Where's a good Economist or Economy Expert when you need them?

Sep. 15th, 2008 05:42 pm
shadowkat: (Default)
[If you haven't already done so, please fill out my political/lj poll - go here: http://shadowkat67.livejournal.com/374888.html}

The US is about to slip into a recession according to the media. (Actually I think they are in deep denial, the US already has. And I think it's not just the US but Global. Like it or not, we affect one another. We can no longer be isolationist or nationalistic, this is a problem that we have to solve together or not at all. Got to give the World Banking Industry credit - they've already figured this out on their own - according to the paper this morning they are gathering together funds to bail out big financial corporations and banks. Now if only our governments can get with the program. I'm no economist, but even an idiot can see that our capitalistic system went a bit insane, unfettered and unregulated, greed got out of control and we are now reaping the results. That said, it occured to me today, what the heck are the US Presidential Candidates economic plans. We've done the character debate to death and let's face it that's largely subjective anyway, no one should be voting completely on just that.]

Anywho here's links. If you are a professional economist or economic expert and can provide insight? Please do so.

Salon.com describes John McCain's Tax Plan which would cut taxes even more thant George Bush has

( My comments )

Barack Obama's Emergency Economic Plan, detailed on his site

From Invesztor Centric - Barack Obama and John McCain battle over the Economy

( my comments )

I don't know how reliable this next link is, since it is by commentator Ken Oblierman, McCain's Economic Plan created by Republican Lobbyist

Also not sure about this one: Economic Plans Compared

This blogger did some digging and has compared the economic plans side by side, complete with cool cartoon graphics! And having done a quick read through? It's actually less biased than I thought. She breaks down each of the economic plans with numerical bullet point and headings, making it easy to understand.

For each candidate's platforms:

John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/landing2/?sid=google&t=newlanding&r=johnmccain

Barack Obama:http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

How Barack and John will change our tax bills: CNN Money Article about Tax Plans

Not sure about reliability or biasis.

Congressional Record on the Economic Policy issue Barack Obama supported in Congress:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Economic_Policy

(This is RELIABLE. And unbiased.)

And here's a site that has a debate over the two plans along with comments, and experts supporting them, and a poll on which one you agree with, go here:

http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/who-has-the-right-plan-for-america-s-economy

[It appears to be reliable and unbiased.]

This is depressing, but also possibly the most reliable - it comes from the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

Here it is: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf

(Note it is a PDF not html format)

What the rest of the world thinks: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2049446/Barack-Obama-beats-John-McCain-in-European-vote-US-election-2008.html

The skinny? The Russians love McCain and see him as the one to lead us out of economic debt. Of course they also love George W. Bush. They tend to prefer fiscal conservatives.

The Europeans prefer Barack Obama.

Considering how bad the Russian Economy has been for the last several years, I'm not sure I'd value their opinion on anything, but that's just me. (The Europeans on the other hand have the Euro, which kicked the dollar's ass recently, and have been doing MUCH better.)

An interesting blog post about Barack Obama's Economic Policy - stating it is actually more Capitalistic than one thinks. This is based on the NYT Magazine article that my Dad read a while back - where he told me Obama's plan is fairly pragmatic, and that it takes the best portions of the last five President's economic plans, yes including the Bushes and Reagan.

Go here: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/08/20/barack-obama-economic-policy-wonk?tid=true

Here's the New York Times Magazine piece by economist David Leonhardt - an economic Columnist for the NY Times. The piece compares the two plans and analyzes them. It's an interesting article - stating Obama is a pragmatist taking portions from several different plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

[Sorry for the length - I tried to shorten a bit by cut-tagging.]
  • Current Mood: contemplative
  • Current Music: News
Tags:

Don't pigeon-hole me, please...

