The Observation Deck

I've actually been reading and listening to what Barak Obama has been writing and saying. It's not a pretty picture.

His vision for America leaves no place for entrepenurship, individual responsibilty, respect for property rights and free enterprise. He envisions all economic activity and power eminating from Washington D.C. Nowhere in any of his speeches does he recognize the power of free enterprise and the capitalist system.

His economic model is based on the community action model; agitate for free stuff in the belief that all that stuff creates itself. Nowhere in his history is their any evidence that he recognizes that prosperity comes from innovation and hard work.

His political model is that of the messianic political leadership of Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro. All across the world countries that cast off their socialist chains find greater economic growth and prosperity. Obama turns a blind eye to that reality. Some think the problem is too many chains. Obama thinks the problem is that there are too few chains.

If you want to see Obama's vision for America visit Detroit or Zimbabwe.

His vision for America leaves no place for entrepenurship, individual responsibilty, respect for property rights and free enterprise. He envisions all economic activity and power eminating from Washington D.C. Nowhere in any of his speeches does he recognize the power of free enterprise and the capitalist system.

Any quotes to back this up or is hyperbole alone what we have to accept? Just curious. Assuming he is lying of course since his first quote on his website in the economy section says,

"I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…"

But since you weren't using that as a basis for your assumption of his Beggar Economy, can you point to actual quotes or ideas that support your assertions?

The Small Business Plan on his website indicates support for innovation, new technologies and tax incentives to get small businesses off the ground and running.

Where is your "no room" coming from? Has he put up barriers to people doing the small enterprise thing? He is trying to tackle health care which, above many things, is a barrier to success with small companies. He is painting a canvass with a broad brush but at least it is a canvass with some concrete ideas and they seem to be counter to your interpretations of it.

What is the "agitate for free stuff?" He wants to invest US dollars into tech innovations, alternative fuel, etc but nothing in his stuff that I read so far (and I KNOW I won't have ever read as much as you, that is the truth) indicates the "free stuff" model you speak of.

To me, words like "all" or "no room" or "nowhere" are the marks of pure hyperbole.

I noticed an interesting news article posted to the window on one of the tech places besides one of the fancy hotels this morning. It said robots are being designed to replace bellhops, porters, janitors, etc.

Imagine having to call tech support to get someone to retrieve fresh linens from one side of the hospital building and bring them to another. Presently you would have to rely on an employee making between 8 and 13 hours an hour to do that. The robots will replace these employees, who can join the military and provide tech support, mechanical work, and bodies in the middle east. The robo-porters will be out of commission 10 percent of the time, so a contracting staffing agency can be paid 20 dollars an hour to send a temp worker to do portering work for 7 dollars an hour.

The very un-Liberterian nations of Germany, Sweden, and Japan somehow ended up engineering and manufacturing more fuel efficient or reliable automobiles. and consumer electronics. And that Ikea furniture stuff.

much of Liquid Crystal Display screens were invented in Ohio, but none of the innovative stuff that uses them is manufactured here.

Americas innovative engineering power is most successful in inventing weapons of heavy or mass destruction. The best way to market those is to use them every ten to fifteen years. Usually that requires a concurrent tax increase. You gotta compliment Team Bush on innovating a way to market American engineering expertise without raising taxes.

Surprisingly, Cuba is in better shape than most Latin American countries. Pretty much all countries that started out as colonies of Spain, France, or any Catholic nation are poor today. You can't ship George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or John Adams there, because generally a few families there already own everything. You don't gotta raise taxes when you can just raise the rent, but none of our founding fathers wrote about unfair rent.

Phil Florian wrote: "I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…"

But since you weren't using that as a basis for your assumption of his Beggar Economy, can you point to actual quotes or ideas that support your assertions?

Obama talking about his support of the free market means as much as George Bush talking about fiscal responsiblity or Dennis Kucinich talking about national security. They know they are supposed to say nice things about it but they aren't sure why.

