heywood on 5/9/2008 at 20:59
Quote Posted by Starrfall
edit: I also want to know why anyone who is not in the top 5% or so of earners thinks McCain's tax policy is better for them than Obama's (remember that cuts to the lowest brackets help
everyone while cuts to the highest do not).
Because when Obama says he's going to lower taxes for 95% of the people, hardly anybody believes him. It's out of character for him to advocate tax cuts and they haven't been a centerpiece of his agenda until recently when he tacked to the center after the primaries ended. He's also promised a lot of new spending. Considering the huge deficit, he can't really spend more or cut taxes without being fiscally irresponsible and he certainly can't do both. With a Democratic President and Democratic Congress, which do you think is going to be of greater importance: spending priorities or tax cuts?
I also don't believe McCain is going to lower income taxes. His record indicates otherwise: more often than not, he has been an advocate of fiscal responsibility. A few times in the past, he let himself get pushed around by party leaders. But if he becomes President and de facto leader of the party, I don't think they have the same leverage over him and I don't think he's reckless enough to cut taxes again until the deficit comes down. And even if he wanted to, the Democratic Congress will be able to stop it (divided government has its merits).
Another thing to consider when analyzing the detailed plans that various campaigns put out is that Congress writes legislation, not the President. Any major policy initiatives like health care are going to get hashed out and negotiated in Congress for the better part of a session, and often longer. Any plans drafted during the campaign are at best suggestions.
paloalto90 on 5/9/2008 at 20:59
Thats only personal income tax.
demagogue on 5/9/2008 at 21:05
You don't have to keep shouting LYING. A simple link to factcheck.org is fine. :)
McCain, at least in the last speech, said that Obama would "raise taxes". There was no "your" in there.
The metaphor they used was saying "to say it wouldn't affect the middle class would be like taking water from one side of a bucket to protect the other side." (I'm just quoting, don't shout at me yet! Now I'll try to interpret: ) General point being that a staple of political economics is equilibrium. If you add costs in one place, it will be made up somewhere, either increasing the price of goods, or decreasing wages, etc. On top of that there is the opportunity cost of where that money would have gone otherwise, to what extent it would have been put into new work needing new employees or if they would have just bought a fourth yacht.
You can disagree with the economic theory behind those kinds of claims (a theoretical question); you can question to what extent the theory will actually work out that way to a significant extent (an empirical question) and you can question, even if it does, if such a trade-off is still worth it (a political question of value), and then other questions of political value like fairness or distributive justice that are independent of the outcome altogether, or at least add a thumb to the scale.
IMHO all of those questions are somewhat boring technical ones, so I still wonder where all the emotion comes from.
But anyway those are the points of attack IMO.
On this question, I'm still in the mindset of Greenspan's book criticizing Bush's last tax cuts about the negative effects it would have on monetary policy not being off-set empirically by gains in new wealth creation ... I'd have to re-read the argument if I'm going to talk about it, and it's also 2 years later, so I'd want to read up on what extent those criticisms still hold water to these numbers. But reading other editorials I have the impression that they do. Also, while it might still stand as a criticism of McCain, I'd also want to know what it says about Obama's plan, so that's another thing to read up on. But basically that was the one major trump advantage McCain could have offered to an independent like me and it seems on shaky ground.
If that's put aside, then I'm thinking more about America's strategic position in global governance. And I have the impression so far Obama would help mend fences at a time where that would be more benefit than harm. Big regions are up-and-coming, the EU and China, and I think a more participatory role would be a stronger role for the US just now, while the global economy is still young and impressionable.
Starrfall on 5/9/2008 at 21:22
Quote Posted by heywood
Considering the huge deficit, he can't really spend more or cut taxes without being fiscally irresponsible and he certainly can't do both. With a Democratic President and Democratic Congress, which do you think is going to be of greater importance: spending priorities or tax cuts?
I think one of the spending priorities is going to be not spending 10 billion/month in Iraq.
Quote Posted by paloalto90
Thats only personal income tax.
Yes. Feel free to say something about the rest of it.
Quote Posted by demagogue
You don't have to keep shouting LYING. A simple link to factcheck.org is fine. :)
Look I'm running out of more rational responses because the complete faith in the lies is so utterly baffling and frustrating goddddddd
Even if he didn't say it in the speech last time there have been other speeches and word is he's got an ad campaign all about how Obama is going to raise taxes for the middle/lower classes. I understand why some people may be uncertain about Obama but why flock to someone who's proven himself false?
And I don't really know much about taxes in the 90's but I don't think trickle-down economics works in reverse any more than it works in drive so no I don't really see how the suggestion that we'll all see our prices rise is anything more than rank speculation, especially when you apparently have 1992-2000 as an example of a similar tax plan and as far as I recall none of that doom and gloom came to pass.
It doesn't matter if they're boring and technical, they're
important.paloalto90 on 5/9/2008 at 21:34
It is hard to talk of Obamas business tax plan because he hasn't put out the
specifics yet.He hasn't defined what he considers a small business.
Universal health care isn't going to be cheap by any means neither is government funded preschool or gov funded education for all.
He has to get it from somewhere.
Starrfall on 5/9/2008 at 21:37
So you're just making up problems for now? Fair enough, I guess.
(edit: although you do realize that however he defines "small business" he wants to, for example, eliminate all capital gains taxes on them?)
SD on 5/9/2008 at 21:52
Quote Posted by paloalto90
Universal health care isn't going to be cheap by any means
It'll be cheaper than health insurance.
paloalto90 on 5/9/2008 at 22:09
You mean there won't be 10 dollar cotton swabs like 100 dollar hammers like the military does knowing the govt paying for it?
Quote:
It'll be cheaper than health insurance.
Haven't seen the numbers on that,however I will be forced to pay for health
lnsurance through taxation with very little choice about the matter or how much I am going to pay.
Kaleid on 5/9/2008 at 22:18
Insurance companies are really unneeded money grabbing middle-men.
