Big Govt and Obamanomics

#1
RespectTradition

RespectTradition

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
1,831
Likes
7
#1
One Year Later, Another Look at Obamanomics vs. Reaganomics | Cato @ Liberty

My problem with Obama is that he hasn’t fixed any of the problems. Instead, he has kept in place all of the bad policies – and in some cases made them worse. Indeed, I challenge anyone to identify a meaningful difference between the economic policy of Obama and the economic policy of Bush.

  • Bush increased government spending. Obama has been increasing government spending.
  • Bush adopted Keynesian “stimulus” policies. Obama adopted Keynesian “stimulus” policies.
  • Bush bailed out politically connected companies. Obama has been bailing out politically connected companies.
  • Bush supported the Fed’s easy-money policy. Obama has been supporting the Fed’s easy-money policy.
  • Bush created a new health care entitlement. Obama created a new health care entitlement.
  • Bush imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector. Obama imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector.
I could continue, but you probably get the point. On economic issues, the only real difference is that Bush cut taxes and Obama is in favor of higher taxes. Though even that difference is somewhat overblown since Obama’s tax policies – up to this point – haven’t had a big impact on the overall tax burden (though that could change if his plans for higher tax rates ever go into effect).

This is why I always tell people not to pay attention to party labels. Bigger government doesn’t work, regardless of whether a politician is a Republican or Democrat. The problem isn’t Obamanomics, it’s Bushobamanomics. But since that’s a bit awkward, let’s just call it statism.
Click to expand...
 
#2
#2
No More Bipartisan Bailouts | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

One of the few lines in President Obama’s State of the Union address that actually received bipartisan applause was his vow of “no bailouts, no handouts, and no cop outs.” Of course the president then went on to claim credit for his bailout of the auto industry and promise additional handouts to the “green energy” industry.

Both liberals and conservatives often succumb to a narrative that pits big government against big business. No doubt many of big government’s tax and regulatory policies do make it more difficult for businesses to expand and hire people. But just as often, big business and big government are all too happy to work hand in hand to thwart the free market.Confusing support for free markets with support for the corporate agenda is a bipartisan failing. In a free market, for example, corporations compete against one another on their merits. Government doesn’t pick winners and losers or prefer one type of industry over another.

Yet, Rick Santorum shares President Obama’s desire for special tax breaks for “manufacturing.” Both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney join President Obama in backing government subsidies for ethanol and other alternative energy.
Confusing support for free markets with support for the corporate agenda is a bipartisan failing.
Click to expand...

And obviously, in a free market, when businesses fail because they made stupid investment decisions, they go bankrupt. But both Romney and Gingrich joined President Obama (and President Bush) in supporting TARP and the bailout of some of America’s biggest banks and investment firms. This was not a one-time situation brought about by a unique crisis: Dodd-Frank enshrines the principle of “too big to fail,” all but guaranteeing future bailouts.
...
For example, Big Pharma poured more than $150 million into advertising in favor of Obamacare. Why? Among other things, every insurance plan in America will now be required to cover pharmaceutical products. And, closing the Medicare Part D “donut hole” will encourage seniors to buy brand-name drugs rather than cheaper generics. Speaking of the Medicare prescription-drug program, guess who was the biggest lobby in favor of the entitlement expansion? The drug companies even funneled millions of dollars to Newt Gingrich’s Center for Health Transformation. No surprise, then, that Gingrich supported the Medicare expansion, calling it a cost-saving idea, even though it added $17 trillion to the Medicare’s unfunded obligations. Among the biggest supporters of Obamacare’s individual insurance mandate are the big insurance companies. After all, isn’t it great for the government to force people to buy your product?
...
Big businesses also use regulations to prevent competition or impose costs on their competitors. For example, General Electric is among the biggest supporters of President Obama’s “cap and trade” proposals. GE is not doing this out of some sense of altruistic global citizenship, but because it operates a unit that would trade cap-and-trade credits. The company stands to reap billions in profits were Obama’s plan to pass.

Similarly, Walmart stunned many by coming out in support of an employer health mandate. But it’s really not that surprising. Walmart actually spends more on employee health care than its competitor Target. Mandating that all companies provide health insurance will drive up Target’s costs, benefiting Walmart.
Click to expand...
 
