SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Why Obamaism Must Live

OCTOBER 5, 2012

Why Obamaism Must Live

BY THE EDITORS

IN THE WINTER OF 2009, the president was grasping for a phrase to sum up his agenda, a slogan that would capture his ambitions. He settled on the “New Foundation.” You didn’t need to be Ted Sorensen to understand that the phrase was straining too hard; and as the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin told the president over dinner, it was a bit too evocative of a woman’s girdle. And yet, a new foundation is precisely what he has built.

Health care reform, if it is properly nurtured, largely completes the social safety net. Financial reform, if the lobbyists don’t shred it, will curb maniacal risk-taking in the markets. The stimulus provided the seed money to launch Race to the Top—perhaps the most significant wave of experimentation in the history of public education—and to remake the energy grid. It created industries from scratch: biofuel refineries and plants that manufacture batteries for electric cars.

Obamaism itself is perhaps this administration’s most important innovation. The president has used New Democratic means to achieve Old Democratic ends. In pursuit of old liberal dreams, he has relied heavily on the insights of markets: spurring competition, reforming bureaucracies, and leveraging small investments to achieve big goals. Two of his signal programs—health care’s individual mandate and cap and trade—were tellingly conceived by conservatives.

This approach helps explain, in part, why he has received insufficient political credit. It’s the stuff of technocracy, largely invisible to the public. But this invisibility is also President Obama’s fault. The president may have built a new foundation, but he hasn’t sufficiently made the case for it. Nor, crucially, has he crafted a sustained argument that might help erode the American aversion to government. (His convention speech barely mentioned health care reform, the essence of his legacy.) His oratorical and explanatory shortcomings have been maddening to watch, given the strengths he displayed in the 2008 campaign.

Of course, Obama’s pitch is hardly easy. His stimulus staved off depression—and prevented untold human suffering—but it wasn’t large enough to fully curb rising unemployment or spur a robust recovery. His administration’s response to the collapse of the housing market, in many ways the nub of the whole crisis, was particularly weak. By populating his administration with disciples of Robert Rubin and former denizens of the investment banks, he cloistered himself off from aggressive proposals—the kind that might have propped up homeowners with the same vigor that the government supported the banks.

The first term has a list of meaningful international accomplishments—chiefly his ruthless pursuit of Al Qaeda, the deft intervention in Libya, and the conclusion of the Iraq war. The president’s open hand to China and initial overtures to the Iranian regime have smartly been replaced by a new assertiveness. This willingness to change course has helped preserve American power in an era where it could easily have slipped away. But there have been times when Obama’s pragmatic impulses have yielded unfortunate policies. While his Cairo speech anticipated the Arab Spring, he never reaped the credit for his prescience, because he has largely sat on the sidelines as dictators have attempted to crush revolutions in Syria and Bahrain. His decision to authorize the surge in Afghanistan seems to have yielded few tangible results for the high cost of the operations in dollars and lives.

But these shortcomings do not compare with what his opponent might do if elected. Mitt Romney is the perfect avatar for a party in the throes of ideological convulsion. When he first considered running for president, in 2006, he seemed an archetype desperately missing from American politics. As a governor, he presented himself as a rigorous empiricist; his record formed a coherent pattern of bucking GOP orthodoxy on climate change, health care reform, and gay rights. But six years of pandering to Republican primary voters and donors will apparently distort even a first-rate mind. Far more than Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, he has promoted a libertarian vision filled with substantive and rhetorical hostility to the poor. His foreign policy is similarly wild, urging the escalation of military hostility with nations who pose no meaningful strategic threat.

At times, Barack Obama has failed to appreciate the virulence of the modern Republican Party. He has earnestly entered negotiations with adversaries interested in breaking his presidency, not splitting the difference. It took him painfully long to arrive at a realistic assessment of his foes. But over the course of this campaign, he has emerged as a different kind of politician—a populist bruiser capable of skillfully and passionately assailing his opponents, while remaining indifferent to the hand wringing of establishment opinion. Perhaps this is a style better suited for the next four years, in which his primary task will be managing a fiscal crisis that his opponents will cynically exploit. Having extended the safety net, he must now protect it. Without a second term, the accomplishments of his first would evaporate. This is not a poetic rallying cry, but there is human suffering to be minimized and a new foundation to defend. 

