U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Strike For The South]

Since what we have been doing has not worked, yes!

Remember, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

........guess the conservatives did not get that memo.

Higher taxes and a larger federal goverment will not fix anything. It merley burdens normal working people with more taxes and red tape. I see no upside good sir

[m52nickerson]

Higher taxes and a larger federal government will not fix anything. It merely burdens normal working people with more taxes and red tape. I see no upside good sir

Obama does want to raise taxes......on people who make over $250,000 dollars a year. No exactly normal working class folks. He also wants to make sure the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, again 90% of those cuts were to large corporations.

Plus, over the last 8 year the conservatives have expanded the size of government to its largest size ever. Obama wants more over site in the corporate world, not the private.

Look at the simple fact.....

Clinton's 8 years the country had an economic boom.

Bush's 8 years the country has just about gone bust.

Tell me Strike, are you and your family better off now in Bush's last year, then you were in Clinton's?

[Ice]

I think we are there as evidenced by the success of Obama. We'll put aside the fact he beat the clinton machine at thier own game a second (not to minimalize it), but getting caught in the crap about his religion, racial make up, expirence is a waste of time.

Whats important here is people have realized whats important, and thats giving the U.S. political system a major enema and flushing out the conservatives. We realize whats important, we may stay the course (OMG am I quoting Bush?) here in the states but this ones a slam dunk.

Conservatives have set us back so far that the person who represents the greatest change will win. So it happens to be a black man, who had a muslim father and a white grandmother (I thought it would be a female, but I digress). The conservatives created an entire new cabinet level of government, forced Tommy Franks into a ridiculous battle plan for Iraq, created huge deficits, pissed on personal freedoms and have let the infrastructure of the country go to .

So whats important is, is someone put a new roll of toilet paper in the bathroom and flush

And thats whats going to happen. Sure you will be able to spend pages and pages and minutes of your time bickering back and forth with the various elements here at the org as to who voted for what bill when, or "does he raise his pinky when he drinks, thats the white coming out" but its really a very simple situation.

What is important, is the conservative government of the last 8 years has had a mamoth failre accross the board. They had it all in 2000 and what did they do with it? a well funded successful aids relief program in africa.

What people have come to realize, is that they made a mistake to trust Bush. Yep big mistake was made in 04, but hey 06 the people started to flush away the conservatives so hang in there. Your forecast for the future enlightenment is optomistic and its refreshing, but you've missed the mark its happening now.

Its happening now because the conservatives failed accross the board on a mamoth scale, their majority was unprecedented and they blew, so take heart friend we realized it.

Flush crap with crap. Brilliant.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Flush crap with crap. Brilliant.

Democrats are better than Republicans.

[CountArach]

Higher taxes and a larger federal goverment will not fix anything. It merley burdens normal working people with more taxes and red tape. I see no upside good sir

Higher taxes hey? With Obama taxes will be lower for the Middle class...

Economists of various ideological persuasions, however, view Mr. McCain’s assessment as inaccurate or exaggerated. Some question whether Mr. Obama’s tax plan can even be characterized as an increase. Some also argue that contrary to Mr. McCain’s assertions, the Democrat’s proposals, if enacted, would actually reduce taxes for the middle class — the voters both candidates see as the key to victory.

In a study of the candidates’ plans made public Wednesday, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that in contrast to Mr. McCain, “Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers.”

The study said, “The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution,” whereas “Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes.”

Other groups that focus on tax and economic policy are preparing similar analyses, but say they regard the Tax Policy Center’s assessment as highly reliable, based on its work in the past.

EDIT: And lol @ Sasaki

[Ice]

Obama does want to raise taxes......on people who make over $250,000 dollars a year.

Ah the old steal from the rich because they don't work enough for their money argument. I suppose that really doesn't ever get old because we all know anyone making over 250k a year deserves to have their taxes raised.

Oh wait, it gets really really old.

By the way, did you know Obama wants to "fix" social security by raising taxes on those who make over 102k a year? I'm sure anyone making 102k a year is wealthy too and deserves to be taxed more

God forbid we try to private portions or raise the retirement age. More taxes.

Wait. Does this really fix social security, or simply add more government spending to delay its collapse longer?

