Comments on: After victory, a reality check for Obama Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Tashara Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:48:08 +0000 I actually think that her opinion is absurb about this situation because with her intelligence, she is not using any of it. There are greedy company owners who actually made their wealth using the employees’ work as their work. And they should contribute a little more for our country instead of holding back because they want a luxury life to keep and for them to not have to do the “hard-work” that they make their employee do. I believe we should try to help each other out during this financial crisis that we are going through and it’ll benefit us all. If we still have these greedy, stereotypical people with a very high income still believing that having more money will make the world go round. I want them to see how they’ll look when their greediness ends up not helping them if our country ends up in another depression, not that I hope that’ll actually happen to us, but just in theory.

By: Mohamed MALLECK Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:15:58 +0000 I am afraid that the underlying value-judgement behind Diana Furchtgott-Roth’s whole argumentation is that the globalisation agenda and the apparent sympathy that the Obama camp has for continuation of the Bush administration support for free trade is what leads her to argue as she has. She is ready to factor-in the depressing effect on fiscal revenue generation of a slowing economy, but she does not account either for the freeing of funds from a reduction in military spending or for the multiplier effect on job creation and income generation of the fiscal spending on public works. Sure enough, the fiscal deficit might be pushed to fluctuate somewhere between 6% of GDP and 7% of GDP during the initial years of the next decade and becoming steadily reduced to about 2% by 2015 and yielding a small surplus by her target date of 2018, but all this is doable with discipline, international cooperation or coopetition instead of confrontation, and technological advancements that are never factored into such projections because judged not quatifiable.

By: Ananke Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:29:42 +0000 Diana, your ideas are unbelievably off the economic sense.

How trading green cards for houses will resolve the problem that the houses are actually overpriced? At least Poulsen figured it out and backed off the mortgage repurchase idiotism. By the way, at present there is oportunity for obtaining US citizenship in case a person contributes over 2 million capital in the economy. And many Indians become Americans :) that way; so that idea is already done, but the sale price is 2 million, not yours miserable 300 000. And, obviously even this is not enough.

Think also like this – when many many people become hungry and desperate, they don’t have other choise but to take the wealth they need. In that case, you having wealth would be better off contributing voluntarily prior that by higher then otherwise taxation. It doesn’t sound right maybe, but that is life, whoever is stronger at some point takes everything.

By: Himanshu Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:08:49 +0000 Editor,

Doesn’t this say something about how opinionated this column was?

My two cents:

Those who make more money are not necessarily “more productive”. There is limit to the productive capacity of man, it may vary but there are limits. The man making millions cannot squeeze enough lemons at $100 a lemon to make his money in one year. Most of that wealth is ill gotten, piggybacking the work or productivity of others.

In a true free market that would not happen, but don’t those conservatives tell us Utopia is a dream. Well, so is true free market.

I just wanted to vent on the absurd premise of the article =(

By: Canadian who's seen enough socialism Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:57:18 +0000 Some commentators have likened Obama and his proposed policies to Robin Hood. I can’t agree, Obama is not Robin Hood — Robin Hood didn’t take from the ‘rich’ and give to the ‘poor’ — he took from the plunderers and returned to the producers — Obama’s proposals as laid out in the article would make him a robbing hood not a Robin Hood — he’s actually the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Introducing a carbon cap and trade scheme and increasing energy regulaton/taxation will simply raise the cost of energy. This is highly regressive and will impact lower income people the most. The idea of obtaining all sorts goodies by taxing the ‘rich’ won’t work — incidentally the current deflation is rapidly reducing the number of ‘rich’. Wealth is not created by printing a bunch of funny looking pieces of paper or confiscating people’s savings and labor — wealth is created by allowing men’s minds and attitudes to produce and create new ideas and technologies — this does not happen under confiscatory totalitarian regimes — this happens best in free societies where people are allowed to keep the fruits of their labor and people respect each other’s property.
Incidentally, those who have no substantive points to make, usually attack a person’s character rather than their conclusions — the author wrote a reasonable critique of Obama’s putative policies — respond to her theses — attacking her character just makes you out to be an idiot .

