As someone who truly loves America, using logic and reason, with the utmost humility possible, I make these predictions with a heart full of sorrow:

It is a mathematical and logical impossibility that raising taxes on Corporations, small businesses (LLCs that make more than $250K), the wealthy, energy and capital gains will not increase unemployment rates and decrease economic growth. Therefore, Obama’s economic agenda is for other reasons, probably is to create racial/sexual/ethnic equality. Individual liberty, adherence to contracts, minimal Government collusion, and individual responsibility will be thrown our for those who need, from each according to his ability.

Rationally we know that once people are given entitlements, it is a near political impossibility for Government to retract them later. Therefore, Obama’s Government expansion will be permanent.

It is a forgone conclusion that Obama’s proposals will make the US economy resemble Europe, which as a whole, spends about 50% of GDP on Government programs, thereby creating flat inflexible sluggish European economy in perpetuity. America’s competitive advantage was its freer market, smaller Government, with less interference with the free market. Socialism, at best, dulls the masses into passive mediocrity. As we know, the US’s economic, military, political and cultural strength and global influence was entirely based on the strength of its capitalist economy. Obamanomics, likewise, guarantees economic mediocrity from now on.

Additionally, it was private capital that gave America the profit incentive for creating new technologies, medical and pharmaceutical advances. This advantage WAS a proven measurable fact as measured by numbers of patens, copyrights, research papers produced and cited, and awards major scientific prizes. Before Obama, the US created more new technology than the combined output of the next eight best nations combined. Without the market advantage humanity a whole will be harmed.

Using logic and reason, with the utmost humility possible, if Obama’s program progresses as the current trajectory predicts, Obama will go down as the second most destructive economist in world history. Only Mao was worse, whose socialist revolution was so horrific, that Mao nearly single-handedly nearly destroyed a 5,000-year-old civilization in a single lifetime.

Because of America’s unique position as the economic engine of the world, Obama’s dismantling of the America’s economy will probably make him, overall, singularly the most destructive individual the world has ever known, or will ever know. Finally, my pessimism about obama’s malevolence is significantly understating the breathtaking magnificent horror Obama will propel the globe into. Things are bad now; they will be much worse soon, but we will all be more equal. Pray that Obama will abandon his dogmatic leftwing views behind, and return to reason, logic and moral action.

You need to bunker your ass up. Stock up on bottled water and dried beans and you will be good to go, You might be able to ride out the apocalypse. See you in four years.

Ha-Ha-Har!

You are scared. Good! Your entire world view is warped around money. And now you are seeing money disappear as a thing of power and importance. Capitalism is just as much a failed philosophy as Communism. Just like Communism, some small parts of Capitalism will be useful in creating a new economic model that will better serve humanity. The most destructive force on the planet at this moment is the atavistic fools who will continue to cling to the old dogmas of Communism AND Capitalism. Cooperativism is the future.

How about cooperative capitalism, rather than crooked capitalism?

Let people accumulate capital, but don't let them bully others and control the government with it.

Hey America's "advanatage" that you speak about was long gone BEFORE Obamanomics! This is a fact you "wax nostalgic for the good old days" contards just want to keep forgetting. Have to agree with the bunker philosophy because you should just hunker down for a spell and maybe someday things will once again go your way.In the meantime, I'll invest in survivalist company stocks, and sleep restfully knowing that America, while it is hurting, survived 30 years of Reaganomics with the Bush spritzer, and is still standing.

"Because of America’s unique position as the economic engine of the world, Obama’s dismantling of the America’s economy will probably make him, overall, singularly the most destructive individual the world has ever known, or will ever know."

You do realize that the reason these taxes are needed is rescue your 'economic engine of the world' because it'd seized up don't you? You seem to imply that everything was running smoothly until Comrade Obama came along. You obviously inhabit a fantasy world.

1. Europe is a really nice place. Have you ever been there?

2. I fell fairly certain that you do not earn more than $250,000 a year. Therefore, your complaints about tax increases are somewhat difficult to take seriously.

3. The depth of your bizarre anxiety is amusing. Were you this concerned when George Bush was trying to destroy the underpinnings of our entire society? Probably not, so I will consider your current angst a form of penance for your ignorance and complicity.

