Obama surging in polls; unveils economic plan

[Sam_Stone]

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Wow, you found tidbits! Very impressive. If in the future I treat your posts in the way you treat Obama’s — picking out a few phrases to paraphrase editorially as I see fit — you will forgive me.
[/quote]

What are you talking about? He has a web page full of bullet points. I reproduced them here, in shorter form.

Just so you know, Obama isn’t running for president of Libertaria. If a corporation is to be assigned the rights of an individual, then it should be treated as one. If workers can’t dissolve the corporation, it’s only fair that the officers can’t dissolve unions.

Are you sure you’re a libertarian? A corporation is owned by private investors or owners. Employees are contracted to work for that corporation. Employees don’t acquire ownership rights. The statement you just made is almost the antithesis of what Libertarians believe.

Bush already set it to rise to $7.25 by 2009, an increase of 29% Obama is raising it only 23%. But as you surely know anyway, so long as there is a minimum wage, it really doesn’t matter how much it is.

WHAT? Hey, let’s set it to $30, then.

Well, it does.

No, it does not. The money comes from somewhere else. I can’t believe you’re buying into the myth of governments using tax money to create jobs.

He said no such thing.

From Obama’s web site:

Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.

The horror.

It will be. Re-open NAFTA, and there goes your sweetheart deal for oil from Canada. You don’t get to unilaterally re-negotiate trade agreements to give your workers a better deal. Canada’s got a pretty strong hand on this one.

Again, he said no such thing.

From Obama’s web site:

Invest in U.S. Manufacturing: The Obama comprehensive energy independence and climate change plan will invest in America’s highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. Obama will also provide assistance to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient vehicles are built by American workers.

Of course, you have to read that in the context of what his ‘comprehensive energy independence and climate change plan’ does - which is mandate draconian changes to manufacturing and energy creation in the U.S.

I think you tried to get two for one with this one.

If I did, he did. I was quoting from the web site.

That’s not true either. He says that professional people, like nurses, shouldn’t be called “supervisors” just to deny them the right to organize.

From Obama’s Web Site:

Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA’s passage and sign it into law.

Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.

Your reckless paraphrase is misinformed, I’m afraid. The cap is actually already $102,000, and is tied to the average wage index in perpetuity. Lifting the cap altogether would result in people making over $20 million a year paying 2.7%, which has the net effect of eliminating Bush’s 2.7% tax cuts for that income group. In any case, his website does not say what you say it says. I says only that he would raise the cap, not lift it. If you had actually cited your claims, responding to them would have been easier, but then maybe that was the plan.

From ABC News:

Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike
'08 Democrat Suggests Taxing Those Who Make More Than $97,000 Per Year

Although Obama’s suggestion goes farther in raising taxes on the rich than any other major presidential candidate, he is not alone in toying with the idea.

Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., has also talked about raising the Social Security tax cap. But he would do so in a more limited way than suggested by Obama.
…
While Obama has suggested imposing the 12.4 percent tax on all income above $97,000 per year, Edwards would only impose it on those making more than $200,000 per year. Income between $97,000 and $200,000 would continue to be exempt from Social Security taxes under the Edwards proposal.

Two times fifteen is not twenty-eight. In any case, he would reset it to the same level that Clinton had it during his boom economy.

I was not aware that Libertarians were in favor of Clinton’s capital gains tax increase.

Gotta run to work. I’ll answer the rest later.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Liberal]
In this morning’s news, Obama is establishing an executive level office that will work full time to fight virulent Internet rumors, glurge, and spam.
[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of the Onion story from last summer: John Edwards Vows To End All Bad Things By 2011

[Liberal]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
I was not aware that Libertarians were in favor of Clinton’s capital gains tax increase.
[/QUOTE]
Me neither. But let me remind you — again — that Obama isn’t running for president of Libertaria. You want libertarianism? Repeal laws against secession.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I wasn’t talking about whether they were good or bad-- just that this easily falls into standard Democratic party policy. Raise taxes on the rich, and reduce taxes on the middle class. Whether his numbers are identical to Kerry’s or not isn’t the issue-- the general idea is the same. Oh, and raise taxes on corporations. Again, I’m not arguing goodness or badness, just same 'ol-ness.

[/QUOTE]

Why does it surprise you that the “standard” policy from 2002 - that the cuts were bad - isn’t still reasonable, especially considering that they didn’t work very well. Forget about goodness and badness. The Republican response to any rollback of tax cuts is to yell tax increase. If McCain’s stupid gas tax summer vacation plan were passed, would restoring them in September be an evil tax increase? (And to be fair, Hillary’s stupid idea also.)

