@nwando,

since Obama came out with his cute self,I've been converted.

Converted from what? A conservative to a liberal? Their ideas about governance are poles apart. So on what point were you converted, or are you just blinded by the sweet talk of the charming guy? Abeg, wake up before it is too late o. The yeye Democrats just raised our taxes here in MN. Our sales taxes will be rising from 6.5% to 7.5 to 8%, and they are adding another 50 cents to $1.00 on our gas bills. They had to overide the Republican Govs veto to make this happen.

If you give the Dems control of both Houses and the Presidency, you will find yourself paying 40% to 50% of your income to Uncle Sam before Obama's term is over. I will relocate to china before that happens .

And there i was thinking Minnesota was Liberal. . . . .

You really should be living in Mississippi man

@Tayo-D

Obama's spending plans will add an extra $800bn to the FG's spending.Some guy at the WSJ did the maths on Obama's spending plans:It will add up to a '39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.'

@nwando,

The ones voting him in are mainly Democrats who don't want McCain now or in November

I don't think you are completelely right on this. A lot of Republicans are out there voting for Obama. you know why? because they hate Clinton so much that they want to get rid of here as soon as possible. They don't want to take the chances at the general election. Like someone said, "you do not wait for a more opportune time to drive the cross into the heart of a vampire. You do it at the slightest opportunity."

That is what some Republicans are doing by voting in Obama. Each vote for Obama is a driven cross into the heart (if there is any) of the vampire called Hillary.

4 Play:

@Tayo-D

Obama's spending plans will add an extra $800bn to the FG's spending.Some guy at the WSJ did the maths on Obama's spending plans:It will add up to a '39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.'

That is what I don't understand with you libertarians. . . . . .

If you imagine that there is a government out there that would not spend, then you are naive.

Governments love to spend. . . .it is the method by which they raise their spending money that differs.

Even the GOP legend Reagan spent more than most.


Small Government is a fallacy. . . .Jeez

doyin13:

That is what I don't understand with you libertarians. . . . . .

If you imagine that there is a government out there that would not spend, then you are naive.
Governments love to spend. . . .it is the method by which they raise their spending money that differs.

Even the GOP legend Reagan spent more than most.
Small Government is a fallacy. . . .Jeez

Clearly,some Govts spend more than others.That is stating the obvious.The indictment against Obama is based on a spending pledge that puts him firmly in the "Big Govt" camp

@doyin13,

And there i was thinking Minnesota was Liberal. . . . .You really should be living in Mississippi man

We made progress against such liberalism by voting in a conservative Governor. But now we have a Democratic majority in both Houses, and enough Republicans by name, but liberal by heart Representatives who can swing over to the Dems side to overturn hi veto. The situation is very dire now. Many people are really making plans to relocate to another State.

The funny thing is that our Governor, along with an even House a year ago, had about $3 billion budget surplus. The Democrats after gaining the upper hand, forced the surplus to be spent on social programs. We have now gone not only from surplus to shortage within one year of the Democrats in power, but we now have to raise taxes to meet their unquenching thirst to spend our money.

But what I don't understand is why someone like Reagan is not indicted in the same
manner for his errant spending.

it seems overblown expenditures on 'nationalistic' schemes are okay
but for social programs, there are a no-no.

doyin13:

But what I don't understand is why someone like Reagan is not indicted in the same
manner for his errant spending.

it seems overblown expenditures on 'nationalistic' schemes are okay
but for social programs, there are a no-no.

Overblown?Reagan's defense spending quickened the demise of the Soviet Union.You cannot put a price to national security.

Even then,looked at as a percentage of GDP,Reagan did cut spending in addition to cutting taxes,thus ushering a period of economic growth in the 80s.

4 Play:

@Tayo-D

Obama's spending plans will add an extra $800bn to the FG's spending.Some guy at the WSJ did the maths on Obama's spending plans:It will add up to a '39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.'

WHAT !!!!!

@doyin13,

But what I don't understand is why someone like Reagan is not indicted in the same
manner for his errant spending.

it seems overblown expenditures on 'nationalistic' schemes are okay
but for social programs, there are a no-no.