Obama is the Manchurian Candidate. He has such a slim public record and narrow range of experience that we have to judge him on just four years or so in office and his years as a "community organizier". The duties of a comunity organizer can best be described as Mau Mauing The Flack Catcher.

See: http://www.amazon.com/review/product/05 ... Descending

If you want to trust community organizers to run the country that's up to you. I don't.

Here is Obamas tax plan:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/18/r ... bam_25.php

Here is an analysis:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9224

Here is another:

http://www.nationalbubble.com/barack-ob ... omic-plan/

This should be fun.

Bill, asked to back-up this:

His vision for America leaves no place for entrepenurship, individual responsibilty, respect for property rights and free enterprise. He envisions all economic activity and power eminating from Washington D.C. Nowhere in any of his speeches does he recognize the power of free enterprise and the capitalist system.

You provide absolutely zero evidence.

Somebody's biased interpretation isn't evidence.

I am enormously confident your over-heated claims will not evoke in you a credible presentation of actual evidence.

Prove me wrong, but "no place" is unequivocal and would presumably allow for an equally straightforward bit of evidence backing the characterization up.

I won't hold my breath.

***

I predict that the implicit social darwinism of radical conservative cronyism, itself fed by corporate welfare, and 'eronism,' and criminality, has run its course as the old race-baiting southern strategy and evangelical hypocrisy, proves not commensurate with the task of bringing forth another term of mendacity, war crimes, and, free market 'innovation' and off-shoring. This taking the form of McCain/McCrazy.

The demographic trendlines are all in place: the young are, overall, sexually tolerant and independent; the increasing naturalized immigrant Asian and Hispanic populations tend to the democrats. And, the increased cosmopolitan professional classes are there already.

It's the darn post-baby boom pendulum swinging to send the plutocracy of aging white guys packing.

...not a moment too soon.

God be thanked.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:You provide absolutely zero evidence.

Somebody's biased interpretation isn't evidence.

I am enormously confident your over-heated claims will not evoke in you a credible presentation of actual evidence.

Prove me wrong, but "no place" is unequivocal and would presumably allow for an equally straightforward bit of evidence backing the characterization up.

I won't hold my breath.

Let's start with Social Security.

Obama and the Democrat leadership in Congress have prosed eliminating the earnings limit on Social Security taxes. The argument is that raising taxes by trillions of dollars would "solve" social security's unfunded liability problem. For the pros and cons see:

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/socialse ... e12004.pdf

Obama neglects to mention a few things.

If the new Social Security taxes are collected and the benefits are paid based on those new taxes, over time the new benefits will cost almost as much as the taxes raised.

There is no Social Security Trust Fund. There is only a promise to raises taxes or increase borrowing at some future date. The money collected in Social Security taxes that is not used for Social Security benefits is spent on other things Soo..

Obama's increased Social Security tax will be spent on other things as well. The proposed trillion dollar tax increase is not meant to "solve" Social Security's $15 trillion dollar deficit. It is meant to partially finance his spending plans.

I say partially because trillions more will be needed for new foreign aid programs, welfare programs, make work programs, regulatory programs, the new Department of Guaranteed Annual Housing Appreciation and more.

While he might pay lip service to the concept of free enterprise he does not understand how it works. His history is one as a community activist and not one of entrepreneurship And that is how he will govern.

Stephan--- Good demographic analysis. I have become very attuned to the fact that we ain't the Pepsi Generation anymore!!!!!
Stan

There have been massive social security surpluses for the last 28 years or so. The Reagan Administration raised social security taxes. These surpluses are used to partially mask the annual reaganomics deficits. Social Security Taxes are a de facto regressive income tax.

The best thing to do is decrease social security tax rates and then apply it to total personal income. If you make 25 grand a year this means you'll be taking home 750 dollars more of it a year. If you make 25 million a year it means you'll be paying the social security tax rate on all of it.

We could eliminate most of the benefits of social security. but that would require a much more stoic acceptance of human mortality. It probably means accepting legalized abortion, looking the other way in many cases of infanticide or negligent infanticide, and making opium freely available for people who are nearly crippled by old age or disease. The cost of prosecuting and jailing these people is more than most social security benefits that would otherwise be paid to them. but that is ok: it would be more like the 19th century. Liberterians and conservatives love the 19th century.

We should also raise top tier income rates to between 40 and 50 percent. It is ok: there was more going on back in those days than there has been for the last 20 years.

We should give George Bush a nobel peace prize. He has demonstrated what it costs and how successful the most powerful nation in the world can be at occupying and social-engineering some small pissant nation like Iraq that was already crippled by 12 years of economic sanctions and a decade of fighting Iran.

He has proven once and for all that he will never be as cool as his dad was in world war II. He has proven once and for all that Baby Boomers will never be as cool as the World War II generation. No matter how many cool younger people they order to use awesome hardware against Iraq. The signs are already obvious: During and after world war II there were hundreds of movies about how cool World War II was. Americans did all kinds of cool athletic soldiering in Europe and the Pacific. They manually controlled all kinds of cool planes and ships and vehicles and saved the world in the least morally ambiguous war since the Civil War. There are hardly any movies about the most recent wars: that is because they realize if people look too closely at it they will realize it isn't as cool as world war II, and that they will never be as cool as the world war II generation. That is why George Bush deserves a nobel peace prize. He has proven what things are worth. This will prevent future leaders from launching us into similar wars. and even if he doesn't win the nobel peace prize, he'll probably make way more money getting paid to show up at different corporations-like halliburton- to give brief speeches and then play golf with the board of directors.

We need more after school programs and guidance counselors to prevent aging affluent baby boomers from voting the U.S. into war.

Bill,

Perhaps you are exagerating slightly? I really liked Dr. Paul's mesage which is very libertarian. But my second choice is Obama - not McCain. This is why.

1) The WAR. We are spending 12 billion a month in a war that we shouldn't have entered. It is not making us more safe. We are losing the lives and health of our fine young men and women in uniform and diverting attention and money away from more important issues. It is a mess - we shouldn't have gone in but you have to know when to cut your losses and get out. The war is one reason for our economic problems not only dollars but loss of concentration on economic problems. McCain would keep us in Iraq for 100 years. He still thinks we should have won Vietnam which is now a fine stable country where we visit and trade.

2) Civil Liberties. Obama would restore them. McCain is taking the Bush line. Hillary hasn't agreed yet to restore them. Protecting my civil liberties are a libertarian value - not a socialist one.

3) Economy - With many other issues it doesn't matter what you do if you can't get the economy on track. Ending the War is a huge way of improving the economy. McCain has admited that he knows nothing about the economy and Bush has not done a bang up job on the econmy either and he seems destined to follow his leadership.

Obama is inspiring - in a way that I haven't seen people inspired in a long time. He isn't talking about government doing everything - he is talking about citizens doing everything. That is exciting. I see him pushing much harder than the other two to get things done and to improve our economic situation.

Health Care - it is a complete mess. McCain wants us to refuse to negotiate with the Drug companies for better prices, Hilllary wants to mandate everyone buy health care from Insurance companies. Obama is the middle ground - he wants to negotiate for good prices for everyone but not mandate it for adults who choose to opt out. Seems to me to be a sensible approach - a middle ground - not libertarian but not socialist.

As much as I want to vote for Dr. Paul- I'm getting more convinced he isn't going to win so between the three that are left - I have three options. McCain is a third Bush term which our country can not endure. As much as I would love personally to see a woman in the white house - I think Hillary is polarizing enough to the Republicans that nothing will get done. Obama is smart, inspiring and not radical. I think he is the strongest hope we have of turning our current situation around.

ryan costa wrote:There have been massive social security surpluses for the last 28 years or so. The Reagan Administration raised social security taxes. These surpluses are used to partially mask the annual reaganomics deficits. Social Security Taxes are a de facto regressive income tax.

