I thought many of the attacks on both sides were probably false. Here is one such but I'd be willing to bet that an equal number of backers on both sides are willing to lie for the goal of spin:

W. Bush was mostly rhetoric and non-specifics compared to Obama. Clinton was too busy defending himself and attacking back at Bush Sr. to put forth specifics. Reagan was never one to put forth policy specifics in his campaigning.

Obama's campaign web pages alone have more information than any winning campaign has ever made available to the public. How many winning campaigns in the past have planned large changes to tax rates but told you in advance how much more or less a specific income/investment level/household size will pay under those plans?

It's not like McCain will be able to get his legislation through anyways.

If all the stories and reports on the Palin/McCain split coming out are accurate it's going to make for a fun post election meltdown.

Just a few more fringe nutjobs.

Pretty painful Biden interview.

I love the look he gives as she asks the last question...my thoughts exactly.

Good to watch for a few chuckles.

Compare that to the McCain interview by the same woman. I wonder who she's rooting for.

The comments to this on Christianity Today (evangelical site) has, so far, been unanimous against this, using words like "appalling" or " shocking".

Did they forget drive-thru abortions?

Focus on the Family Action is not the Dobson group, right? Names are way too similar.

Never mind, looks like the same group.

Anyways, they forgot the part about the satanic prayers before lunch at school

My favorite part in that letter was the section saying that in four years there would be a three year wait for certain surgeries. Didn't realize that there was that much pent up demand for subsidized surgical procedures. :)

It is the same, but this was sent from another corporation they set up to be able to send these kinds of things out.

That's a beyond pathetic interview. This isn't cable news. As a reporter/anchor for local TV, you should feel an obligation to leave your obvious bias at the door before you go on public airwaves.

Definitely dumb - similar to the "Bush will start WW3/invade entire middle east" stuff we heard in '04.

Actually almost exactly the kind of stuff I heard when I was going to a conservative Bible college during the first Clinton election.

It would be interesting to see, if predictions hold true, a re-definition of an electoral landslide. We already know that winning by 1% popular vote and 1 electoral vote are spun as a "mandate". Electoral landslides are on the order of 500+ to 20-30something - like with Nixon 72, Reagan 80, Reagan 84 and LBJ 64. Will 375-163 be spun as a landslide?

I seem to recall reading that 350 EVs is considered a "landslide" victory.

FWIW, I don't think we'll see that this time around.

Traditionally, a 10% win in the popular vote translates into roughly a 350-400+ EV total and is considered a landslide. Now clearly 400 EVs is, graphically, a landslide, but is beating your opponent by 10% really a landslide? If the result is, say, 55-45, there's still almost half of the country that didn't vote for you.

Sort of like getting 49% of the votes and calling it a mandate.

I'm glad the DLC died. The DLC existed as a forum for folks who thought the Democratic party could win elections by a) going center or right-of-center, regardless of principles and b) liked to win campaigns tactically, i.e. by focusing on a battleground state or two they could flip to put them just over 273 EVs.

Clinton may have been a centrist, but he wasn't a progressive. More accurately he was an opportunist and a self-aggrandist (probably not a word).

Obama's not a centrist nor a leftist, but is a pragmatist and progressive.

Also, it's not accurate to say Obama's not taken his party on. People want to point to his brief tenure in the U.S. Senate for this, but during his time there the Democrats were unified in opposition to George Bush. How many opportunities did he have, really, to "stand up to his party"? Arguably McCain had more, especially over the past 4-8 years, but we all know how that has gone.

And anyway, if you look at Obama's record in Illinois, it's a picture of a guy who routinely was at odds with the "machine", especially after getting obliterated by Bobby Rush early on. He also had a record of pragmatically securing cross-party support for initiatives.

It's of note that in the primary for his Senate bid the machine backed not one but two successive candidates instead of Obama. It wasn't until he secured the nomination that the machine really swung into support behind him.

Its because the DLC for so long steered Democrats away from tax debates that Clinton era tax levels are now called socialism. The DLC allowed conservatism to play as the voice of the people.

The DLC was all about the Democratic party winning elections first and foremost, and screw having a platform that shows a clear contrast to the opponents. Thats no better than the Republicans are right now, no thanks.

"self-aggrandist" may or may not be a word but it certainly is a polite way of saying what Bill Clinton really was.

If taking on the "machine" and getting obliterated by it were considered badges of honor (i.e., good fighting evil), what does it say that such evil is now working for you?

