Is Obama serving Bush’s 3rd Term?
Sometimes it takes a humorist:
Now, here is my question: did you on the left laugh as heartily as I did? I mean, when SNL mocked Palin, I laughed, but you might have laughed harder… What do you think?
Category: Campaigns and Elections, Government
About DCH: View author profile.
Loading ...
That was pretty good. Even though Obama is obviously going to do a lot of things different then Bush, it is Ironic how the policies that will consume Obama’s first year are basically going to be a continuation of Bush policy. For all the talk about Iraq and how it propelled him through the primary, he is essentially keeping the status quo. Ending the war in 16 months IS the status quo. We are already drawing down and have an agreement with the Iraqis to be out by 2011. He even kept the same defense secretary to oversee it. If he had inherited the pre-surge Iraq he would have actually had to make a tough political decision of either withdrawing and allowing anarchy and genocide in Iraq or fighting and going back on his promise. He got to use Iraq to get into power and now gets to maintain the status quo and then claim that he ended it.
On the economy, he is pursuing the same bailouts and stimulus packages that Bush has done the last year; they are just bigger. Republicans got crushed partially because of ramped deficit spending. Remember all the “he took a 200 billion dollar surplus and turned it to a 400 billion dollar deficit”? Well now Obama is taking a 400 billion dollar deficit and turning it into close to a 2 trillion dollar deficit. Just to put that into comparison, Bush was the first one to even sigh a 2 trillion dollar budget never mind a deficit that large. So wheres all that rage about “fiscal responsibility?”
He’s even for wire tapping foreign phone calls without warrants. Sure there is now a law change, that he himself voted for that might make it more legit, and his new attorney general has essentially stated that notion in his confirmation hearing, but all this faux anger about fundamental privacy right was just that. It’s amazing how people only dislike executive power when your not the guy running it, but as soon as you do, you love it.
For all the blasting of hillary in the primary about how we didn’t need another clinton administration and needed “change,” he’s filled his entire cabinet with old Clinton guys. And thus far, there is nothing in his agenda that doesn’t fit squarely in the standard democrat platform of the past 30 years.
Now I’m willing to give him a chance to prove himself, but thus far the only “change” we are getting is a guy that has great rhetoric and has been able to play the passions of the masses frustrated with the status quo who are looking for a deliverer. That is a dangerous trait for a politician in with respect to the individual voter and his or her liberty and prosperity. I guess only time will tell.
EJ,
I am encouraged by Obama’s selection of “old Clinton guys” as well as other hints he might govern more from the center then his campaign would have indicated.
By the way, I ended up voting for Obama, but did so only after McCain lost my vote after he tapped Palin for to run alongside him. Even though McCain was running hard to the right in his campaign, I trusted that he would have been more of a centrist then his campaign indicated.
As for fiscal responsibility, I have heard that even some Reaganite economists believe that some form of stimulus and deficit spending is required in the short term due to the dire situation we find ourselves in. The test on fiscal responsibility is going to come in on the long term. I personally am going to start braying if the stimulus package includes any long term programs that are forced on us without a means to pay for them or for any tax cuts that do not expire after a short run.
I am sure that Barack is going to support the enactment of some things I do not like. However the closer he comes to the center the more apt he is to win my continuing support.
Little David,
I’m not suggesting that him keeping some clinton people is necessarily bad. I too see it as a good sign of maybe governing a little more to the center. However, I am just pointing out the hypocracy and irony of it.
Even more so, I see the Iraq politics as a huge farse.
As far as the bailouts/ stimulus, yes there are many economists who see a need for this. This is classic textbook keynsian fiscal policy that eery economics student learns in eocn 101. The problem is in reality is that the assumptions of that model are far too simplistic and therefore its effectivness has always been a matter of major achademic debate within the field. Emperically, it hasnt worked too well here or elsewhere around the world in the past. We shall see i suppose after this, as this one will be the largest the US has ever tried.
However, as you stated, many of the “stimulus” components are permenant spending programs, such as the expansion of the “earned income tax credit” (which is really just welfare), and a lot of the energy and healthcare provisions as well as a signifigant increase in Federal employees, which you know will never go away. Add to the fact the house just passed the expanded Schip last week, which now gives free healthcare to people making quite a decent amount of money, we will end this crisis with a much larger structual deficit then when we entered it.
I am firmly in favor of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
That credit goes to those that have a job but just do not earn enough in that job.
Well I am not so much in favor of the earned income tax credit as much as I prefer it over a minimum wage and other welfare programs. Its far more efficient and doesnt create nearly as a much of a distortion in the labor markets leading to higher unemployment as the minimum wage does.
However, my point is, this is perminant spending placed in a bill being sold as temporary “stimulus.” And it will only contribute to the structual deficit.