That is becuase the social programs in most cases are nothing but wealth redistribution. Social programs should be left in the hands of private organisations like Red Cross. People should give to others based on what their conscience allows them and not otherwise.  The Government should focuse on governance, law, order, security and justice. The Robinhood spirit of taking from the hard working rich to sustain the many times, lazy poor should not be allowed to take root.

Kobojunkie:

WHAT !!!!!

I found this link to WSJ's Steve Moore's analysis of Obamanomics

Also:http://www.babalublog.com/archives/007427.html

Tayo-D:

@doyin13,
That is becuase the social programs in most cases are nothing but wealth redistribution. Social programs should be left in the hands of private organisations like Red Cross. People should give to others based on what their conscience allows them and not otherwise. The Government should focuse on governance, law, order, security and justice. The Robinhood spirit of taking from the hard working rich to sustain the many times, lazy poor should not be allowed to take root.

I don't knw what kind of laissez faire Valhalla you want your government to be.

Governments want to leave legacies. . .it is a non academic generalisation but i contend a historical truism.

Too many egos involved.

Thus they will spend your money anyway. . . .

Now I do not see what moral argument or any argument whatsoever makes spending on national security
superior to the Robin Hood analogy you described

It will always be a question of emphasis regarding how your money is spent cause only a suicidal government
will decide to erase more than a few social programs.

But the point I am trying to make is. . . .your money will be spent by the government regardless whether its the GOP
or Ralph Nader in power

Nice blog!!

Obama wants you to believe that America is in trouble, and that it can only be cured with a big lurch to the left. Take from the rich and give to the non-rich. Redistribute income and wealth. It’s an age-old recipe for economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses, and investors.  You can’t have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors. This will only harm, and not advance, opportunities for middle-class workers.

That portion of the article I have to say I have noticed, 100% agree with and wondered about for a while myself. It seems businesses are suddenly the EVIL ones that need to be conquered.

I am not an economist but I would think that making labour cheaper here in the United states or reducing cost of production for businesses here in America in competition with the rest of the world would be a way to go when trying to get companies to bring business back to America but I am not an economist but I do know that I don't understand how the plan he has now will MAGICALLY work.

I happen to be a business owner and I know that to compete I have to spend less on labour and more. That drives me to seek out cheap labour which is in abundance outside of these shores. Should I be penalized for this??

I hope you allow me post the article itself on another thread. I want to know how people will debate the claims by Kudlow (Now that I think of it, I am guessing many of the posts will focus more on Kudlow the person and not the points he made in his article)

The way leftist politicians demonise businesses.One may easily forget that its those businesses and the entrepreneurial class in general that constitute the financial lifeline of the Govt.

doyin13:

I don't knw what kind of laissez faire Valhalla you want your government to be.

Governments want to leave legacies. . .it is a non academic generalisation but i contend a historical truism.

Too many egos involved.

Thus they will spend your money anyway. . . .

You are missing the point when you keep talking of spending.Some politicians are prepared to spend more than others.Of course,Govt must spend money,how else will it function? But there are certain limits as to how much the Govt should spend at any given time or for what purposes.

His plan is undoubtedly populist. . . .

but I am increasingly wary of this connect between lesser taxes and availaibility of capital.

So what say you 4play about solutions to the present Credit Crunch. . . . . .Reduce taxes further to
so that the Rich would feel more inclined to release their capital. . . .

Of course that is disastrous. , . . .Sentiments ultimately determine economic performance.

While tax reduction might leave some people undoubtedly feeling a bit wealthier, if there is a prevailing sense
of uncertainty, parting with their cash will be the last thing on their mind. . . .

In addition. . . .people are willing to part with more cash as taxes as long as they feel economic prospects are steady.

4 Play:

You are missing the point when you keep talking of spending.Some politicians are prepared to spend more than others.Of course,Govt must spend money,how else will it function? But there are certain limits as to how much the Govt should spend at any given time or for what purposes.

Hmmm. . . .what they are willing to do is a lot different than what they actually do

Thatcher made her Cabinet read Hayek's tome but her government largely went the way of those before hers.

She spent money and alas on fewer social programmes. . . .The rich got richer, investments in Public services suffered despite all the
privatisations and people generally felt worse off.

