McCain/Obama and Economy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Individuals would have to become savers instead of debtors. Real wealth can only come from saving. One either saves what he has and uses it towards productive means later or he borrows and must then “save” when his debts become due. Credit is a useful tool but does not negate the laws of economics.
[/quote]

It also does not create a boom and bust cycle. Assuming you are talking about consumer credit. Business forcasting, credit, debt, and spending create swings in the economy.

Creating money in and of itself is not entirly evil. The key is not to cloud market signals. All businesses must forecast demand and wild or unanticipated swings in the money supply only make forecasting demand, costs and pricing that much more difficult.

A planned steady inflation rate, zero inflation, or a planned steady deflation are not disasterous, but regular changes from + to 0 to - are a huge part of the boom bust cycle.

62

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
This was a post and my response from another thread.

I’d like to use this thread to discuss the approach of each to the economy: 1) Is it even the role of the President to be responsible for the economy beyond signing the budget, 2) What are the approaches of each candidate and why will it help?

Original post:

beebuddy wrote:

I am not anti-McCain, though I strongly dislike the idea of Palin being president, and this year my vote is going to be based completely on who I agree with economically.

My response:
[i]
This is a fascinating statement to me-- worthy of another thread.

I honestly can’t figure out how people are ‘on the fence’ about these two candidates beyond that they are both politicians who’s only goal is to be President.

I truly believe that if I’m going to subsidize public schools with my (over) taxed paycheck, Economics and History should be taught from Day 1 until the day they graduate.
[/i][/quote]

Personally, I think this question depends on from which vantage point you’re looking at the economy. I’m a small business owner and I can guarantee that I look at it differently than my brother-in-law who is an exec at GE. We are in the same tax bracket, and the change in income taxes would have the same net effect for both of us.

However, I have issues like health care and the proposed change to capital gains taxes on small businesses to contemplate. In 2004, I could have cared less if Kerry’s health care plan or Bush’s health care plan won out. Both would have had the same result for me (being more competitive in the market for talented employees).

I’ve been through two administrations (one dem and one repub) and nothing has changed. I don’t think most people understand what a drag on the economy this really is. It’s not just the cost of health care for me to employee my next employee…if they have any condition, or are simply just a bit older, they raise the premiums on all my employees.

Call this one a wash between the two parties from experience. Which one do I think will actually do something about it? Dems.

Now the cap gains being eliminated on small businesses is huge for me. Not only will it significantly increase my net worth, but it makes capital invested from outside parties into my businesses more attractive.

It also encourages me to invest back into those businesses and utilize the leverage that my income statement has in it. Essentially I can swap paying income tax today for paying no cap gains taxes in the near future. That’s a no brainer for me, I’ll go for the Dems.

All that being said, I still respect my brother-in-law’s opinion and come election night we will probably cancel each other out.

63

[quote]ajcook99 wrote:

Personally, I think this question depends on from which vantage point you’re looking at the economy. I’m a small business owner and I can guarantee that I look at it differently than my brother-in-law who is an exec at GE. We are in the same tax bracket, and the change in income taxes would have the same net effect for both of us.

However, I have issues like health care and the proposed change to capital gains taxes on small businesses to contemplate. In 2004, I could have cared less if Kerry’s health care plan or Bush’s health care plan won out.

Both would have had the same result for me (being more competitive in the market for talented employees). I’ve been through two administrations (one dem and one repub) and nothing has changed. I don’t think most people understand what a drag on the economy this really is.

It’s not just the cost of health care for me to employee my next employee…if they have any condition, or are simply just a bit older, they raise the premiums on all my employees. Call this one a wash between the two parties from experience. Which one do I think will actually do something about it? Dems.
[/quote]

Are you saying you would happily have them destroy the best health care system in world so you didn’t have to pay for it? How about voting for who is best for the country and not just yourself.

