The handout trick was already known by the populist leaders in the days of the Roman Republic. Bread and circuses.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

erice Wrote:Two, do you really believe "Obama will give the handouts to the poor, knowing they will always stay poor and indebted to him"?

I do.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:To be fair to him, I believe he has now said that he will holding off on tax changes so long as the economy is in a funk.

Maybe so, but he is still running ads that promise no tax increase for families making less than $250,000. So he is making promises to the public that he must know he cannot keep. It was doubtful that it was true before the latest troubles - it is impossible now. Unless he breaks his spending promises - something has to give.

I have seen that ad about 30 times in the last 24 hours, and I am not glued to my TV. Most voters will very simplistically expect him to do what he says.

In the same ad, he rails against McCain's tax breaks for corporations. Trying to solve this economic crisis by taxing corporations more is like trying to cure tuberculosis by bleeding the patient.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Trying to solve this economic crisis by taxing corporations more is like trying to cure tuberculosis by bleeding the patient.

I'd say more like beheading the patient--which would certainly cure the tuberculosis--but I don't disagree your point.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:In the same ad, he rails against McCain's tax breaks for corporations. Trying to solve this economic crisis by taxing corporations more is like trying to cure tuberculosis by bleeding the patient.

The ad is opposing McCain's proposed corporate tax rate cut. It may also be fair to wonder if McCain's tax cuts are "ethical" when the government is in the middle of huge boosts in budget outlays in response to the crisis. I'm not sure. From what I see here:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Fac..._FINAL.pdf

Obama's proposals would result in more corporate taxes (with some losers and some winners), which you may or may not agree with. But it's inaccurate to imply that Obama is proposing corporate tax hikes in response to the crisis.

FYI, what Obama has said about how his proposals may change:

Quote:Sep 7: "Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

"Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date [2010], as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday." [AP]

Quote:Sep 23: "WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday the deepening American financial crisis and prospect of a massive government bailout meant he likely would have to delay expansive spending programs outlined during his campaign for the White House.

"In an interview with NBC television, Obama said he would have to study what happens to the United States' tax revenues before making decisions on budgeting for his promised initiatives on national health care, education, energy and other concerns." [msnbc.msn.com]

What does all this mean? I don't know. I don't think Obama has all the answers. How have or should McCain's proposals change? We've already seen the universally-panned mortgage buyout. What else? Who is being the least evasive and the most up-front? I'm not sure I can tell.

No one's mind is going to be changed here. This is just a mild plea for accuracy (e.g., avoiding statements like "lower income people pay no taxes").

S.A. Owl Wrote:This is just a mild plea for accuracy (e.g., avoiding statements like "lower income people pay no taxes").

Does your plea for accuracy extend to include carrying the impact of any tax plan forward to include the logical consequences resulting from rational adjustments made by rational taxpayers?

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I'm thinking 50 million unemployed simultaneously with 50 million unemployed.

I suspect you didn't mean it quite this way.

texd Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I'm thinking 50 million unemployed simultaneously with 50 percent inflation.

I suspect you didn't mean it quite this way.

Thanks for pointing that out. Edited to read as above.

And, yes, I do mean that.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:This is just a mild plea for accuracy (e.g., avoiding statements like "lower income people pay no taxes").

Does your plea for accuracy extend to include carrying the impact of any tax plan forward to include the logical consequences resulting from rational adjustments made by rational taxpayers?

Absolutely.

S.A. Owl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:This is just a mild plea for accuracy (e.g., avoiding statements like "lower income people pay no taxes").

Does your plea for accuracy extend to include carrying the impact of any tax plan forward to include the logical consequences resulting from rational adjustments made by rational taxpayers?

Absolutely.

Fair enough.
Now if we could just figure out what anyone actually has in mind.

S.A. Owl Wrote:The ad is opposing McCain's proposed corporate tax rate cut.

I don't think Obama has all the answers. How have or should McCain's proposals change?

A: The Obama ad is about comparing McCain's tax plan to Obama's tax plan. It starts with McCain's plan, by talking of the tax cuts for corporations, followed by talking of tax breaks for oil companies. It talks of millions of taxpayers ignored by McC's plan.It then switches to statements about Obama's plan, saying that there would be no tax increases for families making under $250K, then saying that Obama's plan would give three times the middleclass tax relief of Mccain's. It clearly covers a lot more ground than just corporate tax cuts. Maybe we are speaking of different ads.

B: I don't think Obama has all the answers, either, but his ads imply that he does. Seen any lately saying he hasn't decided what to do, but he will do his best?

C: I don't know how/if mccain's proposals have changed, but neither am I seeing ads on his plan, while I am seeing this Obama ad time after time.

IIRC, the question was asked in the first debate what the bailout would change in their proposals, and both candidates sidestepped the issue. I remember BO saying something about there sure wouldn't be any cuts in early childhood education. I don't know - is that his top priority? Because if not, it doesn't seem like any higher priorities will be cut either.