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Of course he is. For one thing, he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts on the rich, and leave the ones on the poor and middle class. This will make the tax system more progressive. But of course, you can claim this isn’t a ‘new’ tax on the rich. So…

[/QUOTE]

Factually incorrect. The tax cuts are set to expire in 2011 (Cite. ) which was done to make the impact of them on the budget look less. So, no repeal is necessary - just doing nothing gets rid of them, though it would be good if they could be repealed (or redirected) earlier.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Why does it surprise you that the “standard” policy from 2002 - that the cuts were bad - isn’t still reasonable, especially considering that they didn’t work very well.
[/QUOTE]

I was responding to the OP, who said this plan was “stunning” and “bold” and was wondering what was “stunning” and “bold” about it. That’s all.

Forget about goodness and badness. The Republican response to any rollback of tax cuts is to yell tax increase.

They are correct. It is a tax increase.

If McCain’s stupid gas tax summer vacation plan were passed, would restoring them in September be an evil tax increase? (And to be fair, Hillary’s stupid idea also.)

It would be an increase. Whether it would be “evil” or not is debatable. I never said any of Obama’s proposals were evil, btw.

[Plexi_Guy]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

[ul]
[li]Give all workers the right to unionize, and prevent employers from taking measures to stop them. Couple that with his plan to prevent employers from permanently firing union employees, and you’ve set the stage for labor to begin to increase in power both in overall scope and within companies, as it has in Europe. [/li][/ul]

This in particular is typical politcal pandering. Workers have the right to unionize right now! Gasp. Shock. Awe. Obama is in favor of the EFCA, which basically takes away the right for an anonymous vote for organizing. I don’t see how taking away an anonymous vote, which is the only way to ensure no intimidation tactics are used, is supposedly more free.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Plexi Guy]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

[ul]
[li]Give all workers the right to unionize, and prevent employers from taking measures to stop them. Couple that with his plan to prevent employers from permanently firing union employees, and you’ve set the stage for labor to begin to increase in power both in overall scope and within companies, as it has in Europe. [/li][/ul]

This in particular is typical politcal pandering. Workers have the right to unionize right now! Gasp. Shock. Awe. Obama is in favor of the EFCA, which basically takes away the right for an anonymous vote for organizing. I don’t see how taking away an anonymous vote, which is the only way to ensure no intimidation tactics are used, is supposedly more free.
[/QUOTE]

Really? Theoretically, yes, but practically it might be a different matter. Take a look at this article on WalMart and you will see there is at least some controversy on how free unions are to organize in at least some places. You’d think that stagnant wages would result in at least some increase in unionization, wouldn’t you?
There’s plenty of evidence that more protection of the right to organize is needed, so this is hardly pandering.

[Liberal]

Obama said today that his tax plan is flexible, and that he would make adjustments if necessary. He does not intend to be dogmatic about it. That alone is a refreshing change.

[Plexi_Guy]

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Obama said today that his tax plan is flexible, and that he would make adjustments if necessary. He does not intend to be dogmatic about it. That alone is a refreshing change.
[/QUOTE]

Hardly. Has any president (or any politician, really) actually pushed through a campaign promise unchanged? The reality of politics is that it’s just plain impossible.

On the other hand, I guess when Bush said ‘No more taxes’, and then raised taxes, he was just being ‘flexible’, right?

[tim314]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Of course he is. For one thing, he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts on the rich, and leave the ones on the poor and middle class. This will make the tax system more progressive. But of course, you can claim this isn’t a ‘new’ tax on the rich. So…

He also plans to double the capital gains tax. That will predominantly hurt the investor class. He even admits that this may not raise revenue (revenues went up after the last two capital gains tax cuts), but will be done out of ‘fairness’.

But the biggest tax hike on the rich is his plan to get rid of the $97,000 cap on Social Security taxes, and institute a flat 12.7% social security tax on all income over $97,000 (in addition to all other current taxes). This is a HUGE tax increase - over 100 billion dollars a year, and it comes straight from everyone making over $97,000 per year. And it turns Social Security into a welfare program - the logic behind the current cap is that since benefits are capped, and since it’s supposed to be a user-pay savings program, the tax should be capped. By eliminating the tax cap but leaving the benefits capped, Obama will turn it into a wealth transfer program from the rich to the middle class and poor.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the summary. That all sounds wonderful to this liberal.