@4Play,

The way leftist politicians demonise  businesses.One may easily forget that its those businesses and the entrepreneurial class in general that constitute the financial lifeline of the Govt.

If I get my numbers right, Exxon pay about 40% of their profits as taxes. This amout represents more than the entire taxes paid by more than half of the American population. It's so funny that while Exon makes about 7 to 8 cents per gallon of gas, the govt, depending on what State you are in get as much as $1.50 per gallon. Please tell me, who is guilty of price gouging? The guy who earns 8 cents with all the hard work, or the one who earns $1.50 with no production capacity?  

Tayo-D:

@4Play,
If I get my numbers right, Exxon pay about 40% of their profits as taxes. This amout represents more than the entire taxes paid by more than half of the American population. It's so funny that while Exon makes about 7 to 8 cents per gallon of gas, the govt, depending on what State you are in get as much as $1.50 per gallon. Please tell me, who is guilty of price gouging? The guy who earns 8 cents with all the hard work, or the one who earns $1.50 with no production capacity? 

I don't mean to be one who does not like to research the oil industries much but last I heard these companies made about 128 billion dollars, combined, in profits alone last year. How can they make that much profit on just 7 or 8 cents per gallon of gas??

doyin13:

but I am increasingly wary of this connect between lesser taxes and availaibility of capital.

Not all taxes reduce capital but much of Obama's tax planning calls for increase in taxes on corporations and investors.

So what say you 4play about solutions to the present Credit Crunch. . . . . .Reduce taxes further to
so that the Rich would feel more inclined to release their capital. . . .

Of course that is disastrous. , . . .Sentiments ultimately determine economic performance.

Sentiments usually follow economic developments.No period of strong economic growth has ever been achieved through tax hikes.

With regards to the credit crunch,nothing has to be done by the Govt.If the Govt bails out the debtors it rewards both them and their creditors for their bad judgment which increases this risk of future re-occurrence because many would always expect the Govt to bail them out in the event of a crash.

While tax reduction might leave some people undoubtedly feeling a bit wealthier, if there is a prevailing sense
of uncertainty, parting with their cash will be the last thing on their mind. . . .

In addition. . . .people are willing to part with more cash as taxes as long as they feel economic prospects are steady.

Its quite simple,in an economic downturn,people's moods are not going to be improved by seeing higher deductions from their paychecks every month.

So because Exxon pays that much in taxes. . . .we should not condemn them
if they go wrong. . . .

Even that Scion of Conservative America, Bill O'Reilly has cried wolf over the punishment which higher gas prices
have wreaked on the ordinary folks while they are making record setting profits.

Kobojunkie:

I don't mean to be one who does not like to research the oil industries much but last I heard these companies made about 128 billion dollars, combined, in profits alone last year. How can they make that much profit on just 7 or 8 cents per gallon of gas??

Most of their profits comes from the upstream sector-extraction.Very little comes from retail in gas stations.

doyin13:

Hmmm. . . .what they are willing to do is a lot different than what they actually do

Thatcher made her Cabinet read Hayek's tome but her government largely went the way of those before hers.

She spent money and alas on fewer social programmes. . . .The rich got richer, investments in Public services suffered despite all the
privatisations and people generally felt worse off.

Before Thatcher,when you wanted a phone line,it was a Govt enterprise that was responsible-BT.If you wanted to travel,you almost always used a Govt airline-BA.If you went to fill up your car with fuel,you bought from a Govt owned outlet often run by BP. If you think life was better in those days,fair enough.

What is clear is that by any measure,living standards and general income levels rose remarkably under Thatcher.If you want to live in era when the unions were always on strike-refuse littered the streets-you obviously don't appreciate how bad it used to be.

That is why the Brits kept the Tories in power for 18 years.Nobody want to go back to the late 70s when Britain had to go cap in hand to beg the IMF for money

4 Play:


With regards to the credit crunch,nothing has to be done by the Govt.If the Govt bails out the debtors it rewards both them and their creditors for their bad judgment which increases this risk of future re-occurrence because many would always expect the Govt to bail them out in the event of a crash.

But this is the koko. . . .

Which Government has the strength of character to sit out a bust and do nothing while voters see their homes foreclosed or their livelihoods lost
abroad.

