Confessions of Obama
Frank Rich, an op-ed writer at the New York Times, writes that George W. Bush and Barrack H. Obama have little in common. Very little.They shouldn't even be compared at all.
In spite of Rich's claims, he also notes that Barrack Obama has invited Rick Warren -a pastor who claims homosexuality is comparable to pedophilia- to give his inauguration.
Would George W. Bush have ever done that?
Some bloggers are questioning whether the Obama administration could become George Bush's third term. [1], [2], and, ahem, [3]. This is exactly what the Obama campaign accused McCain of intending to do.
Obama's current approval ratings are high, something around 80%. Is this because of the radical leftist agenda he promised during the democratic primaries?
He has put several Republicans in his cabinet, most notably Gates. This seems to imply that Obama supports Bush's Iraq strategy -tabling his promise tell the joint chiefs to leave the region as soon as possible.
He has tabled all discussion of raising taxes -which he had promised to do during the general election.
Obama is no conservative, and he will not bring in George W. Bush's third term, but he seems to be making confessions. He seems to be agreeing with George W. Bush on the very issues he opposed during the campaign.
George W. Bush was an excellent president, and I wish Obama would have admitted it sooner.
posted by Matthew Canonicus at
7:25 PM
4 Comments:
I think Obama considers himself as a great uniter. He did after all defeat the Clintons and the Republicans by amassing a huge amount of financial and popular support from demographics that were traditionally more apathetic. He wants to assure people that he's going to govern "for all Americans" and gives Republicans or conservative Democrats a few choice positions in the executive. I guess you could include me in the group of left-leaning people who have become disappointed with his race to the centre that began at the end of the primaries.
I doubt he's going to make a backflip on taxes. With the huge budget deficit he's going to have to either withdraw from Iraq asap, increase taxes, renege on the financial sector bail-out, or dissolve social security (or something equally as disastorous). My bet is on the first two as opposed to the last two. He has already announced a fiscal stimulus package that involves public infastructure; a republican he is not.
By the way thanks for the existentialist cowboy link! I'm enjoying the blog quite a bit ;)
Hi Tim,
Yeah, the existentialist cowboy is funny. I just discovered him while writing this post. He seems to love existentialism and logical-positivism which at the same time (although they are complete opposites). Unfortunately he's a conspiracy theorist.
I think you were being critical when you noted Obama considered himself a uniter ... I'm a bit critical of that style (and Bush when he tried to do that as well). McCain the moderate lost the votes of moderates and the Republican hardliners, so I find it a little odd that Obama would try McCain's losing strategy. He's definitely trying to be all things to all people.
Raising taxes and raising the deficit are both bad, bad ideas, but I would say raising taxes is better. Unfortunately the Republicans and Democrats have been appeasing each other by increasing spending (for the Democrats) and decreasing taxes (for the Republicans), which all voters understand is a path to financial death.
The thing about raising taxes is the Bush administration raised more revenue by lowering taxes, so the amount taxes are raised usually means less revenue is collected (because people drop their businesses and stop investing, which is happening on a massive scale now as people predict Obama will raise taxes). I wish he would cut spending, but if Bush failed on that front I doubt Obama would do better.
Hi Matt,
As an economics student i'd have to seriously dispute the idea that lowering taxes increases revenue, and vice versa. I believe the theory first started with Reagan, and it barely had any economist converts when it was in its prime. It is true that lowering taxes CAN increase revenues, but only at marginal tax rates that are quite high. Compared to other countries, America's marginal tax rate is on the lower end of the scale. Far below the rate that is necessary to see an increase in revenue from a tax decrease.
Simply looking at the data and saying "well, revenue increased in year 10, and taxes were lowered in year 9, so lowering taxes increases revenue" but such a link does not prove causality. Revenue increases as GDP increases, so it's a natural phenomenon, and if it's boom time (I believe after the 2001 slowdown America enjoyed some good growth for a couple of years) revenues will rise on their own even if taxes are lowered. If you're not convinced I could get more technical or link to some good journal papers.
Yeah, existentialist cowboy does say some extreme things, he's definentely far-left (whereas you could probably call this blog the right-wing equivalent). Isn't existentialism usually associated with left-wing politics (at least in early 1900s europe)? I know that kierkegaard was anti-democracy (he thought the idea that the truth lay in the opinion of the majority was the stupidest idea known to man, and unChristian), not sure if he had any thoughts on economics.
Hi Tim,
You're right about proving casuality: in fact Hume proved casuality could never be proved. I think proof is setting the bar too high. It's enough to say that lowering taxes increases revenue most of the time (or atleast that's enough for me). The Carter administration really hurt the economy here and the Reagan administration really bailed a lot of stuff out. I'm tempted to say the situation fell into your scenario, though, because Carter did have the tax rates very, very high.
I would ask you to consider Barrack Obama's views on taxation: when Bill O'Reily asked Barrack Obama why the government revenue increased during the Bush administration (by I think it was something like 20%) he responded, 'Well ... the economy grew during the Bush administration'. Well, exactly. Would you have responded differently?
(Don't bother looking it up, I'll put up the video from YouTube soon).
Your background as an economics student is respectable. If someone wants to make a living at something -if they are serious enough to do it for a living- then I am ready to take them seriously. I am a little skeptical about the idol of the academy (to hijack something along the lines of Francis Bacon), and I was pretty intentional about not making the name of this site 'The Conservative Scholar'. The utopia I hear preached from the academy (which strips people of their incentives to work) seems very deceptive to me. I realize this is not something that is self-evident and that I would have listened to the academic aspect of your appeal not long ago.
Appealing to the majority is completely unchristian. Jesus said anyone who loves him will be hated by the world. Liberalism in my view relies heavily on what I would call a 'mob mentality'. My country (the US) is not a democracy, but a Republic. As I understand it Austrailia isn't much different. Would the US be better off as a monarchy (as SK believed Denmark would be)? I think he could have made a great case for it. In any case we are ruled by individuals, although they are elected by voters. Kierkegaard believed political interest is often a symptom of not caring about their actual personal life.
This is how conservatism is both the problem and the solution: conservatism prescribes less government, but it is a government solution. In a similar way existentialism prescribes a lack of ideologies, although it is an ideology. To that extent I don't really consider my efforts here to be the basis of 'my meaning in life' as perhaps the writer at meredevotion.com does.
Hope that makes some sense. I would be interested in a discussion of Kierkegaard's politics sometime. That's the kind of thing that would be really groover at your blog (or perhaps meredevotion.com).
PS - (Sorry, I know this is way too long of a comment)
PPS - Please accept as a humble token of my thanks for your interest here the link I put to your blog on the sidebar.
Post a Comment
<< Home