There are much better solutions then what the Dems are proposing. I am assuming you mean nationalization of health care. If not disregard.

Again, as long as you get yours, brilliant.

[quote]
All that being said, I still respect my brother-in-law’s opinion and come election night we will probably cancel each other out.[/quote]

It is our duty to do what is best for the county. If you are voting just to satisfy your own needs at the expense of ohters, you are no better than any of the lobbists or special interest groups. This is no different than a direct subsidy.

64

[quote]dhickey wrote:
ajcook99 wrote:

Personally, I think this question depends on from which vantage point you’re looking at the economy. I’m a small business owner and I can guarantee that I look at it differently than my brother-in-law who is an exec at GE. We are in the same tax bracket, and the change in income taxes would have the same net effect for both of us.

However, I have issues like health care and the proposed change to capital gains taxes on small businesses to contemplate. In 2004, I could have cared less if Kerry’s health care plan or Bush’s health care plan won out.

Both would have had the same result fTor me (being more competitive in the market for talented employees). I’ve been through two administrations (one dem and one repub) and nothing has changed. I don’t think most people understand what a drag on the economy this really is.

It’s not just the cost of health care for me to employee my next employee…if they have any condition, or are simply just a bit older, they raise the premiums on all my employees. Call this one a wash between the two parties from experience. Which one do I think will actually do something about it? Dems.

Are you saying you would happily have them destroy the best health care system in world so you didn’t have to pay for it? How about voting for who is best for the country and not just yourself.

There are much better solutions then what the Dems are proposing. I am assuming you mean nationalization of health care. If not disregard.

Now the cap gains being eliminated on small businesses is huge for me. Not only will it significantly increase my net worth, but it makes capital invested from outside parties into my businesses more attractive.

It also encourages me to invest back into those businesses and utilize the leverage that my income statement has in it. Essentially I can swap paying income tax today for paying no cap gains taxes in the near future. That’s a no brainer for me, I’ll go for the Dems.

Again, as long as you get yours, brilliant.

All that being said, I still respect my brother-in-law’s opinion and come election night we will probably cancel each other out.

It is our duty to do what is best for the county. If you are voting just to satisfy your own needs at the expense of ohters, you are no better than any of the lobbists or special interest groups. This is no different than a direct subsidy.
[/quote]

You’ll have to excuse the fact here that I have yet to master the ability to respond between quotes here, but to answer your questions:

  1. I don’t mean at all nationalization. And the point isn’t about whether or not I pay for it. Myself and every other small business owner are at a huge competitive disadvantage in the labor market because of the nature of health insurance underwriting.

I am more than happy to pay for coverage. Here’s a real world example, one of my companies has three employees not including myself. If I want to hire another person so that I can expand, I have to pay attention to that person’s demographics (nevermind that this is against the law).

That one person (not to mention anyone they plan to cover on my plan) could throw my entire insured base into another underwriting category. Furthermore, the insurance company doesn’t have to renew my policy at the next renewal date and I could lose coverage for my current employees.

Like I said, I don’t care if it’s a plan like Kerry’s where we have the option to buy into a federal base plan like what federal employees have or if it’s like Bush’s and business groups and associations are able to combine to create a wider insured pool.

After the republicans had 6 years of both the white house and congress and didn’t even come close to addressing the issue, I’m a bit skeptical that they’ll do anything in the next few years. Just my gut.

  1. Quite frankly I fail to see a point on your last comment. I am no better than anyone else that casts a vote a certain way because it is in their best interest.

I am no better than anyone who votes Republican or Democrat because they think they’ll cut taxes and they’ll have more money in their pocket. My “subsidy” is no different than anyone else’s. I mean my mother in law is leaning McCain because “she’s afraid that Obama” will ruin Social Security.

My brother law is leaning McCain because he doesn’t want to see income taxes at the top brackets increased. How is my motivation any different than theirs?

65

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Bring back Bill Clinton, the country was kicking ass back then.