Politicians are not in the business of losing elections. . . .whether of the GOP or Democrat kind

And come to think of it. . . .Tayo I would hope those farm subsidies are amongst the social programs you would like to see scratched and not
just social programs that redistribute to the poor and lazy. Its funny how such like are not protested as much as inner city social welfare

doyin13:

So because Exxon pays that much in taxes. . . .we should not condemn them
if they go wrong. . . .

Even that Scion of Conservative America, Bill O'Reilly has cried wolf over the punishment which higher gas prices
have wreaked on the ordinary folks while they are making record setting profits.

The question is whether Exxon has gone wrong.They have paid their taxes and comply with the law,what else do people want them to do?Higher gas prices are the inevitable result of higher crude oil prices.Is it Exxon that put up crude prices?

What about US politicians that have prevented the construction of refineries in the US for decades or drilling in many parts of the US?

The ironic thing is that Big Oil hasn't even passed the full costs of higher crude prices to consumers.Think of it,around 99,oil prices were $9p/b,today they are around $100p/b-more than a 10 fold increase. Have gas prices gone up more than 10 fold since then?No.So what else do they want Big Oil to do?

It is with the profits that Big Oil makes today that it can make the necessary investments to keep up with America's future energy demands.Start taking away that money from them and they will have less to invest for the future.

doyin13:

But this is the koko. . . .

Which Government has the strength of character to sit out a bust and do nothing while voters see their homes foreclosed or their livelihoods lost
abroad.

Politicians are not in the business of losing elections. . . .whether of the GOP or Democrat kind

Of course,economic logic often has to give way to political pragmatism but that doesn't negate the logic of the economics.However,like I noted earlier,certain types of politicians-those of leftist leanings-are more prepared to dip into the Govt's purse in pursuit of hare-brained populist policies.

4 Play:

Before Thatcher,when you wanted a phone line,it was a Govt enterprise that was responsible-BT.If you wanted to travel,you almost always used a Govt airline-BA.If you went to fill up your car with fuel,you bought from a Govt owned outlet often run by BP. If you think life was better in those days,fair enough.

What is clear is that by any measure,living standards and general income levels rose remarkably under Thatcher.If you want to live in era when the unions were always on strike-refuse littered the streets-you obviously don't appreciate how bad it used to be.

That is why the Brits kept the Tories in power for 18 years.Nobody want to go back to the late 70s when Britain had to go cap in hand to beg the IMF for money

Well funny how her party is shaped more in the image of New Labour rather than on a not too distant Thatcherite era

How many times I wonder do the current crop of Tory leaders invoke the legacy which she bequeath.

The 80's are now considered the era of City Yuppy excess, lax FSA regulation, where coporate raiders made out like
highway bandits and the current Labour government has had to spend through its nose to make up for the shortfall
in investments in education, the health service, railways, housing etc.

The irony is. . .despite all the cutbacks- - -- - - - - - -she spent more than the Governments that came before her Go Figure

and don't equate Militant Unionism with social democracy.

James Callaghan's weaknesses as a leader and his lack of cahoonies in fighting the unions should not be seen
as a weakness of social democracy

@doyin13,

And come to think of it. . . .Tayo I would hope those farm subsidies are amongst the social programs you would like to see scratched and not
just social programs that redistribute to the poor and lazy. Its funny how such like are not protested as much as inner city social welfare

I have nothing against subsidising food because it is essential to a nation's security. The nation's security is virtually the most important aspect of a govt job. The social welfare you are requesting is totally against capitalism.

I had a tenant on section 8. The govt pays $1,200 for her rent every month. She gets food stamps and a cheque form the govt every month and I know there is absolutely nothing wrong with this woman. She is healthy but lazy. Infact, she intentionally works less every time so as to avoid getting kicked off the benefits. There is absolutely no incentives to work because the more you do, the more you are taxed. And if you do not work, Uncle Sam will deprive those who do to pay you. So guess what she does? This is what socialism encourages.

Our people come here and work 2 to 3 jobs to get ahead, yet people here sit down on their behinds and milk those who do to the last penny. This is what socialism encourages.

Tayo-D:

@doyin13,
I have nothing against subsidising food because it is essential to a nation's security. The nation's security is virtually the most important aspect of a govt job. The social welfare you are requesting is totally against capitalism.

