Are you guys watching this republican on with Keith?

I'm very impressed.

He's an economist, and is firmly behind Obama.

link to his op ed: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/07/16/2008-07-16_im_a_lifelong_conservative_activist_and_.html

I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm backing Barack Obama

BY LARRY HUNTER

Wednesday, July 16th 2008, 7:39 PM

I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America.

This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.

When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.

Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance.

John McCain would continue the Bush administration's commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That's what conservatism used to mean - and it's what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.

Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don't take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn't bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn't mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it's taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.

is actively supporting him because he thinks that he will restore Constitutional balance, specifically that Obama will review signings statements etc.

Its been pretty big news and there were a couple of threads about it today.

This really illustrates just how radical the Bush regime is when former members of Reagan's government are now Dems or are supporting Dems.

...has he been on any other shows?

Given any other interviews?

but I think this was his only cable appearance.

conservatives, attacking him.

I like this development!

Barak's University of Chicago roots are troubling.

The supply side theory was that by cutting taxes to the wealthiest, it would increase investment and promote economic growth. A corollary to that was that the increased growth would mean higher salaries for average workers (aka trickle down theory). The supply siders also proposed that the increased growth would exceed the decrease in revenue resulting in increased tax revenues. They were proven spectacularly wrong.

Obama's plan is to raise taxes on wealthy and to cut loopholes that have reduced tax corporate revenues. He will cut taxes for the bottom about 80% resulting an more progressive tax structure not a the more regressive tax structure of the Reaganites. So tell me, how in the Hell is that supply side?

1) Doesn't know how to spell nominee's name

2) Misstates Nominee's position

3) Finds that Senator Obama has "troubling roots" to the University of Chicago although its hard to understand what "roots" he has there since he never attended there. That should read "troubling branches" but anybody who thinks links to the U of Chicago is completely unaware or against the University's long history as a balwark of progressive academic leadership.


enjoy your pizza "Bob"

transparency and spelling are not your strong points.

EDIT: usual stuff

And the funny thing is you missed it on the edit, which I do all the time lol

well now you did lol

Go back under the bridge, slob.

Austan Goolsbey is a a dyed in the wool University of Chicago neo-classicist who is against single payer health care plans in favor of the "free" market.

David Cutler is a Harvard guy who feels that the rising costs of health care are good for the economy.

The other Harvard economist on the Obama team is Jeffrey Liebman who advocates for privatizing social security.

Doesn't sound like change I can believe in.

And your concern is duly noted. :eyes:

PLENTY of educated and informed progressives have expressed LEGITIMATE misgivings about some of the folks on Obama's economics team.

You seem to always have some kind of LEGITIMATE misgiving with Obama. Always. :eyes:

Mindless followers only allowed here.

Nothing pleases me more than to see the Democratic candidate standing up for traditional Democratic values particularly with respect to economics.

That there's been more to criticize than praise of late in that regard isn't my doing- though I will note that his statement that he'd like to revisit the Bankruptcy law commendable- if unlikely to produce legislative results, given the composition of Congress.

If you actually took the time to read their published articles instead of a guilt by association smear on our Democratic presidential nominee, you might find stuff like Goolsbey's evisceration of the new Supply Siders.

From a New York Times article authored by Goolsbey:



Obama has a diversity of views in his economic team but none buy the Repub/McCain line.

I'd feel better if he were enthusiastically supporting McCain. Me thinks he's seen the handwriting on the wall and figures he can influence the Obama campaign or that Obama's really a corporatist.

His $2,500.00 donation is going to carry more weight than my $50.00 donation.

Flame away...

:hi: