Luckily producing a real budget is a lot harder and more rigorous than making campaign speeches. Look at the free enterprise quote above. He might really be thinking that this has to be tempered with more effective regulation, but that wouldn’t work well in a sound bite (and would no doubt lead to him being called a socialist.) Clinton did far better than I ever thought he would, so sometimes you gotta go with the candidate least likely to screw up.
I think Obama will govern much like Clinton: fairly mainstream Democratic in terms of overall policy thrust and also pragmatic and respectful of the opinion of serious economists. Clinton bucked party orthodoxy on a few important issues like free trade and deficit reduction but he also helped poor people through policies like the expansion of the earned income tax credit. His deficit reduction initiatives including the increase in the top marginal tax rates helped keep interest rates low which helped the long boom of the 90’s.
There was a great article in the New York Times a few weeks ago about Obama and his economic advisers and I was very impressed with what it said about him and his team. People like Goolsbee and Furman seem like really top-notch policy economists who are sincere about using government to help those who need it and at the same time respectful of the limits of state intervention. They remind me of a phrase by economist Alan Blinder: “hard heads, soft hearts” which was also the title of his book.
If I KNEW Obama would be like Clinton I would breathe a sigh of relief. My problem is, I suspect Obama will be more like Bush (I can hear the groans)…I think he has convictions and that he will do what HE thinks is best in the end, not be swayed by politics or unpopularity. When Clinton’s initial plans didn’t work out he basically stole the play book from the other side and ran with it. It was brilliant. Will Obama do the same thing? I just don’t know.
-XT
Trade protectionism. Anti-outsourcing legislation (or at least penalizing companies that outsource). Increases in taxes (IMHO much farther than simply the top 5%)…something I’m not necessarily opposed to. However, increases in taxes to pay for vast new programs that I think are the real world price is being under rated. New environmental legislation that will also be costly in the short term. Increased taxes and pressures on business, especially IMHO small business.
I could go on and on, but what would the point be. You will either say something along the lines of ‘well, why is that a problem?’ or claim that what I’m hearing from Obama is different than what he REALLY means. WHen I hear both candidates talk I hear them pandering to the Der Trihs or gonzomax crowd…simplification of the problems and demonization of Big Business/Big Oil/Capitalistic Fat Cats/Blah Blah Blah. The same attitude in the recent frenzy of threads about how our capitalistic system has put us in the current straights with Freddy and Fanny, etc etc…
-XT
This is the article that I was talking about. It’s hard to do justice to it in a few lines so I won’t try but I think Obama comes off as genuinely intelligent and thoughtful in a way that few politicians of either party are. If you want to understand his economic views you should read the whole thing.
(bolding mine)
This, to me, is key. Despite the cat-calls of “elitist” and perverse sneers at higher education (and source of that education) launched by the right, the “conceptual infrastructure” goes far towards answering that question. As has also been mentioned, actual understanding – if there is such a thing – is the hallmark of a specialist, not something we expect of the POTUS. However, using education and experience as a proxy, Obama has a background in rigorous analytical thought and working with disparate, extraordinarily complicated issues.
Does he have an understanding of the economy? I daresay being as involved as he has been, yes, he has as good a grasp as is possible without crossing into specialist territory. This isn’t to say his is better per se, or that his understanding is fundamentally correct (economics relies on too many variables and is inherently prediction-based, so no one could ever be said to be ‘right’ until after the fact), but he has a solid understanding as evidenced by his proposals and their vetting by certain economists (of course, if you put two in a room you’ll get three opinions, so all one can really say of that is that there are no glaring holes or oversimplifications) and his innate ability to understand, comprehend, and make the best decision possible given a range of alternatives presented by his advisers.
I would be happy to debate this, but I don’t understand what you mean in your second paragraph. If you could take another crack at it, I would appreciate it.
And I actually agree with most of what xtisme says. I’ve posted similar comments about McCain on other threads.
To briefly summarize, I believe (or think)…
- Obama is much smarter than McCain, in the classic horsepower-under-the-hood-sense
- Obama probably has a much better grasp of economic principles than McCain
-
- and 2. above can be helpful, but also irrelevant
- McCain’s messaging is terrible.
- McCain is seemingly confused at times about key economic conditions and contradicts himself
- McCain shoots-from-the-hip with answers that are sometimes incoherent
- Despite all this, and despite a bad signal-to-noise ratio, in my opinion there is a discernable (fuzzy, but discernable) trendline towards smaller government, lower taxes and freer markets from McCain’s 20-plus years in Congress.