This article appeared in the October 25, 2012 issue of the magazine under the headline “Four More.”

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 40 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

40 comments

https://www.gottaregister.com/ I'll be voting for Biden.

- Konstantin

October 8, 2012 at 12:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Neither Iran or China pose a meaningful strategic threat? What are you talking about? How can you dismiss a complex debate over foreign policy in one sentence? This Obama supporter feels like the quality of the new republic decreases as elections get closer. If I wanted to buy a bumper sticker I would.

- rusty

October 8, 2012 at 1:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rusty, did you read this editorial? While China and Iran may have received just one sentence, it is obvious, to me at least, that the editors are not dismissing their importance. The intention here is to summarize Obama's entire first term in 500 words. Asking for detailed foreign policy analysis is to miss the point. And if this piece is a "bumper sticker," as you say, it's one of a strange variety. "Vote for Obama, flaws and all!"

- AaronW

October 8, 2012 at 1:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Republican Party is a rabid, ideological mess, and Romney is its leader. He will bring death to America, like G.W. Bush did, but more effectively, because he has a brain. He and Paul Ryan worship Ayn Rand. Together they will deregulate American industry more than Bush and Cheney and Reagan put together did. And people will die, like the miners at Big Branch in West Virginia did, after Bush and Cheney assured the mine owners (who hate Obama with a passion) that they wouldn't be prosecuted for violating safety regulations. Obama and the Democrats are a bit of a mess, too (who isn't?), but at least they care about protecting the American people, including the rich. Romney & Co. want to drag us back to the 19th Century, when the Robber Barons ruled our country and workers were literally slaves. Romney lied during the debate last week that he cares about all Americans. He won't walk that talk (which was a 180-degree pivot from his campaign speeches). Behind the scenes, while presenting that fake Cheshire grin of his to the public, he will sabotaging anything, including the health and safety of our citizens, that doesn't increase profits. Team Obama is right to present this election as a clear choice between two candidates with opposing viewpoints. It couldn't be clearer--Romney and the GOP want death and Obama wants life. We'll see which vision the American people choose on November 6th. Are we suicidal? We voted for G.W. Bush twice. All empires have to die. Maybe Romney and the GOP will deliver the fatal blow to America. We'll see.

- magboy47.

October 8, 2012 at 2:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The president may have built a new foundation, but he hasn’t sufficiently made the case for it. ... At times, Barack Obama has failed to appreciate the virulence of the modern Republican Party." Actually, the first sentence makes sense only be cause the second sentence is wrong. The list set out above of his domestic accomplishments, both the ACA and the industrial policy, demonstrates that Obama himself saw his presidency as truly transformational - but not in the sense it was understood by most. What he did is try to use the stimulus and the levers of powers to change the economic and social dynamics of the country. BUT he could not advertise that fact, principally because of that virulence - even without admitting that he was transforming the country, Obama was and is being attacked for the socialist communist Kenyan anti-colonialist Muslim radical program of reforms - imagine if he actually gave a speech to that effect. It is impossible to see the image of the man with the plush monkey walking into a Palin speech and not realise just how much you are hated, and why. To suggest that Obama does not understand the virulence of the Republican hatred is to miss the point entirely. It is possible that he did not think the Republicans would be batshit crazy to push the US into default, but again, I doubt it - there was and is every indication that the Republican Party is about as corrupt and cynical as it could get - and we see it, he sees it too. "I won," he brusquely told Cantor in one of the meetings, "elections have consequences." This is not a blind guy. And so, the more transformational he has been, the less he can talk about it. There is irony for you.

- icarus-r

October 8, 2012 at 9:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This piece does bring out the answer to one question though. Namely "What will Obama do in the next 4 years?" The clear answer being "Support and defend the policies he's created in his first 4 years." Since the Republicans are threatening to roll back virtually everything he's done -- kill Obamacare, kill Dodd-Frank, appoint a conservative or two to the Supreme Court, cut taxes FURTHER, deregulate oil and gas -- "stay the course" is a perfectly viable strategy. Since the Republican policies, as implemented by Bush-II, created the Great Depression conditions Obama was barely able to avoid, it seems suicidal to return to those policies. But that's exactly what Romney is proposing. "Stay the course" has much more desirable outcomes.