I dont hope that our nation fails. Clearly our economy has gone off the rails due to a combination of Wall St and Mortage lender greed and bleeding heart socially engineering liberals who think all black and poor people have a right to own a house. The country needs some narrowly tailored spending that would QUICKLY boost jobs as well as tax cuts. I support Obama to the extent he seeks this

Obama is doing more than the above. He is trying to crowbar his entire so called progressive agenda through Congress right now and , yes, much of what he wants will hurt, not boost the economy and seem more grounded in liberal interest group politics. I hope he fails at this and expect my republican party to vigorously filabuster every one of his measures

"1. Europe is a really nice place. Have you ever been there?

2. I fell fairly certain that you do not earn more than $250,000 a year. Therefore, your complaints about tax increases are somewhat difficult to take seriously.

3. The depth of your bizarre anxiety is amusing. Were you this concerned when George Bush was trying to destroy the underpinnings of our entire society? Probably not, so I will consider your current angst a form of penance for your ignorance and complicity".

1. Yes. I just returned from a business trip in Germany on Sat. Thanks for asking. Ive also been to the UK, The Netherlands, Russia, Greece and Italy. While all are well worth visiting, none can compare to US and I certainly wouldnt want to live anywhere in Europe. One who is willing to work hard will see a higher standard of living here in the US. Slackers, of course, will do better in Europe.

2. How the hell would you know what that other fellow earns? You are a smug asshole and the odds that YOU actually have a significant income are pretty small. Most of the democrat party base are naive college kids, minorities, the poor, knuckle dragging union neanderthals and wimpy social science major types. So YOU are one of those affluent liberal sophisticates your partisans try to portray your party as being typified by? SURE you are! lol. If you earned a significant income you'd want to keep it and want low taxes

The truth is that while some very rich are democrats (those who are worth so much that they dont care if their taxes go up) most affluent to rich are republicans. As a graduate degree level white collar professional- one whose household income just nudged north of $250,000 last year- I certainly vote republican. Most of my friends and colleagues are also low six figure earners and Id say that 75% of us are republicans

3. How was Bush trying to destroy the underpinings of our society? Is this something you thought up while wearing your tin foil hat?

Are you answering for Island Muffin? Thanks for describing the entire democratic democgraphic, I would consider republicans to be rich fat cats, religious zealots and redneck rampagers, two can play the game of silly shit. I am glad to see that income is your sole metric of worth, after all, policemen, firemen and teachers only exist to be spear carriers in YOUR world.

"bleeding heart socially engineering liberals who think all black and poor people have a right to own a house."

Listen: Back when GW Bush wanted to spend his political capital back in 2005, he said repeatedly, rammed it down reporter's throats, that he wanted to create "an ownership society," and he specifically targeted minorities and non-homeownerss to fulfill that society. You can look it up. Google "ownership society" and I will guarantee you will pull up articles dating from that time -- a time in which the country "enjoyed" the benefits of a republican President, a republican-controlled Congress and a conservative Supreme Court.

...aren't you ashamed to even POST this stuff?

You wouldn't know a Marxist if one bit you on the ass. You're just another blathering, right-wing extremist.

Go away, please.

Using research, logic, reason and fact, what will be the inevitable consequences of Obama’s economic policies?

Some research to sift through: <link> The indices of economic freedom attempt to measure (free market) economic freedom, and empirical studies based on these rankings have found them to be correlated with higher living standards, economic growth, income equality, less corruption and less political violence. For a sample example, see the following five studies:

^ Pei, Minxin (2001), "Political Institutions, Democracy, and Development", Democracy, Market Economics, and Development, World Bank Publications, ISBN 9780821348628 ^ Easton, Stephen T.; Walker, Michael A. (May 1997), "Income, growth, and economic freedom", American Economic Review (American Economic Association) 87 (2): 328–332 ^ Ayal, Eliezer B.; Karras, Georgios (Spring 1998), "Components of economic freedom and growth: an empirical study", Journal of Developing Areas (Western Illinois University) 32 (3): 327-338 ^ Scully, Gerald (2002), "Economic Freedom, Government Policy, and the Trade-Off Between Equity and Economic Growth", Public Choice (Kluwer Academic Publishers) 113 (1-2): 77–96 ^ Berggren, Niclas (1999), "Economic Freedom and Equality: Friends or Foes?", Public Choice (Kluwer Academic Publishers) 100 (3-4): 203-223

<link> "Public spending" or "Government size" or taxation" is different than "economic freedom." The curve shows that governments mostly tax, redistribute and spend themselves into economic destruction - even in nations with high degrees of economic freedom. The curve proves taxation, redistribution, and government size hinders economic growth in most Western nations because most nations tax their populations too much for optimal tax rates. The study tries to find the optimal tax rate which generates the most tax revenues. I would prefer to have less revenues and smaller government over the optimal rate.