No exactly normal working class folks.

I beg to differ.

He also wants to make sure the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, again 90% of those cuts were to large corporations.

Really? Can I see link for that statistic? I thought Bush cut taxes across the board?

Plus, over the last 8 year the conservatives have expanded the size of government to its largest size ever. Obama wants more over site in the corporate world, not the private.

Link? Explanation? More red tape isn't always a good think. Can you specify what you are talking about?

Look at the simple fact.....

Clinton's 8 years the country had an economic boom.

Bush's 8 years the country has just about gone bust.

Gone bust? Do you know why the economy is sluggish right now? Do you know remember the great economic boom we had the last couple years before the housing crash? Do you know the reasons for the great economic boom AND CRASH UNDER CLINTON? If you do, I'd love to debate this with you.

Tell me Strike, are you and your family better off now in Bush's last year, then you were in Clinton's?

A weak argument at best. Obama is nothing like Bill Clinton. Clinton was a very moderate Democrat, while Obama is not imho.

[Ice]

Higher taxes hey? With Obama taxes will be lower for the Middle class...

That's great, CA. Raise the taxes on those who create the wealth in this country at a time when the economy and business's are struggling. I mean, those rich people are really stupid, right? Higher taxes won't encourage them to hide more of their assets, right?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

By the way, did you know Obama wants to "fix" social security by raising taxes on those who make over 102k a year? I'm sure anyone making 102k a year is wealthy too and deserves to be taxed more

Why do people say this? Of course making 102k a year is wealthy. Where do you live, the hamptons?

[Ice]

To set the record straight here, I'm not a fanboy of John McCain. Who I really wanted to see in Washington is Ron Paul. You'd see change under him, but not the same old crap we keep hearing about under Obama.

Although Paul didn't the get the ticket, I will vote for McCain. While I think he is old and disagree with him of many things ranging from the war and civil liberties, hopefully I can count on him to veto most of this crap the democrats will send through.

[Ice]

Why do people say this? Of course making 102k a year is wealthy. Where do you live, the hamptons?

No, Sasaki, I live in a mixed white collar/blue collar area about 20 minutes west of Detroit.

Where do you live, bubble**** nowhere, where you can buy a mansion for a 100k?

100k isn't wealthy in the slightest for a family of four, especially when you take into account the costs of higher education and other assorted costs.

[CountArach]

That's great, CA. Raise the taxes on those who create the wealth in this country at a time when the economy and business's are struggling. I mean, those rich people are really stupid, right? Higher taxes won't encourage them to hide more of their assets, right?

Tax cuts on the wealth won't stimulate growth. Seriously. Has there been a great deal of economic growth since the Bush tax cuts?

[Ice]

Tax cuts on the wealth won't stimulate growth. Seriously. Has there been a great deal of economic growth since the Bush tax cuts?

Hard to tell statistically what's from the tax cuts specifically due to the fact that the central bank had rates lowered at 1% for a while, but yes:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

Furthermore, the tax cuts weren't on wealth, but on income. Why can't it get through some of your heads, that some of the upper tier's that were cut were not famously wealthy. When one's taxes get cut by 3-4%, a lot of that money will be pumped back into the economy via purchases.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Democrats are better than Republicans.

No offense to Americans, but both the big parties suck. Badly. Really, you people should vote third party.

[CountArach]

100k isn't wealthy in the slightest for a family of four, especially when you take into account the costs of higher education and other assorted costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona..._United_States

The top 20% earn $92 000 and the top 5% earn $167 000. $102 000 slots in there somewhere.

I would say that is wealthy.

Anyway I'll get to the rest of the economy later today. I need to study for an exam I have tomorrow.

[discovery1]

Look at the lot of you, running to defend Obama like he's the answer to all of america's problems. Well let me say this, with a Democratic house and senate, he will be as great a disaster as Bush was, maybe even worse. I have 100 USD to back it up.

[seireikhaan]

Folks, one thing to remember is that what 100k buys you in one part of the country will be different than 100k in another part. 100k here in Iowa makes you a rather wealthy person, as prices are, generally, lower than most other parts of the country. 100k in Southern California will net you considerably less.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, Sasaki, I live in a mixed white collar/blue collar area about 20 minutes west of Detroit.

