On the Economy:
About economics
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_3_economics.html
Obama's Plan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
On the War:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/obama-in-iraq-s-quicksand-11869
On his Resume/Accomplishments:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/what_has_obama_accomplished.html
Are you really going to vote for this guy?!!! You must be kidding!!! I guess eloquence is more important than actual substance and character.
McCain is a Maverick!! If you really want change he's your guy!! Plus he won't destroy the economy or lose a war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I am more than happy to comment on each of these points. However, your tactic of finding "neoconservative McCain supporters" just undermines your position.
Quick point about taxes, after this weeks headlines about a $500 billion budget deficit, support for McCain's tax policy has no base.
Most economists will argue that taxes are on a bell curve, which at some point when you raise them the return will be negative.
Excerpt from an article about American Power, written by Fareed Zakaria.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_future_of_american_power.html
-For most of the last 30 years, the United States had the lowest corporate tax rates of the major industrialized countries. Today, it has the second highest. U.S. rates have not gone up; others have come down. Germany, for example, long a staunch believer in its high-taxation system, has cut its rates in response to moves by countries to its east, such as Austria and Slovakia. This kind of competition among industrialized countries is now widespread. It is not a race to the bottom -- Scandinavian countries have high taxes, good services, and strong growth -- but a quest for growth. U.S. regulations used to be more flexible and market-friendly than all others. That is no longer true. London's financial system was overhauled in 2001, with a single entity replacing a confusing mishmash of regulators, which is one reason that London's financial sector now beats out New York's on some measures. The entire British government works aggressively to make London a global hub. Regulators from Warsaw to Shanghai to Mumbai are moving every day to make their systems more attractive to investors and manufacturers. Washington, by contrast, spends its time and energy thinking of ways to tax New York, so that it can send its revenues to the rest of the country.-
You're mistaken to think Obama's plan has legs upon which to stand. Taxes are not the answer. You build the economy and tax revenues go up, you stifle the economy and tax revenue goes down.... You can raise the tax to 75%, but 75% of everyone moving their business to China/India is not much at all.
You don't cut income to the federal government when you are fighting two wars one of which, McCain says, may lead to our presence in Iraq just like S. Korea. I appreciate your concern for all those people making >$250K (<5% of the country). Obama's plan cuts taxes for most people but ends up bringing in revenue. McCain increases the deficit substantially.
I appreciate Zarkaria's perspective and he supports Obama's view on foreign policy.
Newsweek (7/28/08)
"In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology—temperament. McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system. To him, countries like Iran and North Korea are holdouts against the tide of history. America's job is to push these progressive forces forward, using soft power more than hard, and to try to get the world's major powers to solve the world's major problems. Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don't call him naive."
That >$250k sounds good in theory, but I have 3 friend out here that own small businesses. They all claim their business income in essence as personal income. They employ between 9-30 people and have revenue in the $1mil to $5mil range, remember the rates on there profits will also be taxed at the higher rate… This will hurt them and their business. They are not rich by any means, they take in around $120k to $150k… but Obama would have them making 30% less on average over the $250k mark for their businesses.
Notice: Factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html
McCain's Small-Business Bunk
July 14, 2008
He claims 23 million small-business owners would pay higher tax rates under Obama. He's wrong. The vast majority would see no change, and many would get a cut.
From NYT 03/26/08
“The supply-siders predicted in the 1990s that raising rates, even for deficit reduction, would lead us to recession,” Mr. Sperling said. “What followed instead was the longest recovery in history, and the people whose tax rates went up had exceptional income gains.”
NYU: Stern School of Business
The deficit reduction plan that Clinton proposed was based on a limited increase in income tax rates (only for the very rich), an increase in various indirect taxes and a slowdown in the real growth of government spending.