If you use today’s standards and stances of the two parties, it turns out Clinton was a pretty good Republican…[/quote]

How butt puckeringly terrifying is that!?!?!?

66

[quote]ajcook99 wrote:
You’ll have to excuse the fact here that I have yet to master the ability to respond between quotes here, but to answer your questions:
[/quote]

To insert comments just type [/quot](i left the e out so it would show up) then type your comment. Then type [quot] after the comment. again, left the e out so it would show up.

Thanks for the clairification. I don’t beleive you should be forced to pay at all. I beleive health insurance should be ala carte and consumers should be allowed to shop around rather than forcing me to take coverage that the state deam appropriat.

So I beleive we agree here. Regulation is the problem and typcically Democrats would push for even greater regulation.

[quote]
2. Quite frankly I fail to see a point on your last comment. I am no better than anyone else that casts a vote a certain way because it is in their best interest. I am no better than anyone who votes Republican or Democrat because they think they’ll cut taxes and they’ll have more money in their pocket.

My “subsidy” is no different than anyone else’s. I mean my mother in law is leaning McCain because “she’s afraid that Obama” will ruin Social Security. My brother law is leaning McCain because he doesn’t want to see income taxes at the top brackets increased. How is my motivation any different than theirs?
[/quote]

We should not cast a vote based on a favorable outcome for ourselves at the expense of others. In your example, I would vote for the candidate that would reduce spending and cut taxes in general. Not the one that will shift the burden from me to someone else.

I may vote for someone that supported consumption tax as opposed to income tax. At face value this could lower my tax burden and increase the tax burden for someone that does not pay income taxes.

My purpose for doing this is not to shift my current burden. It would be so that every american would have a very real reminder of what out of control spending and taxing does to this economy. I beleive there would be a real call for reform if everyone felt the pain. Everyone is being ripped off now, most just don’t know it.

67

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Bring back Bill Clinton, the country was kicking ass back then.

If you use today’s standards and stances of the two parties, it turns out Clinton was a pretty good Republican…

How butt puckeringly terrifying is that!?!?!?[/quote]

Not the reason we were kicking ass back then but he did make some good economic decisions. Much to the dismay of other Dems. Credit given.

Most people think boom = good and bust = bad. In reality the technology boom or bubble was the problem and corisponding bust was the correction. Certainly not Clinton’s fault.

Presidents get far too much credit for booming economies and too much blame for shrinking economies. The fact is none of them in my lifetime have done anything significant. Start vetoing spending bills, reform SS and welfare program, and reducing regulation, and we can talk. Better yet, reel in the Fed.

68

[quote]dhickey wrote:

We should not cast a vote based on a favorable outcome for ourselves at the expense of others. In your example, I would vote for the candidate that would reduce spending and cut taxes in general. Not the one that will shift the burden from me to someone else.

I may vote for someone that supported consumption tax as opposed to income tax. At face value this could lower my tax burden and increase the tax burden for someone that does not pay income taxes.

My purpose for doing this is not to shift my current burden. It would be so that every american would have a very real reminder of what out of control spending and taxing does to this economy. I beleive there would be a real call for reform if everyone felt the pain. Everyone is being ripped off now, most just don’t know it.
[/quote]

Thanks for the help and the comments. While I don’t think that you and I agree necessarily agree on some of this, I can certainly appreciate your opinions here. I’m not opposed to a consumption tax, but have really yet to see a good plan to implement one. The devil is always in the details.

Out of curiousity: in your version of a consumption tax how would we account for the purchase of real estate? How about large durable goods like cars?

If these items are purchased for a business purpose would they be exempt from the consumption tax? Just a few of the questions that came to my mind.

69

“…If you use today’s standards and stances of the two parties, it turns out Clinton was a pretty good Republican…”

Why, SteelyD; that’s a VERY interesting observation, Brother!

Seriously; I’d like for you to expound on that a little more (if you don’t mind!)