Where do you live, bubble**** nowhere, where you can buy a mansion for a 100k?

100k isn't wealthy in the slightest for a family of four, especially when you take into account the costs of higher education and other assorted costs.

I've spent a few minutes trying to compose an explanation but words fail me and I think we had this argument before. So let's just say our society values consumer products too much (they actually lead to depression) and that some family not being able to afford the latest flatscreen tv because of higher taxes isn't a tragedy especially when you consider they'll be able to buy the same tv for half the price in a years time. And the result is, you know, health care. This is probably futile since you also disagreed with people making 250k having higher taxes. Our great grandfathers would have laughed at what we consider "middle class".

[Xiahou]

Flush crap with crap. Brilliant.

By the way, did you know Obama wants to "fix" social security by raising taxes on those who make over 102k a year? I'm sure anyone making 102k a year is wealthy too and deserves to be taxed more

The best part about that is those same people will see nothing in return for that. That's right, they're being forced to pay money into a supposed retirement system that they'll never get a return on. This isn't "change" it's just the same tired old class warfare that we always get from Democrats.

Has there been a great deal of economic growth since the Bush tax cuts?

Yes.

I'd really love to hear how Obama intends to give "tax breaks" to the lower class as well- should be interesting to hear when you consider most low income households already pay little or no federal income taxes.

[Ice]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona..._United_States

The top 20% earn $92 000 and the top 5% earn $167 000. $102 000 slots in there somewhere.

I would say that is wealthy.

Define wealthy. If you define wealthy as having more money that the majority of people, someone who makes 51% would be considered wealthy.

So what is your definition? Where do you draw the arbitrary line in a country of over 300 million people? Do you think making 100k in NYC equates to making 100k in El Paso Texas?

Anyway I'll get to the rest of the economy later today. I need to study for an exam I have tomorrow.

It's been a while since I've had a good debate on this. I look forward to it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Folks, one thing to remember is that what 100k buys you in one part of the country will be different than 100k in another part. 100k here in Iowa makes you a rather wealthy person, as prices are, generally, lower than most other parts of the country. 100k in Southern California will net you considerably less.

There's a reason people are willing to pay $2,000 a month in manhattan instead of $300 in Iowa. 100k in SoCal doesn't get you less--it get's you SoCal. Never been there, but I've been to Iowa. 'Nuff said.

[Ice]

I've spent a few minutes trying to compose an explanation but words fail me and I think we had this argument before.

Most likely. You should see me at college. Your ideas are a dime a dozen there.

So let's just say our society

replaces the bolded with human nature

values consumer products too much (they actually lead to depression) and that some family not being able to afford the latest flatscreen tv because of higher taxes isn't a tragedy especially when you consider they'll be able to buy the same tv for half the price in a years time.

That's a rather large generalization you just made. Keep making them though it's nothing different. Let me guess, next you'll time me how everyone making over the "middle class line" owns a yacht?

And the result is, you know, health care. This is probably futile since you also disagreed with people making 250k having higher taxes.

I never said that. I disagree with them getting a tax increase when everyone else does not.

I believe John F Kennedy, a democrat ironically, illustrated my point well when he cuts taxes for everyone. My father once told me an excellent quote along the lines about how everyone deserves to have their taxes cut in times of prosperity, but I can't find it.

Our great grandfathers would have laughed at what we consider "

middle class".

I'd understand why they were laughing, however, this isn't 1910 anymore.

[Ice]

There's a reason people are willing to pay $2,000 a month in manhattan instead of $300 in Iowa. 100k in SoCal doesn't get you less--it get's you SoCal. Never been there, but I've been to Iowa. 'Nuff said.

I'm not seeing the point here.

[ajaxfetish]

I'm not seeing the point here.

If someone in SoCal wanted to be able to buy more stuff but couldn't because of the price of living in SoCal, they could move to Iowa, where they could afford the more stuff. There's a reason some places are more expensive than others. The land itself has value and is among the stuffs they're paying for. They're still just as wealthy as a person with the same income living in Iowa; they're just spending more of their wealth on their location instead of on other stuff. It was a pretty simple point.

Ajax

[CountArach]

Hard to tell statistically what's from the tax cuts specifically due to the fact that the central bank had rates lowered at 1% for a while, but yes:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

Studying bored me, so I'm going to look at some economic charts...

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfe...shots_20051026
As can be seen at this link, while there has been economic growth in all but one key indicator, the growth has been far slower than it was prior to the tax cuts.

But on the same site I found a great study here that explores the effects of the tax cuts.

Page 3 covers GDP and concludes the same thing - that GDP increased, but far slower than the previous cycles. When he looks at Gross Domestic Income the number agrees with his conclusions about GDP. The writer then goes on to look at Private Sector job growth (Page 4). It is concluded that the number at the time of publishing (October 2005) was only 1% higher than March 2001 - compared to an average of 9.1% in previous cycles with the lowest coming in at 6.9%. Thus the Tax Cuts haven't encouraged entrepreneurship.

Page 5 is interesting:

In making the case for the tax cuts of 2003, the Bush Administration acknowledged that strong job growth should be expected without tax cuts. It projected that 4.1 million jobs would be created between mid-2003 and the end of 2004 without the 2003 tax cuts, and that 5.5 million jobs would be created with the tax cuts. In fact, Congress enacted even deeper tax cuts than those on which the Bush Administration’s estimates were based. Even so, only 2.6 million jobs were created over that 18-month period. Thus, by the Bush Administration’s own analysis, the 2003 tax cuts failed to create more jobs than would have been expected without the tax cuts.

So Bush failed, even by his own reckoning

Page 6 - Personal income had stalled over the year this was created - again falling lower than the lowest points of the previous cycles.

I'll come back to the rest if I can be bothered. For now I'll let you chew through that.

[Ice]

If someone in SoCal wanted to be able to buy more stuff but couldn't because of the price of living in SoCal, they could move to Iowa, where they could afford the more stuff. There's a reason some places are more expensive than others. The land itself has value and is among the stuffs they're paying for. They're still just as wealthy as a person with the same income living in Iowa; they're just spending more of their wealth on their location instead of on other stuff. It was a pretty simple point.

Ajax

Yeah it's really that simple. I'll work as an investment banker in Iow... oh wait, that's right I can't.

I was born in Southern California and all my family lives here, but it's too expensive so I guess I'll move out to the middle of no where to live where I can find an identical job.

Yeah real simple.

The black and white crowd continues to amaze me.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Kush is absolutely right.

Obama's huge payroll tax increase (slightly over 12%) on the wealthy will certainly hurt the economy. It will just stave off the collapse of social security a bit longer. Lots of Americans have mutual funds and that benefited from the tax rate cuts on dividends or the like.

McCain mentioned that he would cut our very high corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% - a very necessary move.

Obama is a anti-trade panderer. Getting rid of NAFTA will hurt the whole economy.

The GOP deserves a beat-down. But handing the keys to a large dem majority will let them run wild and ruin our country with the same plethora of government programs from four decades ago that were all failures. And by same, I do mean the very same sort of programs, defrosted and reheated for Obama.

Or take the idiotic plan of "windfall profits" on oil companies. Exxon, right now, pays 44% of every dollar it makes to the government. ~10% of every dollar is profit. The dems are a bunch of greedy, populist schemers who want to seize that money and let the gov't get fatter off of it.

Some good articles here and here.

The problems are obvious. The retirement of the baby boomers is going to have a crippling effect on all government budgets—federal, state and local. Unless entitlements are trimmed substantially, America is headed for fiscal bankruptcy. Immigration policy needs reform, most urgently so that the United States can once again attract the world's most talented people. Spending on research, technology and infrastructure needs a big boost. (U.S. spending on infrastructure as a percentage of GDP is the lowest in the industrialized world today.) Energy policy needs to be overhauled. Trade policy needs to be revitalized. Tax and regulatory codes need to be simplified in order to keep America a competitive place to do business.

Obama, of course, isn't going to do any of that.

CR

[CountArach]

Some good articles here and here.

Sorry CR but neither of them tell me anything about why lifting the top tax bracket would be bad for the economy. Also the second article claims that the economy won't go into recession - which is contrary to the opinion of almost every major economist.