I agree.

I was disapointed when Reagan agreed to the Democrats demands for a tax increase. I was disgusted when Alan Greenspan helped spawn the so called Social Security "fix".

You are right on when you say the Social Security tax increase was actually a regressive income tax increase disguised as a trust fund.

Democrats and Republicans have spent the so called trust fund on other things. When Social Security taxes no longer raise enough money to pay for benefits the Feds will have to increase taxes or increase borrowing to fund the system. There is no Social Security Trust Fund.

That is one of many reasons why Obama's trillion dollar social security tax increase is a bad idea.

Bill Call wrote: ...Republicans have spent the so called trust fund on other things. ...

Bill


I do not remember you being a big Al "Lock Box" Gore supporter.

.

Bill,

Raising the cap, or doing away with it, raises more money than not doing so.

Why? Because x% of a buck is less than x+1% of a buck. Your other points about this subject are entirely speculative and are not addressed to your original over-heated claims.

But, having proved zip you trot out another claim: that Mr. Obama doesn't understand capitalism.

Any proof?

I figure that if asked the ex-editor of the Harvard Law Review would be able to run circles around any answer you or me might give. I would speculate this is probably true!

Still, the old white guys who wish to roll back the new deal and settle in for more cronyism and corporate welfare and corporate socialism and intense social darwinism are about to gasp for what little air is left in the culture of selfishness, 'might makes right,' and 'survival of the fittest.'

Yippee.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:Raising the cap, or doing away with it, raises more money than not doing so.

Why? Because x% of a buck is less than x+1% of a buck. Your other points about this subject are entirely speculative and are not addressed to your original over-heated claims..

Indubitably

Stephen Calhoun wrote:But, having proved zip you trot out another claim: that Mr. Obama doesn't understand capitalism.

Any proof?

The proof is in the pudding.

ALL of his programs and "solutions" are government centered. Have you ever wondered why Hong Kong (no government, no foreign aid) is the wealthiest city in the world and the countries of Africa are among the poorest (lots of government lots of foreign aid)?

Keep in mind that with a Democrat congress and Democrat Sentate every left wing lunatic idea will become law. Since Obama has such a thin public record we have to predict his future behaviour on the basis of his activities as a community activist, aka Mau Mauing The Flak Catcher.

Bill Call wrote:ALL of his programs and "solutions" are government centered. Have you ever wondered why Hong Kong (no government, no foreign aid) is the wealthiest city in the world and the countries of Africa are among the poorest (lots of government lots of foreign aid)?

Hong Kong: Whenever you are willing to sell or better yet give all your land back to the government and then joyfully pay them to lease it for your own use, let me know. Whenever you want to ditch spending on our military, let me know, too. I bet we could lower our taxes appreciably if we expect, say, Canada to provide our military defense so we don't have to ourselves. That work? And I read somewhere that HK spends nearly 50% on "social and welfare" spending. The day a dyed-in-the-wool conservative wants to do that, I'll eat my hat.

Africa: Yeah, it is the liberal democrats in Africa that are causing their economic woes. Wait, they don't have many democracies so really that can't be the case. Bush has given a TON to Africa. Did his Conservative cronies forget to tell him we are hurting Africa to do so? If Hong Kong had to deal with frightfully dangerous warlords, ethnic cleansing and power-mad despots, do you think it would do as well as it has?

These are bad examples and have nothing to do with Obama's policy ideas.

Bill Call wrote:Keep in mind that with a Democrat congress and Democrat Sentate every left wing lunatic idea will become law. Since Obama has such a thin public record we have to predict his future behaviour on the basis of his activities as a community activist, aka Mau Mauing The Flak Catcher.

Bill, has every lunatic right-wing idea become law under Bush? Under Taft?

It has?

Well, we should be afraid!