At the time of the passage of the deficit reduction plan, supply-siders critics of the package argued that the increase in tax rates would:
1. Push the economy into a recession and reduce long-term growth.
2. Increase the budget deficits as individuals would reduce their labor supply and savings would be reduced.
3. Increase real interest rates because of the increase in deficits.
The effects of the deficit reduction plan turned out to be very different from the dismal prediction of supply siders:
1. The budget deficit fell from 290b US $ in 1992 (4.9% of GDP) to 104b US $ in 1996 (1.2% of GDP). The debt to GDP has started to fall after having continuosly increased since 1978.
2. The economy boomed in 1993 and 1994 after the 1990-91 recession and the economy grew at solid an average rate of 2.8% in the 1992-96 period.
3. Real interest rates have remained stable (they are at 2% in 1996 at the short-end of the maturity structure) and significantly lower than the high rates of the 1980s (5% in real terms).
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan chopped the highest personal income tax rate from the confiscatory 70% rate that he inherited when he entered office to 28% when he left office and the resulting economic burst caused federal tax receipts to almost precisely double: from $517 billion to $1,032 billion.
Now we have overpowering confirming evidence from the Bush tax cuts of May 2003. The jewel of the Bush economic plan was the reduction in tax rates on dividends from 39.6% to 15% and on capital gains from 20% to 15%. These sharp cuts in the double tax on capital investment were intended to reverse the 2000-01 stock market crash, which had liquidated some $6 trillion in American household wealth, and to inspire a revival in business capital investment, which had also collapsed during the recession. The tax cuts were narrowly enacted despite the usual indignant primal screams from the greed and envy lobby about "tax cuts for the super rich."
In June of 2005 the Congressional Budget Office released its report on tax revenue collections. The numbers are an eye-popping vindication of the Laffer Curve and the Bush tax cut's real economic value. Federal tax revenues surged in the first eight months of this fiscal year 2005 by $187 billion. This represents a 15.4% rise in federal tax receipts over 2004. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have exploded like a cap let off a geyser, up 30% in the two years since the tax cut. Once again, tax rate cuts have created a virtuous chain reaction of higher economic growth, more jobs, higher corporate profits, and finally more tax receipts.
This Laffer Curve effect has also created a revenue windfall for states and cities. As the economic expansion has plowed forward, and in some regions of the country accelerated, state tax receipts have climbed 7.5% in 2005. Perhaps the most remarkable story from around the nation comes from the perpetually indebted New York City, which suddenly found itself more than $3 billion in surplus thanks to an unexpected gush in revenues. Many of President Bush's critics foolishly predicted that states and localities would be victims of the Bush tax cut gamble.
History tells the story both ways...
If the Banking/Mortgage meltdown didn't occur and Bush didn't have two wars to pay for you might be singing a different tune about tax cuts.
If history says both economic policies work, then one has to decide which is best for right now...
when we are at war, when education and science has been underfunded, when SS and Medicare need desperate attention (kudos to Bush for bring this to the table and the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for not even working on it), and healthcare is so lacking.
From Five Easy Pieces and Two Trillion Dollars
The Bush-McCain-Norquist Tax Agenda
By Robert Gordon, James Kvaal
"In 2001 and 2003, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) opposed the Bush tax cuts, arguing that they came “at the expense of lower- and middle-income Americans” and were too costly in a time of war.2 As a presidential candidate, however, McCain not only embraces the Bush tax cuts but also proposes massive additional tax cuts that are even more tilted against the middle class.
In the final analysis, we conclude that the McCain tax plan is essentially a continuation of the agenda articulated by Norquist and others to achieve piecemeal but radical changes to the U.S. tax code under the heading of “Five Easy Pieces.” These changes require huge spending cuts, shift the tax burden away from capital and onto labor, and come “at the expense of lower- and middle-income Americans.”
Now the question becomes not who is Barack Obama but which John McCain would be in office if elected. You hope for the Maverick, the one who appeared on Sunday's "This Week with GS" and said that tax increases must be on the table to solve our problems. But two days later, after the Republican machine told him to do so, he changed his stance and essentially guaranteed no new taxes. McCain was probably the best choice for president in 2000. Unfortunately, our country is very different in 2008.
