While the political rhetoric spews and folks decide their religion, some of us are looking at the policy beneath. People, it ain't pretty. It appears we have more of the talkin' the talk instead of walkin' the walk rhetoric and the keyword change is now redefined to mean status quo
Obama's Economic Advisers
- Austan Goolsbee: U. of Chicago neoclassicist and “single payer universal health care critic claiming "it doesn't follow free market principles"
- David Cutler: Harvard economist who believes that high health costs are good for the economy
- Jeffrey Liebman: another Harvard economist and former Clinton adviser who favors privatizing social security
From Real Clear Poliitics
Goolsbee, however, says globalization is responsible for "a small fraction" of today's income disparities. He says "60 to 70 percent of the economy faces virtually no international competition." America's 18.5 million government employees have little to fear from free trade; neither do auto mechanics, dentists and many others
So is that to imply that 40% to 30% Americans being negatively affected by globalization is ok? and yes we are offshore outsourcing state and government jobs. Remember Alan Blinder projects that 40M US jobs are vulnerable to global labor arbitrage (offshore outsourcing). I'll assume wage stagnation is being ignored as well in this above quote.
The Nation's article Subprime Obama points out:
Obama's foreclosure plan mostly avoids direct government spending in favor of a tax credit for homeowners, which amounts to about $500 on average, beyond which only certain borrowers would be eligible for help from an additional fund
A tax cut of $500 dollars is supposed to assist people being foreclosed on?
Now look at this quote, again from The Nation, which blames the victim for predatory lenders:
One advantage to the tax credit is that there's no moral hazard involved," one of Obama's economic advisers explains. "There's no sense in which you're rewarding someone for taking too big a risk. If you lied about your income in order to get a bigger mortgage, then you're not qualified. Do you really want to give a subsidy to the guy who wasn't prudent?" Obama has used similar language on the campaign trail. "Innocent homeowners," he has promised, those "responsible" borrowers "facing foreclosure through no fault of their own," would get help restructuring their loans. But no such luck for those "claiming income they didn't have" or "lying to get mortgages.
If Bloomberg thinks privatizing social security is a fresh, new idea and Obama's economic advisers are good for considering privatization, that's an anti-endorsement on Obama for the US national interest and middle class.
From the Wall Street Journal article, Obamanomics
In 2005, he (Obama) voted for a bill making it easier for defendants to move class-action lawsuits into federal court. He explained his vote at the time by saying he didn't want plaintiffs shopping for sympathetic judges, and thought large settlements often benefited the lawyers over the plaintiffs. But the measure was opposed by the Democratic Party's big trial-lawyer backers. California Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who is now speaker of the House, criticized the measure then as an "injustice" to consumers because it would make it harder to bring claims
And a foreboding indicator, hedge fund managers are endorsing Obama:
Financial Times reports:
Another top fund chief backs Obama
Paul Tudor Jones, the wealthy hedge fund manager, has become the latest in a growing band from his profession to throw their weight behind Barack Obama, the US senator vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Mr Jones is said to be planning to host a 500-guest fundraiser for Mr Obama on May 19. The event will be held at Mr Jones’s seaside mansion in Greenwich, Connecticut, a big US centre for hedge funds.
This blog points out a previous agenda to privatize social security by association to the Obama advisers. I won't go as far as this blog implies after review, I'll say a partial privatization plan, a privatization supplement to maybe a full out path, but the point is, these sorts of private retirement savings accounts are being considered for social security.
Below is a long video, but the most detailed video debate I could find on candidates true economic positions. It is a debate between campaign's economic advisers, held by the The New American Foundation and well worth watching.:
Obama's economic adviser, Goolsbee states our current trade agreements are simply not free trade theory and are pages and pages of corporate requested loopholes. That's quite true. Now will Goolsbee recognize they also are not in the US national interest or working America's interests?