Obama has said that his economic plan consists of “investments” in the economy that will pay for them selves.  He has also said that his tax hikes on those making over $250,000 will not hurt the economy.  

He has now said that if the economy continues to have the type of problems that it is experiencing, he may “defer” these and other portions of his economic plan.

If these programs are good for the economy, why would he defer them until later?  Wouldn’t it make more sense to double the plan to jump start the economy even more?  Likewise, if they are revenue neutral because they will generate as much money as they cost, why put them off?  Double the revenue free “investments” and generate twice as much profit.

This is especially true in his promise to create thousands of "green jobs" by government "investment" of tax dollars.  If this really will work, he should go gang busters and create all those jobs ASAP so as to get the ball rolling again.

Or could it be that they aren’t revenue neutral and all of these proposals would really be a drag on the economy?  If it is a drag on a weak economy, isn’t it a drag on a strong economy, as well?

Let’s imagine there exists a successful restaurant. It is earning a lot of money and bringing in a lot of customers. People are ordering the most expensive entrees because they know this restaurant has a good reputation and they are confident in the chef’s abilities. You decide to invest money into this restaurant to bring in an even greater profit. You hire contractors to expand the dining area, install a fancy sound system, renovate the parking lot, update the furnishings, etc. Seems like a good plan, right? Your improvements will invite more business, and you will make more money than before.

Now imagine there exists a struggling restaurant. It used to be successful, but then a few people got salmonella poisoning and now no one wants to eat there. Would the same investments be helpful here? No. A bigger dining area and fancier tables would not solve the root cause of this restaurant’s struggle. You would have to tackle the problems in the kitchen first.

The same logic applies to Obama and his economic plan. His investment proposals were good, but he recognized that they may need to be put on hold in light of the recent turmoil. Being flexible and versatile with his thinking shows good leadership. This is especially important when the success of government investments relies so heavily on the public’s confidence and willingness to spend. By adjusting his proposal, Obama shows that he is in tune with public opinion, and he is able to foresee which course of action will have the most favorable outcome.

That is the silliest analogy.  

Obama's plan is supposed to give a boost to a sagging economy.

If he believes that these will be good for the economy, he can go ahead with it.  This is not a restaurant, where people have a choice of going to.

"Investing" $100 million dollars in green technology will either stimulate the economy or it won't.  If business is bad because of food poisoning, now is the time to jump start it.

His proposals are either revenue neutral or they aren't.  

It is not opening a new dining room. He is saying he will open the new technology that will create the business.

Actually, it was a trick question.  He already admitted that tax cuts boost revenue, the old JFK theory. But he said it just wasn't "fair."

You missed the whole analogy.

People have a choice of going to the restaurant, and people have a choice of spending money in our economy.

The issue is not neutrality to revenue, it's neutrality to public opinion. Obama has to change his plan because the economic problems have undermined people's confidence. Just like the investor in my analogy has to change his plans because of an external problem that renders his plans temporarily useless.

Seems quite simple to me.

If the analogy is "silly" it's only because it accurately illustrates your attempt to criticize Obama's economic plans.  When we INVEST in something, we're providing captial and waiting on a return.  During this wait, day-to-day cost of operation doesn't cease to exist, as your criticism would imply (on an individual level, I wish it did - as we would all make our 401K contributions 100%).

Are you telling me that this never crossed your mind as you typed that?  

-- Modified on 9/29/2008 8:02:47 PM

Get a life dude!!! Socialism sucks!

It may be true that normal investors are "waiting out" the situation.  However, if it really will make money, that is all the more reason for the party able to do it - the Obama administration - to step up, put its plan in motion, and jump start everything.

His plan is supposed to create hundreds of thousands of jobs.  He won't have "the product" on the market next week. There has to be a development time.  Why not "hire" all those people now and get it going.

No, the fact is he knows it will never by revenue neutral, and just can't afford it.

Then hang all of the middlemen from it. Then take all of the speculators and hang them from it. Charge congress with treason and have a trial, then hang the those convicted from the gallows. Those actions should clear up all this economic bullshit.

Assuming that he believes his plan makes sense, he is still faced with the reality that admitting to a tax increase will cost him the election.

We all have our pet peeves, but nobody wants a tax increase...EVER.  So, the only "out" is to defer.

''I’ve also said that if I’m President, I will review the entire plan on the day I take office to make sure that it is working to save our economy and that you are getting your money back.''
------------------------------------------

How long do you think it will take ? How is he gonna pay for all his plans without raising taxes on all .You really think it will just be the rich