My fear is that Obama does nothing when he begins in January.  My question here is, where exactly is he gonna get the money to help American's when he begins?  What if he can't?  Will the people of the US put up with a No-change?

The people of the US put up with no change all of the time.

Obviously, all of Obama's plans require the government to spend more, which requires it to have more revenue.

JFK explained that they way to increase government revenue is to reduce taxes.  Obama should follow JFK's lead.

There are two theories of economics: 1) profit is taken by individuals who put the money under their mattress and horde the wealth; 2) profit is taken by individuals who either invest it and/or spends it, thus generating more wealth and more tax revunue.  

Also, he can achieve a lot of his goals without spending any money.  Allowing private utilities to build nuclear plants, to the point that they exist in Europe, will be the greatest thing he can do for the environment, and it would create thousand of jobs building those plants, in turn, generating billions of dollars. At no cost, since the utilities would be building them.

Likewise, instead of having the government invest $X billion in solar power or wind, or other alternatives, he should just offer an award to who ever comes up with the first 10 patents that achieve a certain level of improvement.  The award could be 5 million dollars and tax free income on their inventions for ten years.  (The billions they make will also generate thousands of jobs, so I don't begrudge them their money.)  

In the 1700's the Brits offered a reward to whoever could come up with a way to measure longitude, which was crucial for their fleet.  It spurred people to work on the problem, and someone came up with the answer. It was the most cost-effective way of the government dealing with the problem - let someone else do it.

That way Obama could spur research by thousands of individuals and companies without spending anything.

There are similar cost-free ideas that could be done for education, health, roads, and a dozen other areas.  The answers may not involve spending.

Name your area and I can explain how they can be done.

At the very least, he and Congress will study the laws and will cut the programs that are no longer effective. It's something that should have been done long ago.

Meanwhile, he'll begin to put something into place, health insurance at least. I expect he'll start small.

If he gets out of the "We have to spend" he can do much more. The sad thing is I think the could do so much of what he wants to do if he didn't look to tax money to do it.


Cutting ineffective programs will be hard for him.  Public employees are a crucial part of the Dems base, and they will not go along with anything that cuts their jobs.

In the 1980's I was living in NYC.  The subway workers were going to go on strike.  The city was trying to negotiate increased efficiency in exchange for increased pay.  The city offered a bunch of ideas that would achieve this.

For example, the unions had an unofficial system where the air condition people took their vacations in the summers.  That way there were fewer working when needed, which meant they all got more overtime, even thought the city had to pay more for the same service.

The union's position was that they were against any ideas that increased efficiency because that inherently meant fewer union members.  If it takes 5 people to do the job of 3, then hiring 5 is two new members.

Do you really think Obama will do anything that gets the unions mad?

PS. Almost every big city is run by the Dems.  Before the economic crisis, if you liked the way that Detroit is run, if you liked the schools in SF, if you like the public hospital like Drew King in LA, if you like the way any big cities function, you have a good model to expand.

Cut ineffective programs???

You've got to be kidding, what has he ever done in his brief career that would give you the idea that he would actually make cuts?

The best we can hope for is that "if" he is elected he will realize the folly of his campaign promises and do nothing at all. Even that is way too much to hope for.

My guess is he'll try to make good on his promises of massive new entitlements and attempt to pay for it on the backs of the "rich" until there are "rich no more"

So, I presume that he's serious.

I don't expect to see anything like that from a senator.

-- Modified on 10/18/2008 10:49:36 PM

He'll say anything to get elected. You just have selective hearing.

"I don't expect to see anything like that from a senator."

Huh??? What do you mean by that statment?  
 

He's half black.  That's the only change.

I know he can't do it. I am just saying if he wanted to get his other things done, that would be one way.  However, the political cost is too high.

You see, we need hope and we need change. And we hope for change and in change there is hope. Hoping for a change is hope and change. Change for a hope, is hoping in real change that will change our hopes into a real change for hope. If you elect me as your President I will give you hope and I will give you change. You will give me dollars, I will give hope that you get some change back from those dollars. That will be your only hope for change.

Courtesy of The Dennis Miller Show.

The government doesn't need money in order to spend money.  This is true for three reasons:

1.  They can always print more (Obama will not do this);

2.  They can issue debt (Obama likely will not do this right away); and

3.  They can forgive debt, in a sense.  By this I mean they can offer tax credits.  Every taxpayer, whether individual or company, owes the government money in the form of taxes.  Obama has shown a desire to offer a credit against taxes owed.  This credit can be spent in many instances as though the government were providing cash.  For example, this plan will work extremely well with promoting clean technology.

Nor even that same thinking. But Obama learns fast.

Since as a senator, he couldn't "execute" a review of government programs, it would have been hopeless, and politically damaging to him, to call for that kind of review.

I do listen to Obama, and if you read Machiaveli and other such works about the laws of power, he follows them closely with few lapses. So understand that I admire him for that skill. That's why I think he's an excellent politician. Because he's an excellent politician, I also know that I can't know exactly what he thinks.

My best guess is, he's honest about wanting to go through federal laws and figure out which programs might be cut. Simply because he's smart, and that's the way any intelligent, liberal person would have made cuts in government. It's more laborious, but less damaging than wholesale tax cuts that create deficits and generally undermine government making it as incompetent as conservatives think it should be.

BTW, yourself and conservatives don't give him any credit when he answers Joe the Plumber truthfully. He didn't hedge about it. He said the guy's taxes would go up. He didn't run from the confrontation. Does Obama get any credit for that from Repubs? Nooo.

Now, we get to the subject of Mr. "straight-talker" John McCain. He has no skills. Not only that, he's kicked his fellow Repubs in the balls so many times, he doesn't have the support of his own fellow Repubs. I could easily see them sabotaging him as President. Also, he hasn't won an equal support from Democrats. That's not  skilled. It works in getting him elected as senator. As a president, McCain would be like Carter with a bad temper. His legislation would be dead before it's in the envelope to be sent to Congress.

Worse, I look in his eyes and I see encroaching senility. Alzheimer's. His blurry brown eyes give it away. I've seen it before. They are developing a test for Alzheimer's that diagnoses it by looking at eye fluid. Did you know?

Either way, McCain is not likely to get through his term, and then we'll have a host of problems under Sara Palin.

-- Modified on 10/19/2008 12:04:33 AM

If you'll notice, my actual handle is "toondin." What happens is that I simply forget to change it when I post. An early "senior" moment.

It would take a lot of negotiations, but he could do things that industry does, like offering early retirement and buy-outs. Short-term expense for long term savings. He could figure out a way, but I think of campaign promises as aspirations. Once the guy is in office, he will actually see what's possible and change priorities to meet the possible.

As long as he negotiates some solution with the AFL, he could reduce the political cost.

-- Modified on 10/18/2008 11:18:12 PM