Understanding Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
There’s less thinking that goes on in this forum than anyplace else I’ve ever seen. Does anybody here tossing around the word “socialist” even know what it means?

I think it’s ironic T-Nation tries so hard to play up the “intelligence” of this site and its members.

Well don’t worry, things will get better for you too under the next administration, even though you won’t appreciate it or even acknowledge it. There is always a large group of people that must be dragged kicking and screaming toward progress.

My definition of "things getting better? is NOT over taxing small business and those who are actually making the economy work.

I’m funny that way.

Then I fail to see where the problem lies. Obama’s plan eliminates (or at least greatly reduces, I can’t exactly remember) capital gains taxes for small businesses and cuts corporate taxes for companies that invest in the US. He also exempts small businesses from the mandatory employee health insurance regulations.

You fail to see the larger picture here. Over taxing “the rich” or at least those he difines as “rich” is not good for the economy and totally unfair as “the rich” as he defines them already pay too high a burden in taxes.

When you over tax people in that bracket there is a disastrous after effect felt by others.

When tax hikes such as this are implemented businesses tend to lay people off, raise prices and cut back expansion plans.

At the very time we need to cut government spending obama will launch the largest government expansion in the history of the country.

obama is bad for America in every way, but economically he’s a disaster.

[/quote]
The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Also you don’t cut spending to escape recession. No respectable economist thinks so.

It seems like you don’t know anything about the economy, and clearly it isn’t an important issue for you, otherwise you wouldn’t be voting for a republican, so why keep mentioning it?

82

Anti-Obamanomics: Why Everyone Should Be in Favor of Tax Cuts for the “Rich”
http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/08/anti-obamanomics-why-everyone-should-be.html

83

What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.

Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.

Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.

In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million – 40% – paid no income taxes.

According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama’s cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls.

What’s more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes – less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama’s plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the “very rich” – the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill – will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.

What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts – those educated professionals who applaud the “fairness” of their candidate’s tax plans – will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted.

As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.

Calculating how far society’s top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners – at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.

Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline.

In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain.

In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party’s dogma and loosened labor’s grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.

The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow.

The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.

The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain.

There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.

Tomorrow’s children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of “fairness” – whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.

Mr. Lerrick is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463231048556587.html

84

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
He’s gonna get elected ! ! !

And all these people are gonna loose sleep over him sitting in the white house.

Ooooh, how they’ll hate that.

And then he’s gonna do well.

And they’ll hate that even more. They know it. They feel it in their bones.[/quote]

How does spending yourself further into bankruptcy equate to ‘do well’?

All the other stuff aside, do the Obama folks understand that WE ARE BROKE? How does one cure being bankrupt by initiating new massive social programs?

85

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Obama is a criminal, associates with terrorists, sits for 20 years while his pastor calls America the US of KKK, lies about accepting federal election dollars, and directs money (while in the Illinois Senate) to Tony Rezko.

Would some explain to me how this creature is leading in the polls?

Obama is much smarter and exhibits much better judgement than McCain, who always seems confused when you start talking about actual issues.

Add to this the fact that Obama’s unorthodox (for a presidential candidate) and very cosmopolitan upbringing gives him a much better view of the world and the United States from different perspectives, and you clearly have a much more well-equipped decision maker.

Military service does not qualify one to be a world leader. Yes, he is a hero for his actions, but that was decades ago and is completely irrelevant regarding his qualifications for president. Anyway, a military guy is the last person I’d want in the white house. They tend not to think that much.

[/quote]

I take Obama as an historical marker, but not in the sense most do. I see him as a symptom — our morality conflicts with necessity.

You can’t ask people to compete and bust their asses, with a grinning Obama there to collect the rewards of your hard work. Obama expresses our morality (of unselfishness, of service to others) which conflicts with our economic necessity. Humans are inherently selfish (which is good) but have been taught and embrace a morality that conflicts with their selfish nature.

Those who taught this unselfish morality were and are the destroyers of Man.

86

[quote]100meters wrote:

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

[/quote]

Really?

Care to explain why?

89

[quote]What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts – those educated professionals who applaud the “fairness” of their candidate’s tax plans – will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted.

As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.[/quote]

So, at the $100-150K tax bracket is where a lot of families are because the wife works. This is actually barely making it as “middle class” in a lot of parts of the country. The poverty line is somewhere around $70,000 for a family of 4 in Los Angeles county. I’m sure things are worse on the East coast.

This is an incentive plan to have the wife stop working and for the family to make less money through earnings and more through government handouts. Think about it. Why would a husband want his wife working to help pay the bills only to have it taken by the government and given to someone else? He’s better off on the receiving end of the handouts.

90

[quote]orion wrote:
100meters wrote:

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?
[/quote]

yes 100meters, do you have any evidence to support your claim? No, because micro-economically speaking it can’t happen.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

–Abraham Lincoln

91

[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This would be even less of a problem if there were increased regulation concerning executive compensantion, which I believe there should be.

Price controls!

There’s an entire generation of Americans that hasn’t lived through any of that, myself included. Looks like it’s time for a hard lesson. Carter days are ahead.

As a sidenote:

Why get farmers paid to not grow stuff?

I do not grow a lot of stuff and I want some fucking money right now.

[/quote]

It’s not just farmers. Homeowners on large residential lots are taking advange of the farm bill as well. A few acres will get 7k a year.

92

[quote]dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This would be even less of a problem if there were increased regulation concerning executive compensantion, which I believe there should be.

Price controls!

There’s an entire generation of Americans that hasn’t lived through any of that, myself included. Looks like it’s time for a hard lesson. Carter days are ahead.

As a sidenote:

Why get farmers paid to not grow stuff?

I do not grow a lot of stuff and I want some fucking money right now.

It’s not just farmers. Homeowners on large residential lots are taking advange of the farm bill as well. A few acres will get 7k a year.[/quote]

That makes no sense.

They still threaten the American farmer by owing workable land and yet they get rewarded, while I, not owning any land whatsoever, have guaranteed to not harm that farmer, should get nothing?

I want some money.

It´s only fair.

If they can get money for corn they did not grow, I can get money for not working land I do not possess.

93

[quote]dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This would be even less of a problem if there were increased regulation concerning executive compensantion, which I believe there should be.

Price controls!

There’s an entire generation of Americans that hasn’t lived through any of that, myself included. Looks like it’s time for a hard lesson. Carter days are ahead.

As a sidenote:

Why get farmers paid to not grow stuff?

I do not grow a lot of stuff and I want some fucking money right now.

It’s not just farmers. Homeowners on large residential lots are taking advange of the farm bill as well. A few acres will get 7k a year.[/quote]

Depends on where you live. Around here “a few acres” won’t even get you in the door of the FSA office.

94

[quote]orion wrote:

That makes no sense.

They still threaten the American farmer by owing workable land and yet they get rewarded, while I, not owning any land whatsoever, have guaranteed to not harm that farmer, should get nothing?

I want some money.

It´s only fair.

If they can get money for corn they did not grow, I can get money for not working land I do not possess.
[/quote]

Sounds logical if you are a Euro. Maybe move to France. The farmers there are treated like a god.

But dhickey’s example is an extreme. I have been in and around agriculture for most of my adult life, and have never heard of this kind of fraud being perpetrated.

Sounds like more of a breakdown in oversight than anything.

95

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:

That makes no sense.

They still threaten the American farmer by owing workable land and yet they get rewarded, while I, not owning any land whatsoever, have guaranteed to not harm that farmer, should get nothing?

I want some money.

It´s only fair.

If they can get money for corn they did not grow, I can get money for not working land I do not possess.

Sounds logical if you are a Euro. Maybe move to France. The farmers there are treated like a god.

But dhickey’s example is an extreme. I have been in and around agriculture for most of my adult life, and have never heard of this kind of fraud being perpetrated.

Sounds like more of a breakdown in oversight than anything. [/quote]

I was watching some news investagation where they were covering this in detail. Many farmers were complaining about the farm bill, but they still felt they had to take advantage of it if others were.

Hard to blaim the farmers. They also showed a couple of multi-millionairs that hadn’t actually seen many of the farms they were making millions off of.

I wish I could remember what I was watching. It was this week. Can’t recall if it was a national show or a local (I was in KS all week)show.

You want to see some real horse shit, spend some time sniffing around at this site.

96

[quote]orion wrote:
100meters wrote:

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?
[/quote]

Yes really.
The tax rates on the rich are the lowest they’ve ever been. How do you argue that they are STILL overtaxed? It doesn’t make sense. Returning to the Clinton rate still wouldn’t overtax them. It factually didn’t in the 90’s.

For the millionth time tax rates do not exist in a bubble. The lowest tax rates of all time have not helped the Bush economy and higher tax rates did not hurt the Clinton economy. or JFK economy. or LBJ economy. etc.

In modern history democrats have increased tax collection while having significantly better economies than their republican counterparts who have decreased tax collections.

Continuing the argument of causation: “higher taxes will crush the economy” is just stupid.

97

[quote]abcarpenter8 wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?

yes 100meters, do you have any evidence to support your claim? No, because micro-economically speaking it can’t happen.
[/quote]

What are you talking about? Look at all democrats vs. all Republicans. Compare tax collections and economies in terms of GDP or better real GDP, then comeback and apologize or go make up stuff in another thread.

98

[quote]100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:

The rich aren’t overtaxed. And higher taxes on the rich coincidentally appear linked to much higher growth than lower taxes–historically speaking. So that debunks that point.

Really?

Care to explain why?

Yes really.
The tax rates on the rich are the lowest they’ve ever been. How do you argue that they are STILL overtaxed? It doesn’t make sense. Returning to the Clinton rate still wouldn’t overtax them. It factually didn’t in the 90’s.

For the millionth time tax rates do not exist in a bubble. The lowest tax rates of all time have not helped the Bush economy and higher tax rates did not hurt the Clinton economy. or JFK economy. or LBJ economy. etc.

In modern history democrats have increased tax collection while having significantly better economies than their republican counterparts who have decreased tax collections.

Continuing the argument of causation: “higher taxes will crush the economy” is just stupid.[/quote]

You seem to feel that if a high tax rate and a high growth rate coincide that that proves that a high tax rate is beneficial in any way.

I could just as easily argue that whenever a government feels cocky enough to tax the rich more it destroys the economy.

Because, you know, it takes some time for tax rates to influence the economy.

Then, when the government gets it, taxes are lowered which leads to higher economic growth a few years later.

As long as you cannot come up with a mechanism why higher tax rates for the rich are actually beneficial for all of us I am afraid that I remain unconvinced.

And then they would still be immoral.

99

[quote]100meters wrote:
How do you argue that they are STILL overtaxed? [/quote]

How can you tell someone they aren’t overtaxed if they feel they are being overtaxed? It’s a subjective valuation.

You know when someone is overcharging you because you feel ripped off. The difference is you have a say and can vote with your feet. Taxpayers cannot.

The only way to fairly tax is with a flat tax or no income tax at all.

100

[quote]100meters wrote:
Continuing the argument of causation: “higher taxes will crush the economy” is just stupid.[/quote]

  1. Higher taxes affect capital productivity which decreases income and subsequent tax revenues.

  2. The democrats you are referring to who increased taxes also had to cut deficit spending.

Your “causation” assumption is a non sequitur.