Comments on: Obamanomics: Hope Has a Plan http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamanomics_hope_has_a_plan/ Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:45:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: rtaycher1987 http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamanomics_hope_has_a_plan/#comment-25390 rtaycher1987 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:04:58 +0000 http://dev.pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamanomics-hope-has-a-plan/#comment-25390 Tax revenue in have almost always risen most years (I think) largely due to the growth of the economy, the question is comparing it to how much it would be otherwise(also don't forget to acount for inflation), also not renewing tax cuts is not raising taxes. Lowering tax rates leads to lower revenue then would otherwise be taken in unless it is accompanied by significant closing of loopholes and/or increasing other rates. The lowering tax rates leads to more revenue (plus a free ponies) idea is based on the false assumptions based on the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve is basically a misused tautology: when tax levels are zero or 100% people pay no taxes, and that there is some sort of curve connecting those two things, and that if you're on the right side of the curve you have moved into territory where increasing taxes leads to less revenue, I would say almost no non political economist think we are on the wrong side of the curve and even the advocates of the cuts only claimed that the revenue gained by the supposed large improvements in the economy would only replace a large percentage of lost revenue (ie we would take in less in tax revenue). Tax revenue in have almost always risen most years (I think) largely due to the growth of the economy, the question is comparing it to how much it would be otherwise(also don’t forget to acount for inflation), also not renewing tax cuts is not raising taxes.

Lowering tax rates leads to lower revenue then would otherwise be taken in unless it is accompanied by significant closing of loopholes and/or increasing other rates. The lowering tax rates leads to more revenue (plus a free ponies) idea is based on the false assumptions based on the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve is basically a misused tautology: when tax levels are zero or 100% people pay no taxes, and that there is some sort of curve connecting those two things, and that if you’re on the right side of the curve you have moved into territory where increasing taxes leads to less revenue, I would say almost no non political economist think we are on the wrong side of the curve and even the advocates of the cuts only claimed that the revenue gained by the supposed large improvements in the economy would only replace a large percentage of lost revenue (ie we would take in less in tax revenue).

]]> By: rtaycher1987 http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamanomics_hope_has_a_plan/#comment-25389 rtaycher1987 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:38:27 +0000 http://dev.pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamanomics-hope-has-a-plan/#comment-25389 Tax revenue in have almost always risen most years (I think) largely due to the growth of the economy, the question is comparing it to how much it would be otherwise(also don't forget to acount for inflation), also not renewing tax cuts is not raising taxes. Lowering tax rates leads to lower revenue then would otherwise be taken in unless it is accompanied by significant closing of loopholes and/or increasing other rates. The lowering tax rates leads to more revenue (plus a free ponies) idea is based on the false assumptions based on the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve is basically a misused tautology: when tax levels are zero or 100% people pay no taxes, and that there is some sort of curve connecting those two things, and that if you're on the right side of the curve you have moved into territory where increasing taxes leads to less revenue, I would say almost no non political economist think we are on the wrong side of the curve and even the advocates of the cuts only claimed that the revenue gained by the supposed large improvements in the economy would only replace a large percentage of lost revenue (ie we would take in less in tax revenue). Tax revenue in have almost always risen most years (I think) largely due to the growth of the economy, the question is comparing it to how much it would be otherwise(also don’t forget to acount for inflation), also not renewing tax cuts is not raising taxes.

Lowering tax rates leads to lower revenue then would otherwise be taken in unless it is accompanied by significant closing of loopholes and/or increasing other rates. The lowering tax rates leads to more revenue (plus a free ponies) idea is based on the false assumptions based on the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve is basically a misused tautology: when tax levels are zero or 100% people pay no taxes, and that there is some sort of curve connecting those two things, and that if you’re on the right side of the curve you have moved into territory where increasing taxes leads to less revenue, I would say almost no non political economist think we are on the wrong side of the curve and even the advocates of the cuts only claimed that the revenue gained by the supposed large improvements in the economy would only replace a large percentage of lost revenue (ie we would take in less in tax revenue).

]]> By: M. Simon http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamanomics_hope_has_a_plan/#comment-25388 M. Simon Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:03:30 +0000 http://dev.pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamanomics-hope-has-a-plan/#comment-25388 Can some of the brilliant "we need higher taxes" folks explain why government revenues started increasing after a period of decline when the Bush tax cuts were voted in? If the government needs more money perhaps it should lower taxes further. Can some of the brilliant “we need higher taxes” folks explain why government revenues started increasing after a period of decline when the Bush tax cuts were voted in?