By: Mike Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:28:15 +0000 The ‘trickle-down’ fallacy returns. I’m confused over her use of the term ‘costs’ to describe taxes; they would be costs to taxpayers, but revenue to the government. And yes, in recessions, tax revenues go down. If more people are unemployed, you earn less in income tax receipts. But increased public spending would increase employment. Buying a car directly helps employment; buying stock does not. But let’s suppose investing does indirectly help employment by lowering the cost of capital. People don’t invest to increase employment; they invest to make more money. Why would I buy GM stock (good for US employment) when I can buy gold (inflation hedge) or an expanding Chinese manufacturer (more profitable)? And if I make over $250k a year, would I stop investing because my capital gains taxes went up? Would investors suddenly start hiding money under mattresses? As for the ‘earned it’, it would be hard to make that claim if you removed everything the government did to create the environment that allowed you to earn it. Why do the unregulated portions of the economy (Savings and Loans, credit risk default swaps, hedge funds, Enron’s off-book practices) seem to fail and need bailing out, but we keep looking to the ‘magic of unregulated markets’ to fix our economic ills?

By: ClementW Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:23:48 +0000 To those who talk disparagingly of “TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS”

The last time I looked, it was only people with money and a dream who started businesses. The people who start businesses employ people to whom the success or failure of the entrepreneur means a job. Of necessity, the entrepreneur expects to make a return on his investment or takes a loss if his business does not succeed. The people he employs benefit from his success from having a job if he/she succeeds. In big corporations, the owners are stockholders, most of whom are people like you and me. So, when we stockholders are the owners, the employees of the corporations are our employees to whom we “trickle down” our success. I have not yet met a stockholder who did not want his/her stock to go up in value and give increasing returns each year. If stockholdres are greedy for more, then the trickle down to the employee is less.

Look at what happened to the steel, clothing, shoe and other manufacturing industries. The “TRICKLE UP” did not happen due to stockholders and employees and employee unions both wanting higher returns/salaries, nor will it. The stockholders are the driving force and their expectations are what caused the outsourcing.

So, without “TRICKLE DOWN”, there will not be any new jobs. Any politician, Democrat or Republican, who promises job creation would have to find a way to balance the WANTS of owners and employees against their true NEEDS.

So, please quit using “TRICKLE DOWN” economics as a dirty word.

By: Trasa Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:12:23 +0000 All I have to say is, if Obama manages to pull this off and get America going in the right direction, I hope you doubters and Republicans come out and say you’re wrong, which most likely won’t happen. Besides, that, it’s easy to criticize when Obama hasn’t done anything yet. When he starts doing something and if fails miserably, then voice your outcry, but stop with all this speculation. The way I understand it is, Obama is just trying to jumpstart America, so the rest can be left to us to make it grow. Wants wrong with that? It wouldn’t have been a walk in the park if McCain was wearing the shoes.

By: John J. Mon, 10 Nov 2008 04:36:40 +0000 You look like a parrot, and your names a mouthfull but i like you, you make allot of sense. I’m all for cutting corporate taxes and improving the value of the american investment for the sake of nationalism.

however, folks on the right are always worrying about the weatlhy being abused until they can’t do their economic function, but what about the quality of american workers? undereducated, underqualified, and under-employed unless they have a union which makes them rediculously overpaid. each of these people is a waste, a waste of human potential and economic productivity. you want to talk about “disincentives to work and invest” try surviving off three min wage jobs for 30 years knowing full well you’l never be able to go to school and improve your value as a worker because you can barely pay the rent as it is. without help from somewhere you’ll be stuck their and never live up to your potential contribution to the economy. I agree with you that we shouldn’t make it more expensive to hire americans, but shouldn’t we look to making american labor valuable to begin with while looking at its cost. (with a sneer of elitism) or better yet bring in boatloads of imagrants from latin america and elsewere, they’ll work their butt off just like my great grandfather did. the rewards of educating them are greater than the cost.

By: OK Jack Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:49:10 +0000 CORRECTION: I have absolutely no problem with the privileged class growing and prospering…BUT not while the middle class is shrinking and struggling. When only the former occurs, that is Reaganomics/Bushonomics. When both the former and the latter grow & prosper, that is the Taftonomics derived from 1913’s 16th Amendment, and the Wilsonomics derived from the Revenue Act of 1913..

I refer you to my comments of November 8th, Mr. & Mrs. Reader.

Disabled American Veteran