Obama's Economic Plan Blend Of Old-School Dems And Defense Against GOP

FLINT, Mich. -- Sen. Barack Obama shed new light on his economic plans for the country, saying he would rely on a heavy dose of government spending to spur growth, use the tax code to narrow the widening gap between winners and losers in the U.S. economy, and possibly back a reduction in corporate tax rates.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the Illinois Democrat said that he was trying to put together tax and spending policies that dealt with two challenges. One is the competition from rapidly growing developing countries, like India and China. The other: the U.S. becoming what he called a "winner-take-all" economy, where the gains from economic growth skew heavily toward the wealthy.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[noneIn2008]

We need to just increase taxes and increase costs to cut consumption. To achieve our reduced CO2, our goal must be to reduced consumption.

[UnbiasView]

So why is every liberal's plan to tax?

My guess, you make less than 25k a year.

[bushflipflops]

Why is every conservative plan to cut taxes, especially when we are already running huge deficits? How much lower do you guys want the value of the dollar to go?

[jsarets]

Obama will use government spending to spur growth, whereas McCain will use government spending to spur anti-American sentiment throughout the world. The partisan tendencies of the WSJ aside, I find it odd that the mouthpiece of the international capitalist elite is still supporting a presidential candidate whose foreign policy can best be described as hegemonic isolationism.

[UnbiasView]

Government spending isn't high enough as it is?

[bushflipflops]

Just misallocated.

[bushflipflops]

Why would McCain be against incentives for solar and wind? Any money spent on those technologies is money kept in this country instead of financing terrorists and rogue regimes around the world. It also improves the environment of our country. Why is McCain anti-American?

It's obvious that the GOP only works for a handfull of companies, and they will thwart any business that doesn't contribute to them, or keep their families wealthy. The future of this country, whether the GOP wants to get on board or not, is going to be solar panels on every roof, batteries in every house to store the excess electricity for later, and plug in hybrid cars. Solar technology is improving in efficiency each year, while the cost is dropping. Pretty soon we will see companies producing thin film solar at less than $1/watt, an then it will be boom time for solar. Energy will be created locally on smaller scales instead of the centralized large scale producers, and that is a threat to the energy giants that run the GOP.

The future of the electric grid in this country will be something like the electric-web Al Gore described. Anyone can plug into it anywhere and produce electricity, and consumers can buy from whoever has the cheapest price. So an old farmer who has more land than he currently uses can set up wind tubines and solar arrays to pump into the grid and receive a hefty check each month.

[robinhood2]

Couldn't he start by admitting that the corn-based ethanol policy which he voted for was a flop (unless you are an Iowa corn farmer) and couldn't he call for its repeal? The current ethanol policy has helped drive up the cost of corn and indirectly the cost of many types of food. Higher food prices hurt millions of American households every day.

[Myshkin57]

I'm with you. Ethanol is not a good answer to energy issues and corn ethanol is the worst way to get it. There are people working on pond scum-ethanol and that might be a good start, but we should not keep giving subsidies for corn ethanol.

[tippy6]

Good point, but I think that the bubble will burst. Farmers will glut the market with excess supply of corn, driving the price down and making it less profitable. And likewise with the rise in wheat prices, it will be more profitable in the next few seasons to grow wheat, so I think farmers will begin to gravitate back to wheat production, bringing those prices back down. The grain markets should naturally correct prices.

[robXdion]

Duh? He's been saying this from the beginning. Too bad he couldn't tie it up and explain in one sentence.

[Tom95134]

The WSJ did it again. Showing it's total bias by systematically trashing Obama's plans without discussing what the alternatives are. Energy will be the keystone to the Obama economic turnaround. Just as FDR did in the 1930s Obama will use the jobs creating power of the Federal Government to redraw the map of electrical generation and distribution in this country. As a result, our dependency on oil, natural gas, and coal will diminish by maximizing the use of solar and wind generation.

We are in a crisis over oil right now but another one over natural gas is on the horizon. Nearly 100% of the domestic production of natural gas is used to generate electricity. Think of what that will mean when demand for natural gas goes up and the supply is diverted elsewhere because of market pressures. We have to move now to rethink energy because one our present part the future only holds jumping from one crisis to another.

[heal57]

The WSJ will always trash Obama's plans and ideas because it is now owned by Rupert Murdoch. The paper had been very fair in its reporting previously. It's editorial page was always right wing, but the reporting stories were fair. That's gone by the wayside as Murdoch attempts to compete with the New York Times and changes the face of the Wall Street Journal.

[zizyphus]

Biochar, agrichar, Tera Preta. Please learn about these ancient techniques which have applications that can transform our landscape and the world. There is even a Biochar Fund already!

I am thrilled, as I have just found out about them. It is something that communities can start experimenting with right away, that will reduce waste going to landfill, sequester carbon, produce diesel fuel, produce a soil amendment with the ability to reduce fertilizer use by 10%, increase crop yields, while creating soil that will be fecund and self-regenerating over time.

I am going to start making biochar in my yard in a 55 gallon drum to use up the brush I always am cutting back.

Learn and share the info with others! This is really good news for the environment.

[darthdarcy]

Get rid of the deregulation that's allowing Traders and Speculators to engage in economic warfare against the American people...and it's economy...even our allies..