Mufasa

70

[quote]ajcook99 wrote:
dhickey wrote:

Out of curiousity: in your version of a consumption tax how would we account for the purchase of real estate? How about large durable goods like cars?

If these items are purchased for a business purpose would they be exempt from the consumption tax? Just a few of the questions that came to my mind.

[/quote]

Taxing business purchases would be double taxation and passed on to the consumer anyway. I would exclude it. Everthing else is taxed. Maybe exclude grocery items or education? It certainly can’t be more complicated than the current tax code.

71

[quote]dhickey wrote:
ajcook99 wrote:
dhickey wrote:

Out of curiousity: in your version of a consumption tax how would we account for the purchase of real estate? How about large durable goods like cars? If these items are purchased for a business purpose would they be exempt from the consumption tax? Just a few of the questions that came to my mind.

Taxing business purchases would be double taxation and passed on to the consumer anyway. I would exclude it. Everthing else is taxed. Maybe exclude grocery items or education? It certainly can’t be more complicated than the current tax code.

[/quote]

If nothing else, I know we can agree that the current tax code is way to complicated. Any time I think about that though, I seem to remember my first boss advising me “hope in one hand and piss in the other and see which one fills up first.”

Sometimes just seems beyond the capacity of the american public to come together and rectify that problem.

72

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Fan/Fred is the Democratic Party’s Frankenstein monster. It was created during FDR’s New Deal. It was sewn together with the body parts of a private corporation and the public checkbook by LBJ in 1968.

To prevent discredited charges of “discrimination” in the mortgage industry it was directed to make risky, no-down-payment loans by a Democratic Congress in 1992.

As a side note, looky at who F/F gave the money to:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/09/show-me-money.html[/quote]

Can you give me a source for this claim? You guys keep saying that F/F were created and told to give poor people mortgages, can you prove it?

I’m not doubting you, I just want the evidence to use in a debate on another forum.

73

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Case in Point:

Biden calls paying higher taxes a patriotic act

WASHINGTON �?? Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.

Biden says he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama want to “take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

Under the Democrats’ economic plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less �?? the vast majority of American taxpayers �?? would receive a tax cut.

Biden told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Thursday that, in his words, “it’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/biden_taxes_1

Remember, my Leftist friends, a Government that Giveth, also Taketh away. Verbal confirmation of class warfare and income distribution alive and well in America.
[/quote]

I will confess that while I find Obama’s politics entirely repugnant he does strike me as likable sometimes.

Biden? I would stand in line overnight to be first to shove his face into a large fan. What a ballistically arrogant, revolting elitist snob.

I watched his glowering pompous power polluted face while he made that statement today and I wanted to beat him mercilessly with my bare hands. I did regain my composure, but it wasn’t easy.

This guy attaches somebody’s patriotism to their willingness to give him their money for beneficent redistribution.

The fact that a socialist tool like this can even achieve high public office in this country is appalling.

74

Not what you’re looking for, but here’s an interesting tidbit of info I wanted to post up:

by 2008, Freddie and Fannie held (own/guarantee) about HALF of the gigantic 12 TRILLION dollar mortgage market

Duhigg, Charles, “Loan-Agency Woes Swell From a Trickle to a Torrent”, The New York Times, Friday, July 11, 2008

75

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Can you give me a source for this claim? You guys keep saying that F/F were created and told to give poor people mortgages, can you prove it?
[/quote]

Beowulf, it was part of FDR’s “New Deal”. There’s tons of stuff out there.

FDR: The Original Sugar Daddy

76

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Bring back Bill Clinton, the country was kicking ass back then.[/quote]

He got Fan/Fred rolling big time. Why bring that deviate back?

77

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Bring back Bill Clinton, the country was kicking ass back then.