No doubt, the plans and proposals both candidates have touted for months are outdated now. I see BO still hawking his, if McC is also i have missed those ads.

You're right, no minds will be changed here, but that doesn't mean that none should be changed.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:The ad is opposing McCain's proposed corporate tax rate cut.

I don't think Obama has all the answers. How have or should McCain's proposals change?

A: The Obama ad is about comparing McCain's tax plan to Obama's tax plan. It starts with McCain's plan, by talking of the tax cuts for corporations, followed by talking of tax breaks for oil companies. It talks of millions of taxpayers ignored by McC's plan.It then switches to statements about Obama's plan, saying that there would be no tax increases for families making under $250K, then saying that Obama's plan would give three times the middleclass tax relief of Mccain's. It clearly covers a lot more ground than just corporate tax cuts. Maybe we are speaking of different ads.

B: I don't think Obama has all the answers, either, but his ads imply that he does. Seen any lately saying he hasn't decided what to do, but he will do his best?

C: I don't know how/if mccain's proposals have changed, but neither am I seeing ads on his plan, while I am seeing this Obama ad time after time.

IIRC, the question was asked in the first debate what the bailout would change in their proposals, and both candidates sidestepped the issue. I remember BO saying something about there sure wouldn't be any cuts in early childhood education. I don't know - is that his top priority? Because if not, it doesn't seem like any higher priorities will be cut either.

No doubt, the plans and proposals both candidates have touted for months are outdated now. I see BO still hawking his, if McC is also i have missed those ads.

You're right, no minds will be changed here, but that doesn't mean that none should be changed.

In a rare moment from the debates where the candidates actually sort of answered a question, Obama set his priorities as 1) energy reform, 2) health care reform, 3) education, when Brokaw asked the candidates to prioritize some of the social issues, given the economic crisis will likely prohibit them from addressing everything they would like to.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:C: I don't know how/if mccain's proposals have changed, but neither am I seeing ads on his plan, while I am seeing this Obama ad time after time.

That may be a function of where you live. I saw the Obama ad you mentioned 3 or 4 times yesterday in NFL broadcasts. Obama has the money to run national ads, I doubt McCain does. If you lived in Ohio or Florida or Colorado you would have seen McCain ads.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:C: I don't know how/if mccain's proposals have changed, but neither am I seeing ads on his plan, while I am seeing this Obama ad time after time.

Well acording to a study at the University of Wisconsin, McCain's advertising has taken quite a negative turn. That might have something to do with why you haven't seen ads on his plan -- his ads are focused elsewhere.

At the debates, though, it's been pretty clear that neither candidate has quite had the political courage to really take a hard look at his plan and rethink it given the current crisis. That's unfortunate -- though in a way understandable, since this crisis is so fluid that whatever modifications they make now will again be outdated in a week or two, not to mention by inauguration time.

Having said that, it sure would be nice to hear some new ideas from the candidates. I think that may be McCain's best shot at turning this thing around during the next debate (aside from focusing on the potential Democratic lock on government as I've mentioned elsewhere), but if he wants to do that he needs to do a better job of explaining it than he did with that $300 billion "What did he say?" at the last debate.

Anyhow, should be interesting to see whether McCain can propose something game-changing, and also whether Obama goes the safe route & tries to run out the clock, or comes up with something fresh himself.

Quote:Well acording to a study at the University of Wisconsin, McCain's advertising has taken quite a negative turn.

I read that 73% of McCain's ads were negative, but 61% of Obama's ads were also negative... and Obama is spending 3 times what McCain is... so for every 100 negative McCain ads, there are 240+ negative Obama ads. I don't know if it was the same study, but it was major market headline news.


{edit to correct numbers... they were actually in the link you provided}
let's not act as if McCain is the only one going negative... negative sells, and Obama has much more money to spend.

grol Wrote:69/70/75: I think Obama has plenty of backbone and is about as level-headed as a politico can be. Any president inheriting the present multiple disasters will have his hands full. Obama is more reasoned, more pragmatic than the "liberal" label he has inherited would indicate. What you don't want the next president to do is make more shoot-from-the-hip decisions. Obama is liberal in the respect that he works for every American, not just the privileged class, something I believe benefits us all.

Obama has earned, not inherited his liberal label... and I disagree whole-heartedly that he "works for every American".

He has voted only 13% of the time he has been in politics... not the US Senate... Politics... for legislation supported by "the other side".... while McCain has done it 55% of the time. He is a Democrat, and votes for Democrats. This is fine if you believe that the Democrats have all of the answers, but it IN NO WAY represents "every American"... and despite claims to the contrary... MANY Republican's aren't in the "priveledged" class.

What I don't want in the next President is someone who thinks government is the answer to all our problems... because right now, we have lots of them.... and government is the camel with its nose in the tent. You'll NEVER get it out, once it is in.

I respect your opinion... but when you tell me that your candidate "works for every American" when he barely garners 50% of the support, and barely addresses one single priority of mine in a way that makes any sense whatsoever to me... I have to respond.