Especially “make the tax system more progressive” (only fair, since the value of a dollar in terms of its effect on your quality of life decreases the richer you get) and “wealth transfer from the rich to the middle class and poor” (more money for the people who need it!)

[Liberal]

[QUOTE=Plexi Guy]
Has any president (or any politician, really) actually pushed through a campaign promise unchanged?
[/QUOTE]
Don’t know. You’ll have to ask the person who said something about that. What I was saying was that, as a candidate, Obama is not an immovable idealogue who won’t adapt his plans to changing conditions. I don’t recall a candidate who was like that since Bobby Kennedy. They always say, “Here’s what we need to do,” then dig in their heels and defend that position until their faces turn blue.

[Sam_Stone]

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Don’t know. You’ll have to ask the person who said something about that. What I was saying was that, as a candidate, Obama is not an immovable idealogue who won’t adapt his plans to changing conditions. I don’t recall a candidate who was like that since Bobby Kennedy. They always say, “Here’s what we need to do,” then dig in their heels and defend that position until their faces turn blue.
[/QUOTE]

That doesn’t make Obama different than the others - just smarter. He’s conditioning the debate ahead of time to avoid the kind of ‘flip flop’ charges leveled against Kerry. By stating ahead of time that he plans to be flexible, he can now attempt to dodge back to the center for the general election and someone insulate himself from the charge that he’s changing his mind.

let me remind you — again — that Obama isn’t running for president of Libertaria. You want libertarianism? Repeal laws against secession.

I understand that. But you’ve been making the claim that Obama is a good choice for libertarians - or at least alluding to it. Bringing up Austan Goolsbee as his advisor, saying that your favorite part of his speech is where he praises the free market, etc.

But make no mistake. If Obama get elected and gets what he wants, you’re going to see the biggest shift towards statism and away from liberty that the U.S. has seen since at least the New Deal. That is, if you take him at face value.

There is no doubt that he’s a gifted politician - all you have to do is look at the wide range of people who think that he is the best thing ever. Libertarians AND socialists love him. He’s a walking Rorschach test - you see in Obama what you want to see, and that’s exactly his strategy. He throws a bouquet to the free market, and then claims he’s going to tax ‘windfall profits’. Government spending is ‘investment’. New regulations are ‘job creation programs’. Obama supports the second amendment wholeheartedly, but he doesn’t want kids and criminals to have access to guns, or to have machine guns on the streets (which opens the door for all sorts of gun regulations which are standard run-of-the-mill attempts at restricting access).

He’s learned the lessons of past liberal failures - he’s co-opting the language of the right to describe policies which come from the left.

[Digital_Stimulus]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
But make no mistake. If Obama get elected and gets what he wants, you’re going to see the biggest shift towards statism and away from liberty that the U.S. has seen since at least the New Deal. That is, if you take him at face value.

There is no doubt that he’s a gifted politician - all you have to do is look at the wide range of people who think that he is the best thing ever. Libertarians AND socialists love him. He’s a walking Rorschach test - you see in Obama what you want to see, and that’s exactly his strategy.
[/QUOTE]
What I find absolutely fascinating about the above quotation is that I strongly disagree with the first half, and yet think the second is close to spot on for many.

Although I should point out that I’m not limiting “statism” solely to economics (as I think Sam is, in the context of this discussion), nor do I necessarily include corporate liberty as a strict subset of individual liberty.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

But make no mistake. If Obama get elected and gets what he wants, you’re going to see the biggest shift towards statism and away from liberty that the U.S. has seen since at least the New Deal. That is, if you take him at face value.

There is no doubt that he’s a gifted politician - all you have to do is look at the wide range of people who think that he is the best thing ever. Libertarians AND socialists love him. He’s a walking Rorschach test - you see in Obama what you want to see, and that’s exactly his strategy. He throws a bouquet to the free market, and then claims he’s going to tax ‘windfall profits’. Government spending is ‘investment’. New regulations are ‘job creation programs’. Obama supports the second amendment wholeheartedly, but he doesn’t want kids and criminals to have access to guns, or to have machine guns on the streets (which opens the door for all sorts of gun regulations which are standard run-of-the-mill attempts at restricting access).

[/QUOTE]

Government spending can’t possibly be an investment? Try the interstate highway system on for size. Or the GI Bill.

As for liberty, your definition must apply only to CEOs. I’m having a hard time imagining anything Obama doing that will affect my liberty as much as an administration that plots energy strategy in secret, that violates the laws in wiretapping up, that distorts information to lead us into war, (how’s the liberty for that soldiers who are stop-lossed?) and which kidnaps innocent people off the streets of European cities and tortures them. I believe a Canadian citizen was a victim also.

