There is a new article out from the New York Times overviewing Obama's economic policy views and details.
It is not calling cash on Obama to get with it on economic policy changes America sorely needs. Matter of fact the article doesn't even report on the hundreds of economists who will show you statistics, details on just wrong headed many of these policy positions are, especially on trade. Seemingly a large deficit doesn't seem to count to the New York Times in terms of referencing credible economists.
That said, this is one hell of an article. It goes through the details of how we can expect basically more free market Chicago school or "business friendly" economic policy.
Compared with many other Democrats, Obama simply is more comfortable with the apparent successes of laissez-faire economics.
Sunstein, now on the faculty at Harvard, has a name for this approach: “I like to think of him as a ‘University of Chicago’ Democrat.”
If anyone is not aware, the Chicago School is neoconservative, Milton Friedman, privatization headquarters.
Obama said he agreed that blue-collar workers were struggling primarily because their skills weren’t as much in demand as they used to be.
What kind of lie is that? Americans are the most skilled workers in the world. Blue collar workers are struggling because they are competing with a 100:1 wage ratio in other countries. It's wage arbitrage.
But any public-policy response couldn’t be about just education; it also had to take account of the psychology of the workplace, Obama continued. Some laid-off steelworkers might indeed be able to go back to school to become health-care workers. But many of them don’t want to work in health care or any service job. Factory workers, he said, want to make something. It’s part of their identity.
Is this just wrong headed or what? How is the United States going to a 1st world economy with someone thinking what is happening to manufacturing is simply all in their head?
watch out on the author
He tries to claim that the left wing of the party is Protectionist.
This is NOT the case. People are demanding modifications in trade policy specifically that would assuredly reduce the deficit
They are not arguing for tariffs! It's just a smear to label those wanting policy changes.
I found this by looking at tradereform (see middle column) and frankly I think we should encourage them to be a little more forthright in calling this lack of an agenda out.
Like Father Like Son
more rebellion against the Father
I just read his father's policies and they are socialist.
These policies coming from Obama are corporate agenda, I cannot even say capitalist because it's obvious corporations are writing some of these agenda items.....with some token middle class issues sprinkled.
Does anyone seriously believe that all things amount to tax cuts?
Seriously, read the article, it documents the manipulation during the primaries trying to imply Obama would do something about trade when in fact he has no intention on that score beyond a few token worker and environmental standards which is basically your corporate policy sprinkled with a few nice pieces that make people feel better but do not have any real effect.
I cannot believe how many supposed Progressives wrote the spin on Obama and NAFTA when at the time it was clearly a manipulation and now it is even more obvious.
I'm not so much irritated with the Obama campaign than the supposed Progressives who completely ignored the real policy positions and just rang the cheerleading bell.
Now they are shocked (supposedly) on his real policy positions or are still in denial with claims that FDR ran on modest reforms and so on.
It is what it is and what it is has always been.
Follow the rabbit down the hole
The key Bob is the Hamilton Project.
They want to kill economic populism in the Democratic party. Obama is basically in collusion with them and is adopting their ideas and discourse into his campaigns.
He doesn't get that tax cuts have little use for those who are so poor that they are exempt from Federal taxes through the EITC.
There are good people, see Alan Blinder, on his economic staff, but its the neolibs running the show.
New boss.... same as the old boss.
He is a reality based economist (a good one) in my view too. but I agree the Hamilton Project or the Rubinomics/DLC branch might just lose this election.
I guess Obama supported the Americans in Fairness in lending group, which is very good.
But, in reading this article, truly the major policies as well as the Democratic Platform, what you are observing sure seems to be true.
Same Politics Throughout Life is Complete Nonsense
Not only do the politics of many people change throughout their lives and their views shift on issue to issue, many shift from left to right and vice versa.
Consider George Orwell. "Homage to Catalonia" is Orwell's story of fighting in the Spanish Civil war on behalf of the Republic (communists, anarchists and diverse left groups).
Later he turned against the orthodox left and wrote "1984", & "Animal Farm". In the 50's through the 60's, Orwell was a fair-haired boy of the Right.
Let's not forget Reagan. A big left-wing labor activist in the Screen Actors Guild in the 30's and 40's.
Inheriting the politics of your parents and keeping them permanently is even more bizarre.
parties vs. reality based
What you point out is very true. On the list of experts discussing economics/taxes and even some in Congress, you would swear they would be Democrats or Republicans from their writings to discover they are in the other camp.
Why this site is nonpartisan. I believe fact based policy, based on real statistics, real cause/effect brings people together.
The 'modest' FDR reforms often cited by students of history involve the counter to the infamous use of the Army against the WWI Vets who marched on Washington, led by McArthur.
One of the finest examples of what FDR stood for was the use of unemployed WWI vets to build the highway over the Florida Keys. It was the very first thing FDR did.
Our question for Obaminalbes is what action similar to FDR's
would Obama do early on in his presidency? He has gotten many ideas. Will he reach towards the Chicago School? We all need to find out soon.
Or to put the question differently, how is Obama not a Republican?
Ever since choice and the church became involved in politics, the jobs government is supposed to do, say lead the United States in solid economic policy...have been sidelined. (my opinion).