The Path To Sustainable Growth, Lessons From 20 Years Growth Differentials In Europe: (<link>)"Big government" is the main cause of Europe's weak performance. The oversized Public-Sector lacks productivity and undoes the entire productivity gains of the Private Sector, eradicating all of its outstanding performance and productiveness. Europe can improve its overall performance by copying the Irish success formulas: Scaling down Public Spending, downsizing bureaucracy, and shifting the tax burden from income on consumption. This book demonstrates why the Lisbon Agenda and decades of Keynesian inflationist demand stimulation have failed. It develops alternative and workable supply-side strategies as well as effective cures for humane growth and a financially sustainable social security.

The main conclusion is that two factors of the public policy mix cause weak growth performances: excessive public spending and a demotivating tax structure, on the one hand, and over- consumption with a lack of savings and investment on the other hand. We conclude that the public sector in most European countries is far too large, depriving the private sector of the recourses to realize its full wealth potential.

US Joint Economic Commission: <link> -Government serves many useful functions, including some economic ones. The findings here support the view that the growth of government in newly emerging nations and economies tends to increase output. Presumably this reflects the reduction in transactions' costs and the improved environment for investment associated with a rule of law and enforceable property rights. At the same time, in modern times relative American federal government spending has expanded rapidly, reflecting sharp increases in transfer payments. The evidence suggests that large transfer payments in particular have negative consequences for growth. The results for the federal government are confirmed for state and local governments and several other countries. The findings suggest that a federal budget strategy of constraining spending growth below output growth, with particular attention paid to constraining transfer payments, would have positive effects on economic growth.

Nordic and Scandinavian nations: <link> - lists of countries of the world sorted by their gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita,- 2007. The relatively homogeneous European nations that do well on the Transparency and Economic Freedom scales have lower corporate taxes rates than the US (to keep businesses in country) coupled with much higher personal income rates (than the US) to fund their welfare states. As these tiny nations are far more homogenous than the US (and up to100 times smaller), they can more efficiently educate their populous.

The creative destruction of capitalism requires the “flexibility” of a relatively well educated populous, where people can change jobs at will. To be succinct, the Norwegian economic model would not work in a large diverse nation with 300 million people, including 40 people million who not speak English.

We should lower corporate tax rates to match the European example so that America may continue to create jobs. Of course, Obama would raise business taxes thereby increasing national unemployment.

Also, lowering individual tax rates, and significantly cutting government spending, would incentivize a bottoms up economic growth policy, as opposed to Obama’s Government down “Government Trickle Down Economy,” where Government collects more taxes from the rich and redistributes the money through stimulus packages and rebates to the poor. The fact is that the Obama’s “Government Trickle Down Economy” is far less efficient than the free market and will undoubtedly harm economic growth.

May I be so presumptive as to request a rational defense of Obama’s redistributive policies? I beg you to please try to use logic, reason and empirical research. I apologize for being so demanding; however, Obama’s policies could possibly destroy the American economy. Many would like to know if big Government redistribution has ever lowered unemployment rates while it increase private sector economic growth. Would you bet our collective future wellbeing an unproven, demonstrably flawed economic theory?

Wise progressives know the best way to direct Government spending; therefore, progressives are prepared to redeploy the same failed economic policies (that only failed because Bush was in charge) hoping for a different outcome this time. Smart Leftists will only direct redistribution to beneficial Government programs because they care more.

Empirical facts show FDR’s Intrusion into the Market failed: "Despite protective tariffs, Fed discount rate increases, personal income tax rate increases and massive bank failures, the first recession of the Great Depression ended in March 1933, the same month in which Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as president. That is, the business cycle trough occurred before the "New Deal" policies were implemented." However, by 1937 we were in another recession caused by FDR’s policies. For we know "The Great Depression was made up of two distinct economic slumps – August 1929 through March 1933 and May 1937 through June 1938."