God forbid that anyone should ask tough questions. That's one of the many problems with modern politics - style points matter more than being held accountable for the increasing powers, expenditures and deficits of the federal government.

So you weren't a fan of President Clinton?

Asking tough questions is one thing, grandstanding through ridiculous comparisons is another. (Why not ask McCain/Palin how they compare to Mussolini?) Not to mention she soft balled McCain. She not only soft balled him, asked him questions to put his opponent in a negative light.

I have a love hate relationship with Carville/Clinton/Clinton. I think the nation is much better off that Bill became president, but I think their campaigning style and choice of politics also put the nation/progressive politics back in many ways.

IMO, George W Bush was elected in response to the fact that the Clinton camp decided to focus exclusively on hitting back to win elections, instead of putting more focus towards progressive issues and ideals.

Oh I'm all for tough questions and agree we need to say more of them, but you can't in anyway say that she was looking for answers. She was wording the questions to intentionally be as inflammatory as possible and in several instances they really weren't even questions.

I'll give her credit for at least allowing him to answer where a lot of people would shout them out or interrupt, it was actually almost eery her complete lack of emotion. She was a robot in it. It wasn't tough journalism, and I think it's pretty tough to try and portray it as such. She could care less what the answers were, she just wanted to make sure she got to ask the questions how she wanted. Actually from the way she did it, I'm not even sure it's how she wanted, but more how they wanted her to ask them because she seemed disinterested in the whole process.

I love the fact she used Sweden as the country Americans are afraid we're going to become if Obama/Biden is in charge.

I wasn't defending her approach or questions, it was just a general comment how much control over the press (and the voting population) both campaigns have had during this election cycle.

Clinton was never a progressive, so I don't think he necessarily cared about setting progressive politics back. I think he also knew that without that campaigning style that even coming out of a recession, Bush would have won a second term.


I strongly disagree. Bush won for a couple reason. One was Gore was scared to use Clinton on the trail. Second was that Gore constantly was "overhandled" instead of sticking to being himself (the entire "earth tones" portion of his campaign doomed him). And Third, Bush focused on being a "compassionate conservative". Of course we know he wasn't, but this country is, in essence, a 3rd way country, which basically is Clintonianism or Compassionate Conservatism... except when they get pissed (as in Carter or Bush II).

So, I think that in order to even begin to sell far right or far left policies you need someone charismatic and things in the crapper. So Reagan can be elected in 1980, but probably no other time.

i wonder if those were the actual guys from the original commercials? one of them looks familiar from the old ones.

The guy watching the stock market crash is definitely the same one from the original. I had seen him several times on shows milking the "whaz up?" line. I cannot remember the rest of the guys in the commercial, but I would guess those are all the originals due to the "views expressed" note at the end.

they all look familiar to me.

Would that be considered endorsements from Joe Sixpacks?

I think you are right, the taxes structure that exists today is huge compared to what existed during Hoover's administration.

Obama does not say what he will increase the corporate tax too, only that he promises to do so and make a specific tax he calls "windfall tax". Below is the current corp. tax structure. McCain wants to set it at a flat 25%. One thing Obama does not realize is that corporations pass their tax on to consumers in their price (includes reducing cost of production) of goods and services. They will either outright cost more or the quantity and quality of what you get will drop for the same price.

I think the real point is raising taxes as we look at a possible depression is stupid and completely ingnores what we should have learned from the past. I think obama lives in a world of revisionist history. Although he has learned one thing very well, more money helps win campaigns. That is why he backed out of his promise to accept public financing. The one promise that would actually show you are a change agent. Every step of the way he has shown he is politics as usual. Oh well, on this one we will get what we deserve.

And McCain wasn't lying when he said the US corporate tax is 2nd highest in the world. People point to loopholes, but the answer is close the loopholes and lower the rate. I actually consider Obama's action on the corporate tax rate to be highly disappointing.

Yes, but the evil liberal media and the morning-"news"-show-turned-anchor was mean to Sarah Palin and asking horrible gotch questions.

SI

:+1:

I find it relatively frightening that the majority of the general public actually applauds the move to raise the upper tax rate when a far more lucrative blow (in regards to income for the government) to corporations would be to remove the loopholes and credits and leave the tax rate where it is. There's been some kind of disconnect in understanding of how the current tax code works where the public assumes that an increased tax rate will hurt only the wealthy. That's not necessarily the case.

