Obama on the economy.
Pacomc79
Posts: 9,404
What are his views in this area? I haven't heard or seen a great deal about it. The energy policy looks good though. I heard him note that Americans are going to have to face higher prices for energy period. Nice to see some honesty and not the expected shot at "Those damn rich corporations" Efficiency and Clean Energy is going to cost more as companies will have to have the money to pay for efficiency.
Seems like an idea guy. I definately like that.
Has he mentioned how he plans to treat the tax system and government efficiency at all?
Seems like an idea guy. I definately like that.
Has he mentioned how he plans to treat the tax system and government efficiency at all?
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Barack Obama on Budget & Economy
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need 1 or 2 years to dig out
Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?
A: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they're seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.
Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?
A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves ou of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007
Save $150 billion in tax cuts for people who don't need them
Every proposal I've put forward during this campaign we have paid for, and we have specified where that money is going to come from. Let's just look at our tax code because it's a great example of how we could provide relief to ordinary citizens who are struggling to get by. Right now we've got a whole host of corporate loopholes and tax havens. There's a building in the Cayman Islands that houses supposedly 12,000 US-based corporations. That's either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world, and we know which one it is. If we close some of those loopholes, we've put forward tax relief plans, that will not only restore fairness to our tax code, but it also puts money into the pockets of hard-working Americans who need it right now, who will spend it, and will actually improve our economic growth over time, particularly at a time when we're seeing a credit crunch. But it requires leadership from the white house that restores that sense that we're all in this together.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic Debate Dec 13, 2007
Take China "to the mat" about currency manipulation
Q: You had said that if China is actually manipulating their currency, the US needs to "take them to the mat." What exactly did you mean by that?
A: We have legislation that says that if, in fact, they are manipulating their currency--and I think there's no dispute that they are--that we need to take strong action. It's in the Banking Committee. I will say that it's actually a blunt tool. I'd prefer not doing this legislatively. The problem is we've had a president that has shown no leadership on it. So when I am in the White House, I will meet directly with the Chinese leadership and indicate we have to restore balance. And, by the way, we have to mobilize our allies, such as the European Union, to have that conversation with us. This is an imbalance that is not good for any economy over time. It's not sustainable, the trade imbalances that we have.
Source: 2007 Democratic radio debate on NPR Dec 4, 2007
Regulate financial instruments to protect home mortgages
Q: [to Dodd]: The Fed lowered the discount rate for banks to address the mortgage crisis. Should they lower rates for everyone else?
DODD: Yes, but we also need more liquidity in the market. It has seized up. You can't get a mortgage in America today.
OBAMA: We do need more liquidity, but we're going to have to not only help home owners who are going to be losing their homes as a consequence of this; we're going to have to make sure that we've got the kinds of tough regulation when it comes to financial instruments to make sure that people who have saved and are trying to get their own home for the first time are not hoodwinked out of it. And, unfortunately, the reason that we haven't had tougher regulation in part goes back to the issue of lobbying. This is where special interests have been driving the agenda. We have not had the kinds of consumer protections that are in place. That's why, when we have this debate about lobbying, we have to remind ourselves it has very real consequences.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week" Aug 19, 2007
Return to PayGo: compensate for all new spending
We were told by our President that we could fight two wars, increase our military budget by 74%, spend more on education, initiate a prescription drug plan, have tax cuts, all at the same time. We were told by Congress that they could make up for lost revenue by cutting government waste.
The result is the most precarious budget situation we have seen in years. We now have an annual budget deficit of almost $300 billion, not counting more than $180 billion we borrow every year from the Social Security Trust Fund.
It is not the debt that is most troubling. The bulk of the debt is a direct result of the President's tax cuts, 47.4% of which went to the top 5% income bracket.
We can eliminate tax credits that have outlived their usefulness & close loopholes that let corporations get away without paying taxes. We can restore a law that was in place during the Clinton presidency--called Paygo--that prohibits money from leaving the treasury without some way of compensating for the lost revenue.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.187-189 Oct 1, 2006
Bush's economic policies are not working
Obama believes that there is no such thing as a "jobless recovery." When millions of Americans aren't working, neither are the Bush Administration's economic policies. As US Senator, Obama will champion policies that get our economy moving and people working instead of short-sighted tax-cuts for the rich that have failed to spark a recovery.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com May 2, 2004
Supports federal programs to protect rural economy
Our rural communities are the backbone of Illinois. Yet, factories have closed, jobs have disappeared, and homes and farms have been foreclosed upon. Effective federal programs are necessary to protect the rural economy.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com, ?On The Issues? May 2, 2004
Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness.