#3
#3
Outside of Obamacare (I know people are going to blitz me for trying to downplay Obamacare, but keep reading), Obama has done nothing that is much different than Bush or done nothing that has deserved the level of disdain that he has gotten. He came into office with the country collapsing, yet, you have people saying he is the worst president ever because the economy hasn't turned around yet. Hey folks... he inherited this problem. Sorry to burst your bubble, but no president was going to have an easy go turning this thing around unless they made some tough decisions. Unfortunately, no one has the stomach or the will to make those decisions. Not Obama. Not Bush before him. Not Congress. Not the media. And not you.

Everyone wants to believe that we can get out of this mess without some austerity measures. The longer you drag this out, the harder the measures in the future will have to be. Better to solve the problems now as opposed to kicking the can down the road another election cycle and passing the problem on to someone else.

As far as our future with the candidates we have in the front of the line, it looks like the two main candidates will be Obama and Romney. Both have their health care plans in their pasts. So all of you fools that are whining about Obamacare, you need to realize that your boy Romney supported the same thing in Mass. Who's to say you wouldn't have gotten it anyways if he is elected in 2012 and Obamacare didn't exist?
 
Last edited:
#4
#4
Rasputin_Vol said:
Obama has done nothing that is much different than Bush or done nothing that has deserved the level of disdain that he has gotten.
Click to expand...

Bush definitely spent too much, but this "they're all the same" argument is a little lazy. There's a laundry list of things Obama has done that Bush never would have.

I think the rest of your post is spot on though.
 
#5
#5
Bush's and Obama's are very similar, yet only one is/was constantly derided by the press.
 
#7
#7
dreVol said:
Bush's and Obama's are very similar, yet only one is/was constantly derided by the press.
Click to expand...

That may be the biggest difference. The second difference would be that Bush run up a tab spending on traditional GOP items (foreign policy), while Obama has managed to run up our tab on traditional Democratic items (domestic spending and entitlements).

It doesn't matter where the money went, the result is the same.
 
#8
#8
GAVol said:
Bush definitely spent too much, but this "they're all the same" argument is a little lazy. There's a laundry list of things Obama has done that Bush never would have.

I think the rest of your post is spot on though.
Click to expand...

Do you have examples?

(isn't saying: "nu-uh, they're different" without explanation is just as lazy?)
 
#9
#9
RespectTradition said:
Do you have examples?

(isn't saying: "nu-uh, they're different" without explanation is just as lazy?)
Click to expand...

I guess it s just so obvious to me where the differences lie.

Obamacare and the CFPB are a pretty good place to start.
 
#10
#10
How about this, there are a small handful of differences, but there are far, far more similarities.

I am neither a republican not a democrat. I am not blinded by party rhetoric or party-tinted glasses. I think that lets me, and other independents, see the candidates in a little truer light than someone whose party affiliation keeps getting in the way.

(not saying you are a partisan, I don't know you. I am just making a general point.)
 
Last edited:
#14
#14
Rasputin_Vol said:
That is pretty condescending, btw. You're better than that.
Click to expand...

It's wasn't meant that way at all. In my mind, from foreign policy to his overuse of czars to choking regulation, there are way too many differences to try and throw a blanket over them and say they're the same.
 
#15
#15
I'm not sure what the point of the OP is. Admittedly, if you were a major Bush supporter but condemn Obama for the same things Bush did, that's moronic. But is the point that Obama shouldn't receive criticism for doing the same stupid things Bush did, simply because he didn't do them first?
 
#16
#16
bamawriter said:
I'm not sure what the point of the OP is. Admittedly, if you were a major Bush supporter but condemn Obama for the same things Bush did, that's moronic. But is the point that Obama shouldn't receive criticism for doing the same stupid things Bush did, simply because he didn't do them first?
Click to expand...

The point is, the problems in our economy aren't partisan. The problems are the result of government interference, by BOTH parties.

(btw, the whole article is a comparison of Reagan's successful handling of a recession and the Bush/Obama tag team screwup)
 
Last edited:
#17
#17
To fix our problems, we need to get the government out of the economy more than we need to get the (insert your hated political party here) out of the White House.
 
Last edited:
#18
#18
The older I get, the more discouraged I get. We will never break out of this two party/lesser of two evils matrix we are in.

