Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[albionmoonlight]

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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).

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).

[Flasch186]

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.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Arles

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).

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

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).

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?

[ISiddiqui]

Sneaky Mormons!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

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

"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)

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

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

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?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by molson

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?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I am not 100% sold on Obama's tax policy, but I think it's worth a shot.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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.

[QuikSand]

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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?

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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 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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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.

TESTIFY!

[JPhillips]

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!".

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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".

[JPhillips]

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.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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.

[Tigercat]

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.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

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.

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?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

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.

Regulation and taxation aren't the same thing.

[Arles]

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?

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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 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.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

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, 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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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).

[SirFozzie]

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

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.

[Daimyo]

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I've often wondered - with my very uneducated economic mind - why trickle up economics wouldn't be just as valid as trickle down economics.

I think because capitalism requires an undesirable lower class.

And I say that as a pro-capitalist.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I've often wondered - with my very uneducated economic mind - why trickle up economics wouldn't be just as valid as trickle down economics.

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.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

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?

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.

[cartman]

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/

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

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?

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

[mauchow]

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!

[Buccaneer]

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

[SirFozzie]

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.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

I like this quote from Burke:

When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.

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.

[evil homer]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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.

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.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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

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.

Originally Posted by cartman

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.

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

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by evil homer

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.

That seems to be a no-brainer.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

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

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.