The American Spectator

Thomas| 3.8.09 @ 8:53PM

Quack,quack, quack; Comrade.

ShaunR| 3.8.09 @ 9:16PM

I can understand why he got defensive. The allegation is ridiculous. What Obama is doing is trying to get our capitalist society back on track, and then place enough regulation in the system to keep it healthy and functional.

A pure free-market economy is a figment of the conservative imagination. Get over it, and let our new president do his job.

A worker bee| 3.8.09 @ 10:08PM

Of course Obama's a socialist! That's just what the country needs. All the rich people who own their own houses get to deduct their mortgages. They should pay higher taxes. They inherit money from their parents rather than have to work for it like the rest of us. We should all be equal. Doesn't the constitution guarantee that?

CH| 3.8.09 @ 11:05PM

Cut the cr@p, Obama! Please!! Pound sand, Shaun. sycophant.

jrs| 3.9.09 @ 1:08AM

While I agree that Obama has some socialist tendencies (redistribution), a large part of what he is doing is simply trying to help the economy, even it is not in the best direction. But, Bush was just as redistributionary. How??? By his massive tax cuts and increases in spending including his failed wars to make Daddy proud. Who did he redistribute to: the late stage boomers, and who did he take it away from: the gen x'ers, millenials, etc... who will foreever be paying for his massive debts while having that much less as the economy tries recovering from the toppling of the house of cards he was happy to watch continue to grow.

jrs| 3.9.09 @ 1:11AM

Also CH, please refer to your earlier post on Barney Frank and friends and how they caused the whole mess. Note, I hate him too, but we need to get past our uneducated claims that all this is the result of CRA and like policies. All that did was show us that subprime lending was profitable (or at least we though), and we being good followers of the market do what we're supposed to; allocate more resources to this profitable sector. Long story short, I love markets, but they're definitely not perfect and can be rather incorrect in the short term.

jcputn5349| 3.9.09 @ 5:38AM

A century of socialism's failure proves nothing.

Deborah| 3.9.09 @ 7:05AM

Judge a man by what he does, not by what he says. Therein lies the truth. When more people are on the taxpayer dole than actually pay taxes (and that's happening quickly) -- the wheels will be totally off the economic engine. When one can vote themselves other people's money -- that's no longer capitalism, and that's the Messiah's aim.

Cap| 3.9.09 @ 8:03AM

"Obama blamed the ancien regime and "lax regulation," a favorite whipping boy for those who don't understand how markets work."
Dead-0n!

Pecos Pete| 3.9.09 @ 8:07AM

Amen to Deborah.

stu.b.con| 3.9.09 @ 8:47AM

Deborah you are spot on!

He's not a socialist, just ask Him...move along there's nothing here to see

james23| 3.9.09 @ 8:52AM

Wow, Axelrod's trolls really hit the socialism post. Seems like being pegged as a Euroweenie socialist has struck a nerve over at the WH. Meanwhile, their War on Prosperity continues.

ConservativeWanderer| 3.9.09 @ 8:57AM

Indeed, James... a stuck pig squeals.

Clearly His Obamaness being labeled a socialist worries the Obamatons.

DonBRU| 3.9.09 @ 9:30AM

jrs wrote, "But, Bush was just as redistributionary. How??? By his massive tax cuts"

This makes no sense. Redistribtion is taking from some (increasing taxes) to distribute to others (in the form of welfare). The government cutting taxes makes redistribution impossible. There is nothing to distribute . If the gov't doesn't first confiscate citizens property, then it can not REdistribute. Bush ran deficits which could result in higher taxes for everyone in the future but that is not "redistribution".

Corrector| 3.9.09 @ 9:45AM

Hey Worker Bee, the constitution DOES NOT guarantee that we all be equal. Why don't you try reading it. The constitution was written to protect us from marxists like Obama. Too bad we no longer actually follow the constitution. A more fit name for you is DRONE.

jrs| 3.9.09 @ 11:02AM

DonBRU,

You show the lack of intellectual thinking so common amongst rank and file conservatives (or people they call conservatives). Obama's plans are indeed redistributionary, as they tax (take money from) one class and give to the next. BUT, one could argue so was Bush's. HOW. At the time we still have massive debts and were running a deficit for the better part of the tax cuts (I don't believe initially). Well, in this case we give money to the current generation but only by further running up the debt. Eventually, this must be paid for in the future. By who? Individuals such as myself (currently 28). We'll either have to raise taxes (which is the only actual solution) or cut spending. Now, if we cut spending, this doesn't mean that I'm incorrect. No. Here's how. If current gov't income (by current I mean a period in the future, say 2030) is 100 and expenditures are 100, but I have a debt of x, I'll need to raise taxes to say 10 so I can pay down the debt by 10. Or as many conservatives will quickly point out I could cut spending by 10 and hold taxes flat. While that is true, the bottom line is that I'm still paying higher taxes. How so? Because I'm now paying 100 for only 90 of services. But, you might argue that most of government spending is a waste, and might have a valid point, so I'm no worse off. Once again you're wrong, because if we didn't have the debt to pay off, government could still have the 90 of wasteful services and I'd only have to pay 90. Bottom line I'm worse off by 10. So, while Obama is redistributing across people, George Bush's tax breaks and increased spending reallocates across time.

jrs| 3.9.09 @ 11:12AM

I don't want to argue the merits of the stimulus package, becasue I think most of us are in agreeement that it's highly inefficient at best. What I would say is that conservatives need a comprehensive solution to helping get the economy back on track. This first means we must stop blindly believing in rhetoric (unfettered free market is always right, taxes always bad, all government spending except on nedless wars is wrong). Most importantly, we can't believe the solution lies in lower taxes. Temporary lower taxes are much less efficient (think last summer's rebates) than permanent tax cuts. Unfortunately, while I disagree w/ Krugman's analysis of a liqudity trap, there is what I'll call a tax cut trap. We already face a huge deficit before all this stimulus spending, and we have to pay down a mountain of debt. In addition, spending on entitlements will only continue to grow. We obviously need to try and fix social security, and it will likely become insolvent by the time I can collect, but it will eat enough of the economy until then (and any hopes of voluntarily trying to push it to the curb have permanently been hampered by the drop in everyone's 401K). Unfortunately, since there is not enough other fat to trim, taxes in this country have only one way to go. But who do we tax? Let's face it, the rich will pay more, but we need to make sure everyone does as well. I think it's completely wrong that almost 50% of Americans have no federal income liability, and O's cuts to the payroll tax only make matters worse.

Deborah| 3.9.09 @ 12:08PM

jrs -- Have you ever heard the saying "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"? If not, look it up.

Don't come to a conservative site thinking you're so smart by beginning your post with "the lack of intellectual thinking so common amongst rank and file conservatives."

Just shows you must not value your argument enough to allow it to stand alone without calling other people names.

So, I didn't read the rest of the post, and I refuse to read any posts by those who call conservatives names.

Have a good day.

jrs| 3.9.09 @ 12:21PM

Deborah,

And you represent the worst of conservatism. If you disagree with my points, attack my points. By simply saying that I've assaulted you and go on to ignore my post, this highlights your own flaws. This is the problem with modern conservatism. Instead of focusing on debate backed up with evidence (in todays world this often means numbers) you are simply left with your appeal to emotion. This is like the idiots you see on tv complaining about the obama tax hikes. I cringe when I hear people say they're looking at ways to get their income under 250K. That's ridicuolous. Taxes aren't binary (i.e. you're over a point or you're not), they're marginal (with a few exceptions, i.e. being able to deduct student loan interest, etc...). These people somehow believe if you make over 250,000, somehow you'll be worse off than if you make under 250,000. That's wrong. Income above 250K will be worth marginally less, and to some that new marginal benefit might be less than the margina cost, but this binary idea is idiotic. It's like our friend Joe the plumber. I get his point, but using him as your poster boy is idiotic. Confusing top line revenue w/ earnings before taxes shows a pure level of ignorance.
As for being a conservative Deborah, I'd venture to conclude I'm even more conservative than you, except that I realize that we can't boil everything down to soundbites. But, I guess that doesn't matter to you, since I'm sure your much closer to getting on that entitlement gravy train and will be happy to let my generation deal with your expense.

So, any takers for some constructive debate.

Deborah| 3.9.09 @ 1:05PM

no response to trolls.

cheeflo| 3.9.09 @ 1:46PM

ConservativeWanderer: Labels can be affixed over other labels, and can also be peeled off. Clearly His Obamaness being recognized as a socialist worries the Obamatons. Thomas sums it up nicely: Quack, quack, quack, Comrade.

Deborah: You are one smart cookie. Clearly jrs talking out of both ends of his anatomy. He can argue that the moon is made of green cheese -- doesn't make it so.

jrs| 3.9.09 @ 2:35PM

Deborah--- how am I a troll. I read this site regularly and post challenges to ignorant posters on both this site as well as huffingtonpost. Unfortunately, both are filled with unintelligent and uninformed commentors.
As for cheeflo: "Deborah: You are one Smart Cookie". Ok, I bring up a reasonable challenge, Deborah tries to talk about something irrelevant, and you think she's smart. Wow, education in this country really does need help. The rest of your post is asinine as well.
I've always been a conservative, but being a conservative doesn't mean believing everything you hear on rush limbaugh or read on some post.

ConservativeWanderer| 3.9.09 @ 2:40PM

jrs, just declaring yourself a conservative doesn't make it so. I could declare myself a fried egg sandwich but I doubt I'd change shape. And we heard lots of "I've always been a ]Republican/conservative/Hannity listener/Rush listener], but..." from Obamatons during the campaign. We're inured to such claims, and we don't really believe them anymore.

Proof is in what you advocate and oppose, not in easy-to-make statements of "I've always been a..."

By the way, I am well aware my chosen username makes such a claim for myself. If you follow the link in my username, you can find several months' worth of blogging by yours truly, along with a few friends, to establish my bona fides as a conservative.

CH| 3.9.09 @ 6:14PM

jrs, I think you should do more research on the origin of the financial crisis. It wasn't the free market that started this mess, it was the liberal social engineering policies of socialist/marxist Barney Frank, Chris Doss and others in Congress who PRESSURED banks into making bad loans. The truth is out there, if you want to find it. Hurts, doesn't it?

CH| 3.9.09 @ 6:15PM

CW: LOL! A fried egg sandwich.

CH| 3.9.09 @ 6:16PM

Chris Doss = Chris Dodd

Angel| 3.9.09 @ 6:19PM

jrs, if you were a Conservative you wouldn't try to BS your way through the origins of the financial crisis. The information is out there--if you're not aware of it--you ain't lookin'.

ConservativeWanderer| 3.9.09 @ 7:26PM

CH, I was inspired by C. S. Lewis' comment about a man who claimed he was a poached egg. I decided to change it just for the heck of it.

Tony| 3.9.09 @ 10:33PM

Nice omission of what Obama actually said when asked if he were a socialist. As Deborah suggest, let's judge by actions - who started this whole TARP business, buying banks, etc.? Wasn't on Obama's watch. Guess who the real socialist is...

CH| 3.9.09 @ 10:47PM

Obama's a commie; c'mon people, you already know this. We don't have to be polite anymore. He voted for TARP, tool, guess that makes him a socialist.