Amendment intends to pay down the Federal debt and eliminate government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ineffective by the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
My amendment says we are going to take about $18 billion as a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion for the programs found by PART, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money. So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program. Almost worse than being rated ineffective, we have programs out there that have made absolutely no effort at all to measure their results. I believe these are the worst offenders. In the following years, I hope Congress will look at those programs to create accountability.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The effect of this amendment will simply be to cut domestic discretionary spending $18 billion. Understand the programs that have been identified in the PART program are results not proven. Here are programs affected: Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, child abuse prevention, and treatment. If there is a problem in those programs, they ought to be fixed. We ought not to be cutting Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, and the rest. I urge a "no" vote.
Reference: Allard Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.491 on S.Con.Res.21 ; vote number 2007-090 on Mar 22, 2007
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending.
Vote to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans. The bill also provides a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Interesting he mentions the Cayman Islands..... yeah, a big reason for that tax shelter.... is our freaking tax code.
you can look it up here as to where he stands on the issues including the economy.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
he has some "innovative" suggestions, but only in the context of the status-quo.
Being the best conventional tomato in the the produce section still makes you tough skinned and mealy compared with a true organic, ya know?
I really think he misses the boat if he thinks the biggest problem contributing to the national debt is GWs tax cuts! What a joke that is! its SPENDING! SPENDING SPENDING SPENDING!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
It does seem like he's desiring balance and efficiency though with the paygo note. I don't think whoever is the next president will spend like Bush.... let's hope not anyway. It may still be worse before it gets better.
Thanks.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I get what you're saying, but if a Republican just said that we'd have to suck it up with regard to energy cost, he/she would be blasted by the Dems.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
:(
wish jlew were here to give an opinion or three.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i'm pretty sure germany was no where NEAR as "Consumer Spending" dependent as America is.
If you add ANY further tax burden to the people in this land you will see
1. foreclosures on homes continue to increase
2. layoffs continue to rise on at small businesses
3. retail spending will drop further
4. the stock market will drop further
5. repeat cycle
:( :( :(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I won't disagree with you, but the actual deficit with its interests will end up being an even heavier burden no?
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
uh. "burden", sure.
But you need to be REAL careful in your analysis of priorities.
Paying off the national debt is 100% impossible.
I mean in two senses of the term.
1. Even if it WERE "possible", the amount of tax needed from every american to do that IS NOT possible
and
2. In the US, where for every 1 dollar printed, we owe the federal reserve corporation a fractional point of interest, MONEY IS DEBT ...
and the very deep secret reality is that the entire us debt is actualy ntohing more than a reflection of the amount of cash margined.
In otherwords, think of the TOTAL $$$ SUPPLY in existence as having come out of a bank account (actualy think CREDIT CARD account, cash advance style).
That bank account started with a ZERO balance ... (no national debt) ... for EVERY dollar that is printed up and put in to circulation, $1 and some change is added to the bank account in NEGATIVE charges ... like a credit card account ... thus, 9 trillion dollars later (actualy 1 trillion real paper dollars and the rest in 9 to 1 fractional lending in account digits), our bank\credit card account reads: -9TRILLION ...
But that is ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD.
How are you going to pay off all the money in the world?
That is real truth.
:(
The answer to the problem is clearly spend less, PRINT less, and let the people just have their damn money, since the reality is it is irrelevant ... it is actualy a scam to get you to be willing to give MORE money.
:( :( :(
Worry first about keeping the INDIVIDUAL afloat.
No one is going to try to kill america and fight it for the money we owe it ... every country has some debt to the other, and they certainly aren't gonna try to bring EVERYONE down by picking on us ... but the everyman can fall and fall hard ... and when HE falls, the economy will fall for REAL.
Save the individual (by freeing up his tax burden)
and STOP INFLATION, because it kills the everyman, and it kills the dollar, the economy, and the entire global monitary system!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
United States Public Debt
The Mechanics of US Government Debt
When the expenses of the U.S. Government exceed the revenue collected, it issues new debt to cover the deficit. This debt typically takes the form of new issues of government bonds which are sold on the open market. However, the debt can also be monetized by which the Federal Reserve creates an entry on its books to credit the US Government for an amount equal to the dollar amount of the bonds the Federal Reserve is acquiring. The money created in this process not only includes the new dollars that came into existence just to purchase the bonds, but much more because this new money is now sitting in the form of checkbook money at the Federal Reserve. Under the scheme of Fractional Reserve Banking this new checkbook money is treated as an asset to lend against. Economists estimate the expansion of the money supply as being many times the amount of the initial money created withthe exact amount of the expansion being a function of the marginal propensity of the consumer to consume (rather than save) each new dollar.[6][7]
The ultimate consequence of monetizing U.S. debt is that it expands the money supply which will tend to dilute the value of dollars already in circulation. Thus, expanding the pool of money puts downward pressure on the dollar, downward pressure on short-term interest rates (the banks have more to lend) and upward pressure on inflation
If I opened it now would you not understand?