2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[PanzerJaeger]

Statements like this bother me. There are some real differences between the candidates, even if those differences are getting a bit lost in the Issue of the Day 24-hour news cycle. Here's a smart person talking about it:

Below all the mudslinging lies a real divide. Obama has been making the case that the U.S. economy needs investment — in infrastructure, education, training, basic sciences and technologies of the future. Those investments, in the president’s telling, have been the key drivers of American growth and have enabled people to build businesses, create jobs and invent the future.

Romney argues that America needs tax and regulatory relief. The country is overburdened by government mandates, taxes and rules that make it difficult for businesses to function, grow and prosper, he says. He wants to cut taxes for all, reduce regulations and streamline government. All this, in his telling, will unleash America’s entrepreneurial energy.

Both views have merit. It would make for a great campaign if our nation had a sustained discussion around these ideas. Then the election would produce a mandate to move in one of these directions.

This is typical Zakaria oversimplification. According to Romney, tax and regulatory reform free up capital, which is then reinvested in new ventures. That business growth fosters growth in the tax base and organic revenue growth, as opposed to foreign indebtedness.

This is really an argument over public versus private investment and which approach will yield sustainable levels of prosperity.

[Lemur]

as opposed to foreign indebtedness.

Oh, that's not accurate. Romney's budget plans, as proposed right now, would involve larger deficts than Obama. He's already committed to tax cuts, funded by debt, an increase in military spending, financed by debt, and has stated that he won't touch medicare, medicaid or SS. So whatever you're envisioning down the road, the immediate (say, at least a decade) impact will be a mssive increase in debt.

Remember, once Republicans hold office, deficits stop mattering. It's magic.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh, that's not accurate. Romney's budget plans, as proposed right now, would involve larger deficts than Obama. He's already committed to tax cuts, funded by debt, an increase in military spending, financed by debt, and has stated that he won't touch medicare, medicaid or SS. So whatever you're envisioning down the road, the immediate (say, at least a decade) impact will be a mssive increase in debt.

Remember, once Republicans hold office, deficits stop mattering. It's magic.

That depends on your outlook. Short term, their is no way to escape the debt. Long term, will the nation be better served through public or private investment? I would argue that sustainable public investment must be built on a strong private sector tax base.

[Lemur]

I would argue that sustainable public investment must be built on a strong private sector tax base.

That's not an argument, that's an obvious. The question is how to achieve that strong private sector.

I would argue if slashing taxes were the solution, we would know about it by now. The Bush Tax Cuts have had a decade to yield massive wealth to society, and have manifestly failed to do so. Moreover, we're at historic lows in marginal tax rates, and yet we're stuck in a very slow recovery.

Do businessmen complain about regulation and taxes? Constantly. Do they ever, under any circumstances, not complain about regulation and taxes? Nope. They're like Marines that way.

But when surveyed for what actually concerns them as businessmen, I believe demand wins the day by a long margin. (Don't tell CR I referenced a percentage again. He's traumatized.)

[PanzerJaeger]

That's not an argument, that's an obvious. The question is how to achieve that strong private sector.

I would argue if slashing taxes were the solution, we would know about it by now. The Bush Tax Cuts have had a decade to yield massive wealth to society, and have manifestly failed to do so. Moreover, we're at historic lows in marginal tax rates, and yet we're stuck in a very slow recovery.

Ack. I've refuted this same reductionist pop-economics line several times on this board already. => Bush cut taxes and the economy sucks, thus the Bush tax cuts failed.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that tax policy is only one factor among many that, taken together, dictate economic trends. Significant economic growth actually did follow the Bush tax cuts, and a strong argument could be made that they helped bolster the nation against the economic headwinds coming from the East. And, of course, the economic crisis had nothing to do with tax policy. It is very difficult to accurately gauge the effectiveness of tax rate changes with so much other data effecting economic performance.

So while the exact effect the Bush cuts had on the economy may never be known, what is known with more certainty, is that raising taxes during a period of economic distress - as the current president has been campaigning on - is generally a bad idea.

Anyone who wants to break down Zakaria's argument should probably start here.

And just for fun - I'm always reminded of this TNR blurb on Zakaria any time he is invoked in a serious discussion. The man is pseudo intellectualism embodied.

FAREED ZAKARIA
Fareed Zakaria is enormously important to an understanding of many things, because he provides a one-stop example of conventional thinking about them all. He is a barometer in a good suit, a creature of establishment consensus, an exemplary spokesman for the always-evolving middle. He was for the Iraq war when almost everybody was for it, criticized it when almost everybody criticized it, and now is an active member of the ubiquitous “declining American power” chorus. When Obama wanted to trust the Iranians, Zakaria agreed (“They May Not Want the Bomb,” was a story he did for Newsweek); and, when Obama learned different, Zakaria thought differently. There’s something suspicious about a thinker always so perfectly in tune with the moment. Most of Zakaria’s appeal is owed to the A-list aura that he likes to give off—“At the influential TED conference ...” began a recent piece in The New York Times. On his CNN show, he ingratiates himself to his high-powered guests. This mix of elitism and banality is unattractive. And so is this: “My friends all say I’m going to be Secretary of State,” Zakaria told New York magazine in 2003. “But I don’t see how that would be much different from the job I have now.” Zakaria later denied making those remarks.

[PanzerJaeger]

Trickle-down is the biggest load of crap the American people have ever bought into. We've followed it almost religiously since Reagan, and yet the wealth gap is bigger than it was before trickle-down theory became all the rage. Over a quarter of a century is more than enough time to declare it a stupid philosophy.

Sigh. Again, you're drawing a direct connection that does not exist. America's wealth gap is the result of changes in the economy, not tax policy. Just because something happened at the same time that something else was going on does not make the the two related.

[Major Robert Dump]

Hi guys,

Great debate,

But all these numbers and research are giving me a headache

Can we please just hyperbolize on some abortionz and school prayerz and the gayz? K?