jrs| 3.9.09 @ 11:00PM

Actually Angel and CH, once again you prove you (as well as almost everyone on here and every other site) have no clue about the start of the crisis. Let's start w/ the conservative fantasy about Barney Frank and the CRA. Yes, this has some merit, but it's only a tiny part of the story. While there was a mandate for this affordable housing and subprime mortgages, the market quickly realized that hey, there's a lot of money to be made via subprime lending. Now, here's a shortcoming of markets. Markets encourage people to shift resources to profitable parts of the economy, so banks continued to create these subprime mortgages. Subprime quickly grew from providing financing to those in the inner city and other concentrations of poverty to the exburbs, california, florida, you name it. Instead of someone w/ basically no job buying a place it was people w/ only 50k in incomes buying 500k homes complete w/ plasmas, viking ranges, infinity pools, etc... So we had too much regulation start the problem. Next it was too limited regulation continuing it, via excessive leverage and deregulation (Graham-leach-blily reversing glass-stegal) which entangled conservative commercial banks w/ profit hungry but risky i-banks. But, there is another side to too much regulation. It's the NRSO that creates a monopoly amongst Moodys, S&P and Fitch. The agencies went unchecked (and actually worse---plenty of evidence of underwriters buying ratings) and investors stopped doing their homework (and in many cases would have been unable to do it anyways as many structures were too esoteric and complex). I could tell you the liberal side of the story which is that people had to do that because many american's weren't getting as rich as the rich so they had to rack up debt. I don't buy this; the rich were gaining much faster thanks to globalization and the gains to capital (both physical and highly skilled human capital) but everyone in the country still was gaining in real terms so they were better off today than yesterday. So, they ignored their grandparents and had one lavish feast.

jrs| 3.9.09 @ 11:06PM

The reality is there is plenty of blame to go around. Blame for Barney Frank. George Bush. China not consuming and lending on the cheap. The implicit guarantee of Freddie and Fannie. Wall Street. Wall Street Equity holders. Wall Street debt holders. Regulators. Republicans and Democrats. Quants w/ no common sense. Wall Street chiefs not smart enough to understand the shortcomings of the quants and w/ too big of an ego to admit this so instead they offered them more chips. mortgage brokers. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY THE AMERICAN CONSUMER. Why do i mention this. Because we'll only be able to move forward when everyone admits they're partly at fault and realizes the best solution will cost everyone something. Banks should be nationalized / let fail ( I was against the initial TARP bailout) and equity holders wiped out. Debt of these banks needs to partially reduced (at a cost to the bondholders, they aren't innocent either). Pay on chiefs capped at least as long as they're on the dole, but w/ the realization there needs to be some pay for performance. Remember, most of the bank made money, just too many chips went to enough peopel to mess everything up. Homeowners will see values continue to fall until the can resume a normal level of appreciation (equal to roughly inflation plus depreciation---real depreciation). We will all see lower growth. and the list goes on.

jrs| 3.9.09 @ 11:10PM

Now, back to CH and friends. As I mentioned earlier YOU ARE A SHEEP. You buy into whatever you read, and you don't read enough. How do I know this, we'll I work in asset back securities, the sister product of the mortgages. My job is to make sure my bank takes opportunities and makes sure we don't take losses. Also, I have a MBA from Chicago, having the opportunity to study w/ Kevin Murphy and John Cochrane amongst other greats. I greatly respect Fama and Friedman. That being said, my education there isn't about simply buying into one idea or another no matter how many nobels they may have. Instead it is about well though out critical reasoning, much more than you or your friends can say for your self.

jrs| 3.9.09 @ 11:17PM

One more thing CH. Please get your terminology correct before you start talking on here. You call Obama a commie, but do you mean a socialist. Historically, communists were thought to be socialists, but socialists weren't necessarily thought to be communists (Finland comes to mind). Today, the distinction is a little more blurred as we observe China. Obviously there is still a lot of state run control in China, but there is much more economic freedom (or at least there was) than there is political freedom. Ironically, that's part of the problem--as growth slows unemployment goes up. You don't have to worry about that under a total socialist regime, assuming there is enough basic resources to keep everyone fed. I know many of you might really hate Obama, and at times he really frustrates me as well, but you'd be much harder pressed to convince me he's a communist than a socialist.

DonBRU| 3.10.09 @ 6:41AM

jrs,
What an honor it is for me (a lowly rank and filer) to be treated to such an abundance of intellectual thought.