However, IMO, you would have an equal explanation about how the closing of a loophole that's existed for X amount of years = a backdoor Tax increase and will cause said companies to increase prices, cut jobs or move overseas....its a no win situation.

Just like we have with W, right? Or was he better than we deserved?

Yes, but the current method lacks transparancy as there is almost no way to determine the actual tax rate on most big corporations and the wealthy. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the practice of two balance sheets is very common at this point. If you take out a lot of the behind the scenes works, at least you have a much better chance of determining the actual effect of a tax increase/decrease. I agree that a change for the better may be painful in the short term, but it's time for most Americans to get over their fear of painful changes. Nothing comes easy.

FWIW....I pay an accountant a few thousand dollars each year to play the exact same game I'm discussing. If they create a simplified code, I likely wouldn't pay any more of a tax increase than what I'm paying my accountant to resolve this whole mess.

Regardless, IMO, Our government needs the ability ro fund a complete overhaul of our infrastructure including grid and energy drain. This will take either a shift of monetary assets or more income from taxes (or donations I guess).

No one ever or very rarely is FOR raising taxes when it effects themselves hence my statement that if there was a motivation to close a loophole that's existed, because it would sound better to voters (ie. you or the company itself) the company would hire a shit ton of lobbyists to either stave off the closure, or create a different but similar loophole

AND one of the side effects will be the political marketing, whether truthful or not, to the public about how Bill 234.432.566b is actually a tax that will hurt the economy, cost jobs, raise prices, etc. So the public will never get the true evaluation of said tax changes and be confused until after it's been passed or rejected.

Take for example the arguments between camps about the actual effects of the tax plans for both. The statements you see from the camp itself touts the gains and benefits but the other camp points out the downfalls and 'true' effects. Which to believe? The public doesnt know but the only thing for sure to know is that those effected by the change will strategically attack it until the raise the chances of it's failure (it may still pass).

We know one thing for sure, the tax system as it is now is broken BUT the fix is where the rub is. There is NEVER a 'good' time to raise taxes according to the person being effected and it will be sold to the public in the ways we see now on TV and in articles.

I don't want to say this is easy, but using a good chunk of military $$$ and resources would be optimal.

Surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread, but Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, and Florida all appear to now be statistical dead heats judging from the polling information released on 10/26. All 5 of those states were considered as pretty good bets for Obama as of late last week, but they are all now only a point or two Obama lead.

Honestly, this shouldn't be a surprise to most in this thread. The polling data appears to be much more in line now with what the insiders in each campaign have reported. Another place to look for similar corrections in the state polls is in Pennsylvania. Don't be surprised if the 11 point lead reported on 10/22 shrinks significantly in the latest polling data released sometime today. Any correction likely has less to do with any noticable voter gain/loss by either candidate and much more to do with a correction of the voter weights in that state's polling.

A change in thinking regarding how those contracts are awarded for the military would save millions alone. An across the board military spending cut as Barney Frank has suggested over the weekend is a very short-sighted approach to the situation. The focus should be on the root of the problem, which is preferential awarding of military contracts. McCain has mentioned several times the aircraft contract award earlier this year that saved our government a ton of money. The gist of the situation was that the American contractor was passively blackmailing the lawmakers. They had a much more expensive contract than the overseas competitor, and laid all kinds of threats at the feet of the government officials about how they would go after the lawmakers if they decided to take the cheaper alternative. Congress did the right thing and took the cheaper alternative. The losing company then proceeded to attack lawmakers about costing jobs in America. However, once the level of lobbying and manipulation hit the press, the company's cries fell on deaf ear.

If Congress was just smart enough to pick the best contracting deal (within reason regarding quality) rather than listen to the lobbyists and their payouts, they'd save the country billions of dollars. Barney Frank is a prime example of people who claim that something is broken when they're the prime reason it's broken.

I thought all 5 of those states had been very very close through any polling I had seen lately. The fact that Indiana and North Carolina are even in play should be pretty troubling for any McCain supporter.

You spin one way, I spin the other.

Not sure why it's considered spin. As I mentioned, I seriously doubt that any poll movement has anything to do with a swing to more McCain voters. There's been a lot of fuss in recent days even in the mass media about the polling weights, even to the point of being discussed on some of the Sunday morning political shows. A correction in those polls is pretty likely.

