Shit, you came from out of right field with a predictable post, didn’t you?
The short answer is he’s not raising taxes, he’s letting Bush’s tax cuts for the rich expire, and letting middle class tax cuts continue, in addition to instituting other cuts.
As for how that is compatible with growth? It’s not a binary either or issue; growth happens regardless - what we’re talking about is the opportunity cost of relative differences in growth. If tax rates at the top are highly punitive, and there is inflexibility in the labour market, for example, then there are good reasons to believe cutting taxes and deregulating the employment market will lead to growth and competition which will outpace the loss of first-order revenue. However, that is not at issue here. We aren’t talking about converting the US to the French economic environment here.
On this score, there is absolutely no economic evidence that returning the top marginal tax rates to Clinton era levels will have any demonstrably negative effect on incentives or that, via the Laffer curve, revenue will be increased. The rich will still be doing very well and the government will have more money that it needs to shore up the economy, and the middle and lower class will have money which will help with confidence and spending stimulus.
Wealth is created when profit is made. In fact, “making profit” and “creating wealth” can be considered synonymous phrases. Neither taxing nor not taxing creates wealth; therefore, it cannot be said that wealth will be created by lowering taxes, and it cannot be said that wealth will not be created by raising taxes. Taxation, in and of itself, simply doesn’t matter. What does matter is what is done with the money, whether it has been collected coercively by government or voluntarily by business. If the money is hoarded or used in such a way that no profit is created, then there will be no wealth. Thus, even if taxes were zero, no wealth would be created if businesses refused to loan, borrow, or buy. This is the nuance of difference between the Austrian and Chicago schools. The Chicagoans maintain that if government invests money in the same way a business would — that is, by buying goods or services from profit making companies — then government is acting economically like any other economic agent, and its interaction with the private sector is an economic praxis.
While I think he’s fairly brilliant and rational, and I like most of his policies, he hasn’t that much experience actually getting stuff done. Given the reigns of power, he may implement his policies easily, but we haven’t seen whether or not he can do that yet.
On the contrary, getting stuff done encapsulates practically his whole life. With respect to himself, he got quite a lot done. A black child living in a white household faces enormous odds, all of which he overcame to put himself through Harvard Law with the highest honors and achievements. With respect to the communities he served in Chicago, erasing ubran blight and motivating apathetic people to care were enormous tasks to undertake. Whole neighborhoods benefited from the stuff he got done. In the Illinois legislature, he sponsored bipartisan legislation that reformed ethics and health care, increased tax credits for the working poor and subsidies for child care, crackdowns on predatory lending practices, and a unanimous (yes, unanimous) bill that both curbed racial profiling and protected police from spurious claims of racism. Those are just the highlights. In the US Senate, the stuff he got done is too much to enumerate, but in summary, he sponsored 136 bills and co-sponsored 659, including bipartisan work on everything from nuclear proliferation to federal accounting transparency. And maybe even more than all that, starting a presidential campaign in five-degree weather with nothing more than the money in his pocket, going on to defeat the Clinton political machine, and then defeating possibly the most popular and widely beloved Republican political figure since Ronald Reagan — all while maintaining an amazing level of decorum and dignity — to become the 44th President of the United States, and the first African-American one. If you don’t see in his life the attribute of getting stuff done, then one cannot help but wonder what you mean by the phrase.
Well yeah, but what has he done lately?
Maybe… my point was that he hasn’t been in Congress all that long, and whatever he did do, he emphasized his policies much more than his accomplishments during the debates, and his experience as a legislator isn’t as comparable to executive experience as being say a Governor would be. Certainly he has the wherewithal to be a great president. But it remains to be seen whether or not he’ll be effective. And also, even if he’d otherwise be effective, it remains to be seen how he’ll deal with resistance and what kind of relationship he’ll develop with the other parts of the government.
Of course, this question is sort of like when you get asked what your biggest flaw is at a job interview. I don’t think he has any big obvious flaws, but I can see potential pitfalls.
President Obama relies on a massive following and grassroots movement to make his program work, and to keep him in power. If he allows the charm to fade away enough, grassroots support might flag just enough to let the balance of power shift back to the right in four years. Therefore, he may feel more pressure than other American presidents to make decisions that will satisfy his people (ie, “do the job we put him there to do”) rather than what he thinks is right. So far, however, I believe he’s shown himself to be a man of integrity who can get the people to buy what he sells even when it’s a bitter pill to swallow. I’m hoping that that trend wins out; that is, that he can sell us the bitter pills instead of caving to our demands.
I’m thinking there may be other flaws in his character that we’re too blinded by the good stuff to see. His strongest positive character traits–his deliberate calm, his obsession with fairness and equality, his vision of politics as a tradition which can unite us to solve problems–are such an incredibly welcome change from the status quo in this country that he can probably hide smaller flaws in plain sight. Whatever his flaws are, and I’m sure he has them because everyone has them, I don’t think they’ll be enough to mar a Presidency that’s already shaping up to be pretty impressive. After all, Clinton and the first Bush tend to be remembered fondly by many despite their embarrassing moments (the cigar thing and the puking on foreign leaders).
Most likely, though, I think Shayna is right that he might lose political traction for failing to tow the party line. OTOH, a lot of Republicans and independents voted for him because they believe he can make change happen in this country without towing the left-wing line, so who knows? In this political climate, I think there are a lot fewer strong left-wingers than there are centrists who are sick of the GOP’s shit.
He’s classic University of Chicago, isn’t he? I figure the worst things we’ll find out about him are his unhealthy obsessions with D&D and Model United Nations.
He’s not hiding it. He’s admitted publicly that he picked the habit back up on the campaign trail. He promised his wife that he would quit in exchange for being allowed to seek the Presidency, and he did quit for a while until it got too stressful. Shit, can you blame him?
Messiah, n. A political entity who shows up at the right time and gets shit done.
Socialism, n. A political system in which citizens have the right of free speech and freedom of association, and pay smaller taxes than the rest of the First World in exchange for fewer government services.
Free market capitalism, n. A political system identical to socialism, except that the financial industry is nationalized, the government spends more money on ineffective social programs, and freedom of speech and association are not guaranteed.
Just the opposite, actually: he is fierce from the left. Have you seen him play? The man’s got moves.
I just found out a few things that might have changed my vote had I known them in advance.
He collects Conan the Barbarian comics! :dubious:
He can’t stand ice cream! :eek:
The Conan thing, ok, that’s really nerdy, but ok. Not liking ice cream though? How could the leader of the free world not like something as wonderful as ice cream? sigh.
On the other hand, the fact that he’s read all the Harry Potter books and loves Casablanca kinda makes up for it.
He never went to U Chicago, but yeah, he’s got an obvious dorky side, it turns out. As far as the Spider-Man thing goes… well, I guess he already has his eye on his next job.
This is laughable for a number of reasons. First, usually when those on the left discuss the obstacles that minorities overcome, they speak of the cycle of poverty, lack of opportunities in the ghetto, etc. Here you seem to be saying that simply being a black kid in a white household somehow has obstacles all its own just by its very nature, which is absolutely ridiculous. What, you think his mom didn’t pay attention to him or love him because he was half black? Also, I realize that his family was poor growing up, but read the statement above again–it doesn’t mention poverty.
Second, you act as if being black was a hindrance to getting into Harvard Law, while the opposite is the truth (i.e., being black made it easier for him to get in).
Third, he did not graduate with “the highest honors”-- he graduated magna. (Not to take anything away from how well he did there, which includes being elected president of HLR, I’m just setting the record straight.)
Finally, the rest of the stuff you quoted is straight from some website somewhere. Sponsoring or co-sponsoring a bill just involves putting your name on a piece of paper. You forgot to mention all of the “present” votes, which surely goes in the category of “doing nothing.” You also forgot to mention that some of the stuff he was getting accomplished were pork barrel projects for his friends.
Which part of “first black president” don’t you get?
Okay, he could have been the first gay transgendered psychic pagan Black president.
He taught there for years. He clearly fits.
Ah, that’s right. Between the couple of reported instances of Star Trek jokes and the comic books, I wonder if we have our first Nerd President… That may require an adjustment for many people, but it may actually be good news. For example, if Iran launches a nuclear strike, Obama would know he can make a saving throw, while a Bush or Clinton might not be aware of something like that.
It probably can mean that, yes. It can also mean actively working towards the passage of said bill.
Unless you actually know what a “present” vote is supposed to signify (liking the idea behind the bill, and thus not voting no, but having serious problems with the way it’s written or some of the things in it, and thus not voting yes), in which case it doesn’t fit in that category at all.
See also this thread on tor.com:
Especially comment #1, where he is revealed to know the line that comes after “all your base are belong to us”. Well, technically there’s another line in between, but anyway.
Obama doesn’t support Gay Marriage, that’s a flaw.
Obama in not as much a free trader as I would hope, a flaw IMO.
But we will have to see how these issues play out in practical terms away from the campaign.
This is the most surprising thing I’ve learned about him since… I don’t know. I read his books almost two years ago.
Somebody PLEASE PhotoShop Obama into an “All Your Base” gif.
His greatest flaw is that he’s a uniter, not a divider. That’s not what we need right now.