pretty much agree, although I'm less concerned about the legitimacy of complaints in others' eyes and more concerned about exercising democratic rights others in the world don't have and for which our forebears have fought and died. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I pretty much agree, although I'm less concerned about the legitimacy of complaints in others' eyes and more concerned about exercising democratic rights others in the world don't have and for which our forebears have fought and died. |
Everyone should be voting, especially if they aren't interested in what the two large parties are saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I pretty much agree, although I'm less concerned about the legitimacy of complaints in others' eyes and more concerned about exercising democratic rights others in the world don't have and for which our forebears have fought and died. |
Everyone should be voting, especially if they aren't interested in what the two large parties are saying. |
what is the point when corporations vote with money? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama will be doomed the moment he has a live tv debate with Romney (aka the Jerry Springer show).
Romney is winning votes from the female sector not by presenting a coherent policy.. but by ridiculing his opponents. Its a bit like making fun of other guys at the bar when you're trying to score. Sends the women wild.
i be happy when the whole dog and pony show is over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