Indiana and North Carolina aren't the only obvious state concerns for McCain. Also, not sure why you say it's a supporter issue. It's a McCain issue.

There's really no clear evidence of these races tightening. Most of them are close, but they've been close for a couple of weeks. Only in IN have there been swings out of the MOE, but the numbers vary so greatly I have no idea what to expect.

NV: Three of the last four polls have shown a 4 or 5 point Obama lead.

MO: Out of the last six polls all of them but one had it between Obama +2 and McCain +1.

FL: Four of the last six polls have been between Obama +1 and McCain +1.

NC: Five of the last six polls have been tie to Obama +4.

IN: This has truly been all over the map. In the last four polls it's gone from Obama +10 to McCain +7. The Obama +4 from SUSA has a demo you'd like, 37/37/23.

Any polling that says.....

-Democrat and Republican voters will show up in equal numbers
-23% of Indiana voters are independent

.....has a lot of explaining to do. I'm not sure why you'd think I like that weighting. It's horribly inaccurate from where I stand.

It's a McCain supporter issue because it is bad for McCain, who they support. That's like saying I shouldn't be upset when a Saints player gets injured because that affects the Saints, and I am only a fan of the team, not a member of the team. A true, but pointless, observation.

Also, I assume by "correction" you mean "change." Anyone who pretends to know how the demographics will break down in this election and how the polling weights should break down to reflect that is fooling themselves.

And there is fuss about polling weights in the mass media because they need something about which to speak to make this seem like a horse race. "Obama is still comfortably ahead" will eventually get people to change the channel to King of Queens re-runs.

It is wrong to assume that CNN, etc. cares more about reporting the truth than about keeping viewers tuned in.

Finally, FWIW, I still think that this will be a close race.

More telling is that McCain is only up four points in Arizona. That'd be a nice one for Obama to win just for style points.

States like Arizona, West Virginia, and Arkansas really will be for style--or for 400 electoral votes. Again, though, I don't think that we are going to end up there.

If Obama is trying to raise more revenue to the treasury, history shows he's doing it in a poor way. If that was his no. 1 goal, he should raise all marginal rates 2-3%, lower corp tax, keep the payroll tax where it is and reduce cap gains. That is the consistent formula for raising more revenue. Small marginal rate increases on personal returns tend to not impact spending/investment that much but raise revenue. Cutting cap gains not only brings in more investment and increases tax revenue, but it also stimulates the economy (same for cutting corp rates).

It seems to me that Obama isn't as interested in raising revenue as he is in pandering (middle class tax cut) and fairness (not cutting cap gains for wealthy investors, raising payroll tax and raising corp rates).

I just went and early voted and the Mormon missionaries were in full effect.

This is how it went down:

My wife and I got in a fairly long line. The Mormon missionary got in line and said, "excuse me, sir? an you tell me what the candidates stances on abortion are? Im not looking for opinion just what they stand for." I answered very PC correctly with the GOP fan watching how i answered and I nodded to her for approval when I was done and she said, "You got that correct." Then the Mormon missionary asked, "How about on Gay Marriage?" I answered and got an approving nod from the GOP fan when I was done. All the while a vote watcher was watching this whole thing going on. The Mormon Missionary continued to defend his attempts at getting the conversation started by saying that he had no idea what candidate stood for what since they dont watch TV or listen to the radio. He didnt even know what was on the ballot (although I then have to ask if he was lucky in asking if there was a gay marriage amendment on the ballot? [there is]) so he's looking for help in understanding who stands for what. Finally when I reach the front of the line I ask the sign in lady if the guys in white shirts and ties are allowed to stand in the lines and ask people about votes and such...She lit up. "Who!?" "The guy's in the white shirts." Now she notices there are 6 of them spread out in the voting room. So she looks at the Mormon missionary behind me, a kid really, and says with a pointed finger, "NO." Then when he gives her a wry smile she stands up and repeats, "NO. You will Not." Then she got up and went and told the volunteer that theyre not allowed to be chatty with other voters and if they do want to they have to do it outside. I think that the volunteers handled it very well and while I wouldve liked to have seen them be a little more skeptical of the people in the room that we're gaming the scene, when it was brought to their attention they handled it efficiently and compassionately.

Or maybe he actually thinks a middle class tax cut will help the economy?

