Home › Blogs › mindyfinn's blog ›

Obama's Message Hypocrisy

Submitted by mindyfinn on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 11:48
in

Obama won the primary based on his bottom-up, "yes, we can" message.  As I listened to the speeches at the DNC, including Obama, it struck me that the candidate's message strategy collides with his policy strategy.  People-powered vs. people-controlled.

Republican strategist Alex Castellanos writes:      

Obama empowered his supporters, telling them they, not the old political establishment, could achieve anything. ...

Barack Obama may believe "change doesn't come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up," but the leadership of his party doesn't. The national Democratic establishment, from the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org to Pelosi and Reid in Congress, still believe in top-down big-government from Washington, especially if they get to run the factory. ...

They believe the era of big government is back, not over. They would keep money and power in their hands, not devolve it to the average American. 

The liberals need to stop the insanity.  They love to claim the "power to the people" mantle.  How does more government control and regulation put the power back in the hands of the people?

When you were a kid and your Mom or Dad gave you $10 to take to the mall, did you feel empowered?  How about when you set up a lemonade stand and made $5?  And what about when your Mom or Dad took $2 from your lemonade stand profits, and $3 from what they gave you for the mall, and handed them to your brother? Then, they said you must pay them more before you set up your lemonade stand the next day.  

I would feel like giving up at that point! 

Before Obama and the Left "establishment" goes around touting their belief in people power, let's clarify their definition of people power.  For me, it certainly doesn't mean more government control.  

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Well, two things

Submitted by sierradave on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 12:10.

First off, DailyKos and MoveOn are now part of the "national democratic establishment?"  When did THAT happen, exactly?  I mean, congratulations to them and all, they sure did rise fast.  But I don't know that the insider label exactly sticks just yet.

As for your substantive point, Obama is proposing a tax cut for everyone making less than $250K/year, and he's proposing to put the taxes of everyone above the $250,000 mark back where they were in the 90's.  And well have those Republican deregulation schemes been working out?  Greenspan said yesterday that we're in the worst financial crisis of his lifetime.

Simplifying the election to "Dems want to tax you, Repubs want to trust you with your money" might feel real nice.  But it turns out that eight years of Republican rule hasn't shrunk the size of government, it's just collosally raised the deficit.  Meanwhile trickle-down has been an abyssmal failure and deregulation has Republican spokespeople on air arguing that this isn't as bad as the Great Depression.  Maybe, just maybe, macroeconomics is more complicated than lemonade stands, and your party leadership is bereft of economic theories that can foster a growing economy.

But what am I saying?  McCain is a change candidate.  With him in office, those exact same policies that got us into this mess will magically transform the economy.  Also, the fundamentals of the economy are totally strong.

There are no Obama tax cuts

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 13:47.

First off, DailyKos and MoveOn are now part of the "national democratic establishment?"  When did THAT happen, exactly?

When Kos conventions got the Presidential candidates to do song-and-dance for them was a good 'breaking out'.

"Obama is proposing a tax cut for everyone making less than $250K/year,"

No he's not. He is merely allowing the Bush tax policies to continue for that group and adding a dollop of welfare payment giveaway on top. This is after he proposed raising taxes on capital gains for everyone, after he proposed social security tax hikes, and income tax hikes. He keeps changing his position to sound good but after the election he'll change it out against to suit his needs.

The Obama tax cuts are as mythical as Clinton's promised middle-class tax cut that never happened. Its election campaign gimmickry that is reformulated at each stage of the campaign to make him sound right.

If Obama was serious, he would have gotten it passed in the Senate already. He's not.

And well have those Republican deregulation schemes been working out?

How well are your strawman lies working out?

Greenspan said yesterday that we're in the worst financial crisis of his lifetime.

Greenspan's lax Fed policies a few years back helped cause the crisis.

But it turns out that eight years of Republican rule ...

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS! Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Democrat majority are running Congress.

party leadership is bereft of economic theories that can foster a growing economy.

Really... so you have the right ideas? SO WHAT ARE THE TOP THREE THINGS WE CAN DO TO GROW THE US ECONOMY (with evidence/proof the policies actually work)?

First. Yes Kos and Moveon are

Submitted by Cerebral Alpha on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 13:16.

First. Yes Kos and Moveon are a large part of the Democratic infrastructure considering all of the money they bring in and the way they have shaped platform positions. Remember Obama rose to prominence in the Senate  - where he didn't have the Chicago political machine to back him - by taking the hard left positions espoused by Kos and Moveon.  The Obama nomination cemented the netroots as a serious cog in the Democratic Party machine.