- AllanL5

October 8, 2012 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The best part of "Obamism" is the rounding of the social safety net, but that will occur without Obama. It's simply the final stage of the New Deal/Fair Deal/New Frontier. There's nothing specifically Obama-like about it. It might even happen in a Romney administration. To call the GOP a rabid, ideological mess is to turn a blind eye to the rabid ideology rampant in the Democratic Party. If the GOP has the Christian Coalition and the Tea Party, the Democrats have Howard Dean, Obamanation, and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Lunatics all! It was ideological frenzy on the left that denied Hillary Clinton the presidency and saddled us with the incompetent presidency of Obama. Let's do the country a favor and send this sanctimonious, megalomaniac president into retirement to write yet another autobiography and elect as president a man WHO CAN DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE.

- Spengler47

October 8, 2012 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't be ridiculous Spengler: nobody has heard of Howard Dean for years and OWS is -- at least in regard to its vibrant early form -- supine. However, Dean pointed the way to a new kind of internet-age campaigning and OWS brought the issue of inequality squarely into the public debate last fall. If that's ideological "frenzy," I'm due for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry (I teach literature).

- ironyroad

October 8, 2012 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oy ... "It might even happen in a Romney administration." Lie. Up there with "Restoring Obama's Medicare cuts." And a damnable lie at that, because you know full well your audience. And not just a liar, but an illiterate: " To call the GOP a rabid, ideological mess is to turn a blind eye to the rabid ideology rampant in the Democratic Party." Of course, it is entirely possible to call the GOP a rabid ideological mess and think the same of the Democratic Party. The one has nothing to do with the other. This is basic SAT comparative logic stuff ... "this sanctimonious, megalomaniac president" - and if you want to be taken seriously, anyone who belongs to the party of Santorum and Gingrich loses the right, ipso facto, to use the words "sanctimonious" and "megalomaniac" in reference to anyone else. Just saying. I am still waiting to read a sane Republican ... are there any?

- icarus-r

October 8, 2012 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To the Editors: Truth is beautiful. You should express the truth, and not cover it with pap about Obamaism. Truth can be an avatar; however, the avatar should not be Obama. Obama, as President of the United States, has failed. You like him, because he is a politician of the left. You feel that the left is better than the right. That is a legitimate position. Promote it. Don't promote it with Obama. [Ed Rendell would have been a great candidate for President as a Democrat.] Obama is a President who admitted that he does not believe that he can change America from the "inside." Why has this admission been overlooked by the press, and even by the left? Would Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Eisenhower, or both Roosevelts have made such an admission? If Obama can not change America from the inside, he should not be President. Obama has had no intimate experience with the private sector. He has never had a private sector job. Every election in which he has been a candidate has been a cakewalk, including his race against Ms. Rodham Clinton, thanks to the fawning press. His performance during the recent debate demonstrates that he has no stomach for being a leader. Moreover, after his incompetent performance during the debate, I question the level of his intelligence. Maybe he should stop trying to be a celebrity. Being President is an exhausting and debilitating job, if it is done right. An example of how not to be a good President of the United States is the tenure of George W. Bush, who was lazy and thoughtless. Anyone who would nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States is unfit for the Presidency. Examples of Presidents who gave all of their energy to their jobs are George Washington, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt. Obama does not have one-tenth of their work ethic. He is callow and spoiled. Obama spent two years, and with a huge majority in the US Senate, getting Obamacae passed, instead of trying to strengthen the economy. Bad idea. Very bad idea. People are suffering. People need work. Work gives people self-respect, stability, and hope. Honest work keeps families together and reduces crime. By not understanding how important jobs are to the health of the country and its citizens, Obama has shown himself to be incompetent. Obama is an ideologue. He does not want to promote the greatness of America; rather, he wants to show that he is an internationalist and that he is a modern day Robin Hood, while rubbing elbows with the upper crust of society. Not matter what you think of Romney, he has been a success. If you think he is too conservative for America, that is a position that deserves a hearing by supporters and opponents. Explain it. Don't drool over Obama. Consequently, if the Editors want the political left to dominate this country, fine. Just send another messenger.