However, let me ask, since the cap gains and other taxes we're already cut over the last 8 years (I understand that you can talk about comparative rates worldwide, and whether or not they should be lower or higher) when, if ever, can you justify bringing them back up to where they were before the cuts? Or do you just always cut cut cut until you get to a target rate of zero? At what point do we actually view the deficit as something we do actually have to pay off?

Sneaky Mormons!

fortunately i live in new england so i don't foresee this being much of a problem, but if they tried this with me i'd so love to fuck with them :D

"I think the Republican candidate wants to gather up all of you polygamous, child-abusing freakjobs and send you over to Africa."

(not what I really feel, just what I'd say to try to get a rise out of them)

Hypothetical question - if there were an economic fortune teller that could tell us, with 100% accuracy, that the best way to increase revenue over the next 4-8 years is do what Arles suggests (raise all marginal rates 2-3%, lower corp tax, keep the payroll tax where it is and reduce cap gains), would you be in favor of doing that, or would you still be against it because of fairness issues? I wonder if there's a distinction there - do you believe Obama's plan will increase revenue, or is just a fairness thing, or both? Which of those is more important if you could only have one?

I think there is a balance that can be struck between encouraging growth and being fair. I am not 100% sold on Obama's tax policy, but I think it's worth a shot. I trust him to eventually try to solve tricky economic problems moreso than McCain. And for the GOP to be losing the mantle of budgetary frugality is embarrassing.

I do not necessarily believe that Obama's plan will increase revenue. But I believe that some large deficit spending will likely be necessary in order to pull the nation out of the current economic situation. And I trust that once things settle down, Obama can pick up the mantle of Clinton (and at the time, fiscal conservatives) and try to balance the budget again and eventually start paying down the deficit.

Also, are you saying that what Arles suggests doing is patently unfair?

This comment summarizes this election cycle in a nutshell. Basically speaking, the partisan nature of the past 8 years reached a level that people are willing to put a man in office based on the idea that he can 'have a shot' as opposed to finding a candidate that has legitimate ideas on how to make good changes for the future of the country. It should be noted that I'm not implying at all that McCain has all the answers, but it's extremely frustrating to go into this situation fully knowing that the plans that McCain and Obama have in mind are questionable at best.

That's pretty much always the case with a non-incumbent Presidential election, though.

Could be. Perhaps I'm just more annoyed than usual. I'm over 30 now, so I must have a political grumpy streak.

I do think the person that is elected this time will probably be a one-and-done president. I just think both have far too many problems in front of them.

That's what I was thinking. I doubt I will ever find a candidate I agree 100% with on everything. I'm sure we all have our own wants for policy out of our leaders. I tend to align on the liberal end of the spectrum, which is still way more centrist than the socialism that Obama is being accused of by McCain.

And obviously, the current economic policies are not working and I expect Obama much more than McCain would work to reverse or amend those policies.

I think it is a grave error to suggest that tax policy is as simple as "this is best, anything else is wrong." Even to suggest that there is only one *best* way to raise revenue is an oversimplification bordering on absurdity.

Tax policy involves balancing a number of goals, among them short term economic disturbance, long term behavioral disturbance, administrative complexity, vertical equity, horizontal equity. And to be perfectly honest, there's no such thing as a clear message from history, since every single "experiment" has been done in real life, not in a controlled environment.

You tax something more, and doing it becomes incrementally less attractive to do. Tax it less, and it's incrementally more attractive. That's about as far as the universal agreement can go here. It's simply not the case that every economist or expert agrees that raising revenues is a simple exercise with the same solution, and it's just that the politicians are just mucking it up.

I think that if you wanted to increase cap gains, you could do so - but do it in an environment when investing in the market is a real attractive option. IE, if I am getting 10-14% on my investments, seeing a small increase in cap gains won't stop me from investing. However, if I make $1 million and am looking to invest 100K in a sluggish 2009 market, an increase in cap gains will certainly impact how I invest my money.

Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, the top 5-10% drive this economy - they are the "golden goose" of sorts. Most either own their business or are key decision makers in businesses. If you start sticking it to them on cap gains, corp tax rates, marginal rates, closing loopholes, payroll tax, estate tax and whatever other methods you can think of - the golden goose may either stop laying as many eggs or take their eggs elsewhere. Now, you can get away with this if you do it in a strong economic climate as the incentives are still there. But, 2009 isn't looking all that strong.

It sounds nice to give money back to people making under 200K, hold their cap gains rate and not add a tax burden to them, but those people (myself included) don't create jobs or drive investment in the economy. We need the top 10% to keep investing, creating jobs and spending money. If they stop, we all suffer. The best thing we can do to help the economy is to make investing an attractive option for the top 10%, but it doesn't seem like either candidate wants to do that. And, the only reason that I can think of for that is because of some sense of "unfairness" in not sticking it to the rich in tough times. Maybe that's the key to winning an election, but I don't know that it will help us recover any quicker over the next 2 years. In the end, maybe we don't want to ease the burden on people and just let the free market correct itself. But, it certainly seems like both candidates are saying otherwise.

I don't have a great understanding of taxes, the economy, or the moving parts that make things go. But a purely raw level, the Democratic idea of such things just always FELT oversimplified to me, and I've always been suspicious of it and the motivations for it.

If I was an alien and learning about about this thing called an "economy" and government, I'd think, "well, the oil companies make billions, lets take from them to fund the government...and regular citizens have much less, let's just take a lot less from them".

I have no doubt that people who understand this better than me can have legitimate, economic-based rational for the Democratic tax plan. But for some reason, they don't usually want to go there. It's enough for a candidate to just rant about the oil industry's "record profits", and hype that they're "looking out for the middle class with tax cuts". But it's not really that simple, is it? If not, why don't Democrats go beyond that? The obvious cynical answer is that they need the votes of the uneducated masses who can't get beyond that 1st idea, and can't burden themselves with the possibility of a more complicated economy.

So even though I appreciate Obama's Reagan-like ability to make Americans feel better about themselves - I just don't trust him, or really Democrats in general.

Conservatives aren't any better about brining their ideas to the masses, either, of course. But their general ideas on taxes, by necessity, have to go at least one step beyond the analysis of "tax the rich!".

It seems like in terms of economics, the "dumbed down" Republican idea goes 1 step from the obvious, and the "dumbed down" Democratic idea goes 0 steps.

TESTIFY!

Really? "Tax cuts always good," seems about the end of things for most Republicans. Of course providing a simple, incomplete, emotionally resonate argument is what politicians do and what gets them elected. Nobody's going to vote for QS's accurate, yet complex message on taxation.

Even if "tax cuts are always good", it takes SOME kind of economic theory to get there when it comes to corporations.

Democrat: They have money, so they should fund the government more.

Republican: They have money, but we should let them keep it so they can hire people and stimulate the economy.

I'm not saying one's better than the other. But the first one's a much easier sell to the masses, whether or not it's the right thing to do. That's what makes it scarier to me. The first one could be a strictly anti-corporation/class warfare sentiment. The second one requires some opinion about the way the economy works (unless you're actually a corporation, but corporations don't vote - I know, I know, just stay with me here).

People lache on to one or the other no matter the circumstance when I don't think history tells us anything other than the real answer: "it depends".

I think it's cyclical. Nationally the tax cut message doesn't resonate well this cycle because most people don't see taxation as a major problem. People do see growing income inequality as a problem, so Obama's tax ideas play better.

In IN, however, excessive property taxes have been a huge issue and supporting a constitutional limit on property taxes is damn near mandatory to being elected to a statewide office.

Except that's not what they've been doing. We have years of capitalism operating with few bounds to prove that low taxes + high borrowing power + few regulations = HOLY FUCK.

I could go a step further and say that the Republicans general idea regarding the economy is to let the free market have its way. That is what has happened for most of the '90s and 2000's, and here we are in a huge hole that is collapsing in on itself.

That is why the Democratic message is playing so well right now. Not because tax cuts play well to the average citizen. But because the Democratic message of "beware unchecked capitalism" is being played out in the news media every day.

Curious question for those that lean (or more than lean) conservative:

How do you feel about everyone being taxed for social security to allow it to remain solvent for a MUCH longer time? I rarely hear conservatives debate about this possibility, so I am curious to hear viewpoints from the right.

I'm not a fan of most of the aspects of social security period, so my position on that should be obvious.

Also...it wouldn't be (as much) of an issue if the gov't had some semblence of fiscal responsibility / money management skills.

But isn't the oft-repeated line here that Obama only wants to be where we were in the 90s under Clinton, and that he's not any more "socialist" than that?

Regulation and taxation aren't the same thing.