On the same topic… Guantanamo… reality kicking in. Keeping the Bush policy with just a new name.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258578172604569.html
EJ,
I am in favor of the minimum wage as well. Not every wage earner qualifies for the Earned Income Tax Credit. Also, as wages increase, less of a credit is earned and thus there is less of a burden on the taxpayer.
Please be aware that I am not necessarily arguing for an increase in the minimum wage, I am only stating that there needs to some floor on the wages that are allowed to be paid by employers. At the current federal minimum wage, an employee will only be earning around $1,200 bucks a month. Try supporting a family on that wage.
Little David,
“At the current federal minimum wage, an employee will only be earning around $1,200 bucks a month. Try supporting a family on that wage.”
Try supporting a family on no wage because the price control on labor destroyed your would be job.
Higher the minimum wage, higher the unemployment rate for lower skilled workers. A minimum wage is a price control, and just like any other price control, it distorts the market so that supply (people looking for jobs) doesnt match up with demand (jobs being offered). Minorities in particular have emperically been crushed. 16-24 years olds had somethign like a 7% unemployment rate back in the 50′s when most jobs were exemp. Blacks in that age group were at about 8%. Now the numbers are in the high teens even before this recent crisis and the spread between races is even more with blacks int he 20s, because the teens who do get the limited amount of jobs tend to be the kids of connected professionals who hook them up with jobs and not poorer families. Furthermore, most of the individuals who make minumum wage are either students or secondary suplimentary income. Less then 20% of those making minumum wage are in households below the poverty line.
If the minimum wage truely increased wages without increasing unemployment, why don’t we just ditch all federal programs for healthcare, education, welfare and so on and just place a really high minimum wage, say $20 per hour? Why stop there, lets just all legislate ourselves $100 per hour wage? $1000?
It would be much better to completely remove the minimum wage and if you still want some type of government support, increase the negative income tax (earned income tax credit). Unemployment would be less. Taxes would have to be a little higher, but prices of goods and services would be a little lower. And the lower unemployment rate would increase economic output somewhat.
EJ,
Would you be willing to work for less then the minimum wage?
I’m just wondering. Our economy seems to be shedding all of the good paying jobs and leaving more workers dependent on the minimum wage. I am not sure we should allow the minimum wage in America to be set by what a peasant in China is willing to work for.
As we continue to grind the majority under our feet, we must realize that this new majority is going to vote for change. It’s called the American Way!
If you do not like it, you can leave.
I am happy that Obama has changed his campaign rhetoric of Change for more of the same.
Just one thing–why did we have to elect Obama over Mrs. Clinton? He appointed Clinton people. She would have appointed Clinton people. Candidate Obama and Candidate Clinton were not too far apart, and President Obama appear to be even closer to Clinton policywise.
Obama=Clinton – experience.
Did we just have to prove this county is not racist–just sexist?
well, black men got the vote before women
not saying its right but between Hillary and Palin’s experiences this year, we may just need a few more years before the country is ready to elect a female President. But I really think we are almost there.
I think that your right DCH, I think with Hillary almost beating Obama in the primaries and Gov. Palin having the impact that she did, that by 2012 most Americans will not think too much of it.
Meanwhile, President Obama’s actions thus far have proven him to be very liberal. Therefore I think that he will have a strong challenge in 2012. Gov. Palin may be the challenger.
Steven Osborne,
If Sarah Palin ends up being the Republican nominee in 2012 I think the Republicans are going to make a big mistake.
John McCain might have won the last election if he hadn’t made the goofy pick of Sarah to run for VP. Sarah Palin energized the base, but alienated moderates. If the base had not been energized they might have stayed at home, but they would not have voted for the other guy. Alienated moderates (like myself) ended up voting for the other guy.
Little David,
Many analysts have said that he would have had an even worse loss without Sarah on the ticket. I believe that McCain would have lost Missouri and Georgia without her. She is likely to win reelection as governor and by 2012 will have had half a decade of experience.
McCain ran 5% behind Bob Goodlatte in the Shenendoah Valley, I don’t think that the five percent were moderates. Also most independents in this country are culturally conservative and desire things like lower taxes with less regulation on individuals. The mistake that I made was to believe that a Vice-Presidential candidate could pull McCain across the finish line, I was wrong. We will get a better idea of how Gov. Palin appeals to suburban voters if she makes her own bid for the Presidency.
For the few weeks that she was the main issue of the election, McCain was in the lead. His support for the bailout killed his chances. McCain was THE moderate candidate. If we have a candidate who stands on principle, independents will come.
After Hillary lost, McCain was my candidate until he selected Palin, then he lost my vote.
I find it hard to come up with a scenario where I would vote for Palin if she ran for President. She might be the ultra-conservatives wet dream, but the rest of us are going to look at the mess left behind the sheets and say “Ewwww”.