The Obama Jobs Plan further extends what has been another central fallacy of Obamanomics.
FORBES: Instead Of Obama's Jobs Plan, Pass Something That Will Work
This is pretty much Obamanomics and with no Tea Party it is likely to be adopted.
FORBES: Right Direction on Corporate Taxes; But Still too High
That is the standard by which the performance of Obamanomics is to be judged.
In February, 2009, I wrote for the Wall Street Journal an article entitled Reaganomics versus Obamanomics.
Bottom line, the current lousy economy may, in fact, be the best Obamanomics can do.
But an economic performance as lousy as that produced by Obamanomics deserves our jeers, not cheers.
Or as economist John Lott has emphasized, Obamanomics has produced the worst recovery since the Great Depression.
Obamanomics may, on net, permit an increase in the number of really incompetent, dependent, and socially immobile individuals.
FORBES: What Ryan and Republicans Risk Getting Totally Wrong
The tax increases President Obama proposed would mean more of the same for these victims of Obamanomics, if not worse.
Well, here is what putting a stop to Obamanomics has produced: The strongest six months of employment growth since the President took office.
They could give him everything he asks for and let the economy suffer for it, which would help resistance to Obamanomics spread and grow.
By contrast, between the beginning of Obamanomics with the passage of his stimulus bill in March 2009 and August, employment fell by 1.3 million.
In sharp contrast to Reaganomics, such Keynesian Obamanomics has already failed miserably to generate a timely recovery consistent with the history of the American economy.
The massive increase in federal spending under Obamanomics, for example, appears to have sucked the job creating strength out of the rest of the economy.
Meanwhile, the non-provable claim by the advocates of Obamanomics, that the increased spending saved jobs, is belied by what has happened since the policy was stopped.
Yet the core impulse of Obamanomics is to make America less like Texas and more like California, with more government, more unions, more central planning, higher taxes.
Obamanomics, which has thoroughly pursued the opposite of every one of these four Reagan principles, has resulted in a stunted recovery that is way too little, way too late.
Next week I will discuss the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, and the following week I will answer the question as to what should the alternative be to Obamanomics.
FORBES: Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Fallacies Offered By The Left
The ideal candidate would be a self-made billionaire who voted for Obama (and who may still like the man) but is now appalled at Obamanomics and willing to say so.
Seizing upon the data in the book to try to give some sort of pass to Obamanomics for failing the economic performance standards of American history is just political propaganda.
The article explained that the emerging Obamanomics was pursuing exactly the opposite of every policy of the enormously successful Reaganomics, and predicted that it would produce exactly the opposite results.
Because the culture wars still have some life in them, the third layer of Obamanomics was mistaken by many conservatives as just a specific, identity-political pitch to single women.
FORBES: Romney's 'Gifts' Gaffe Highlights GOP Confusion On Obamanomics
There are other less obvious regional winners from Obamanomics.
FORBES: Where's Next: November May Determine Regional Winners
With the right policies, this economy has another, generation-long, 25-year boom just waiting inside it yearning to break out, once it is freed from the bonds of Obamanomics that have held it back.
In short, red states of the South and other areas of the country are moving forward with pro-growth tax reform, while California and the blue states of the Northeast are doubling down on Obamanomics and European progressivism.
The only previous American economic performance, at least within the last 100 years, that begins to look like the results of Obamanomics is the 1930s, which makes sense because that is when America followed similar policies to Obamanomics.
Just as crucial for rosy growth and tax-receipt projections, Obamanomics assumes that top marginal tax rates will rise--hammering one of the most sensitive drivers of the private-sector incentive structure--but with no subsequent decline in work effort, innovation or growth rates.
As with Obamanomics, the unspoken understanding, or desire, of the technocrats is to fund additional incentives, as well as to pay for the welfare state, by raising the consumption tax (national sales tax) from the current 5 percent to something much higher.
FORBES: Right Direction on Corporate Taxes; But Still too High
Moreover, as I argue in my new publication, Obama and the Crash of 2013, unless the policies of Obamanomics are changed, the result will be another severe recession in 2013 that will make the results overall of the Obama years look similar to the 1930s.
应用推荐