Feb. 23rd, 2008 09:45 am
shadowkat: (chesire cat)
As I mentioned in previous posts, I've been reading The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama lately. Surprisingly good. Didn't expect to enjoy reading it, honestly. These types of books usually either put me to sleep or aggravate me. But this one is fairly engaging and manages to put into words many of the things I've been thinking about the US, our current political climate, our past history, and what needs to be done for quite some time.

These two paragraphs taken directly from the prologue - pretty much summarize my own political philosophy:
( political belief )

Later in the book - he makes a point of showing how complex people are. That people can not be put in boxes. That we are more alike than we think. That for all our differences, we really do share the same values and basically want the same things - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness - the ability to find a good job, have a family, spend time with our family, have a home, food, shelter, health, clean air and clean water.

( Nixon )

( Obama's Take on Presdent Reagan and why America voted for him )

( Clinton and Gringrich, Rove and Norquist - polarization in the government )

( Absolutism, Hillary/Obama debate comparisons, Obama's views on Republicans and Democrats and what needs to change )

I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we're in. I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodocy and the sheer predictablity of our current debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challengs we face as a country. It's what keeps us locked in 'either/or' thinking: the notion that we can have only big government or no government; the assumption that we must either tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace socialized medicine.

It is such doctrinaire thinking and stark partisanship that have turned Americans off politics. This is not a problem for the right; a polarized electorate - or one that esily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate - works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government.

I saw this in the Obama/Clinto debate as well - particularly in regards to our current President. Clinton went after Bush personally, calling him names, while Obama took a different approach - an approach quite similar to the one he does in this book - where he states in his second Chapter:
( Bush )

Obama says that he is under no illusion "that the task of building a working majority will be easy. But it's what must do, precisely because the task of solving America's problems will be hard. It will require tough choices, and it will require sacrifice. Unless political leaders are open to new ideas and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy policy or tame the deficit. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism without resorting to isolationism or eroding civil liberties. We won't have a mandate to overhaul America's broken health-care system. and we won't have the broad political support or the effective strategies needed to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of poverty."

In 2005 - he responded to a blog attacking Democrats for voting for Chief Justice John Roberts, who he had voted against. He was supporting and defending them. Stating much the same argument he poses above. And got the predictable range of responses.

And he wonders if maybe the critics are right, that there's no escaping the great political divide and maybe most of us have given up seeing it as little more than a spectator sport.

But - he believes - that this isn't true. That there are people out there like himself. ordinary citizens who have grown up in the midst of all the political and cultural battles, but who have found a way - in their own lives, at least - to make peace with their neighbors and themselves. I imagine the white Southerner who growing up heard his dad talk about niggers this and niggers that but who has struck up a friendship with the black guys at the office and is trying to teach his own son different, who thinks discrimination is wrong but doesn't see why the son of a black doctor should get admitted into law school ahead of his own son. Or the former Black Panther who decided to go into real estate, bought a few buildings in the neighborhood, and is just tired of the drug dealers in fron of those buildings as he is of the bakers who won't give him a loan to expand his business. There's the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christian woman who paid for her teenager's abortion, and the millions of waitresses and temp secretaries and nurse's assistants and Wal-mart associates who hold their breath every single month in the hope that they'll have enough money to support the children they did bring into the world.

I imagine they are waiting for a politics with the maturity to balance idealism and realism, to distinguish between what can and cannot be compromised, to admit the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point. They don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal, but they recognize the difference between dogma and common sense, responsibility and irresponsibility, between those things that last and those that are fleeting.