All the analysis you quote assumes that the taxable revenue/income stays the same. Most people agree that cutting taxes increases business, lowers unemployment, and therefore increases actual tax revenue. When the economy is strong; tax revenue will be high, when the economy is weak tax revenue will be low. When the economy is weak the government should spend less, I do!!!
If I make less money, I have to spend less.... Why is it that the government never cuts anything? Do you think the US government is waste free? Can we say "Farm subsidy"? Medicare overspending? The US Post Office? Amtrak? I could site about 300 to 500 government departments that waste tons of money or are completely redundant.
I think our disagreement is philosophical in nature. Do you think people who make money are bad? Do you think business is bad and the US government is somehow inherently good? When was the last time you were happy about the way in which the US government spent your tax dollars? I know everyday I see a crazy amount of waste, maybe you should be asking why the government needs more money in the first place.
And on a side note, the reason why the top 1% benefits the most from tax cuts is because they pay the most taxes. How can it possibly be fair to pay over 50 cents on every dollar earned to the government? The highest 20% pay 80% of the taxes.
California example: pay over $78k you'll pay 28% Fed, 6.2% SS, Medicare 1.4%, CA Tax 9.3%, CA SDI 0.8%. That’s right around 50 cents on a dollar... Then spend your money in state and pay 8% sales tax.
Do you really believe this is fair? If so that’s cool, but I don’t.
Progressive tax is a Marxist idea.
First of all, I was introduced into politics during the 1980 presidential campaign, was inspired by Reagans rhetoric (which has a lot of similarity to Obama except for outlawing the Soviet Union) and I have no problem with supply side economics and people making money. I received those same Bush tax cuts.
However, the Republican congress lost me during the late 90s and with Bush they drove this country and all it stands for (the Constitution) into the ground. It is clear that McCain will continue similar policies.
Now about your perspective on CA taxes which are very high. Indiana taxes are very low and thus our roads are nothing but potholes. But you forgot to take into account, adjusted income, deduction etc. Nobody pays that much and moreover, people of the higher income brackets make significant money away from income taxes and thus pay lower % with capital gains.
Just remember this all started with the title of your post. How about a nice positive piece about McCain...if you can think of anything...his ad department seems to be in a similar quandary.
I've wanted to avoid this discussion because it's so early in the year. Nevertheless, I'll pick up Rich's challenge.
NB: I will vote for McCain, although I'm not superkeen on the guy. I’m about a 6 for McCain. I’m guessing that Rich is a 7 or an 8 in terms of enthusiasm for Obama. I won't be voting for Obama, but I completely understand those who will.
Things I like about McCain the man:
1. He's actually quite open. I admire the fact that he's kept a running conversation with the press. It's good politics, sure, but lots of interaction with the press on their terms is a good trait in any president.
2. He has, at times, revealed a good bit of both personal and political courage. It hasn't shown recently (the political courage), but it's in his past.
3. Being a longtime senator, he's managed to cut deals and make political compromises with Democrats. If elected, he'll be doing a lot of that.
Things I like about McCain, politically:
1. Both McCain and Obama have the Medicare/Big Pharma "no negotiation" clause in their sights. McCain will be the most likely to agree with senate GOPers that it shouldn't be touched.
2. McCain’s record on the war is, as far as things go, pretty good.
3. Recent compromises notwithstanding, McCain’s made the right enemies in the GOP.
Future posts: Things I like/dislike about Obama, things I dislike about McCain.
Thanks Jim. I agree with all your points. McCain would have had my vote in 2000 unless Bill Bradley made the cut.
I do have concerns about Obama's policies although it is fair to say that no one knows if he will be more moderate once in Office.
However, I feel that Obama will re-establish pride in our country both here at home and our position in the world that we have lost.
By the way, I am writing this one handed and loaded up on drugs.
Post a Comment