OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[Jackdog]

How selfish of you to try to deprive us all of the Leader that we need for your own financial gain!

Apparently the GOP scare tactics of making you afraid of his name and his race are working on you. He keeps talking about it, so it must be happening.

Your right! Lately,when I rollover in the morning and see a black women laying next to me. I check to see if my wallet is still on the nightstand. If she changes her name like Barry did, I am out!

[Wilk5280]

One of the biggest reasons I am not voting for Obama is simple. I think he will cost me money.

How selfish of you to try to deprive us all of the Leader that we need for your own financial gain!

Apparently the GOP scare tactics of making you afraid of his name and his race are working on you. He keeps talking about it, so it must be happening.

LMFAO

How dare he or anyone vote for the President that is best for him / them?

Jack you are one selfish son-of-a-b*tch!

[Jackdog]

One of the biggest reasons I am not voting for Obama is simple. I think he will cost me money.

How selfish of you to try to deprive us all of the Leader that we need for your own financial gain!

Apparently the GOP scare tactics of making you afraid of his name and his race are working on you. He keeps talking about it, so it must be happening.

LMFAO

How dare he or anyone vote for the President that is best for him / them?

Jack you are one selfish son-of-a-b*tch!

I know. It's a cross I have to bear brother.

[Feanor]

No doubt. Great point. I can't understand why people that call for raising taxes on big businesses don't grasp the fact it's not going to hurt the businesses. They just raise prices for their product and pass it on to the working class. $hit rolls downhill. I live in the middle of that hill. I'll take any tax cuts that come my way. One of the biggest reasons I am not voting for Obama is simple. I think he will cost me money. All of his promises are going to cost a shitload of cash to bring about. I like the guy as a person. But I don't want his hands in my wallet.

Businesses can only pass on all their increased costs, such as higher taxes, to consumers if they are a monopoly. So some of a tax increase results in higher prices, and some of it results in lower profits. Depends on the industry.

I am in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 because I believe the federal government needs that revenue if we ever hope to get back to budget surpluses and paying back the national debt. As it is, almost 10% of government receipts go to paying interest on that debt.

Deficit spending is fine if the economy grows fast enough to lower the Debt/GDP ratio, and this is what happened between 1945 and 1981. Unfortunately since then, apart from the Clinton/Gingrich years, the U.S. has simply been living beyond its means and the Debt/GDP ratio has more than doubled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

[MACTEPsporta]

That's very close-minded to think your financial situation will be worse off if your taxes go up. It's naive as well. Economy is the determining factor in how well an individual is doing. If your taxes are cut but nothing is made to help economy recover your money, granted more of it is left, will continue to devalue. It's not how many dollars you have that determines how much money you have, it's how much you can buy with it. With dollar plummetting internationally, markets down and inflation and unemployment rising, dollar values no longer represent what we are used to. It's hard to draw parallels in financial world, since so many factors are at play, but to grossly simplify - 200K in 2008 is roughly about 110-130K in 1998. That's money recieved and spent, without considering any long or short term investments. So, if, and this is a big if, democrats can restore economy to the level of ten years ago, even the people who end up paying for majority of this tax increase (250K and up) could be better off than they are now.

[greggsand]

That's very close-minded to think your financial situation will be worse off if your taxes go up. It's naive as well. Economy is the determining factor in how well an individual is doing. If your taxes are cut but nothing is made to help economy recover your money, granted more of it is left, will continue to devalue. It's not how many dollars you have that determines how much money you have, it's how much you can buy with it. With dollar plummetting internationally, markets down and inflation and unemployment rising, dollar values no longer represent what we are used to. It's hard to draw parallels in financial world, since so many factors are at play, but to grossly simplify - 200K in 2008 is roughly about 110-130K in 1998. That's money recieved and spent, without considering any long or short term investments. So, if, and this is a big if, democrats can restore economy to the level of ten years ago, even the people who end up paying for majority of this tax increase (250K and up) could be better off than they are now.

Wow, well said. You might be too smart for this form...

[Naples39]

So, if, and this is a big if, democrats can restore economy to the level of ten years ago, even the people who end up paying for majority of this tax increase (250K and up) could be better off than they are now.

The thing is that Obama doesn't support tax increases to help the economy, but rather he believes in higher taxes and more government spending from a normative perspective, regardless current market conditions. We could be in the midst of booming economic times and candidate Obama would still be advocating tax increases, probably coming up with some line about how we have to share the wealth in times when the rich are experiencing excesses.

I have absolutely no faith that Obama's plans will turn around the economy, as truthfully turning around the economy was only a secondary consideration in designing Obama's tax scheme in the first place.

[matthewk]

If your taxes are cut but nothing is made to help economy recover your money, granted more of it is left, will continue to devalue.

Not sure what you mean here. If my taxes are cut I have more money, but I'm not sure how you equate that to the dollar being devauled. The drop in the dollar is mainly due to the Fed continuously printing more of it in order to keep the credit market bubble from deflating too quickly. I don't think that cutting taxes is going to devalue the money I have.

[Leebo33]

Wow, well said. You might be too smart for this form...

He obviously didn't go to a state school. He must have went to Harvard.

[Jackdog]

That's very close-minded to think your financial situation will be worse off if your taxes go up. It's naive as well.

I started to read your post but I stopped when you called me close-minded and naive. You might have made a good point but I'll never know.

[matthewk]

Businesses can only pass on all their increased costs, such as higher taxes, to consumers if they are a monopoly.

That is false. I have worked for companies that needed to raise their prices because the prices they in turn paid for materials went up. These companies were not monopolys.

The other option is what I am going through, and that is cutting costs to make up the difference.

So some of a tax increase results in higher prices, and some of it results in lower profits. Depends on the industry.

And a lot will result in lost jobs.

I am in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 because I believe the federal government needs that revenue if we ever hope to get back to budget surpluses and paying back the national debt. As it is, almost 10% of government receipts go to paying interest on that debt.

How about cutting their spending? I don't think they really "need" half the money we're giving them.

[JRod]

So, if, and this is a big if, democrats can restore economy to the level of ten years ago, even the people who end up paying for majority of this tax increase (250K and up) could be better off than they are now.

The thing is that Obama doesn't support tax increases to help the economy, but rather he believes in higher taxes and more government spending from a normative perspective, regardless current market conditions. We could be in the midst of booming economic times and candidate Obama would still be advocating tax increases, probably coming up with some line about how we have to share the wealth in times when the rich are experiencing excesses.

I have absolutely no faith that Obama's plans will turn around the economy, as truthfully turning around the economy was only a secondary consideration in designing Obama's tax scheme in the first place.

You have no proof of this. To make a statement like this at least post a link to some analysis of his tax plan.

[matthewk]

I like the guy as a person. But I don't want his hands in my wallet.

I'm not even sure I like him as a person. I do not trust him right now. Then again, I don't trust 99% of politicians in general.

[Naples39]

So, if, and this is a big if, democrats can restore economy to the level of ten years ago, even the people who end up paying for majority of this tax increase (250K and up) could be better off than they are now.

The thing is that Obama doesn't support tax increases to help the economy, but rather he believes in higher taxes and more government spending from a normative perspective, regardless current market conditions. We could be in the midst of booming economic times and candidate Obama would still be advocating tax increases, probably coming up with some line about how we have to share the wealth in times when the rich are experiencing excesses.

I have absolutely no faith that Obama's plans will turn around the economy, as truthfully turning around the economy was only a secondary consideration in designing Obama's tax scheme in the first place.

You have no proof of this. To make a statement like this at least post a link to some analysis of his tax plan.

It is mostly based on reading his most recent book, in which he shares his general policy views. I can't prove that improving the economy was secondary goal in his current tax plan, as no one can read his mind, but you can read about his views before the current economic downturn. I really think you'd have to have your head in the sand to be in denial that Obama doesn't normatively believe in higher taxes and bigger government.

And for the record I supported Obama in the democratic primaries (I am a registered democrat) until reading his book, and saw how paper-thin Obama's post-partisanship and pragmatism was.

[MACTEPsporta]

Not sure what you mean here. If my taxes are cut I have more money, but I'm not sure how you equate that to the dollar being devauled. The drop in the dollar is mainly due to the Fed continuously printing more of it in order to keep the credit market bubble from deflating too quickly. I don't think that cutting taxes is going to devalue the money I have.

You completely misunderstood everything that I wrote. Since, I am pretty sure I can't phrase this any better, I can only suggest you go back and read it again.

[JRod]

Businesses can only pass on all their increased costs, such as higher taxes, to consumers if they are a monopoly. [\quote]

That is false. I have worked for companies that needed to raise their prices because the prices they in turn paid for materials went up. These companies were not monopolys.

The other option is what I am going through, and that is cutting costs to make up the difference.

So some of a tax increase results in higher prices, and some of it results in lower profits. Depends on the industry.[\quote]

And a lot will result in lost jobs.

The 2009 Federal Budget is expected to be around 3.1 trillion. The federal deficit will be 9-10 trillion by the end of the year. The math doesn't add up to make enough to eliminate the deficit built up through the Bush years.

Secondly balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit are two different things. Balancing the budget just means that they will spend less than they take in. It doesn't make they work to spend down the deficit.

You idea of cutting more out of the budget means that they are going to have to cut even more from other areas because of the Iraq war. This means that it could come from the thousands of government programs that aren't wasteful.

[RobVarak]

Wow, well said. You might be too smart for this form...

Well that's damning with faint praise. And I'd think he's a lot smarter if he didn't support AC Milan.

MACTEP, I agree that cutting taxes without taking any other measures to improve the economy isn't a recipe for growth. But McCain isn't proposing only tax cuts. Moreover, Naples is correct in his characterization of Obama. His aggressive approach to the payroll tax, corporate taxes, the estate and gift taxes and others is right in line with classic tax-and-spenders like Mondale and Dukakis. And that fact would be compounded ten-fold with a Congress controlled by Reid and Pelosi.

I admit that it's an effective bit of campaign strategy to cover higher across the board taxation with a tax cuts for many on their personal income tax.

JRod, I posted a link yesterday to a non-partisan analysis of this tax plan.

[wco81]

So, if, and this is a big if, democrats can restore economy to the level of ten years ago, even the people who end up paying for majority of this tax increase (250K and up) could be better off than they are now.

The thing is that Obama doesn't support tax increases to help the economy, but rather he believes in higher taxes and more government spending from a normative perspective, regardless current market conditions. We could be in the midst of booming economic times and candidate Obama would still be advocating tax increases, probably coming up with some line about how we have to share the wealth in times when the rich are experiencing excesses.

I have absolutely no faith that Obama's plans will turn around the economy, as truthfully turning around the economy was only a secondary consideration in designing Obama's tax scheme in the first place.

Interesting. If you remember in the 2000 campaign, Bush advocated tax cuts when there were surpluses to give money back to taxpayers.

Then in the wake of the recession, they positioned the exact same tax cuts as stimulating the economy.

It's the supply-siders who are ideologues on taxation. Look up Norquist and remember that "deficits don't matter."

[RobVarak]

With all the back and forth about the community organizer period of BO's life, this article seems particularly timely. I don't know that I agree with the writer's conclusions, as he seems to make a bit much of BO's "disillusionment," but it does provide the most in-depth third-party look at exactly what he was doing during that period.

http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=2 ... e791ff0f50

[JRod]

The thing is that Obama doesn't support tax increases to help the economy, but rather he believes in higher taxes and more government spending from a normative perspective, regardless current market conditions. We could be in the midst of booming economic times and candidate Obama would still be advocating tax increases, probably coming up with some line about how we have to share the wealth in times when the rich are experiencing excesses.

I have absolutely no faith that Obama's plans will turn around the economy, as truthfully turning around the economy was only a secondary consideration in designing Obama's tax scheme in the first place.

You have no proof of this. To make a statement like this at least post a link to some analysis of his tax plan.

It is mostly based on reading his most recent book, in which he shares his general policy views. I can't prove that improving the economy was secondary goal in his current tax plan, as no one can read his mind, but you can read about his views before the current economic downturn. I really think you'd have to have your head in the sand to be in denial that Obama doesn't normatively believe in higher taxes and bigger government.

And for the record I supported Obama in the democratic primaries (I am a registered democrat) until reading his book, and saw how paper-thin Obama's post-partisanship and pragmatism was.

And then the argument is this, does higher taxes and bigger government mean we are worse off?

I'm not asking this to get the standard Republican response. They would love to say that anything the government spends money on is bad.

I'm not advocating for a bogged down and wasteful government, but the people that make the small v big government are usually talking about rights and wasteful spending interchangeably with government services. They also have no real scope of the federal programs out there and how city and state entities depend heavily on the Federal system for funding.

We can have a very lean government but that would mean program like the VA, Children's Health Care, Community Block Grants, Forest Fire services, etc would be cut or eliminated.

I've asked the basic question not in support of Obama or higher taxes. I would venture a bet, that if those anti-tax, smaller government types were to look through the federal budget you would find a lot more programs you would keep than cut. Not because you like big government but if you see an item for Children's health care, you are going to find some value in that program.

The underpinning of this debate isn't really about the services that this government can effectively render but that fact that people don't not what to pay taxes. Since we've been in school, it's been ingrained in us that taxes are bad. We also have this ideal, because of the American Dream, that anyone can make it through hard work. When you "make it" you will hit that higher tax bracket and that, indirectly, is a punishment for working harder.

Though and this is because of human nature, we fail to understand, that if you reach the higher tax brackets you are making more even though what you see is paying higher taxes.

So the question has to be asked, what exactly has to be cut? And you cannot say wasteful government spending because it is such a vague term that it alludes to programs one disagrees with, along with truly wasteful spending. What is it we cut? What is too big? What is undermined through not spending enough?

[MACTEPsporta]

This "bigger government" and "larger taxes" is a very blatant generalization. Bush's government is larger than Clinton's and Bush's administration spent 400% more than that of Bill Clinton. Also, not every branch of government results in more spending, some are ways of limiting spending, and some are put in place of other less productive, more costly branches.

Years back I wrote a paper for my sociology class introducing the truest form of democracy - self governing nation. The idea simplified is - a nation, preferrably a small and politically stable one, to start teh process, can almost completely rid otself of its legislative branch, and keep only the executive and judicial ones. I was figuring that in near future (that was about ten years ago) technology would be advanced enough to where people (voting public) will be able to vote on all important legislations via internet, mobile phone, or another specially dedicated network. That will reduce lawmakers to only producing legislations, instead of burdening them with coming up with ways to pass them. I will not go any further into details, but it's a simple enough idea, that I am sure, will find some sort of use in politics someday.

Here is why I am telling you this. While idea of smaller governemt may seem as a "Rebublican thing to do", that paper was on Democratic Socialism, the most liberal, progressive left movement you can find.

[Naples39]

Interesting. If you remember in the 2000 campaign, Bush advocated tax cuts when there were surpluses to give money back to taxpayers.

Then in the wake of the recession, they positioned the exact same tax cuts as stimulating the economy.

It's the supply-siders who are ideologues on taxation. Look up Norquist and remember that "deficits don't matter."

George Bush's belief in tax cuts for all economic conditions is just as bad as Obama's belief in tax increases for all economic conditions.

Just because I'm critical of Obama in this thread doesn't mean I supported George W. Bush. Never voted for him either.

I just don't pretend to believe one side is guilty of prejudicial tax policy while the other isn't.

[wco81]

Businesses can only pass on all their increased costs, such as higher taxes, to consumers if they are a monopoly.

That is false. I have worked for companies that needed to raise their prices because the prices they in turn paid for materials went up. These companies were not monopolys.

The other option is what I am going through, and that is cutting costs to make up the difference.

So some of a tax increase results in higher prices, and some of it results in lower profits. Depends on the industry.

And a lot will result in lost jobs.

I am in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 because I believe the federal government needs that revenue if we ever hope to get back to budget surpluses and paying back the national debt. As it is, almost 10% of government receipts go to paying interest on that debt.

How about cutting their spending? I don't think they really "need" half the money we're giving them.

Some businesses can pass on price increases, some can't.

If you look at the PPI and CPI, you find that the PPI haven't always kept up with CPI, because in the aggregate, a lot of businesses can't pass on costs and raise prices and not have it affect their sales.

Think of how much corn has gone up because of corn ethanol mandates. It affects the prices of other grains because a lot of farmers rushed into the market, growing corn rather than wheat and some other grains.

So that spills into increased prices for most agricultural commodities and meat, because the feed for livestock has increased in price.

Some countries have been hit by this, where grains have gone up in prices or where corn is more of a staple, such as in Mexico.

Yet, look at prices for corn snacks like Doritos. They've not gone up in price, because if they don't keep prices down, sales decline.

Airlines on the other hand have no choice but to raise prices, impose various surcharges. But the loss in sales won't hurt as bad because there's a consolidation going on with mergers and smaller airlines going out of business, a lot of airlines planning to cut routes and overall capacity.


Bush has brought marginal rates to probably the lowest in history. I think before Reagan, the highest brackets were over 50%. Yet job creation has been the lowest. There were 5 million jobs created until this year under Bush's term. We've lost over 600,000 since the beginning of the year.

So the lowest rates haven't really worked as supply-siders predicted. Meanwhile, when rates were higher under Clinton, there were over 4 times as many jobs created.

Not saying there were more jobs because of higher tax rates but despite higher rates. So the claim that higher tax rates automatically results in decreases in new jobs isn't borne out by the evidence.

[XXXIV]

If taxes arent raised Im moving to Canada.

[JRod]

If taxes arent raised Im moving to Canada.

Go Rams err Edmonton Eskimos eh.