Posted on 11/07/2008 8:29:20 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008, is a date that will live in fame (the opposite of infamy) forever. If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you.
But will the election also mark a turning point in the actual substance of policy? Can Barack Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes, he can.
Right now, many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small. Some make the case on political grounds: America, they say, is still a conservative country, and voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left. Others say that the financial and economic crisis leaves no room for action on, say, health care reform.
Let’s hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice.
About the political argument: Anyone who doubts that we’ve had a major political realignment should look at what’s happened to Congress. After the 2004 election, there were many declarations that we’d entered a long-term, perhaps permanent era of Republican dominance. Since then, Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign.
Bear in mind, also, that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.
This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If the man who is elected president is an idiot, why should I be proud if he has black skin, or if he is an albino? I’m left-handed. Should I be proud if someone who also is left-handed becomes president, even if I totally disagree with him? The logic of some people just overwhelms me.
I saw this guy on Lou Dobbs’s show tonight. He seemed incapable of grasping that construction jobs, financed by the Stimulus, were not long term jobs. Village idiots know more about economics than this Nobel Prize winner—what a disgrace.
Krugman fails to define “affluent”. Chairman O alludes to the top 5%, which begins at $150k. Hardly affluent, particularly here in Montgomery County, MD.
I have a good friend who works in the financial planning industry who earns over $1 million annually. Another friend in the same industry earned $30k last year. This is an enormous disparity, in which one “controls” over 97% of the wealth. in the Chairman O/Krugman model, Obama has a “mandate” to right this egregious disparity. Problem is, the $1 million producer has been in the industry for 20 years, is extremely intelligent and proactive, has his CIMA and CFP certifications and has paid his dues. The $30k producer is 23 years old, one year out of college, just starting out in the industry.
I've challenged liberals with this scenario:
Sarah and Joe are salespeople for a specialized, big ticket software company. Sarah works long hours, networks, cold-calls, joins industry trade associations, learns her products and services inside and out, develops masterful presentations and closes a very high percentage of opportunities. Joe lacks ambition, fails to stay on top of and master his company's offerings, and chooses to work shorter hours and party with friends after work. Joe closes a far smaller percentage of opportunities than Sarah, but does not take the steps to improve himself. Sarah earns $500k/year, while Joe is content with earning $50k/year. Sarah “controls” 90% of the wealth.
Here's the question: How much of Sarah's wealth should be redistributed to Joe?
Okay, Krugman, you first. There is no way this urbanite doesn’t make more than the vast majority of America with his NYC wages.
From the article: “But it would be fair for the new administration to point out how conservative ideology, the belief that greed is always good, helped create this crisis.”
Actually, that’s the progressive ideology, Krugman. Your side is the one that’s selling greed and envy. After all, since we’re such a rich country, everyone deserves free stuff, right?
Conservatives understand greed is bad, but they are pragmatic about its motivating effect in a fallen world. Sure, it would be great if everyone shared everything according to need, but that simply doesn’t work. It’s been tried...many times...and it always produces less for everyone.
When properly channeled, greed produces social good. What do I mean by properly channeled? Well, when people get to benefit from their hard work to get more stuff, that ends up helping everyone by improving the economy. On the other hand, when people satisfy their greed by taking from others, the economic pie is reduced for all.
For a Nobel prize winner, you sure know very little about economics, Mr. Krugman.
Go drink another gallon of Kool-Aid , Krugman. It left me disgusted America is so brain dead because of our TVs we elected/ the media selected a Kenyan-born communist.
Oh yeah, the Enron consultant.
Ummm now that’s funny, if there’s a mandate to pass out pie, the zero has a fascinating way of showing it...he said it may take a year or even a full term to cook up all this pie!
Forget pie...
POPCORN anyone?
“hey krugman-how ‘bout we start with yours.”
exactly. I’d like to hear Mr. Obama publicly say he’ll begin spreading the wealth of......Mr. Krugman, Oprah, Springsteen, Ben Afleck, Bill Ayers, Rev Wright...etc.
Krugman, you fink, you're always guaranteed Paul's support when you rob Peter to pay Paul...
Mark
Don’t forget Carter won it also.
CORRECTION : Make that 1994-2006
....................Can Barack Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes, he can................
Yes he can! Yes he can!! Hope! Change!!
Krugman believes that all that is under governmental control is good, ergot, anything that 0bama espouses is good.
Krugman is a total, blithering, complete, flaming asshole!
The election of this Marxist is enough to make a proud American cry.
They’re always goofy looking guys, aren’t they?
He won by about 4 - 6 points. NOT A MANDATE to take OUR MONEY! We have been trying to pay for our house, our three kids’ college, and retirement for the 35 years we have been married. It is robbery to TAKE it and give it to deadbeats now! We worked hard, scrimped, saved.... We hope to KEEP OUR money! We do plan to EAT and to stay off of public assistance for the next few decades!
Krugman is an anal aperture. 0bama has NO mandate to redistribute anything!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.