If the government needs more money perhaps it should lower taxes further.

]]> By: Rich http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamanomics_hope_has_a_plan/#comment-25387 Rich Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:50:14 +0000 http://dev.pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamanomics-hope-has-a-plan/#comment-25387 Max, I see that Obama earmarked $1 million for the U of Chicago Hospital in 2006 so taxpayers could buid them a new childrens pavillion. As I said above, the DEms ain't about raising taxe to balance the budget or make the tax code more fair. It's about raising spending..............and rewarding their cronies. And in this case, it seem that one crony who got handsomely rewarded was Michele Obama, that poor Ivy League graduate, who works at the University of Chicago hospital! Seems she got a $200,000 salary increase in 2005, the year Obama was elected to the US Senate. The audacity of pork! Max,

I see that Obama earmarked $1 million for the U of Chicago Hospital in 2006 so taxpayers could buid them a new childrens pavillion.

As I said above, the DEms ain’t about raising taxe to balance the budget or make the tax code more fair. It’s about raising spending…………..and rewarding their cronies. And in this case, it seem that one crony who got handsomely rewarded was Michele Obama, that poor Ivy League graduate, who works at the University of Chicago hospital! Seems she got a $200,000 salary increase in 2005, the year Obama was elected to the US Senate.

The audacity of pork!

]]> By: Rich http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamanomics_hope_has_a_plan/#comment-25386 Rich Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:33:02 +0000 http://dev.pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamanomics-hope-has-a-plan/#comment-25386 The Dems in the House this past week voted to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Seems their idea of raising taxes on the wealthy is to raise taxes on individuals with incomes in excess of $30,000 and couples with incomes in excess of $63,000. It's not about raising taxes on the rich or making the tax code more fair, it's about raising taxes on virtually everyone so that the Dems can raise spending and make everyone more dependent on government. This is SOCIALISM. And with the economy in a recession, raising taxers will only make things worse, doing far more harm to the middle class. As for international trade, the Dems are in the pockets of labor unions (and trial lawyers). Their idea of 'fair' trade is to raise prices for american consumers. That will be good for low/middle income workers--yes sir, let's shut down Wal Mart and make the low/middle class shop at Macey's! The mantra of most who vote DEm, thanx to the class warfare of the DEms: "I want this and want that, but most of all I want someone else to pay for it." Sadly, many a well trained economists buy into this drivel. The Dems in the House this past week voted to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Seems their idea of raising taxes on the wealthy is to raise taxes on individuals with incomes in excess of $30,000 and couples with incomes in excess of $63,000. It’s not about raising taxes on the rich or making the tax code more fair, it’s about raising taxes on virtually everyone so that the Dems can raise spending and make everyone more dependent on government. This is SOCIALISM.

And with the economy in a recession, raising taxers will only make things worse, doing far more harm to the middle class.

As for international trade, the Dems are in the pockets of labor unions (and trial lawyers). Their idea of ‘fair’ trade is to raise prices for american consumers. That will be good for low/middle income workers–yes sir, let’s shut down Wal Mart and make the low/middle class shop at Macey’s!

The mantra of most who vote DEm, thanx to the class warfare of the DEms: “I want this and want that, but most of all I want someone else to pay for it.”

Sadly, many a well trained economists buy into this drivel.

]]> By: Harvey Levy http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamanomics_hope_has_a_plan/#comment-25385 Harvey Levy Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:44:54 +0000 http://dev.pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamanomics-hope-has-a-plan/#comment-25385 Mr. Sawicky, the pendulum swings hard left when it comes to Obama;s voting record in the US Senate. One does not need further proof than to look at the interest groups ratings of his voting record in the Senate. You can see for yourself' it's well documented in my previous post. If Obama was indeed walking the white lines his ratings would mostly be between 40 - 60%. Mr. Sawicky, the pendulum swings hard left when it comes to Obama;s voting record in the US Senate. One does not need further proof than to look at the interest groups ratings of his voting record in the Senate. You can see for yourself’ it’s well documented in my previous post. If Obama was indeed walking the white lines his ratings would mostly be between 40 – 60%.

