Obama’s Two Minute Economic Gamble
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Economy, McCain, VideoI suppose this is direct answer to those who says he’s all style and no substance.
Will it work?
I’ll be interested to see McCain’s answer. Because, as Alan points out, he needs one and soon.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Economy, McCain, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I’m sure the right will say, “but he didn’t say exactly how he was going to address this myriad of complex issues in the two minutes he had! He’s inexperienced! He’s shallow! He will raise our taxes!” all the time ignoring the invitation to read his entire plan on the web.
Meanwhile, they are perfectly willing to let McCain and Palin use meaningless words like Reform without any discussion on what the reform will be.
Here’s hoping the people in the middle appreciate be talked to like adults and know how to use a computer to browse the web….
September 17th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Everything Obama is saying has also been said by John McCain in his stump speeches, except that McCain wants to keep tax cuts on these “manufacturers who send jobs overseas” (maybe if their taxes weren’t so high they would stay here, eh?). Even “ending the war responsibly” is a McCain position, he calls it “victory,” albeit it really doesn’t matter now since victory is all but achieved anyway. I can envision a commercial with John McCain repeating the exact same script, and nobody would even notice.
If McCain and Palin’s use of the word “reform” is meaningless, then clearly it is meaningless in this ad as well.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Jimmy,
I just checked McCain’s website. Looks like there is no stimulus plan (i.e. the $1000 to “middle class” families, however Obama defines that), no comprehensive energy investment that Obama is talking about, though on regulation of Wall Street and lobbyist business they seem to be on the same page.
Curious enough, one of McCain’s economic proposals is actually to “increase the value of the dollar and thus reduce the price of oil.” Really? (Does that make anyone else laugh?) It is statements like this that confound me, because right after he has the completely sensible policy to roll-back tariffs on sugar-based ethanol and roll-back subsidies to corn ethanol. Can we get a blog post on the rational/irrational battle McCain seems to be fighting within himself?
September 17th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I looked at Obama’s plan on his web site and just saw an expansion of the generalities he has been throwing around. Tell me this…how does he plan to pay for all of his programs and balance the budget without raising taxes on anyone by the top 1% and with windfall taxes? Not feasible - show me a balance sheet.
Also, how can you ask companies to continue employing U.S. citizens but at the same time be a staunch supporter for any and all unions. No way does a tax break for having U.S. employees offset the cost of doing business in America with these policies. Idealistic and impossible.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Split Party,
That unfortunately goes for both candidates, with regards to how they plan to pay for what they propose (for Obama the proposition is spending for McCain the proposition is tax cutting).
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411750
I disagree with you though about unions. For one, just because the rest of the world has lower standards on the rights workers deserve, this does not mean the United States should lower its bar by adopting anti-union stances.
Another thing, most of our economic strength is generated by the service sector, i.e. non-tradables (nurses, construction workers, Wal-mart employees, etc.). I’d like to see Wal-Mart take their stores out of the south just because workers were allowed to unionize (that will never happen for obvious reasons).
Also, our manufacturing sector, just under 20% of GDP, will not be moving in large droves anytime soon. Why? Look at the goods it produces, only a skilled and educated work force can produce those goods (computers, aircrafts, autos), so not only is that work force not available in most other countries, they will expect to be paid the same.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
L,
All excellent points in response to the previous comment with a good link to prove your point about the unrealistic aspects of both campaigns. I would add to that the ten billion per month we’re spending in Iraq that would be reduced sooner than later if not all but eliminated eventually, compared to McCain’s plans. I’ve heard Obama say that he would expect to have more available in his budget to fund domestic concerns by ending the effort in Iraq as soon as responsibly possible.
As far as the sentiment about the American workers, I also couldn’t agree with you more, but i’ll go further in my aggravation that so many on the Right still continue to blame the Unions for all that is wrong with American business. How many employees in the Financial sector- Banks, Brokerages, Insurance Co’s do you know that are members of the Labor Unions? So what do you blame that mess on?
I’m not one to support the Unions on many issues as I’ve seen too many Union employees get away with too much w/o the fear of being fired to know that it’s not a perfect system. But when the Boss makes more money in one hour of his day than the average worker makes in one YEAR I just can’t believe that some of us would blame the American workers for the problems we’re experiencing with our economy. The struggles our parents and their parents fought so hard for to increase our standard of living should not be denigrated for the sake of the CEO’s overflowing coffers.
These are the issues that Democrats need to start making apparent to all Americans who want to return our country to it’s former greatness. I think Obama is calling it the ‘bottom up’ approach to changing the way we do business in America.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Boring. My issue with Obama’s entire approach here is that he does not actually explain what got us into this mess. He has two minutes to explain what policies got us here and his planned fixes and that is not what happens. If he really wanted to treat people like adults he would speak in more than vague generalities. I saw the bloomberg news interview and he said that it was too early to fully define the actions he was going to take and repeated the idea of a regulatory framework.
I like the concept but i dont understand how it will apply, what it will apply to and how the situation will be fixed.
Also, he says we know the problem, we know how we got here, then it should not be to early to describe in detail how we check the greed and lack of oversight in the markets.
Also, instead of lobbyists maybe he should target unqualified crony hiring and health care reform.
