OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 5

[Jackdog]

Stay classy San Francisco!!!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 13F1VG.DTL

Nothing like using first graders to promote an agenda. Big thumbs up to the Mayor who officiated it.

[pk500]

Members of the GOP should not play Burnout Paradise on XBL unless they want to spontaneously combust:

http://gigaom.com/2008/10/13/confirmed- ... -xbox-360/



Take care,
PK

[Teal]

Members of the GOP should not play Burnout Paradise on XBL unless they want to spontaneously combust:

http://gigaom.com/2008/10/13/confirmed- ... -xbox-360/



Take care,
PK

Should say "I and Acorn approve this message".

EDIT: Or, more to the point..."EARLY VOTING HAS BEGUN-VOTE EARLY AND OFTEN!"

[JRod]

You're so right. Judging candidates by what they say they are going to do is a horrible idea. Instead, we should support whichever one makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside.

And your failure to find any credible evidence that people who pay no taxes will get refunds is simply a failure on your part to find information or to understand it. The dispute is not over whether that is the nature of Obama's plan, but whether it's a good idea.

I never made the claim that the lower income tax brackets are essentially going to be welfare states. Rob implied that. And there is debate because he's not going to offer a welfare state. If he is then post evidence to the contrary. I'm not making the claim therefore I don't have to defend it. It's simple debate logic.

Let's start over...

Rob said that people will pay more because tax credits will be eliminated under Obama's plan. Then Rob says people are going to be going to basically get free checks from the government without posting any evidence supporting his claim.

If this is how the numbers are crunched under Obama's plan, then John McCain is an incompetent f*** because Obama could be fatally wounded with a welfare tax scheme. Problem is, even John McCain knows that this isn't Obama's tax policy. Maybe how Fox News interprets it but let's use some common sense here. Even the sage-guru Obama isn't indefensible from creating a permanent welfare state. That would be kindling to derail the Obama campaign.

The working middle class would not go for it. Sorry but until I see some proof this is just class fear mongering.

[JRod]

I don't think any of his supporters believe that there's going to be welfare for the middle class as Rob makes it out.

Nothing has been enacted...so everything said by John McCain and Obama is just words. I don't really know why you get upset over that. Being elected and having your agenda passed is two different things.

I think it's welfare for the poor, not the middle class. The middle class pay taxes, and upon further examination, people like me who are middle class will be paying more taxes, not less. The ones getting the welfare are those that pay little or no taxes and are going to reap the benefits of Obama's plan.

I'm not upset over anything. I just think it is irresponsible to brush things like this aside as "just a plan". Why are you voting for Obama (or McCain)? Isn't it laregely based on what they say they are planning to do?

Simple because I know what a candidate says and what can get enacted sometimes are drastically separate things. I know for a fact that Obama will not be able to do everything he wants to do. It's just the nature of being President. Even if the numbers in the house and senate favor Democrats overwhelmingly, it still doesn't give Obama a mandate to enact verbatim his policies.

Often times, even with huge support, Presidents have to move to the center. By center, I don't mean, left-right, I mean what will the opposition be willing to support. Obama will face a Republican minority that has nothing to lose and everything to gain. That means they will not be afraid to filibuster, and use procedure to hamper and claw at Obama's policies. And then you have the centrist Democrats. They are the ones that are in tough districts, that have to walk a fine line between party, the President and getting re-elected. I would imagine the Bluedogs won't jump in bed with Obama right away. Obama's popularity will have a lot to do with it because it's easier to support a President's agenda when he's very popular.

Personally, I'm not voting for Obama based solely on his tax policies. I look at energy, jobs, social programs, stance on Iraq, education etc. I would hope others evaluate Obama/McCain on more than their tax policies. It's important but not my only deciding factor.

[RobVarak]

Then Rob says people are going to be going to basically get free checks from the government without posting any evidence supporting his claim.

WTF, John? Are you being purposefully obtuse now? The facts are clear and they aren't terribly complex.

Fact. These figures used by the WSJ are from Obama's own website:

A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Fact:

...more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all

Fact:

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year.

Fact:

"Senator Obama's new and expanded tax credits for low-income taxpayers will certainly cut taxes for low-income people," explains Robert Carroll, Ph.D. of the Tax Foundation, "but the credits are mostly recaptured from middle-income taxpayers. During this phase-out range, marginal tax rates shoot up, causing economically damaging side effects. As a result, for example, a family of four in the $30,000-to-$43,000 range would discover that for every additional dollar they earn, they pay more than 50 cents in income tax."

Fact:

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

Ideally this would be kindling to derail the Obama campaign, to borrow your mixed metaphor.

The middle class would not go for it the re-assembly of the welfare state, which is why it's couched in this new form.

Say it with me: Barack Obama is not a centrist. He never has been and he never will be. He's always been an outfight leftist. This is only a surprise because his campaign has borrowed liberally from the DLC playbook and been poorly challenged by the GOP.

]Sorry but until I see some proof this is just class fear mongering.

Exactly what sort of proof would satisfy you? I think it's unlikely that Obama is going to start campaigning with George McGovern, so you may have to apply some deductive reasoning here.

[Feanor]

Unless the dems get 60 Senate seats and the House, Obama will have to be more of a centrist than a leftist to get anything passed.

[JRod]

I'm solely talking about the comment of the welfare tax state, not that Obama tax plan will discontinue some tax credits.

Straight from the source... it also shows Obama's and McCain's tax policy.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publicatio ... 23724.html

If I read it right, the marginal tax from a two earner family, could offer off-sets to those that earn less than 25k. That's a two-person family in the current system.

Under Obama's plan, it looks like he drops that to around 17k where you could get qualify for credits even though you pay nothing.

Sorry but your assertion that Obama is going to create a welfare tax system is false. And it shows that some marginal taxes are expiring showing that even before Obama takes office some in the lower brackets will pay more in marginal taxes.

[matthewk]

WTF, John? Are you being purposefully obtuse now?

I think he's purposefully being a d&*k. Yep. I said it, Defcon be damned.

[Feanor]

WTF, John? Are you being purposefully obtuse now?

I think he's purposefully being a d&*k. Yep. I said it, Defcon be damned.

[RobVarak]

I'm solely talking about the comment of the welfare tax state, not that Obama tax plan will discontinue some tax credits.

Straight from the source... it also shows Obama's and McCain's tax policy.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publicatio ... 23724.html

If I read it write,

(Sigh)

There are two distinct but issues at play here, and you seem to be confusing them. First is the fact that his use of tax credits is a ploy that actually...well let's quote that study:

To the surprise of some, even though Senator Obama's tax plan lowers taxes for the bottom four quintiles, marginal tax rates would fall only for the very lowest-income couples. Taking both income and payroll taxes into account, those at the very bottom of the income distribution would see their effective marginal tax rates fall from 27.4 percent to minus 58.6 percent due to proposed changes to the earned income tax credit and Senator Obama's new "Making Work Pay" credit.

Most low- and moderate-income couples would see their effective marginal tax rates rise, in some cases, significantly. Indeed, some low- and moderate-income taxpayers will see their marginal rates rise to more than 50 percent.

That is quite a factual departure from "I will cut taxes for 95% of working families." Maybe he's just bad at math, but I suspect otherwise.

The second but related issue is that by instituting this scheme, Obama is redistributing wealth from not only the wealthy, but also the middle class, to low-income earners. It is inarguable that many citizens will pay no income tax and receive a check that is surplus to any payroll tax. They will essentially have a negative marginal tax rate:

Because these very low-income taxpayers have no taxable income or other income tax, the credit takes the form of a payment from the government—a negative income tax—and their effective marginal tax rates are negative (i.e., taxpayers with incomes below about $19,200 in Figure 1A).

That is welfare. It disincentivizes work, as this footnote to the study notes:

Senator Obama also proposes to reduce the rate at which the EITC is phased out, presumably to mitigate the harmful effects of the higher EITC credit on marginal tax rates. This aspect of his proposal seems to be a recognition of the balance between the policy objective of promoting work amongst the very low-income and avoiding the harmful effects of punitive marginal tax rates for those a bit further up the income scale.

[Jared]

WTF, John? Are you being purposefully obtuse now?

I think he's purposefully being a d&*k. Yep. I said it, Defcon be damned.

Two-day ban. I am totally serious about enforcing the no personal attacks rule. If you can't post without attacking someone else, then don't post on these forums.