]]> By: Max Sawicky http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamanomics_hope_has_a_plan/#comment-25384 Max Sawicky Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:03:46 +0000 http://dev.pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamanomics-hope-has-a-plan/#comment-25384 Ken -- I am not accusing any critic of BHO of automatically being a racist. There has been a fair amount of racist commentary in his direction, but that was not the subject of my column. Mr. Penguin -- At this point most of what we have to go on is just talk, since he has not served yet. Even with a record, we couldn't be sure. Politicians' inclinations can change when they ascend to higher office. George Bush is a good example. Re: taxes, the economy did well in the 90s with higher taxes than presently. And don't forget, failure to finance spending means more borrowing, which can have effects on the economy as well. Re: health, health costs in both the public and private sectors are growing at an unsustainable rate. I don't think the solution lies in a more fragmented, private sector system. My purpose here was not to endorse or not endorse Obama, just to describe his proposals. Harvey -- what makes the groups you like "middle of the road"? In politics, people tend to call those they criticize extreme. It seemed like each of the Republican nominees was attacked for being too liberal, in one respect or another. Mr. Thomson -- there is no relation to the radical left. In fact, the radical left is very suspicious or critical of Obama, a fact that could be easily verified by asking . . . the radical left. (Or reading their web sites.) Ken — I am not accusing any critic of BHO of automatically being a racist. There has been a fair amount of racist commentary in his direction, but that was not the subject of my column.

Mr. Penguin — At this point most of what we have to go on is just talk, since he has not served yet. Even with a record, we couldn’t be sure. Politicians’ inclinations can change when they ascend to higher office. George Bush is a good example.

Re: taxes, the economy did well in the 90s with higher taxes than presently. And don’t forget, failure to finance spending means more borrowing, which can have effects on the economy as well.

Re: health, health costs in both the public and private sectors are growing at an unsustainable rate. I don’t think the solution lies in a more fragmented, private sector system.

My purpose here was not to endorse or not endorse Obama, just to describe his proposals.

Harvey — what makes the groups you like “middle of the road”? In politics, people tend to call those they criticize extreme. It seemed like each of the Republican nominees was attacked for being too liberal, in one respect or another.

Mr. Thomson — there is no relation to the radical left. In fact, the radical left is very suspicious or critical of Obama, a fact that could be easily verified by asking . . . the radical left. (Or reading their web sites.)

]]> By: David Thomson http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamanomics_hope_has_a_plan/#comment-25383 David Thomson Sat, 15 Mar 2008 05:14:55 +0000 http://dev.pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamanomics-hope-has-a-plan/#comment-25383 "Ken -- That black people are good at singing and dancing, but can't think, is the old racist sentiment." Max Sawicky's response borders on the ridiculous. It readily, though, explains why the "Barry" Obama campaign was not derailed long before this time. The warning signs concerning his relationships with the radical left were not public secrets. It was well documented for anyone willing to spend a little time searching on the Internet. Oh well, it's too late now. The Democrats are royally screwed. John McCain should easily become our next president. “Ken — That black people are good at singing and dancing, but can’t think, is the old racist sentiment.”

Max Sawicky’s response borders on the ridiculous. It readily, though, explains why the “Barry” Obama campaign was not derailed long before this time. The warning signs concerning his relationships with the radical left were not public secrets. It was well documented for anyone willing to spend a little time searching on the Internet. Oh well, it’s too late now. The Democrats are royally screwed. John McCain should easily become our next president.

]]> By: Harvey Levy http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamanomics_hope_has_a_plan/#comment-25382 Harvey Levy Sat, 15 Mar 2008 04:27:03 +0000 http://dev.pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamanomics-hope-has-a-plan/#comment-25382 I agree that Obamanomics is within the mainstream of Democratic party but they're certainly not middle of the road. Here's how Obama stacks up among various interest groups which focus on spending, budget, and taxes; 2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 15 percent in 2006. 2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 25 percent in 2006. 2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 16 percent in 2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Citizens for Tax Justice 100 percent in 2005-2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 8 percent in 2005-2006. 2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 0 percent in 2005. 2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 6 percent in 2005. 2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 6 percent in 2005. 2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Taxpayers for Common Sense 40 percent in 2005. For Business and consumers; 2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 10 percent in 2006. 2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Association of Government Contractors 100 percent in 2006. 2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association 92 percent in 2006. 2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 55 percent in 2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Forest and Paper Association 42 percent in 2005-2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Associated General Contractors of America 62 percent in 2005-2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the International Warehouse Logistics Association 25 percent in 2005-2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers 16 percent in 2005-2006. The following ratings indicate the degree that each elected official supported the interests of the organization in that year. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Electrical Contractors Association 67 percent in 2005-2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Federation of Independent Business 12 percent in 2005-2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Restaurant Association 38 percent in 2005-2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Retail Federation 17 percent in 2005-2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Small Business Association 28 percent in 2005-2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors-National Association 40 percent in 2005-2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Public Citizen's Congress Watch 69 percent in 2005-2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors-National Association 40 percent in 2005-2006. 2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Public Citizen's Congress Watch 69 percent in 2005-2006. 2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 15 percent in 2005. 2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the International Sleep Products Association 100 percent in 2005. 2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Maryland Business for Responsive Government 23 percent in 2005. 2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Federation of Independent Business 17 percent in 2005. 2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council 9 percent in 2005. 2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 39 percent in 2005. Source Project Vote Smart I agree that Obamanomics is within the mainstream of Democratic party but they’re certainly not middle of the road.