I am not on the right but i want something more.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
@L and BenG - First, thank you for the comments. I will always listen to both sides. And let me be clear, I do not disagree that workers are the most important part of the U.S. economy. Nor do I blame the workers for our current economic situation. However, unions as they are now, do not work. What you are claiming as the purpose of unions is correct if this was 1950. At present, in my opinion, unions do more harm than help. In that respect, they are similar to the ACLU in that the reasons they were formed in the first place are sound, but their relevance fades every year. They have lost direction and purpose. Current day conditions for workers are not nearly as dire as they were in the past and there are laws to protect against violation of said conditions. Unions attempt to level the playing field, but what they really do is level the opportunity. Why should a hard-working, dedicated employee get the same pay increase as a lazy one? Teachers unions have been using tenure to keep underperforming teachers practically immune to dismissal. While I admit there are a myriad of other issues with the educational system, this cannot be helping. Finally, I understand that unions have done and continue to do some good things, but I think those positives can be achieved through other means. Obama is campaigning to keep more jobs in the U.S. but also campaigning for unions. I just don’t think you can have both.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Would Republicans please quit this meme, that taxes send jobs overseas (JIMMY), that is complete bull. The fact is labor is cheaper there. Plain and simple. It used to be “Unions cost american jobs”, now it’s taxes. The truth is the average compensation for a corporate executive has skyrocketed. The average worker stagnated. Corporate taxes have decreased. When the jobs move overseas, who’s making the money? Jimmy? Are you a corporate executive?
September 17th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
donklephantians? Nothing on the AIG bail out today?
September 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Poor people in India who a generation ago were wearing loincloths living in thatched-roof huts benefit when jobs go overseas, because now they can get a steady job at a factory or a call center. Also, I get to buy products at lower prices, so I end up saving money. These products, like computers, appliances and other technology accumulate and becomes less expensive as newer technology is invented. American companies are forced to become more efficient in order to compete. Everybody benefits.
Why is it that during the 1990’s, when outsourcing was in its prime, did this country have unprecidentidly low unemployment? Before this mortgage crisis, our economy enjoyed some of its most substantial growth ever (to the point where lenders were so overconfident, that they gave loans to anybody). Is it a coincidence that all of this happens at a time when globalization is mainstreamed?
September 18th, 2008 at 9:30 am
The notion that labor is cheaper here in the US is ludicrous. Globalization is here whether we like it or not. Lots of political activists have spent the past half-century bemoaning the disparity in the standard of living between the developed world and the 3rd world. Now the 3rd world is becoming developed, and they are producing many goods and services at lower costs than we can here in America.
They have far lower labor costs, often lower raw material costs, they have no overhead to fund retiree pensions and healthcare. And they can start up with a new factory using modern technology, instead of trying to work with old crappy out-dated machines. In the vast majority of instances, domestic manufacturers can’t compete. And that’s what it’s about, competition. The government doesn’t have the power to mandate that a company can be competitive when the global environment favors lower-cost producers. To my knowledge, there is no way around this, unless you believ that protectionism like tariffs will work this time, even though they have always triggered lose-lose international trade battles in the past.
If you don’t understand the dynamics of this, then you’re just plain economically illiterate, and so you fall back upon wishful thinking. If a company can’t compete using domestic labor, and they are forced to do so anyway, they’ll just end up going out of business.
That’s the sad fact of things folks, like it or not. The days when folks with no more than a HS diploma could find a tedious but good job making 50, 60, 70, 80k per year are just plain coming to an end. Unless it’s a trade job (plumber, electrician, carpenter) that can’t be outsourced, you’re going to be SOL.
And there really isn’t a god-damn thing that Barack Obama or John McCain can do about it,. The global wave is HERE. Right now. We surf it or we get swamped by it. Stopping it or denying it is not an option. We can’t pay someone 70k per year to man a toll booth or $50/hr to mop the floor of the auto plant or screw on a door. These things are going to have to change. And the scope is well beyond our control. Protectionism won’t work.
If we want to keep domestic auto manufacturing, it will be at no better than Honda-level wages and benefits, not GM level. It might even be closer to McDonalds’ level, too.
So if you think you can do something to short circuit these dynamics, tell me your bright idea.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:47 am
[...] a fair attack on Obama’s economic policies, but with Barack offering his 2 minute commercial on the economy yesterday, I wonder if McCain’s missing an opportunity to answer with something more [...]
September 18th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Ok, I’ve watched the speech and checked out the “plan” at the web site.
What I like is the committment to reform bankruptcy and lending practices. That’s overdue.
By far the greatest flaw is that Obama does not explain where he’ll get the money to fund the widespread and generous tax benefits he’s promising to provide to the middle class.
The next flaw is that he doesn’t say how he’s going to persuade other sovereign nations to adopt “fair trade’ labor practices. When (not if) China tells him they think their labor laws are fine, so to stick it up your ass, what’s our play then? Tariffs? Are Americans really ready to stop buying cheap imported crap? How much more are we willing to pay?
The next flaw is that he doesn’t explain how we’ll be energy-independent in 10 years. Funding research and subsidizing approaches that are not yet mature and aren’t cost-effective yet? That just adds to the deficit and distorts the market.
The next flaw is that he doesn’t explain why the pro-labor bill he supports does away with the right of workers to cast anonymous ballots for or/against unionization. We all know why you vote for things anonymously right? To prevent coercion.
Even with the bankruptcy and lending reform, there are issues. We don’t want lenders to charge punishing onerous rates, but are we comfortable with leaving folks with fewer choices? Don’t forget, if no one will give you a loan, and you need the money, then that’s a problem. And when it comes to bankruptcy, how generous do we want to be? How easy should we make it for people to escape debt. Someone has to pay. And the easier the rules are, the more they’ll be abused, and the more the costs will shift to people who live frugally and wisely. There has to be a balance. The rules ought to allow some protection and help out people who have had bad luck, but should it protect people from foolish decisions and choices?
Bankruptcy is good as a last-resort protection, but if the rules are so generous that they become routine financial strategy, that’s a problem. I’d like to see people who file bankruptcy be subjected to financial oversight and management, a sort of bankruptcy probation, for a minimum of 3 years.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
[...] (via Donklephant) [...]