- john336

October 8, 2012 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...His administration’s response to the collapse of the housing market, in many ways the nub of the whole crisis, was particularly weak. By populating his administration with disciples of Robert Rubin and former denizens of the investment banks, he cloistered himself off from aggressive proposals—the kind that might have propped up homeowners with the same vigor that the government supported the banks. ..." That is an indictment of Clinton's economic team - the one that brought us all those jobs 1992-2000, prevented a currency meltdown in Mexico, and steered through the other financial crises (Asia, Russia) of that era. Also, Obama did NOT "cloister himself off" from Sheila Bair, then FDIC chair, who did more than anyone to draw Obama's attention to the housing crisis. Obama made the decision to ignore Bair. TNR's editors better hope voters think they are really voting for Bill Clinton. As much as I disdain anyone who made money from private equity LBOs, I do think the bureaucracy of the Federal Government needs four years of that kind of cost-cutting. And a moratorium on new regulations, which, by every account, is strangling our economic recovery. yeah, and Dodd-Frank HAS made getting mortgages much harder. Is the definition of "Obamism" maybe "Trickle-down government"? .

- K2K

October 8, 2012 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

spengler...what in the high holy fuck was that? If we can't have Hillary lets have Romney? And Howard Dean is now on a par with Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell? Um...Dean holds no office and there is no occupy wall street caucus in the House or Senate like there is a tea party one.

- blackton

October 8, 2012 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"People are suffering. People need work. Work gives people self-respect, stability, and hope. Honest work keeps families together and reduces crime. By not understanding how important jobs are to the health of the country and its citizens, Obama has shown himself to be incompetent." john336, We live in a capitalistic country. The capitalists have well over $2 trillion in the bank now, just a fraction of which could be spent on hiring Americans, which would relieve suffering among the jobless and produce more taxpayers. So what you are saying is that Obama, not the capitalists who are making record profits, is supposed to provide jobs. He tried several times, proposing jobs bills where the government would have hired private contractors to do much-needed public work. But the GOP in the House squashed his efforts with disdain. They don't want anybody getting a job while Obama is president. And don't kid yourself that the capitalists would suddenly open up and start hiring Americans under Romney, because he's more business-friendly than Obama is. Do you really think CEO's would give up their record salaries and bonuses to help a politician stay in office? Their profits ballooned under the so-called socialist, Obama, and they expect them to get even bigger under Romney. And giving Americans decent jobs would cut into their profits, which would still be very good, but not all-time records. Never happen. All-time record profits every quarter has become the goal of most American business people. So please tell me how the president, including a Republican one, can create American jobs. The business community doesn't believe in that anymore. They're making way too much money employing children in the Third World, where there are few of those pesky health and safety regulations.

- magboy47.

October 8, 2012 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Am I the only one here uncomfortable with the word "Obamism"? Is this a religion? Americans do not refer to Lincolnism, Rooseveltism, or any other -ism to describe any president's 'vision'.

- K2K

October 8, 2012 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There was Reaganomics.

- ironyroad

October 8, 2012 at 2:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Let's do the country a favor and send this sanctimonious, megalomaniac president into retirement to write yet another autobiography and elect as president a man WHO CAN DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE." Bob the Builder?

- Fishpeddler

October 8, 2012 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K "And a moratorium on new regulations, which, by every account, is strangling our economic recovery." By every account from people with no discernable expertise in economics and/or an easily discernable allegiance to the conservative agenda.

- Fishpeddler

October 8, 2012 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for the input, john336. Tell your Civics teacher we fully support your getting extra credit this week, and we look forward to more posts years from now, once you've had time to learn something about US politics and history.

- Fishpeddler

October 8, 2012 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

k2k, 'Obamism' is dog whistle for 'we support some pretty business friendly things that aren't really progressive, but we'll demagogue as such anyway', such as a pro-business friendly education sell-out.

- jet

October 8, 2012 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is the problem with this article: "It took him painfully long to arrive at a realistic assessment of his foes. But over the course of this campaign, he has emerged as a different kind of politician—a populist bruiser capable of skillfully and passionately assailing his opponents, while remaining indifferent to the hand wringing of establishment opinion. Perhaps this is a style better suited for the next four years, in which his primary task will be managing a fiscal crisis that his opponents will cynically exploit. " The problem is: his first debate showed the old, nonconfrontational Obama, incapable of communicating effectively or fighting back.

- Curran1

October 8, 2012 at 5:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K "Am I the only one here uncomfortable with the word "Obamism"? Is this a religion? Americans do not refer to Lincolnism, Rooseveltism, or any other -ism to describe any president's 'vision'." Not just Reaganomics, but also Reaganism was and is in use.