Future tax increases are not an absolute certainity (when the gov't runs a deficit) so long as the economy continues to grow which is usually the the case when taxes are lowered and the gov't doesn't crowd out private borrowing to fund it's programs . So I'd say your generational redistribution "theory" is somewhat half baked. Look up the Laffer Curve and learn some manners.

jrs| 3.10.09 @ 8:52AM

DonBRU,
no it is an honor for you to talk to anyone who at least passed a basic econ class. At 10/11 trillion and counting, this needs to be paid off somehow. More importantly, as I discussed above, non discretionary entitlements (medicare and social security) are only going to jump exponentially over the next 30+ years. This has to be paid somehow.
I'm well aware of the Laffer curve, but even more aware of the empirical data. Unfortunately, very little exists. I agree that taxes reduce growth and lower taxes increase growth, the problem is at what rate. For laffer to work, we need growth to increase at such a rate that it offsets losses in tax revenue, which unfortunately doesn't appear to be the case. The second thing is your idea of crowding out. Yes, crowding out is a real risk, and I think the mountains of debt won't help. That being said, not all government spending is bad. I hope you do know the difference between public and private goods. Efficient (I'm by no means claiming the systems today are) investments in infastructure, education, school lunches, maybe even health care at least for children, all have positive benefits that can far outstrip their costs (in stimulus speak have multipliers >1). There are of course low cost ways to address these issues as well (breaking up the NEA comes to the top of my mind).
Can the economy grow enough to offset future tax changes. Yes, but that's not easy. It isn't simply changes in the tax code. It would take huge leaps forward in technology and the production function in general (thik 90s and the internet). Are there possibilities out there, yes, what are they I don't know (I'd guess alternative energies are one such item).
Listen, I don't support taxes nor do I support government spending, but I'm only addressing the realities. We spent too much over the past 8, 16, 28, etc.... and we might be spending too much now. But if conservatives wish to remain viable, they must present some alternatives other than simply calling the president a socialist and demanding tax cuts.
And DonBRU and pals. Spend some time and learn a little economics and history. Challenge your closed mind and you might realize that the world isn't so black and white. And for manners, I don't think you or any of your friends have earned them. Starting with Deborah, you remind me of little kids at the playground who when they hear something they don't like, put their fingers in their ears and start going nanananana.

DonBRU| 3.10.09 @ 11:33AM

jrs, Well anyone who advocates the goverment taking over 25% of GDP is a socialist. The label is needed becuase Obama vehemently denied this and continues to. This bothers Obama becuase he knows that a clear majority of Americans (of all political parties) oppose such ideology and for good reason. I live in western Europe and I see the results of decades of heavy socialism every day and I can tell you the vast majority of the people here are locked into a low standard of living with little chance of escape.

Government spending was too high under Bush and what is now being proposed is incredibly high. We agree on something. However, if (meaningfull) tax cuts stopped working, then I think it would be fair to say that the idea is not a viable alternative. But in my lifetime, they've work every time! Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all cut taxes and the viola, the economy surged and government revenues sky rocketed.

The current return to massive government is certainly not a viable alternative nor is it "open minded". It's been rolled out repeatedly by leftist the world over with very predictable (lousy to disastrous) results. This is the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

It's a shame that you beleive that people somehow have to earn cordial discourse that does not include unfairly labeling people and calling them names. It seriously inhibits your ability to get your points accross many of which have merit.

Matt| 3.10.09 @ 1:25PM

Frank, Dodd, ACORN pressured banks to make bad loans. Liberals caused the economic meltdown

Harp| 3.11.09 @ 12:23AM

jrs, figured you came from Chicago. Another lying commie from the Chicago political cesspool.

El Diablo Blanco| 4.3.09 @ 7:23AM

Seems everyone has a oppinion here! But truth is the issue, if I may say so. It takes a lifetime to understand some things; just like understanding human behavior! I belive that many people are responsible for this mess, and it goes back as far as the eye can see. This is as old as man, all this drama.... Obama is trouble for America; not just white, but black, yellow and red. Any wise person can see past their selective perception and see a skilled word smith (lier). You can talk about anything in vauge generalities; it makes it anything people want to hear.. Not to be biblical, but Satan quoted the bible real well also; it is the nature of evil intentions! Look at your own life and experiences, and I will assert we have all had a confidence man pull the wool over our eyes at some point or the other. This is just so big, nobody can fathom telling such a big lie like Obama has...........