The people have to have the willingness to change. They just don't have it, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#19
#19
Rasputin_Vol said:
The older I get, the more discouraged I get. We will never break out of this two party/lesser of two evils matrix we are in.

The people have to have the willingness to change. They just don't have it, though.
Click to expand...

The whole nature of our public school system is to teach conformity and discourage questioning authority. We drill our students to regurgitate facts without critical thinking. We focus on the who what and where at the expense of the why. We teach problem solving of a limited nature and if you try and solve something in a non-prescribed manner, then you are told you are wrong. Dress codes abound. Even the cafeteria is about everyone eating the same thing and the government is going to tell you what is good for you and we will only give you that. From the time our parents send our children to school, they are taught the wrong things. How can we expect people who grow up in such a system to challenge what they are told, to look for alternatives, to try something new? Did you notice all the militaryesque rhetoric in the SOTU? Obama kept talking about putting aside our individuality in pursuit of the common good, to stop living for ourselves and to live for others, to conform to his vision.

and we do...
 
#21
#21
Rasputin_Vol said:
The older I get, the more discouraged I get. We will never break out of this two party/lesser of two evils matrix we are in.

The people have to have the willingness to change. They just don't have it, though.
Click to expand...

People are willing enough, but most have no clue how the process works beyond what they do in the voting booth.

For example, do you know the names of the local party heads in your district, how much they are paid and who funds the party operations? Most don't and consequently have little influence on the process.

Local party bosses have so much power and mostly operate behind the scenes, until we all start paying attention we won't change anything.
 
#23
#23
GAVol said:
Again . . . That's just plain lazy.
Click to expand...

I guess I should have been more clear. I was just pointing out that Obama has continued many of the policies for which the media excoriated Bush. That was all. If that's lazy, then I guess I'm not understanding your criticism.
 
#24
#24
I think the things that have happened under Obama's watch are yet more examples of bought legislation. When it comes to the financial sector regulations, there did need to be some reinstalled. I'm not being lazy and saying "deregulation" was the problem; it was a set of specific deregulation that was the issue, Glass-Steagall being chief among them. Dodd-Frank was a wet dream of TBTF banks; they got their repeals throughout the 90's and 00's that helped them become TBTF, subsequently wrecking the economy and accounting for a huge part of the debt over the last decade, and now they have 20,000 pages of vaguely worded and borderline unenforceable regulation that they wrote themselves. Better than that, they've gotten even bigger! Only in America, folks.

The same way with how much of the ACA is structured, there are parts of it I know nearly everyone on here likes, such as banning insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and ending lifetime limits of benefits. There are many details I don't like, but it is generally an alright compromise and should work quite well. Calling it a "new entitlement" is a bit of a stretch; it is going to expand Medicaid coverage somewhat, but not by a significant amount and the so-called government option never came to be.
 
#25
#25
Rasputin_Vol said:
Outside of Obamacare (I know people are going to blitz me for trying to downplay Obamacare, but keep reading), Obama has done nothing that is much different than Bush or done nothing that has deserved the level of disdain that he has gotten. He came into office with the country collapsing, yet, you have people saying he is the worst president ever because the economy hasn't turned around yet. Hey folks... he inherited this problem. Sorry to burst your bubble, but no president was going to have an easy go turning this thing around unless they made some tough decisions. Unfortunately, no one has the stomach or the will to make those decisions. Not Obama. Not Bush before him. Not Congress. Not the media. And not you.

Everyone wants to believe that we can get out of this mess without some austerity measures. The longer you drag this out, the harder the measures in the future will have to be. Better to solve the problems now as opposed to kicking the can down the road another election cycle and passing the problem on to someone else.

As far as our future with the candidates we have in the front of the line, it looks like the two main candidates will be Obama and Romney. Both have their health care plans in their pasts. So all of you fools that are whining about Obamacare, you need to realize that your boy Romney supported the same thing in Mass. Who's to say you wouldn't have gotten it anyways if he is elected in 2012 and Obamacare didn't exist?
Click to expand...
This post is generally spot on, although your allusion to "ripping the band-aid off now" isn't the best thing. There are plenty of examples where hard-line austerity turned out very badly (some of which is occurring in Europe right now), but on the flip side, the Democrats only proposed limping to the next election cycle to deal with it then.

Your post reminded me of Dylan Ratigan's rant heard round the world.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top