- arnon1

October 8, 2012 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good point Curran: "It took him painfully long to arrive at a realistic assessment of his foes. But over the course of this campaign, he has emerged as a different kind of politician—a populist bruiser capable of skillfully and passionately assailing his opponents, while remaining indifferent to the hand wringing of establishment opinion. Perhaps this is a style better suited for the next four years, in which his primary task will be managing a fiscal crisis that his opponents will cynically exploit. " Obama has been dealing with his Republican opponents as he dealt with opponents of the US. He did get tough or rather he did start to talk tough with the latter and he needs to get tough with Romney before it's too late. The polls today don't look very encouraging for Obama.

- arnon1

October 8, 2012 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, vote for Obama. But, Obamaism? Sounds like warmed-over Clintonism? I share K2K's discomfort. I prefer Trumanism without the military quagmires.

- amidut

October 8, 2012 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

amidut: there will never be another Harry Truman, because, alas, he never went to college :) ok, if "ism" means "A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory", the definition above of Obamism is not as coherent as "trickle-down government", which is as useless as "supply-side economics". No wonder the USA economy is toast. fishped: I used to forecast the economy for a significant global manufacturing industry, so, by MY account, the avalanche of Obamist regulations ARE strangling today's economy. Obama's jobs program for lawyers???

- K2K

October 8, 2012 at 7:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Magboy writes: "We live in a capitalistic country. The capitalists have well over $2 trillion in the bank now, just a fraction of which could be spent on hiring Americans, which would relieve suffering among the jobless and produce more taxpayers. So what you are saying is that Obama, not the capitalists who are making record profits, is supposed to provide jobs. " No, Obama is supposed to create a climate of optimism. An climate in which a business owner feels confident about the future. Confidence spurs investment. It is that simple. Investment is a result of belief that the future will be better. Spending money you don't have is a promise of a future tax. The deficit in 2006 was $$250B. In 2007 was $150B. In 2009, 10, 11 and 12 respectively it was $1.4, 1.3, 1.3 and $1.1T. Yes, the meltdown made 2008/9 rough, but that doesn't explain 10, 11 and 12. Thus, if you are a business owner looking at our spending, you are panicked. The panic is compounded by the fact that those that are actually paying the taxes are shrinking even more. So, shrinking tax base, stratospheric debt spending, and you can understand why business getting really nervous: they know they are going to get hammered for this. Then add in health care, and the uncertainty around what it costs to add another person the payroll. You talk about the money businesses have as if they are obligated to spend it. They are not. They will only spend it when they feel the climate is right. The president's job is to make that climate right. That is why this president has been so toxic and poisonous to this economy. Everyone laughed after 9/11 when Bush said to get out and shop. But it underscored his commitment to get back to normal. He understand normal was what ensured a good economy. And he succeeded. That is precisely what a president is supposed to do: They are cheerleaders for the country and for the economy, doing what they can in the background to make the real job creators (small business and corp america) feel great about the future. The downturn might have been caused by bad housing policy decisions. But make no mistake: the duration of this downturn is 100% due to Obama's behavior. Biden was right: The last 4 years have been crushing to the middle class. Earnings down 10%. For blacks and hispanics its even worse. And yet Obama parties the nights and weekends away like it's 1999. Incredibly. I am certain Romney cares more about the $50K earner than Obama. There is no way not too.

- seattleeng

October 8, 2012 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What avalanche? Didn't Obama institute an office in the executive branch itself whose sole objective was reviewing and cutting back regulatory constraints? Led by Cass Sunstein who even conservatives admitted took the task seriously.

- ironyroad

October 8, 2012 at 8:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, Mittens is the gift that keeps on giving. His foreign policy speech promised, according to The American Conservative, "more war, bigger budgets". Leaving Iraq was a mistake. He has just conceded the last debate.

- icarus-r

October 8, 2012 at 8:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am appalled at Republican hypocrisy when they claim uncertainty is a big problem after passing a tax law that sunset in 2010 and, instead of resolving it for 7 years, they insisted on continuing the uncertainty for two more years -- the whole time building up the debt with unfunded expenses.