WSJ: How Government Prolonged the Depression (<link>) "The New Deal is widely perceived to have ended the Great Depression, and this has led many to support a "new" New Deal to address the current crisis. But the facts do not support the perception that FDR's policies shortened the Depression, or that similar policies will pull our nation out of its current economic downturn.

The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office." – By Cole, professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Ohanian, professor of economics and director of the Ettinger Family Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA.

Today, American leftists are followers of the New Keynesian populist Obama. Where Marx wanted total socialism, Obama and Keynes want "socialization of demand," and "a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment." See the following mainstream centrist sources, which conclude that Keynesian economics is a consensus failed idea:

Per The New World Encyclopedia: <link>; "Although many of his ideas did not stand the test of time, due to their popularity and revolutionary nature Keynes is still considered one of the founders of modern theoretical macroeconomics. …(However,) Keynesian economics as Keynes envisioned it no longer holds sway…"

"Overall, the inability of modern market socialists to answer all these arguments casts serious doubt on the practical workability of market socialism, or any other form of socialist economics based on central planning, in any possible fashion and in any country."

Per The Forbes Investopedia: <link> "Despite these undesirable consequences, Keynes' work is useful. It helps strengthen the free market theory by opposition, as we can see in the work of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School economists that followed Keynes. …. The Keynesian formulation forced free market economics to become a more comprehensive theory, and the persistent and popular echoes of Keynesian thinking in every economic crisis caused free market economics to develop in response."
Friedman once said, "We are all Keynesians now." But the full quote was, "In one sense we are all Keynesians now; in another, no one is a Keynesian any longer. We all use the Keynesian language and apparatus; none of us any longer accepts the initial Keynesian conclusions."

The New Deal did not work for FDR: "Despite protective tariffs, Fed discount rate increases, personal income tax rate increases and massive bank failures, the first recession of the Great Depression ended in March 1933, the same month in which Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as president. That is, the business cycle trough occurred before the "New Deal" policies were implemented." However, by 1937 we were in another recession caused by FDR’s policies. For we know "The Great Depression was made up of two distinct economic slumps – August 1929 through March 1933 and May 1937 through June 1938."

WSJ: How Government Prolonged the Depression (<link>) "The New Deal is widely perceived to have ended the Great Depression, and this has led many to support a "new" New Deal to address the current crisis. But the facts do not support the perception that FDR's policies shortened the Depression, or that similar policies will pull our nation out of its current economic downturn….The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office."

Empirical facts show FDR’s Intrusion into the Market failed: <link> The Great Depression started in 1929 and "reached bottom by 1933….Most indexes worsened until the summer of 1932, which may be called the low point of the depression economically and psychologically." Economic indicators show the American economy reached nadir in summer 1932 to February 1933, then began recovering until the recession of 1937-1938… "In 1937 the American economy took an unexpected nosedive, lasting through most of 1938. Production declined sharply, as did profits and employment. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938." "The enactment of New Deal policies lasted from 1933 through 1939." The "First New Deal" occurred in 1933 while Second New Deal" ran from 1935–1938. <link> "The Depression continued with decreasing effect until the U.S. entered the Second World War."

People who look only at the numerical facts concluded New Deal Failed. Most historians thank that the New Deal did not lengthen and deepen the depression; however the majority of economists think otherwise. <link>

Business Leaders concluded New Deal Failed. Public opinion polls in March and May 1939: Sixty-five percent of executives surveyed thought that the Roosevelt administration policies had so affected business confidence that the recovery had been seriously held back.

Professors Cole and Ohanian research concludes that FDR's policies prolonged the Depression by 7 years. Should we gamble with America’s economic future based on flawed redistributive economic policies that have never worked as intended?

Judging the world on the basis of your "friends" is a logically flawed process. Obama got 52% of the vote among those earning more than $200,000, and 58% of the vote among those with a post-graduate education. <link>

For the record, I qualify in both camps. I was fairly confident (and still am) that Island Muffin does not because his/her post is a delusional fantasy, while yours is merely an angry screed. Between the two, they embody the fundamental essence of Republican politics - fear, hate and ignorance.