Here’s how Obama stacks up among various interest groups which focus on spending, budget, and taxes;

2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 15 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 25 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 16 percent in 2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Citizens for Tax Justice 100 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 8 percent in 2005-2006.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 6 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 6 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Taxpayers for Common Sense 40 percent in 2005.

For Business and consumers;

2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 10 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Association of Government Contractors 100 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association 92 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 55 percent in 2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Forest and Paper Association 42 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Associated General Contractors of America 62 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the International Warehouse Logistics Association 25 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers 16 percent in 2005-2006. The following ratings indicate the degree that each elected official supported the interests of the organization in that year.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Electrical Contractors Association 67 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Federation of Independent Business 12 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Restaurant Association 38 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Retail Federation 17 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Small Business Association 28 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors-National Association 40 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Public Citizen’s Congress Watch 69 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors-National Association 40 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Public Citizen’s Congress Watch 69 percent in 2005-2006.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 15 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the International Sleep Products Association 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Maryland Business for Responsive Government 23 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Federation of Independent Business 17 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council 9 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 39 percent in 2005.

Source Project Vote Smart

]]> By: Fat Jolly Penguin http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamanomics_hope_has_a_plan/#comment-25381 Fat Jolly Penguin Sat, 15 Mar 2008 02:54:53 +0000 http://dev.pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamanomics-hope-has-a-plan/#comment-25381 I see your point; you make a good argument. However, there are two problems with it. First, you're assuming that Obama really means what he's saying; in light of the fact that he's a politician, that's a very bad idea. Look at his record; since that seems to be so very sparse, look at what he has said when he was not campaigning for office. That, I feel, will give the best indication of his true intentions. Furthermore, you didn't seem to give much consideration to the effects of these economic policies. Rolling back tax cuts for wealthier Americans, for example, not only reduces their incentive to work (they can't keep as much of what they earn), but it makes them unable to pay as many people or to pay them as well. In other words, higher taxes on the wealthy have a negative impact on the entire economy. Also, the implications of these policies are profound: assuming Obama doesn't so royally botch his Presidency that another Democrat will never be elected again (unlikely, I admit), the next Democrat President will expand upon these programs. You mentioned yourself that his ideas aren't that far out of the Democrat mainstream, then listed national health care as one of these; would not another Democrat President, then, share his plan and expand the national health care system, possibly even making it mandatory? It's far better to nip these ideas in the bud rather than allowing them into full bloom. I hope I'm right in assuming that you would rather not see Obama elected; in that case, it may not be such a good idea to point out how common his ideas are. If you're truly intent on keeping him out of the Oval Office, expound upon the flaws in his plans rather than praising them (even obliquely). I see your point; you make a good argument. However, there are two problems with it.

First, you’re assuming that Obama really means what he’s saying; in light of the fact that he’s a politician, that’s a very bad idea. Look at his record; since that seems to be so very sparse, look at what he has said when he was not campaigning for office. That, I feel, will give the best indication of his true intentions.

Furthermore, you didn’t seem to give much consideration to the effects of these economic policies. Rolling back tax cuts for wealthier Americans, for example, not only reduces their incentive to work (they can’t keep as much of what they earn), but it makes them unable to pay as many people or to pay them as well. In other words, higher taxes on the wealthy have a negative impact on the entire economy. Also, the implications of these policies are profound: assuming Obama doesn’t so royally botch his Presidency that another Democrat will never be elected again (unlikely, I admit), the next Democrat President will expand upon these programs. You mentioned yourself that his ideas aren’t that far out of the Democrat mainstream, then listed national health care as one of these; would not another Democrat President, then, share his plan and expand the national health care system, possibly even making it mandatory?

It’s far better to nip these ideas in the bud rather than allowing them into full bloom. I hope I’m right in assuming that you would rather not see Obama elected; in that case, it may not be such a good idea to point out how common his ideas are. If you’re truly intent on keeping him out of the Oval Office, expound upon the flaws in his plans rather than praising them (even obliquely).

]]>