Not that I really needed another reason, but this very lengthy delineation of Obama's economic plan also precludes any possibility of voting for him.
If time allows a more substantive critique will follow, but for now:
History has shown that free markets aren’t so good at, say, preventing pollution or the issuance of fantastically unrealistic mortgages.
--Is pollution better or worse in Russia, China, North Korea? Was it better in East Germany or West Germany? I work in the title insurance industry and the free market has done a pretty good job of affording mortgages to people who qualify for them. There have been problems to be sure, but the market adjusts to these problems. There will be far fewer no-doc negative amortization loans in the future than there were in the last ten years. No government regulation is necessary to effect that.
Increasingly, the income-tax system becomes a way to transfer money to poor families. ...the essence of his market-oriented redistributionist philosophy (though he made it clear that he doesn’t like the word “redistributionist”).
--As I noted elsewhere, I was under the delusion that taxes were a way to provide revenue to the government to provide necessary government services (as to the federal government, those specified in Article I, Section 8). It is not the the responsibility of the federal government to take money from the one to give to the other in the interest of fairness, good tidings or under any other rubric.
There's a treasure trove of nonsense in this piece, not least of which is the complete lack of serious criticism or analysis from the Time's "economics columnist."