- I suppose it’s possible that Obama might push through the right policies if he were elected, but I can’t see that from his speeches so far. And I sure can’t see it from his legislative track record.
Hence, my vote goes to the crotchety old war horse and the babe from Wasilla. At least for now.
I got lost somewhere … it seems that your choice hinges on number seven, which is at best an intuitive imagining of a very large picture, and an acceptance of right wing propaganda (i.e., that Republicans are the party of smaller government, lower taxes, and freer markets). I didn’t think that this fit with overall analysis of respective administrations.
This doesn’t mean I’m disagreeing with your vote per se (there are many other reasons to decide to vote Republican, if their platform generally matches your own), but I’m not following a discernable logic to your post.
It’s not beyond the realm of imagining that McCain’s crotchety mavericky record that Republicans hated while he was a Senator will be a predictor of this behavior while in office. But it’s disconcerting that he seems to be jettisoning his free-thinking record as flotsam while he has been running for office. He also seems much more handled than Obama and I am more concerned with him that his advisors will construct his cabinet.
The Lieberman VP non-selection is a signal of this.
Number 7 is a big one. And I’m not talking about Republicans. I’m not a Republican. And I try to avoid listening to propaganda as much as I can and focus on Core Principles (of the candidate) and Track Record. So I’m talking about McCain individually, and not the Pubbies. They lost me with the Contract with America. Got me lathered up a bit, then forgot about it the first weekend after they were elected.
There’s a few other things I like about the guy. I thought (think?) his approach to immigration reform was/is sensible. And it showed me that he had some onions, too, because it went against all the ranting and raving of the Republican majority. They HATED him for that. Absolutely hated him.
I like Obama. I think he’s smart. I think he’s a reasonably decent fellow. But if I take what he says literally, and assume (for a worst case) that he’ll actually try and do it, and extrapolate from his thin track record, I just can’t get there from here. I just can’t.
I’d vote for Clinton '96 (Bill, not Hillary) before either one of these guys. And I can’t believe I’m typing that as it comes off my fingertips. Somebody please throw a cold bucket of water on me, quickly.
So where’s T? When is tax revenue and worker output maximized? I don’t disagree that he could have answered the question more clearly, but the question was overly simplistic and generic. The curve is a… curve… not a line. There’s a point of maximization and a point of diminishing returns. Which means that each raise and cut has to be taken in context of where it falls on the curve. It’s not a simple ‘raise taxes → increase revenues’ formula.
There’s a huge caveat here - it’s not protectionism for protectionism’s sake. It’s to bring labor standards up across the board and make sure everyone’s competing on an equal (human rights anyway) basis. Other countries economies are still going to vastly differ from ours so pay rates are going to differ across the globe. Why is it a bad thing to make your trading partners recognize basic workers’ rights as a condition for free trade?
There’s another option: He gets it, sees the enormous value of the market but also sees the ugly side and wants to minimize it without crippling the system.
Not following you. Is there anything in particular you find objectionable? I mean, e.g., I hope you’ll agree America needs universal health care like every other industrialized democracy has got, and Obama’s plan in that regard is actually remarkably tepid and corpo-friendly and would leave the private insurers in business.
Absolutely 100% will-never-convince-me-otherwise opposed to universal healthcare. Putting the government in control of allocating scarce resources (in this case skilled personnel, drugs and equipment) and deciding who-gets-what-and-when is IMHO a recipe for disaster. Why would anybody be so willing to grant that freedom that they now possess to a government bureaucrat?
Which is not the same as opposing vouchers or EITC-type insurance benefits for low-income workers to get access to healthcare. And I’m talking ‘universal insurance’, not ‘universal coverage’. There is a big difference.
Also think there is much, much, much, much more that could be done to free up markets and strip away regulation that is choking the healthcare market today. Mr Obama’s wife even conducted an interesting little experiment along those very lines in Chicago. I applaud it and would like to see more of it.
I’ve lived in 3 separate countries (meaning lived, not visited as a tourist) with universal healthcare and raised a family with children in each. There were pluses and minuses to each. Interestingly, the ‘pluses’ in each usually traced back to some little bit of freedom in the market (vis-a-vis available drugs or allowable procedures) that were libertarian pockets in an otherwise inefficient delivery system. I liked the pluses because they were unavailable in the supposedly ‘free market’ US-healthcare system we have today.
Our healthcare system sucks. But I’ll take it over the other 3 universal systems any day, and agitate to make it freer. Not burden it with more regulation and inefficiency. And sure as hell not take decisions out of my hands, and out of the hands of my family, and give it to a government employee.
</hijack off>
</return to Obama economic thread>
It’s a good thing that Barack Obama’s not advocating that, then! Whew!
The signal to noise ratio is far too loud to discern the signal and something we have gone round-and-round about here on the SDMB before.
Is McCain the Mcain of pre-2000 or the McCain of post-2000? They are distinctly different men and McCain as Maverick went off the rails in the last 8 years.
Yet many, many people keep operating under the assumption of the crotchety McCain of pre-2000 who would buck his own party.
Personally I had a good regard for McCain pre-2000. I think he has caved nearly wholesale since then to the Bush administration since. For me, when assessing the man and what he is likely to do, his record of the last 8 years trumps his previous record. Particularly since he has explicitly said he’d like to continue many of the policies Bush has implemented. That is astounding since it has shown itself to be a train wreck.
Additionally, as I have shown in another thread around here, Democratic economic policies are historically much better for the country than conservative policies. So while conservatives want to beat the war drums on the evil, protectionist, regulating happy, tax-and-spend democrats the historical record does not bear out their predictions of doom and gloom. More than that, the country prospers noticeably better under democrats than republicans.
As for Obama promising more than he can deliver well, seems part-and-parcel of any political campaign of any stripe. I too wish they’d be more straightfoward and honest about it all but politics just does not seem to work that way for any of them. I seriously doubt McCain can deliver on his campaign promises either.
I hear you. I generally agree. His messaging in this campaign has been terrible. And I honestly don’t know if we’re getting the pre-2000 or post-2000 McCain. I’m working with the data I have and making judgement calls accordingly.
I tried to keep my logic short, punchy and humorous in the earlier post, but that seems to have sparked reactions more than anything else. A few more, for completeness sake…
…the immigration thing. As mentioned previously.
Legislative gridlock has a certain appeal to me. Any party with a clean sweep, and 60+ Senators for a filibuster-proof majority, scares the living daylights out of me.
Getting down to the short strokes here…the following points aren’t nearly enough to swing my vote one way or another, but are nice little add-ons…
I have to admit I like the whole Joe Lieberman-McCain buddy thing. The East Coast Jew and the sunburnt Navy geezer from Arizona, coming together on common ground. McCain has a real, demonstrable track record of reaching across the aisle and not giving a hoot about what the other Republicans say. Obama might do the same thing, I suppose. He SAYS he will. But McCain is in the tiny majority of people who have actually done it.
In general I like people who don’t give a damn whether they are popular or not. He’s starting to lose me on that one a bit, I admit, with the current campaign propaganda. But there were a few ‘crickets chirping’ moments during his acceptance speech at the RNC that were actually encouraging for me.
Not to mention the fact that merely stating that government revenues went up when taxes in the upper brackets were cut implies a causal relationship that cannot be established. Government revenues are going to go up as the economy grows anyway-- to justify voodoo economics you need to be able to show that revenues went up MORE after cutting taxes than they would have if you had left them alone or raised them. And of course there is no way to know for sure what would have happened.
<sigh>
How serious are you about making an informed decision? I ask because, so far, you’ve shown an astounding lack of factual information about Barack Obama’s policies and legislative record.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590), sponsored by Senators Coburn (R-OK) and Obama. . . was signed into law last year.
Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation Signed into Law by the President
Obama champions sweeping Death Penalty Legislation
I’ll link you to more later, when I can get the search engine here to work.
That is true. It’s impossible to run a pure test-and-control without an alternative universe where you try plan B. Most of the analysis involves different time periods with different policies, with best efforts made at adjusting for different variables. We have to do the best we can.
I’m happy to debate this, if you’re interested. But I don’t understand what ‘justifying voodoo economics’ means. You’ll have to explain that one to me.
Terrific. I’d be glad to read them. Thanks for the quick reply.
My first reaction is that these are walks and singles in Double-A ball, whereas McCain has a few 30-homer seasons in the majors. I think he may also have had to put his neck on the line more often with his own party.
I’ve only glanced at these links, but so far I don’t see anything wildly controversial that would have brought the houses of Democratic pain down on Obama. If you have data to contradict that assertion, I’ll be happy to educate myself more on it and soften/retract my earlier statements. Thanks again.