[Brando70]

How reliable is the Tax Foundation's study? I ask because I was curious and looked around the site, read their corporate tax rate piece, and saw Nobel Prize-winning economist* Paul Krugman's description of how the TF was not really being accurate in describing how international corporate rates compare to ours:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... ek-menace/

I will be the first to say that I don't have the economic training to go through a president's tax plan and figure out what will happen. However, given that Republicans in recent years have labeled votes against tax cuts as voting for tax increases, it's not surprising that Democrats would label rebates as tax cuts.

And cheer up: if we do become a socialist nation, Cuban cigars should become legal.

*emphasis added for Rob's benefit

[GameSeven]

Because these very low-income taxpayers have no taxable income or other income tax, the credit takes the form of a payment from the government—a negative income tax—and their effective marginal tax rates are negative[\b] (i.e., taxpayers with incomes below about $19,200 in Figure 1A).

This is the one piece I am grappling with. I think the truth is, the overall tax rate for an individual would be negative (i.e. I payed 0 tax but got a check for $1000, yipee!) but the marginal rate would be *high* not negative. A negative *marginal* rate would imply for my next dollar earned I pay *less* tax or get a bigger refund. That would not appear to be the case. However, below a certain threshold (and indeed, at all points along the graph if you believe its premise), there is disincentive to increase due to high marginal tax. While it is unclear at what points it occurs, the credits phase out. Thus, if I bust my tail and work a bit longer/harder, my newly taxable income combined with my loss of 'tax credits' is less worth the effort than if I coast. Thus the marginal rate is actually quite high and, historically, a disincentive to growth.

I (and many others, I'm sure) have personally seen the same pattern repeated among some people on unemployment. The difference between their UI benefits and what their income would start at is (in their minds) not worth the work grind and they take several weeks of UI payments instead.

[JackB1]

Just saw Palin on Foxnews at lunchtime and she is still saying
"Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times"

*sigh*

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... more-23411

"–53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"
–23 were against proposed tax cuts
–11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care
–Seven were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."
– The total includes multiple votes on the same measures.

Verdict:
Misleading. McCain's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers. A nonpartisan examination also finds that the 94 total includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes."

[RobVarak]

*emphasis added for Rob's benefit

LMAO Unlike many, I was more than happy to see Krugman win the Nobel.

He's now a living example of how the wrong politics can undermine even the most promising of minds

I researched the Tax Foundation a bit yesterday. It's non-partisan but staunchly hawkish on tax issues.

I've been surprised by the lack of egghead counterattack from Obama's camp on either the TF piece or the WSJ piece, particularly given that the former is almost a week old.

[Naples39]

Just saw Palin on Foxnews at lunchtime and she is still saying
"Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times"

*sigh*

Let's make a deal. The McCain camp will stop saying that if Obama backs off his equally 'misleading' premise that he will cut taxes for 95%.

Work for you?

[Brando70]

I've been surprised by the lack of egghead counterattack from Obama's camp on either the TF piece or the WSJ piece, particularly given that the former is almost a week old.

The TF piece probably didn't get much notice, and the WSJ editorial is pretty new.

My guess is they probably won't do much to address it unless McCain makes an issue of it.

The other thing is, I am completely skeptical of both candidate's tax plans at this point. The current economic climate and the very recent addition of a lot of debt make both of their plans very fluid. As I've said before, I think taxes will go up no matter who wins. The national debt is reaching a level where it can be an economic drag, and is large enough that it can't be remedied with spending cuts alone. There will probably have to be a combination of cuts and tax increases, at least in the near future.

[RobVarak]

I've been surprised by the lack of egghead counterattack from Obama's camp on either the TF piece or the WSJ piece, particularly given that the former is almost a week old.

The TF piece probably didn't get much notice, and the WSJ editorial is pretty new.

My guess is they probably won't do much to address it unless McCain makes an issue of it.

The other thing is, I am completely skeptical of both candidate's tax plans at this point. The current economic climate and the very recent addition of a lot of debt make both of their plans very fluid. As I've said before, I think taxes will go up no matter who wins. The national debt is reaching a level where it can be an economic drag, and is large enough that it can't be remedied with spending cuts alone. There will probably have to be a combination of cuts and tax increases, at least in the near future.

Well it's clear that McCain's plans will be difficult to implement given the composition of Congress. Obama, if he were to win with the numbers that the polls have him at now, will be able to do damn near anything he wants.

And like I said to JRod, their policies are windows into their souls (to the extent that as politicians they have souls). McCain's is center-right with all sorts of odd permutations and sell outs to both sides that matches his pragmatic background. Obama's is a classic leftist redistribution of wealth couched in terms that make him appear to be a DLC-sanctioned centrist. These are the men on the ballot in their undiluted forms...for better or worse.

[greggsand]

And cheer up: if we do become a socialist nation, Cuban cigars should become legal.

*emphasis added for Rob's benefit

Don't forget legal internet gambling!

[JRod]

And like I said to JRod, their policies are windows into their souls (to the extent that as politicians they have souls). McCain's is center-right with all sorts of odd permutations and sell outs to both sides that matches his pragmatic background. Obama's is a classic leftist redistribution of wealth couched in terms that make him appear to be a DLC-sanctioned centrist. These are the men on the ballot in their undiluted forms...for better or worse.

Windows into their souls? The whole thing about redistribution of wealth is a lie.

1) Under the article and that tax site, if we take the graphs at face value, we currently give some money back on people that pay no taxes. This appears to be happening now. And in both plans it appears to be reduced. Of course, I'm not an economist so I can't go through every bracket and permutation of tax credits.

The statatory tax is the max you can pay but with all the credits and incentives, earners might not pay that much. Your tax liability under McCain stays relatively the same except for tax cuts in the higher brackets the incentive for health care deductions. The marginal tax *may* increase under Obama's plan according to the sources you list. But the statatory tax would decrease.

Where you get stuck on is the premise that he's taxing the rich to make-up for the lower income tax cuts. That's how he would pay for it. That's different from taxing the rich and giving it to the poor. Their tax liability would be less.

[davet010]

And cheer up: if we do become a socialist nation, Cuban cigars should become legal.

*emphasis added for Rob's benefit

Don't forget legal internet gambling!

Yes - we get that too !!

So many benefits...follow us on a path to the Socialist Utopia !!

And we've even shown your dimwit Treasury guy how to save the world economy !! Just one more thing for you to thank the Socialist Workers Paradise for.

[JRod]

And cheer up: if we do become a socialist nation, Cuban cigars should become legal.

*emphasis added for Rob's benefit

Don't forget legal internet gambling!

Yes - we get that too !!

So many benefits...follow us on a path to the Socialist Utopia !!

And we've even shown your dimwit Treasury guy how to save the world economy !! Just one more thing for you to thank the Socialist Workers Paradise for.

Socialist play football with their feet. Capitalists with their hands. That's why we are superior.

[RobVarak]

Where you get stuck on is the premise that he's taxing the rich to make-up for the lower income tax cuts. That's how he would pay for it. That's different from taxing the rich and giving it to the poor. Their tax liability would be less.

I'm getting desperately tired of repeating myself but it's become a sort of perverse game to see if you'll ever accept reality. If I didn't know you I'd swear you're just doing this to troll.

I'll repost this again, because maybe it'll become clearer to you the 3rd time.

Senator Obama's new and expanded tax credits for low-income taxpayers will certainly cut taxes for low-income people," explains Robert Carroll, Ph.D. of the Tax Foundation, "but the credits are mostly recaptured from middle-income taxpayers. During this phase-out range, marginal tax rates shoot up, causing economically damaging side effects. As a result, for example, a family of four in the $30,000-to-$43,000 range would discover that for every additional dollar they earn, they pay more than 50 cents in income tax."

Taxing the rich to give to the poor is not how he'll pay for it. He's taxing the middle class to give to the poor as well. The same middle class for whom he's allegedly cutting taxes.

Incidentally, every time you focus on the statutory rate you are also ignoring the marginal rate, which is important for all the reasons stated in the TF article.

Man, no wonder this voodoo works so well. Even when exposed to the truth people can't or won't believe it! LOL

[Teal]

Exactly what sort of proof would satisfy you?

The words "I will give money to people who don't earn it, and take it from people who do" from Obama's lips. Of course, no sane person would say that, because America will not elect someone who says what they mean in that regard. So they 'massage' it a little; give it verbage that is designed to smokescreen the actual truth of it. Say enough crap to dance around it, and people will just admire the dance, and forget about the facts.