Peg the Sub Prime Mortgages at 3% above the Fed rate or even Prime rate and forgive all penalties to date 1/2 of which are illegal any way...this will not cost one dime of tax payers money the bankers don't lose money and won't need to borrow it from foreign sources and we can avoid up to 4.5 million foreclosures...

Nationalize the American Airlines...huge benefits from that...

Nationalize the America Oil Companies and all major energy..

[Squalish]

You are giving us an extreme-left solution to corrupt Republican talking points. And it simply won't work.

It won't work because the emphasis on speculation in oil price (targetting those evil, *liberal*, rich energy trading 'outsiders' from Manhattan) is a lie. It's a ploy to divide the voters, get some factionalism going, and ensure that whoever New York votes for, Mississippi votes for somebody else.

It won't work because oil is a global market, not a local one. A trader in Shanghai can practice arbitrage just as well as one in the US.

It won't work because a large majority of oil reserves and production are in the hands of foreign governments - they nationalized their oil companies, which works out well for them because their countries can reap the rewards.

It won't work because the root problem we are facing is not even economic, it is geological, ecological, and societal - and will be getting seriously geopolitical soon. A graph of oil production for a large enough number of fields resembles a bell curve. We are somewhere near the top - the price of oil has quadrupled(even correcting for inflation) in a few years, and there aren't any more spigots to open. The other side of the curve (where the world might have to decrease its oil consumption a massive 2-4%/year) represents a hell of a lot more than $4 gas, particularly because the US is burning (much rarer) *exported* fuel.

[UnbiasView]

Earth to socialist, earth to socialst . . . what does the USA government know about making things run efficiently?

They can't even run a restaurant:

Year after year, decade upon decade, the U.S. Senate's network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money -- more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another.

[skahimself]

There is nothing wrong with realizing that maybe, just maybe, certain sectors of the economy shouldn't be in the hands of private enterprises. Or, at the very least, they should be regulated to the hilt.

I'm thinking about energy - namely oil.

Oil is so vital to the economy that allowing it to be fair prey to free market forces is not only stupid, its dangerous.

[iambusto]

I dont like the term nationalize. How about "buyout".

Meaning the government pays a nominal premium (say 10%) to the market cap of the companies that the government wants to nationalize. Make a binding offer.

i would call that fair. so would most people no.

[KillTheMessenger]

I don't think you are quite on the wavelength of Senator Obama...

I also don't think that you would like nationalized airlines. The government is awful at providing "service". Yes, even more so than "United".

One could talk about a national energy strategy. I don't think it will go through nationalized oil companies, though. Oil does not have a future in the energy market. The government might want to focus on things like solar and prevent big oil from taking those over. Which, if unchecked, it will.

[MetalCanuck]

The Sinking dollar will modify both plans believe me.

[MetalCanuck]

Both stupid plans, what are they going to do about the shrinking dollar? It will stop BOTH their plans dead.

[KillTheMessenger]

The incredibly shrinking dollar has nothing to do with either problem. The rich would be getting richer and the poor would be getting poorer even if the dollar were rock solid with the current tax code. You simply have to raise taxes on the rich. The old argument (yawn) that higher taxation on rich people prevents investment is pure GOP spin. Investments in every real business are pre-tax. Only profits are being taxed.

The problem with China can be easily solved within a carbon tax framework. China will rage against its products being carbon taxed, but it won't be able to do anything about it. And the US could solve the foreign trade deficit, the energy and the global warming problem all at once. Not to mention that it would create an enormous amount of jobs over here.

[MetalCanuck]

Ummm no on the first part when it comes to higher taxes because they WILL LEAVE..GET IT. BUTTT the second one with China would be something I would LOVE but you see China is America's Banker and at any time they can drop the dollar then...POOF! The dollar is worthless. China right now has all the jobs and their people going to work. We have nothing and losing more everyday. You would lose more than you gained with the tax because they have the dollar by the balls.

[Pquilson]

Investments are profits retained. It is post-tax.

[joebaggadonuts]

I am not sure you are right, but it seems like a good plan, KTM.

[FrictionSoul]

The value of the dollar is a symptom. The GOP knows this, which is why they deliberately have done nothing about the cost of energy and hung renewable energy out to dry in the wind.

Jump starting the renewable energy industry will provide a lot of jobs and thus value. The dollar should take care of itself. Reason: you can't offshore renewable energy. In just 5 short years over 1000 renewable energy companies have moved significant operations to Colorado alone.

Tiny Windsor, Colorado - the same city that suffered extensive tornado damage on May 22 - is home to the Vestas wind turbine manufacturing facility. They're from Spain. They came here to build turbines. That adds value to the dollar, whereas Cheney's energy plan and Bill Clinton's NAFTA gave the dollar's value the shafta. It really is as simple as this. Manufacturing is the heart and sole of value whereas services that do not drive manufacturing add nothing but illusions of value.

It's all about where the money lands. When it lands offshore it has little value. So calling these plans stupid simply demonstrates your ignorance.

[Ping]

Rate hikes by the Fed, and reducing the Federal deficit by ending the Iraq war will immediately strengthen the US Dollar.

[KBAR]

Chairman Barry Sotero outlines the Party's five year plan.