First, I think there are times where you can increase taxes. It just depends on the climate and what your goal is. If we were in the mid to late 90s, in an economic boon, you could choose a slight increase to capital gains and marginal rates because the incentive to invest/build your business was still there. So, you could say "Hey, we are all doing real well and we'd like to raise a little extra revenue to pay down the deficit. We have an across the board 3% rate hike combined with a 5% hike on cap gains." In a good economy, that probably wouldn't impact behavior/confidence and generate some extra revenue.

However, in a bad or poor economy, any small activity to penalize investment scare people off. Right now we need to cut the cap gains rate because people aren't investing. Look at it this way: Think of stocks like a product. You are selling 100 items for a profit of $200 each. But, if you lower the price $50, you could sell 200 or 300 for a profit of $150. Wouldn't you lower the price? Right now, we have a ton of stocks "sitting in a warehouse" and want to sell them. Does it make sense to raise their price by upping cap gains?

I would prefer raising the age or reducing benefits first. Maybe say starting 2015, the age will raise 2 years or you will get fewer benefits. Trying to tax to stay up with the population living longer/being more expensive is not a feasible plan. I don't expect social security to be there when I turn 65 and I don't expect many others below the age of 40 should either. We need to start setting that expectation now.

If that is the case, I should not be paying into social security.

Agreed, I think 67-68 makes a lot more sense right now. I just find it curious that we don't have everyone pay into social security. Not because I think like Michael Moore and want to scream injustice over it. The idea not to have everyone contribute to social security just doesn't jive with the ideology of our government social programs as a whole.

Call me ignorant, but who doesn't pay into social security? Those making under a certain amount of money? And, isn't the amount of money you are paid from social security directly related to the amount you put in?

However, this will not get sold to the masses and the corporations wont sit idly by and agree with you. They will fight against it just as strong as they ever did or would. A corporate tax increase will NEVER be something that they agree to just accept as being "a time where you can increase taxes." So we might as well agree that we're simply talking about when is the least worst time to increase taxes on, well really, anyone.

Nobody wants their own taxes increased. That doesn't mean it never happens (or should never happen).

well, the odds on the Democrats getting 60 senate seats just improved a bit.

Jury finds Stevens guilty on corruption charges - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A jury found U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska guilty Monday of all seven counts in his federal corruption trial.The jury found Stevens guilty of "knowingly and willfully" scheming to conceal on Senate disclosure forms more than $250,000 in home renovations and other gifts from an Alaska-based oil industry contractor.

Stevens faces a maximum sentence of up to to 35 years in prison -- five years for each of the seven counts.

Legal experts note the judge has the discretion to give Stevens as little as no jail time and probation when he is sentenced.

He sat expressionless as the seven verdicts were read out at the end of his trial, less than a day after the jury began deliberations from scratch because of a change in jurors.

After the second guilty verdict was read, Stevens' lead defense attorney, Brendan Sullivan, patted his back, leaving his hand there.

As Stevens left the defense area, he and his wife exchanged a kiss on the cheek. Stevens said: "It's not over yet." Stevens' defense team said they will move for a new trial.

Stevens left the courthouse without comment.

Stevens accepted "hundreds of thousands of dollars of freebies" from a major oil services company in his state, acting assistant Attorney General Matthew Friedrich said after the verdict.

"This company was not a charity," he said, saying it solicited Stevens for help in Washington at the same time it was transforming Stevens' single-story A-frame Alaska house into a two-story structure with a deck, new gas grill and other accouterments.

Right so I have a hard time swallowing the "Taxes shouldnt go up (put your date in here)" argument because there will never be a time where the opposite is then true, IMO. I'd like to see it at least and Ill eat crow but I just dont think you'll ever see a corp head say, "You know now is a good time to tax the business I run." etc.

That being said, I think now is a bad time to increase taxes and am hopeful that Obama and his advisors will put there heads together and come up with a great gameplan for our country's future.

Isn't that just the nature of our relatively balanced, 2-party system? We're somwhere in the middle of what people want. So republicans can "always" want lower taxes without it necessarily following that they should be zero. And democrats can "always" want to increase corporate taxes without it necessarily following that they should be taxed 100%.

But on the other hand, I agree, and I expressed the frustration of this from the other side. People know vaguely where they stand on things, and can recite it ad nauseam, but I REALLY pay attention when someone sees a specific situation and goes against their regular schtick/viewpoint.

None of us are experts obviously, but here is the economic justification for the first:

The less money you earn, the higher percentage of that income you spend on goods and services. Therefore, if you cut taxes on those making less money, a higher percentage of that money will in turn be spent. Money spent goes right back into the economy stimulating businesses and generating tax revenue.