I had a tenant on section 8. The govt pays $1,200 for her rent every month. She gets food stamps and a cheque form the govt every month and I know there is absolutely nothing wrong with this woman. She is healthy but lazy. Infact, she intentionally works less every time so as to avoid getting kicked off the benefits. There is absolutely no incentives to work because the more you do, the more you are taxed. And if you do not work, Uncle Sam will deprive those who do to pay you. So guess what she does? This is what socialism encourages.

Our people come here and work 2 to 3 jobs to get ahead, yet people here sit down on their behinds and milk those who do to the last penny. This is what socialism encourages.

I have seen folks like that myself and the thought that I have to pay taxes to support people like these makes my blood pressure run high.

I tink the man is cool,get the middle name.

Tayo-D:

@doyin13,
I have nothing against subsidising food because it is essential to a nation's security. The nation's security is virtually the most important aspect of a govt job. The social welfare you are requesting is totally against capitalism.

I had a tenant on section 8. The govt pays $1,200 for her rent every month. She gets food stamps and a cheque form the govt every month and I know there is absolutely nothing wrong with this woman. She is healthy but lazy. Infact, she intentionally works less every time so as to avoid getting kicked off the benefits. There is absolutely no incentives to work because the more you do, the more you are taxed. And if you do not work, Uncle Sam will deprive those who do to pay you. So guess what she does? This is what socialism encourages.

Our people come here and work 2 to 3 jobs to get ahead, yet people here sit down on their behinds and milk those who do to the last penny. This is what socialism encourages.

I am aware social welfare schemes are prone to abuse. . . . . .but it doesn't mean we should throw the baby with the water na. . . .

the thing is unfettered capitalism will leave a lot of people in the lurch without any recourse. I would rather a sacrifice 1 or 2% growth
at the expense of making sure that the most vulnerable people in our society get help when they need it.

National Security spending is just as prone to flights of fancy or hare brained escapades. . . .the hundreds of billions spent on
the war in Iraq sure look wasted now with hindsight, does it not.

doyin13:

Well funny how her party is shaped more in the image of New Labour rather than on a not too distant Thatcherite era

New Labour(what do you think the 'New' was for)was clearly modeled on many of Thatcher's ideas.Labor moved away from its socialist redistributionist idealism to a more free market philosophy.

Thatcher's case was one of familiarity breeding contempt.She didn't lose her grip on power because of her neo-liberal economic policies-her biggest setback was when she instituted a new tax,the poll tax!-it was because as she stayed longer in power,her reign became more autocratic.The nation grew tired of her as a person not the ideas she represented many of which were adopted by Blair under the guise of "New Labor."When she strayed away from neo-liberal economics,for instance with the poll tax,her popularity suffered.

The 80's are now considered the era of City Yuppy excess, lax FSA regulation, where coporate raiders made out like
highway bandits and the current Labour government has had to spend through its nose to make up for the shortfall
in investments in education, the health service, railways, housing etc.

What are you talking about?Britain was one of the poorest countries in Western Europe in the 70s,taking aid from the EU and the IMF.Thatcher nearly doubled the nation's income per capita and most people experienced major rises in income.If things were so bad,why did the Tories get 18 years in office?

Lax FSA regulation?My friend,it was Thatcher that actually created this financial services regulator in 1985.

The irony is. . .despite all the cutbacks- - -- - - - - - -she spent more than the Governments that came before her Shocked Shocked Go Figure

and don't equate Militant Unionism with social democracy.

She didn't spend more.What matters is Govt spending as a percentage of GDP.Using your logic,when the US GDP totalled $1trillion and Govt spending was 10% of that,a Govt that spends 8% of GDP when the economy is now $1.5trillion is spending more money.

James Callaghan's weaknesses as a leader and his lack of cahoonies in fighting the unions should not be seen
as a weakness of social democracy

The biggest sign of the weakness of social democracy is the rare number of people who lived in that era who want a return to such leftist utopia of the 70s.Its easy for young people who never experienced having to wait 3 months for a BT line or living in one of Western Europe's poorest countries to wax lyrical about social democracy.History tells us it was an abject failure.