- Nusholtz

October 8, 2012 at 8:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...Nor, crucially, has he crafted a sustained argument that might help erode the American aversion to government. ..." Aha! Obamaism must live to try for another four years to craft a sustained argument that might help erode the American aversion to government. Might Help Erode the American Aversion to Government. Well, I might as well wander off to the cemetery of the history of America, because at least then I can retain my instinctive aversion to government that started with job interviews with the IRS and NSA in 1975. Yes, I do want government, but not every problem can be solved by 2,000 pages of legislation. too many people, too many -isms.

- K2K

October 8, 2012 at 10:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Yes, vote for Obama. But, Obamaism? Sounds like warmed-over Clintonism?" When Bill was in the White House the economy did pretty well as I remember.

- arnon1

October 8, 2012 at 10:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Well, I might as well wander off to the cemetery of the history of America, because at least then I can retain my instinctive aversion to government that started with job interviews with the IRS and NSA in 1975." K2K Scratch an anti-Government right wing conservative and you'll discover a disappointed applicant to a government position.

- arnon1

October 8, 2012 at 10:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nutz writes: "I am appalled at Republican hypocrisy when they claim uncertainty is a big problem after passing a tax law that sunset in 2010 and, instead of resolving it for 7 years, they insisted on continuing the uncertainty for two more years -- the whole time building up the debt with unfunded expenses." The Bush tax cuts are not the source of uncertainty. For a $200K earner, the difference between Bush taxes and Clinton taxes was was 2%, or $4000. I can promise you the $4K earner isn't sweating over that. But they do know that is the tip of the iceberg. Your next question will naturally be: "Then why do they fight it so?" And the answer is "because it's the first of many in a long, long, line" Obama's list of tax increases on the middle class is massive. Combined with his behaviors that crushed middle income salaries, the net result for a middle class earner has been a total pounding. And meanwhile, Obama parties the nights away with JayZ and fundraises with the hollywood elite. Sickening.

- seattleeng

October 8, 2012 at 11:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"[Magboy] You talk about the money businesses have as if they are obligated to spend it. They are not. They will only spend it when they feel the climate is right. The president's job is to make that climate right." seattle, Obama saved us from another Great Depression, thus making the climate right for an optimistic corporate America to make all-time record profits over the last several years. They made most of those profits by hiring non-Americans. They simply don't want to hire Americans, because that would cut into their profits. You and other Republicans have trouble grasping simple economics, seattle. That's why you keep crashing the economy. Unfortunately for America, most of its citizens are dumber than dirt when it comes to economics. That's why you'll probably win in November. And, hey, then you can crash the economy again! And blame it on Obama! That'll be big fun, while you're standing in the soup line! Woo-hoo!

- magboy47.

October 9, 2012 at 12:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...national politics has become intensely polarized over the last generation as the parties have sorted themselves along ideological lines. During that same time, the Republican Party has completely lost its marbles, having turned into a collection of anti-tax jidhadis bent on the upward redistribution of wealth." Another reason why Obamaism must prevail, as quoted from Noam Scheiber's review of Bob Woodward's biased book about Obama.

- magboy47.

October 9, 2012 at 2:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama's list of tax increases on the middle class is massive. Combined with his behaviors that crushed middle income salaries, the net result for a middle class earner has been a total pounding." I can make no sense of this comment. Care to elaborate? As to your first sentence, I'm decidedly middle-class, and I can't think of a single Obama initiative that has resulted in a negative impact on my own after-tax income (and I can't think of anything that I've just luckily dodged but would be hurting everyone else). As to the second sentence, are you thinking of something concrete, or is this just a vague extension of your earlier confidence fairy foolishness?

- Fishpeddler

October 9, 2012 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"fishped: I used to forecast the economy for a significant global manufacturing industry, so, by MY account, the avalanche of Obamist regulations ARE strangling today's economy. Obama's jobs program for lawyers???" This will go down as one of my all-time favorite exchanges on TNR, which I paraphrase as follows: "... which by every account is strangling our economy." "Like whose account?" "Mine."