( What I think of all of this, and my current take on Clinton, McCain and Obama )
  • Current Mood: contemplative
Tags:

Ack - Politics Redux - a Hopefully Objective Guide to The Presidential Candidates

Feb. 20th, 2008 07:32 pm
shadowkat: (chesire cat)
Been reading Barak Obama's Audacity of Hope - which is great. But, decided I wanted to see what all these guys have actually done - not what they say they plan to do, or promise they will do in order to persuade us to elect them. Actions after all speak louder than words. So in an attempt to get past the rhetoric and name-calling, below - for your reference and my own - are links to the each one of the main Candidates "Voting Records", "Bills that They've Sponsored", and "Comparisons of their Voting Records". (I ignored Huckabee, because I honestly don't see him as much of a contender in this race anymore.) Most of the links are from objective sources - merely interested in reporting the data not in persuading us to vote for *their* candidate. I tried to avoid any links that contained an emotional pov or endorsement of one of the candidates listed in an attempt to provide myself and anyone who happens upon this post with as much impartial information as possible.

John MCcain's voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

Barack Obama's voting record:http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Hillary Clinton's voting record:http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Hillary vs. Obama - article links on their voting records compared:

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/22/hillaryclinton.barackobama

Excerpts: Clinton and Obama differed most famously on the 2005 energy bill that helped pad the profits of oil and gas companies while expanding ethanol use. But while Clinton adopted the consensus liberal stance against that bill, which Obama backed, the contrasts in their records give neither one a leg up with true-blue Democrats. On immigration, ethics, gun control, and other controversial questions, Clinton and Obama tended to switch off, each wearing the liberal mantle some of the time.

One little-mentioned split occurred on a proposal to restrict Pentagon spending on cluster bombs, which explode and scatter thousands of tiny weapons over a vast area. Those small bombs are prone to going off years after a battle, sometimes killing and maiming Middle Eastern children who mistakenly trigger them. Israel came under fire from the UN and international human rights groups for its use of cluster bombs during its 2006 war with Hizbullah forces in Lebanon. In the autumn of that year, with memories of the conflict still fresh, several Democrats sought to limit US defence spending to cluster bombs that would not be used in civilian areas....

Obama voted in favour of limiting use of the bombs, while Clinton and 69 other senators opposed the spending limits, defeating the proposal.

2. Ethics Comparsion - go here:

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/barack-obama-vs-hillary-clinton-records-on-transparency-lobbyists-and-ethics/

3. How have Clinton, Obama, and McCain been Voting on Trade Issues?

http://benmuse.typepad.com/custom_house/2008/02/how-have-clinto.html

Excerpt:"McCain voted "pro-trade" in all the 13 roll calls I looked at in which both he and Clinton voted. Clinton voted pro-trade in 54% of them. I haven't scored Obama because he only entered the Senate in 2005 and wasn't there to vote in more than half of the roll calls included here. However, from 2005-2007, he and Clinton voted the same way in each roll call I've included."

"I'd also like to draw your attention to several posts during the past week on Barak Obama's likely trade stance. Jonathan Dingel posted an excerpt from a Guardian article by Daniel Koffler, which argued that Obama had a deeper understanding of the power of markets than other Democratic and Republican candidates: Is Obama better on globalization? Simon Lester agreed: Is Obama Better Than Clinton On Free Trade? Lester points to this post by Greg Mankiw to illustrate Obama's grasp of economic issues: The Pigou Club watches the debates . Emmanuel disagreed, pointing to Obama's record on agricultural and ethanol subsidies (Obama represents Illinois, an important agricultural state): Obama is the Protectionist's Choice, Too. Emmanuel's post also suggests the sorts of roll calls that might be used to expand this data set, and the potential for changing the relative standing of the candidates reached here. To the extent that the roll call information sheds light on this debate, it suggests that Obama and Clinton may behave similarly."

4. Gov.Track -on which bills sponsored by the candidates while in Congress and the overall trend of their voting record:

- Obama's : http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629
-Obama's Bills: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629&tab=bills

- Clinton's:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022
-Clinton's Bills: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022&tab=bills

-McCain's:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071
-McCain's Bills:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071&tab=bills


5.The National Journals' Vote Tracker - Obama the Most Liberal Senator -

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Key Votes Used to Track - or Senate Vote Comparison - http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm
Tags:
Page generated May. 23rd, 2025 03:35 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios