OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[wco81]

You don't base a tax plan for a particular phase of the economy.

If we're fortunate, any slowdown will be under 2 years, which has been the typical length of recessions.

The Bush tax rates, which McCain is proposing to make permanent, have been in effect 5-6 years and job growth has been tepid, with the federal govt. the reason why there was positive jobs growth in many months.

The Bush/McCain tax policy has led not only to low job growth but high deficits. Why is the status quo going to improve things?

Besides which, cost of capital (i.e. interest rates) is often more important for growth than taxes on business. There's also some chance that a bigger tax relief for middle classes, which is what Obama's plan provides, might do better to stimulate consumer spending than weighting the tax cuts towards the highest brackets, as the Bush/McCain policy has done.

Consumer confidence is the lowest it's been in 20-30 years. Maybe the Bush tax cuts haven't done enough for the middle class?

Finally, as we borrow more and more to fund deficits, the value of the dollar has struggled, which has made oil and other commodities more expensive. Neither candidate is putting enough emphasis on reducing deficits. However, making the Bush cuts permanent would lead to $1.5-2 trillion more in debt over 10 years than Obama's plan.

[RobVarak]

Hmm, remember what I was saying about how the Obama tax plan isn't designed to help the struggling economy? Not sure I could get better evidence than this little gem.

WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.

"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080907/ap_ ... ZivIms0NUE

If Obama's thinking of delaying his tax increases because of a weak economy, he doesn't even think his tax plan will help the economy!! So much for the Obama tax plan raising all boats and offsetting the fact he is taking more money out of Amercans' pockets.

Heh. Obama and Bush: That's not change, that's more of the same.

[XXXIV]

Heh. Obama and Bush: That's not change, that's more of the same.

Yeah but Obama calls it strategy not strategory .

[FatPitcher]

Economic Stimulus II: a one-time $600 tax charge. Those extra taxes should get us going again.

[XXXIV]

Economic Stimulus II: a one-time $600 tax charge. Those extra taxes should get us going again.

...Now I have to pawn that TV I bought.

[dougb]

Oh good,

Canadian federal election called - vote on October 14th. I'm really glad our elections only last 30 days. The Conservatives have a lot of money in their election war chest and the Liberals are cash strapped and have a leader who's still having problems nailing down the English language. If the Green Party manages to get into the televised debates it could be good times!

Best wishes,

Doug

[wco81]

Actually, why isn't anyone saying making the Bush tax cuts permanent isn't enough?

Why not cut the 35% rate in half and eliminate the dividend, cap gains and "death tax" altogether?

That should make the economy really hum, you know?

Eliminating that much taxes should make tax revenues really soar and balance the budget next year!!!

[FatPitcher]

Actually, why isn't anyone saying making the Bush tax cuts permanent isn't enough?

Why not cut the 35% rate in half and eliminate the dividend, cap gains and "death tax" altogether?

That should make the economy really hum, you know?

Eliminating that much taxes should make tax revenues really soar and balance the budget next year!!!

The end goal of tax cuts is certainly not to "make tax revenues really soar." It's all about incentives: people are more productive when they get to keep more of what they earn, and people are more willing to invest when the return on their investment is better. And, of course, there is one school of thought that economic liberty is one of the most important of individual liberties that government exists to protect.

In any case, there's no justification for raising taxes until Congress shows it's serious about following a real budget. I am fine with taxes being somewhat higher than they are now as long as the people spending the revenues are doing it responsibly, but they are not, have not in the past, and are promising not to in the future. They can't make the necessary hard decisions even when they have a huge deficit, so how will giving them more money teach them to be disciplined spenders? It will do the opposite.

[pk500]

Eliminating that much taxes should make tax revenues really soar and balance the budget next year!!!

It's not my problem that the Federal government can't control its addiction to spending more than it earns. It is my problem when that government takes MY money to fund that addiction which it shows absolutely no intention of breaking or even curbing, regardless of which party is in power.

The problem isn't tax revenue; the problem is grossly excessive spending.

Take care,
PK

[JRod]

Eliminating that much taxes should make tax revenues really soar and balance the budget next year!!!

It's not my problem that the Federal government can't control its addiction to spending more than it earns. It is my problem when that government takes MY money to fund that addiction which it shows absolutely no intention of breaking or even curbing, regardless of which party is in power.

The problem isn't tax revenue; the problem is grossly excessive spending.

Take care,
PK

Generalities. What is being grossly overspent?

It's easy, like FatPitcher, does it to speak in generalities and theories, but not to give specifics.

I would venture a guess that most that claim that the government is overspending, don't really know what the government spends money on. I'm not advocating for excessive spending but it's ridiculous that so many in the country make blanket statements about government but actually can't provide evidence.

[XXXIV]

Eliminating that much taxes should make tax revenues really soar and balance the budget next year!!!

It's not my problem that the Federal government can't control its addiction to spending more than it earns. It is my problem when that government takes MY money to fund that addiction which it shows absolutely no intention of breaking or even curbing, regardless of which party is in power.

The problem isn't tax revenue; the problem is grossly excessive spending.

Take care,
PK

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!! you sir are a genius.

[fsquid]

Big picture. Our economy is in trouble because we consume a higher percentage of our income, and therefore by definition save less, than any other country. The money that doesn't get saved then doesn't get invested so our production capacity doesn't grow, and we end up importing more and more and more. We now have an annual trade deficit of 800 billion dollars. Add that to our 400 billion dollar federal budget deficit, and we as a country are now borrowing over a trillion dollars a year.

Obama's plan is to tax investements (cap gains, dividends, corporate income tax, windfall profits tax) and transfer to people who will consume more. That just drives the savings/investment/supply side even more out of balance with the consumption side. Dollars go flying out of the country to purchase goods and to service our existing debts, and we borrow even more from overseas to cover it. One day, the dollar starts slipping. In a few months, it's worth about ten cents. This process could start any time. If we p*$$ China off, they hold enough debt to make it happen in 24 hours.

[Teal]

Heh. Obama and Bush: That's not change, that's more of the same.

Yeah but Obama calls it strategy not strategory .

That's strategEry...dolt...

[JRod]

Big picture. Our economy is in trouble because we consume a higher percentage of our income, and therefore by definition save less, than any other country. The money that doesn't get saved then doesn't get invested so our production capacity doesn't grow, and we end up importing more and more and more. We now have an annual trade deficit of 800 billion dollars. Add that to our 400 billion dollar federal budget deficit, and we as a country are now borrowing over a trillion dollars a year.

Obama's plan is to tax investements (cap gains, dividends, corporate income tax, windfall profits tax) and transfer to people who will consume more. That just drives the savings/investment/supply side even more out of balance with the consumption side. Dollars go flying out of the country to purchase goods and to service our existing debts, and we borrow even more from overseas to cover it. One day, the dollar starts slipping. In a few months, it's worth about ten cents. This process could start any time. If we p*$$ China off, they hold enough debt to make it happen in 24 hours.

One point, we are not importing more because people aren't saving money.

We are importing more because it's cheaper and more effective to make something in another country and ship it to ours.

Even if we had a strong dollar, most productions jobs wouldn't come back. They are gone.

We not only have a world economy but more importantly we have a world labor force.

[XXXIV]

Heh. Obama and Bush: That's not change, that's more of the same.

Yeah but Obama calls it strategy not strategory .

That's strategEry...dolt...

Sorry.. ...My Bush is a bit dusty...No pun intended

[Teal]

Yeah but Obama calls it strategy not strategory .

That's strategEry...dolt...

Sorry.. ...My Bush is a bit dusty...No pun intended

Isn't that a 'Hillary-ism'?

[webdanzer]

Olbermann and Matthews out as anchors for election:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/busin ... nted=print

I guess someone realized Olbermann is “probably not appropriate to be shown” in that role.

In other news, Gallup and Zogby show the Reps with a convention bounce lead in their meaningless polls. Long way to go in electoral vote, I think.

Palin better be allowed to speak very soon without a script in her hand and teleprompters in front of her. 'Didn't we make the right choice? Don't you just love her? Great, now don't ask her anything. See ya.'

[wco81]

Big picture. Our economy is in trouble because we consume a higher percentage of our income, and therefore by definition save less, than any other country. The money that doesn't get saved then doesn't get invested so our production capacity doesn't grow, and we end up importing more and more and more. We now have an annual trade deficit of 800 billion dollars. Add that to our 400 billion dollar federal budget deficit, and we as a country are now borrowing over a trillion dollars a year.

Obama's plan is to tax investements (cap gains, dividends, corporate income tax, windfall profits tax) and transfer to people who will consume more. That just drives the savings/investment/supply side even more out of balance with the consumption side. Dollars go flying out of the country to purchase goods and to service our existing debts, and we borrow even more from overseas to cover it. One day, the dollar starts slipping. In a few months, it's worth about ten cents. This process could start any time. If we p*$$ China off, they hold enough debt to make it happen in 24 hours.

70% of the economy is consumption.

If American companies could sell more stuff overseas, because the Chinese and other countries start to consume like Americans, they'd still keep the production overseas.

The factories aren't coming back.

Why would the Chinese try to drive down the value of the dollar? First of all, they tie their currency to the dollar to keep their goods cheap for Americans to buy. Secondly, they have one of the highest reserves of dollars in the world. It would be like trying to make the bank which holds your savings fail, knowing it would decimate the value of your holdings.

Consumption held up this decade because of the real estate boom. People took out equity or borrowed against it. That ethos, borrowing against the future, is just mimicking what the Federal govt. was doing.

It would be good if Americans saved more like the Chinese. But for American companies, the Chinese aren't consuming enough.

The current tax policy encouraged consumption by those in the highest tax brackets. They certainly weren't investing in creating new jobs, because that hasn't happened.

McCain hasn't even pretended to hide the fact that he's adopting Bush's tax policy as-is. Didn't even try to make some minor tweaks and call it his own plan.

Why is there such faith that the status quo will bring about a different result than the one it has already? Is adhering to ideology more important than adapting to facts on the ground?

[fsquid]

Big picture. Our economy is in trouble because we consume a higher percentage of our income, and therefore by definition save less, than any other country. The money that doesn't get saved then doesn't get invested so our production capacity doesn't grow, and we end up importing more and more and more. We now have an annual trade deficit of 800 billion dollars. Add that to our 400 billion dollar federal budget deficit, and we as a country are now borrowing over a trillion dollars a year.

Obama's plan is to tax investements (cap gains, dividends, corporate income tax, windfall profits tax) and transfer to people who will consume more. That just drives the savings/investment/supply side even more out of balance with the consumption side. Dollars go flying out of the country to purchase goods and to service our existing debts, and we borrow even more from overseas to cover it. One day, the dollar starts slipping. In a few months, it's worth about ten cents. This process could start any time. If we p*$$ China off, they hold enough debt to make it happen in 24 hours.

One point, we are not importing more because people aren't saving money.

We are importing more because it's cheaper and more effective to make something in another country and ship it to ours.

Even if we had a strong dollar, most productions jobs wouldn't come back. They are gone.

We not only have a world economy but more importantly we have a world labor force.

Because we don't invest, we don't create new production capacity. Because we consume more, we have to go to imports to meet demand. This has been going on for some time. But at some point, in order to really grow the economy, we need to develop some "value added" components. We can't get rich delivering Domino's to each other.

[RobVarak]

Palin better be allowed to speak very soon without a script in her hand and teleprompters in front of her.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... ervie.html

I take your meaning, but the national polls aren't totally meaningless. They help frame the race and influence opinion in themselves as much as they reflect. it. You're correct as well in that even if they are accurate they exaggerate McCain's position, which is still iffy on the electoral map.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... vs_mccain/

The RCP map is fun because you can act out all your John King fantasies and create different scenarios.

Oh, and just so you don't think some wacky s*** ain't totally impossible...I bring some goodies from 538:

[JRod]

Big picture. Our economy is in trouble because we consume a higher percentage of our income, and therefore by definition save less, than any other country. The money that doesn't get saved then doesn't get invested so our production capacity doesn't grow, and we end up importing more and more and more. We now have an annual trade deficit of 800 billion dollars. Add that to our 400 billion dollar federal budget deficit, and we as a country are now borrowing over a trillion dollars a year.

Obama's plan is to tax investements (cap gains, dividends, corporate income tax, windfall profits tax) and transfer to people who will consume more. That just drives the savings/investment/supply side even more out of balance with the consumption side. Dollars go flying out of the country to purchase goods and to service our existing debts, and we borrow even more from overseas to cover it. One day, the dollar starts slipping. In a few months, it's worth about ten cents. This process could start any time. If we p*$$ China off, they hold enough debt to make it happen in 24 hours.

One point, we are not importing more because people aren't saving money.

We are importing more because it's cheaper and more effective to make something in another country and ship it to ours.

Even if we had a strong dollar, most productions jobs wouldn't come back. They are gone.

We not only have a world economy but more importantly we have a world labor force.

Because we don't invest, we don't create new production capacity. Because we consume more, we have to go to imports to meet demand. This has been going on for some time. But at some point, in order to really grow the economy, we need to develop some "value added" components. We can't get rich delivering Domino's to each other.

I agree with the premise of your statement but why would an American company invest in a production facility here when they could do it in China and for a smaller payroll?

We are shipping jobs oversees because labor is no longer tied to countries. This poses a problem for your argument because it if was just about creating enough capital for companies to invest in production facilities or value add components in the US then possibly lower upper bracket taxes would work.

Our country is slowly cannibalizing its workforce because we have become to service industry focused. We have not diversified our own workforce. But you can't do with emerging markets are offering emerging labor workforce. Hard for American to decided to invest capital in the US when moving oversees with reduce costs and keep profit margins stable.

[JRod]

Palin better be allowed to speak very soon without a script in her hand and teleprompters in front of her.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... ervie.html

I take your meaning, but the national polls aren't totally meaningless. They help frame the race and influence opinion in themselves as much as they reflect. it. You're correct as well in that even if they are accurate they exaggerate McCain's position, which is still iffy on the electoral map.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... vs_mccain/

The RCP map is fun because you can act out all your John King fantasies and create different scenarios.

Oh, and just so you don't think some wacky s*** ain't totally impossible...I bring some goodies from 538:

That looks more like the betting sheet for Liverpool games.

[wco81]

American companies do at least as well as any other in innovation. R&D in high-tech still leads the world.

That's why the lower tax rates for individuals leading to more capital investment is a canard. R&D tax credits and lower interest rates have more impact in that field than individual tax rates.

Not to mention, angel investors and venture capital.

Problem is that outside of high tech, areas like automobiles are hurting. Financial services used to be a strength too.

[pk500]

Eliminating that much taxes should make tax revenues really soar and balance the budget next year!!!

It's not my problem that the Federal government can't control its addiction to spending more than it earns. It is my problem when that government takes MY money to fund that addiction which it shows absolutely no intention of breaking or even curbing, regardless of which party is in power.

The problem isn't tax revenue; the problem is grossly excessive spending.

Take care,
PK

Generalities. What is being grossly overspent?

It's easy, like FatPitcher, does it to speak in generalities and theories, but not to give specifics.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm839-list.cfm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20070 ... ending.pdf

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pag ... igbook2007

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pag ... igbook2008

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/200 ... teful.html

Need more? I'll be happy to oblige.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Olbermann and Matthews out as anchors for election:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/busin ... nted=print

I guess someone realized Olbermann is “probably not appropriate to be shown” in that role.

Good call on Gregory, although I'd rather see my boy Chuck Todd in that role. Chuck's not a Ken Doll, though.

Take care,
PK