Screw 'em, so long as WalMart gets to keep their workers from joining a union, right?

[Sam_Stone]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Government spending can’t possibly be an investment? Try the interstate highway system on for size. Or the GI Bill.

As for liberty, your definition must apply only to CEOs. I’m having a hard time imagining anything Obama doing that will affect my liberty as much as an administration that plots energy strategy in secret, that violates the laws in wiretapping up, that distorts information to lead us into war, (how’s the liberty for that soldiers who are stop-lossed?) and which kidnaps innocent people off the streets of European cities and tortures them. I believe a Canadian citizen was a victim also.

Screw 'em, so long as WalMart gets to keep their workers from joining a union, right?
[/QUOTE]

Your liberty isn’t affected by Obama, unless you’re a small business owner, or a gun owner, or someone who makes more than $97,000/yr, or you have investments, or you become subject to ‘hate crimes’ legislation, or you wind up with your fingerprint in a national database because you bought or sold real estate, or if you have a factory, or if you want to buy or sell things from foreigners, or if you own a day care, or you’re a middle or high school student who doesn’t want to give the state 50 hours a year (although this may not be compulsory - he’s being vague on that).

Other than that, you should be okay. If you’re a blue-collar union worker making under $75,000/yr, you’ll do just fine with Obama. Unless you like guns.

Maybe I’m a little more sensitive to this crap than most Americans are, because here in Canada we already got the Obama treatment under our Liberals. Same language, same ‘investment’ plans, same ‘hate crimes’ plans, etc. What did it turn into? Ask McLeans Magazine, which is now facing a kangaroo court in BC under hate crimes legislation because it dared to print an excerpt of a book which is critical of radical Islam. Ask the Saskatchewan professor who had his life destroyed by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. Ask all the people who had to register their guns with a federal firearms database, then pay registration fees and training costs and other hassles. Ask the doctors who are leaving the country because they don’t want to practice health care for the state.

As for the ‘investment’ money, that turned out to generally go to politically connected businessmen willing to get in bed with the government, or to politicians who would leave office and get cushy jobs in the private sector working for companies they benefited as lawmakers, while the businessmen in turn took moved into government to continue the featherbedding.

I don’t agree with a lot of Bush’s security-motivated laws. I’ve said so from the beginning. But the fact is the number of people who have had their liberty reduced is extremely small (if you don’t count airport lines). But Obama intends to extract 100 billion dollars a year from a small percentage of the population for no other reason than that they make a good target and have the funds to take.

What Liberals never seem to understand is that you cannot have economic control and Liberty at the same time. My ability to live free depends on my ability to earn my own money and keep it. If it is taken by the state and then doled out under their ‘plan’, I’m no longer free - I’m a serf. If I work for ten years to save an investment, and then Obama comes along and takes 15% of it away from me, he has curtailed my freedom just as much as if he had forced me to go to work and spend 15% of my time doing his bidding. You cannot have true freedom without economic freedom.

[Ersatz_Shmoe]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

But make no mistake. If Obama get elected and gets what he wants, you’re going to see the biggest shift towards statism and away from liberty that the U.S. has seen since at least the New Deal.

[/QUOTE]

Oh no! Not another huge, colossal failure like the New Deal! Last time it gave birth to the nightmare that was the middle class! What horrors could something like it spawn this time?!?!?!?

In all seriousness though, the New Deal likely did cost Alpo and Purina millions of dollars in sales that they could have been making to senior citizens, so maybe it did have a negative effect in some areas of the economy.

[BlackKnight]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

What Liberals never seem to understand is that you cannot have economic control and Liberty at the same time. My ability to live free depends on my ability to earn my own money and keep it. If it is taken by the state and then doled out under their ‘plan’, I’m no longer free - I’m a serf.
[/QUOTE]

And if you replace “the state” with “the company store” you’re even more screwed, because you don’t vote for the management.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

“…away from liberty?”

After the wholesale theft of civil rights we’ve seen from the current administration, you can accuse Obama of wanting to “move away from liberty” with a straight face.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=BlackKnight]
And if you replace “the state” with “the company store” you’re even more screwed, because you don’t vote for the management.
[/QUOTE]

That’s exactly what always baffle me. People say they don’t trust the government, which they do have some control over, but they have absolutely endless love and faith for corporations which they have no control over and which have no accountability whatsoever.