- Fishpeddler

October 9, 2012 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Magboy writes: "Obama saved us from another Great Depression, thus making the climate right for an optimistic corporate America to make all-time record profits over the last several years." A great depression? Hardly. He's prolonged the suffering. While a few businesses have reached new highs (Apple), most have not. If you think things are broadly great for corporate america, you are sadly mistaken. Fish writes: "I can make no sense of this comment. Care to elaborate?" Sure. The CBO says health care costs have gone up by $2300 on the middle earner. That is a failure to "bend the curve" as was promised. As Obama has prescribed precisely what health care will include, this cost increases are directly attributable to gov policy and decisions. Gov wants "free" birth control, we wall pay more to get "free" birth control. Except, it's a lot more than any anticipated. Impact to middle class: $2300 in higher medical fees. The CBO also describes the Obama care tax as being the greater of a "$695 penalty or 2.5% of income." And if you earn $70 to $80K and had a high deductible insurance policy before, then you are in for a huge tax increase as you are forced to buy a full policy whether you want it or not. Impact to middle class with high deductible policy: $4000 for a gold plated insurance policy they didn't want. And then we have the unprecedented debt spending. The 3rd and 4th quintile are those earning (avg) of $56K to $85K, and it's about 40M households.. Collectively, they pay 9% of the federal taxes. For every $1T in deficit spending, they are on the hook for $90B among $40M households, or $2250 in future taxes per trillion. Obama's deficit spending, which is substantially higher than Bush's, has left this middle group of tax payers with a $9000 tax bill per family. Impact to middle class: A promise that new taxes are coming that must raise $9000 per family, or $900/year over 10 years. And then there's energy costs, food costs, etc, that have far outpaced inflation and gdp growth. That can be $150/week for a family of 4 with active teenage kids. Impact to middle class family: $8000 annually. And then there's depressed wages that come from a flailing economy. Recent reports peg that $4000 in lost wages annually. All up, the cost of this president has been massive on the middle class. A path can show that a middle class family earning $70K/year with a high deductible policy in 2007 is facing an effective reduction in discretionary income in almost $20K/less per year compared to their 2012-2015 counterpart. This is staggering. $20K/less discretionary cash per year for a $70K earner. Let that sink in. There is no sign this president will improve things in the near term. He has no plan to change things in the near term. Just more of the same: Blame others, slam business. Lather, rinse, repeat. Enough.

- seattleeng

October 9, 2012 at 1:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Sure. The CBO says health care costs have gone up by $2300 on the middle earner. That is a failure to "bend the curve" as was promised." "The CBO also describes the Obama care tax as being the greater of a "$695 penalty or 2.5% of income." So in response to my questioning your claim about taxes, you cite taxes that haven't yet occurred (which makes your assertion that this has contributed to the middle class having taken [past tense] a pounding a bit ridiculous), but in response to my questioning your claim about Obama behaviors that have "crushed middle income salaries", you treat Obamacare as if its delayed implementation is 1) relevant to your argument, which it isn't, and 2) and warrants dismissing the most important new domestic policy initiative of the past 40 years as some sort of failed promise. So you're happy to pretend Obamacare is fully implemented just so you don't have to admit to being wrong, then you are happy to pretend it will have no discernible effect on suppressing the rate of increase of health care costs just so you again don't have to admit to being wrong. With all these attempts at having it both ways, should we consider this your audition for Mitt's job?

- Fishpeddler

October 9, 2012 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was about to respond to your additional points, Seattle, but the deeper I got into them the more estranged your point became from any relevance to Obama. For people who study economics, you largely have to just sign and go along with the public's irrational attribution of every economic event and condition to acts of the president. Sure, as the soapboxer-in-chief, the president does have some role in the shaping legislation that effects the economy. This is a concession we make because most people don't know any better. This site, however, is ostensibly for people who DO know better, so just listing a bunch of unpleasant economic facts and giving us your version of 'he's in the White House, so he owns it' just isn't going to cut it. Since you're here often, you probably so my response to another recent poster that "correlation does not equal causation". Please act like you at least understand what that term means. I might not give you so much grief about this if you were arguing against Obama in favor of someone promoting better economics policies. But you've been arguing against Obama in favor of Republic economic fantasies. You might as well get a tattoo on your forehead that says, "All my hand-wringing of of concern for the middle-class is completely disingenuous". Of course, that would be a long painful procedure under the needle, but what's a little pain for the sake of truth in advertising?

- Fishpeddler

October 9, 2012 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Taxes haven't gone up under Obama, they've gone down. One-third of the stimulus package was tax cuts.

- ironyroad

October 9, 2012 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close