If you use today’s standards and stances of the two parties, it turns out Clinton was a pretty good Republican…

How butt puckeringly terrifying is that!?!?!?[/quote]

Our memories are so short -

The Rep congress passed cap gains cuts and eliminated cap gains on main residence profits up to 500k. Clinton reluctanly signed these - something he would never have pushed with a dem congress. Obama wants to raise cap gains and eliminate the residence exemption so we will be paying tax on our house sale if someone wishes to buy down.

Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before signing it in 1996 - an election yr. Again, something he would not have pushed for with a dem congress.

The dow lost nearly 30% in his final yr of office. The NASDAQ lost 50%!! I don’t remember the media hyping this so much.

Now, the repubs are not without fault. They should have been shouting from the mountain tops over fannie and freddie. But these are institutions that have been controlled by dems. And they wanted them to loan to risky borrowers so they would not be seen as discriminating and to bring more minorities into home ownership. It works as long as prices continue to go up - but when they start to fall then it all hits the fan. So here we are.

4 repubs including McCain in the senate in 2005 put out a bill warning about these two monsters only to be blocked by Chris Dodd. The minority party (as they were in 2005)can block anything if they have 41 votes. Where was Obama???

Hmm, Chris Dodd, oh yeah, the largest recipient of fannie contributions - and Obama is number two after only 3 -1/2 short yrs.

You gotta love the media for reporting the truth.

78

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…If you use today’s standards and stances of the two parties, it turns out Clinton was a pretty good Republican…”

Why, SteelyD; that’s a VERY interesting observation, Brother!

Seriously; I’d like for you to expound on that a little more (if you don’t mind!)
[/quote]

Real quick this morning… (ah, work…)

The political tide has been shifting all boats left for awhile.

“Moderate Republican” and “Reagan Democrat” and “Southern Democrat” and “Blue Dog Democrats” have merged into some orgy of Centrism. The party is full of “Republicans” who actually vote more consistently with ‘moderate democrats’ than conservative Republicans (the RINOs). My two Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are pretty consistent with Joe Lieberman, Lincoln Chafee (now unelected), McCain, etc. They promote taxation, are staunchly Pro-Choice, and support generally un-business friendly legislation for the sake of ‘the environment’.

Billyboy initially was no superstar amongst the more lefter of the Democratic Party. He had some relatively ‘conservative’ ideas for a Dem. Initially he didn’t want to pursue the Universal Healthcare issue. He at least tried his hand at welfare reform. (Please don’t take any of this as support for him, I abhorred his presidency). Hell, the guy as governor of Arkansas, a Democrat, removed a sales tax for Senior Citizens prescriptions. Now, while that’s not the greatest solution in history, it’s politically genius and more than some Republicans are willing to do. He expanded the death penalty, a ‘republican’ thing to do.

He signed that goddammed Brady Bill, for which I will never forgive him, so, of course, that doesn’t apply to my statement.

My point wasn’t so much that Clinton even approached ‘conservative’, but rather the Republicans have noticeably shifted Left-- the GOP Big Tent has it’s moments on both sides. Bush is no conservative, although he ran as one. McCain is a populist and centrist. He’s no friend of immigration reform. I’m not impressed with people who want to ‘reach across the aisle’. It’s been noted time and time again that JFK, an uber-Liberal of his day would be ridiculed as a Conservative Wacko today— read his inaugural address-- It’s actually some good stuff (and this coming from a libertarian).

79

Could have been stopped in 2003 but it was blocked.

I’m sure the Times will rerun this on the front page soon with a “told you so” headline…don’t you think.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

80

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Can you give me a source for this claim? You guys keep saying that F/F were created and told to give poor people mortgages, can you prove it?

Beowulf, it was part of FDR’s “New Deal”. There’s tons of stuff out there.

FDR: The Original Sugar Daddy

[/quote]

Like all socialist schemes, it attracts abuse and eventually destroys everything in its path. If history teaches us anything at all, it is “The government which governs least governs best.” — Thomas Jefferson