Obama's tax plan, based on taxing the rich because "they can afford it", is a sham. "The Rich" that he loves to rail against already pay a vast majority of the taxes. Indeed when taxes on 'the rich' are eased it historically leads to higher tax revenue and rises in salaries across all tax brackets. But the worst is that the people sitting squarly in Obama's crosshairs of taxation are the small business people that form the backbone (read job creation) of this Country's economy. These people earn $250k but that's not take-home salary, most of that money is reinvested back into the business in question. Obama can talk about the middle class all he wants, but around %95 of them don't pay taxes at all.

As far as Greenspan's goes we should probably trust him since he is responsible for a good bit of it. However the situation we are in now is a result of government meddling that started back in the Clinton years and has continued unabated because of DC's two biggest desires: to make lots of money, and to appear to be fixing the problem(regardless of what the problem actually is). McCain wants more rules and regulations on how the government interacts with Wall St. This could be good as long as the people who want to interact with Wall St. aren't the ones making the rules. Regardless, the answer is not for the government to take over and put Wall St.  under the office of Central Planning, which is essentially what Obama wants to do: create more dependance on the Fed. That and blame Republicans for stuff.

taxes on the rich...

Submitted by sierradave on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 17:06.

So, okay, Bush lowered taxes on the rich.  According to your theory, that should have led to rises in salary for everyone.  Yet the economy has absolutely spiraled during the Bush years (and it's been seven years now, so you guys can no longer pin this one on the spectre of 9/11).  Your answer, it would seem?  Do more of it.  This time it'll work out grrrrrreat!

I'll stick by my original analysis.  Macroeconomic theory is complicated.  There are huge flaws in the trickle-down conservative doctrine.  And asking voters to blame the Clinton administration plus 2 years of Democractic congressional leadership is a tough sell.  Scratch that, it's a monumental task.  All of the obvious evidence is that Republican fiscal leadership has tanked the economy.  The more detailed evidence suggests that once we move beyond "Democrats want to take your moneeeeeeeey," the fiscal policy is basically devoid of good theory.  Maybe that anti-intellectualism in your party is coming back to bite us all in the ass.  Huh, maybe (just maybe) professors and other experts actually ARE good for something.

Have fun trying to convince yourselves that this issue is going to be good for Republicans.  Eight years of incompetance from your party, these are the results we're now getting, and everyone knows it.

Bush lowered taxes on EVERYBODY

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 23:23.

Not just the rich.

The economy did very well from 2002 to 2007. Just the period when the Republicans were in charge of Congress.

Once the Democrats got control of Congress in Jan 2007, things started going south ... related?

 

Sierra, you can't debate on

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 19:28.

Sierra, you can't debate on the facts here, it confuses them.

For decades, the propaganda concept that trickle-down works has become ingrained in feeble Conservative minds, it's indelible.  It is a total fiction, a fantasy, a figment, voodoo economics to anyone who can read a spreadsheet, but  there it is.

Never mind that NOBODY in the USA pays more than 39% income tax on that part of income they have not yet managed to shelter, and that corporations are paying the least taxes they have paid in decades.

See, to Conservatives, taxes are just...wrong!   LOL

No socialist, you have been drinking the Kool-aid again!

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 21:02.

If cutting taxes were bad then we should never have had the periods of economic growth in the 60s (when we had the Kennedy tax cuts), the 80s (with Reagan's tax cuts) and in this decade with the Bush tax cuts.  Low taxes encourage buisness growth, which in turn creates jobs and grows the economy.

And for the record corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them on to consumers in the form of higher prices in order to maintain their profit margin.  Not that I honestly expect an economic illiterate like yourself to understand the difference between a profit margin and actual profit. 

By the way taxes aren't wrong, they should only be for proposes of generating enough revenue for government to provide only the mast basic and necssary services of government.  they should not be used for social eginerring purposes or for asinine class warfare for the benefit of corrupt and power hungrey politicians at the expense of those who create wealth and thus benefit the economy as a whole.

Actually

Submitted by mindyfinn on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 09:35.

I was considered an employee in Massachusetts in 2007 and paid a total of 47% of my salary in taxes with federal and state taxes.  Plus, I was "domiciled in DC," so I owe that city taxes.  And, I rented out a condo in DC, only to rent a much less nice apartment for more money in Massachusetts, and it turns out the rent I received is taxable.  I'm not close to the richest 1%.  That's just wrong.  

I agree that we have overspent in the last 7 years.  Congress nor the President could say no.  It's time for a change, to stop pork barrel spending, but that change is not more domestic spending. 

What has Obama done to show us he would say no to liberal special interests?  He is "nice" to everyone. 

Guess FICA and state taxes don't count

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 19:40.

I'd be happy to keep 61% of my paycheck from the taxman.  And I'm far from the top bracket.

Remember, I suppose in the Carter years with a 70% federal income tax rate we were better off than now; right?

It's horribly overquoted, but

Submitted by Gregoir on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 07:11.

It's horribly overquoted, but I'll post it once more

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

-- Murray Rothbard