[m52nickerson]

Ah the old steal from the rich because they don't work enough for their money argument. I suppose that really doesn't ever get old because we all know anyone making over 250k a year deserves to have their taxes raised.

Oh wait, it gets really really old.

So I take it you make over 250k. Well if you are paying more taxes is not going to change your life style.

By the way, did you know Obama wants to "fix" social security by raising taxes on those who make over 102k a year? I'm sure anyone making 102k a year is wealthy too and deserves to be taxed more

102k is a very good living. Not what I would call working class.

God forbid we try to private portions or raise the retirement age. More taxes.

Because privatized Health care has worked so well. Do you want to work until your 70.

Wait. Does this really fix social security, or simply add more government spending to delay its collapse longer?

Better than nothing, or privatization.

I beg to differ.

I dont, my wife and my self both work 40 hours a week and together brought home just over 60k. That is working class. So you are tell ME that someone who make more than 40% more then we do is still working class?

Really? Can I see link for that statistic? I thought Bush cut taxes across the board?

I will apologize because I got two issues rolled into one.
90% of the tax cuts went to the top two brackets. http://www.factcheck.org/here_we_go_...rates_tax.html
If you look at the first chart and add up all the average tax change and then add up just the top two bracket you find that the top two had 88% of the cut. Sorry off be 2%.

The other was Bush's corporate tax cuts. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/

Link? Explanation? More red tape isn't always a good think. Can you specify what you are talking about?

Well we had the addition of the office of home land security. We also had a steep increase in Government spending. The size of the government is not just rules but how much money it uses. http://mises.org/story/2116

Gone bust? Do you know why the economy is sluggish right now? Do you know remember the great economic boom we had the last couple years before the housing crash? Do you know the reasons for the great economic boom AND CRASH UNDER CLINTON? If you do, I'd love to debate this with you.

Crashed under Clinton? So let me get this straight the economy was doing very well when Bush took office, then four or five years later the economy slowed partly because of the housing market and it was Clinton's fault?

A weak argument at best. Obama is nothing like Bill Clinton. Clinton was a very moderate Democrat, while Obama is not imho.

He is still a Democrat, and other than his health care reform his economic plan shares major point with Clinton's plan.

[m52nickerson]

Kush is absolutely right.

Obama's huge payroll tax increase (slightly over 12%) on the wealthy will certainly hurt the economy. It will just stave off the collapse of social security a bit longer. Lots of Americans have mutual funds and that benefited from the tax rate cuts on dividends or the like.

McCain mentioned that he would cut our very high corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% - a very necessary move.

That is called Trickle-Down economics. Reagan did that and it does not work, unless you want to help drive inflation.

[Ice]

Studying bored me, so I'm going to look at some economic charts...

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfe...shots_20051026
As can be seen at this link, while there has been economic growth in all but one key indicator, the growth has been far slower than it was prior to the tax cuts.

But on the same site I found a great study here that explores the effects of the tax cuts.

Page 3 covers GDP and concludes the same thing - that GDP increased, but far slower than the previous cycles. When he looks at Gross Domestic Income the number agrees with his conclusions about GDP. The writer then goes on to look at Private Sector job growth (Page 4). It is concluded that the number at the time of publishing (October 2005) was only 1% higher than March 2001 - compared to an average of 9.1% in previous cycles with the lowest coming in at 6.9%. Thus the Tax Cuts haven't encouraged entrepreneurship.

Page 5 is interesting:

So Bush failed, even by his own reckoning

Page 6 - Personal income had stalled over the year this was created - again falling lower than the lowest points of the previous cycles.

I'll come back to the rest if I can be bothered. For now I'll let you chew through that.

It's relative, CA.

http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/rr109-32.pdf

Also, CA, how much information in that report you posted can attributed to the actual tax cuts? It really is hard to isolate the cuts to see their exact value on the economy, as your report shows it claims that somehow housing investment went up when, historically, it was suppose to go down with tax cuts. Other factors were acting on the economy.

However, the USA did pretty damn good in comparison to many industrialized countries as the report shows. How much is attributed to the tax cuts? I really don't know.