Fair enough. I wonder how many people at a typical Obama rally would come up with that answer though. I think the raw sentiment there is still just "we're not pro-corporation like the Republicans". That's just based on my impression and experiences though.

And yes, obviously your standard Republican rally would have ALL kinds of frighting REAL answers to why people vote the way they do.

That's the heart of what I've been getting at - why do people vote the way they do, and how do candidates exploit that. I think if we had a better understanding of that part of the American soul, democracy suddenly wouldn't seem like that great an idea.

That's why I don't want "someone who's just like me" to be president or veep. :)

I think because capitalism requires an undesirable lower class.

And I say that as a pro-capitalist.

I think trickle up can work, it's just tougher to control and setup. Giving everyone making under 50K an extra $1000 would certainly help the economy, but it's harder to tell the lasting impact. Does that spending help create jobs? I could see it as if a bunch of people buy TVs, maybe Best Buy can afford to keep more people on during the holidays. The positive aspect of trickle down is that you are increasing direct investment in other companies (or their own company) and that tends to be more reliable when creating jobs/improving economical conditions (but, it is an arguable point). The best comparison I can think of is trickle up is like getting a $5,000 bonus at your job and trickle down is like getting a $5,000 raise. They both help, the raise has some better long term viability.

In the end, taxes are a little like the fed rates or oil prices. The actual impact of an increase or decrease often pale in comparison to the confidence created/degraded. If you were to announce a cut in cap gains rate, it would spur on a lot more investment just from the mental side. A lot of the market's roller coaster state is based on uncertainty - both about the economical and political climate. The more certainty you can add in from a market-positive, the more investment you will see.

If you make OVER a certain amount (around 100k) you don't pay in on amount earned over that amount. So its not so much that you don't pay any social security, its that you pay such a small percentage more money you make. Its almost a regressive tax.

It seems that the so-called "Red" states seem to be benefitting the most from wealth redistribution, based on the amount they pay per capita in taxes versus what they get per capita in government spending.



source link: http://www.christiangrantham.com/200...wealth-around/

Public employees have their own retirement account and do not pay into SS (at least in some/all? states).

Ugh. Two White Supremacists' plans were foiled by the government. Their plan? Kill black people and Obama.

Please don't kill our future president, idiots!

I wonder how many assasination attempts and murder plots have been foiled by the government over the past 30 years (since Kennedy and King)?

Apparently the Republicans are going to double down on their Palin as Reagan bet..

Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war for the future of the party - Telegraph

Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"

If they go with Palin in 2012, they will have guaranteed eight years of Obamania.

I like this quote from Burke:

My theory, btw, is that as we've become more democratized and have assumed greater powers in the shaping of the government, we have also not assumed the character and education of those who held that power previously. Therefore, it's pretty much our fault that things have gotten to this ridiculous point.

the social security wage base (amount of income that is subject to the 6.2 FICA payroll tax) is indexed to inflation and is increased yearly (historical table http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html) the amount of your SS benefit is based on your 35 highest years of income over your working life. the benefit is capped though (this cap also increases yearly), so that is why instituting the payroll tax on incomes over $250K is just a "re-distribution of the wealth" since people paying it on income over $250K will not see any of that money coming back to them.

if given the choice between contributing to social security, or having the money instead directed to an IRA that i could control, i would take the IRA choice every day and twice on sunday.

How is it regressive? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, as I said, isn't the amount you receive based on how much you put in? The logic that it is not "fair" if higher incomes are not paying in money beyond $103k, but are not receiving anything extra for their income beyond $103k, what is the harm? I have to look back at the original thread, but I'm not sure where the complaint was. People put in a certain amount of money, and in theory they receive money based on that contribution. Am I mistaken somewhere?



Again, I don't see the problem here. If you're not receiving anything from SS, I don't care if you're not putting into it.

I assume this is a "Republican" idea, and I, at this point in my life, consider myself more of a Democrat, but I'm having trouble seeing what the original complaint was.
I'm glad they didn't put us on there. ;) for 2005 New Mexico received $2.03 per $1 put into federal taxes. D.C. received $5.55.

The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005

That seems to be a no-brainer.

We got a lot of big government growth that stinks. Of course nobody is pushing to elect W in this election. But if you are saying that since W was bad, then Obama can be bad and it is fair. Well, that is a very pessimistic approach.