Hambone10 Wrote:I read that 71% of McCain's ads were negative, but 63% of Obama's ads were also negative... and Obama is spending 3 times what McCain is... so for every 100 negative McCain ads, there are 240+ negative Obama ads. I don't know if it was the same study, but it was major market headline news.

let's not act as if McCain is the only one going negative... negative sells, and Obama has much more money to spend.

No, you're right, they both do it (and I never said Obama's campaign didn't). I think both candidates had good intentions about running a "clean" campaign at the outset, but eventually political reality set in. Unfortunately, as you said, Negative sells.

erice Wrote:One, liberals aren't out to "redistribute this wealth to the less deserving," they're just trying to shift the tax burden a little more towards those who can afford it. As someone who is looking at a tax increase (barely) under Obama's administration, I'm happy to vote for him because I know that, despite all of our nation's efforts to the contrary, everyone isn't born under equal circumstances. I hade a few advantages along the way. On average, it takes more effort to "make it" in this country if you start out poor than if you don't, so a progressive tax system just makes sense. Liberals aren't trying to take all the fun out of being rich -- the incentive will still be there, at 25% or 35% or 45% tax rates -- they're just trying to give more people that opportunity.

Two, do you really believe "Obama will give the handouts to the poor, knowing they will always stay poor and indebted to him"? I'm no big fan of McCain's policy proposals, but I don't doubt that in his heart he's trying to do what's best for the country. He hasn't demonstrated otherwise, that I've seen. In your opinion, has Obama?

Obama has ALWAYS supported the poor... dating back to his days as a communityu activist. Good for him, good for them. Not so much for me. Even in his current proposals, he proposes a $2,000 "gift" (I can't think of a better word... hand-out isn't right... neither is hand-up) for a family earning $25,000... and a $500 "gift" for a family earning $100,000. While that certainly sounds fine... It is HARDLY a "focus" on the middle class that Obama claims when you're giving a 10% gift to the poor, and a 1/2 of 1% gift to the middle class. What is ALSO ignored in this analysis is the reaction of "the wealthy" to an increase in taxes. They won't simply write bigger checks... they will cut spending... PROBABLY by hiring more people at $25,000 or less and fewer people at $35,000 or more.... and delaying the raise on the guy at $100,000... I won't go so far as to say fire him... though it could happen... CERTAINLY he will "miss out" one way or another on the $500 gift from the government. I am an employer... I talk to other employers... I am preparing to react to Obama's plan... I will cut overhead.

Employers will cut full-time workers and add part-time ones. This is fine for the guy earning minimum wage or close to it, but not so much for the higher earner. Obama also proposes a credit for those who create jobs... hmmm... If I lay off a supervisor, I can hire 3 minimum wage guys and get a credit that offsets my tax increase... No-brainer...

The people at the top aren't the ones who pay these taxes... They never have been, and never will be. The taxes are ultimately borne by the middle class... not necessarily as a tax, but as a disincentive to advancement, a lack of job opportunities, or an increase in costs... If Texas increased its tax on gasoline, do you think retailers would simply live on less?? Or would they raise the price and pass it on to consumers??

Obama's plans... IMO.... will hurt things.... McCain's plans may not help, but we will come out the other side with a smaller government than under Obama. There has NEVER been an incentive for Government to cut overhead, and I doubt there ever will be. Only in government is a reduction in a proposed increase... but still an increase over the previous year a spending cut... and only in government is there a push to spend money you didn't need to use so that you don't lose it the next year.

erice Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:I read that 71% of McCain's ads were negative, but 63% of Obama's ads were also negative... and Obama is spending 3 times what McCain is... so for every 100 negative McCain ads, there are 240+ negative Obama ads. I don't know if it was the same study, but it was major market headline news.

let's not act as if McCain is the only one going negative... negative sells, and Obama has much more money to spend.

No, you're right, they both do it (and I never said Obama's campaign didn't). I think both candidates had good intentions about running a "clean" campaign at the outset, but eventually political reality set in. Unfortunately, as you said, Negative sells.

was trying to "and 1" you... not dispute you.... though I can see how my "let's not act" comment could be viewed that way... sorry...

Sometimes I quote posts to address similar issues... not to "reply" to them.

Sorry

The issues raised about negative impacts on investment and ultimately growth and jobs are valid. The experience of Europe over the last 50 years confirms this.

I'd like to focus for a minute on the people at the lower end, who are the intended beneficiaries.

First, it is pretty widely accepted that the Bush economic stimulus payments accomplished virtually nothing. Our government borrowed money from China. The money was distributed to taxpayers. Those taxpayers either (a) went to Wal-Mart and bought something that was made in China, or (b) paid off their Visa or MasterCard bill that they had run up by going to Wal-Mart and buying something made in China. The program was good for one economy--China's. Now Obama is going to give them a tax reduction that is approximately the same amount, and that's supposed to bring about significant economic benefit. How? Why?

Second, let's look at a typical lower/middle class family. Under Obama's plans, they get additional benefits. Not enough to make quantum improvements in their lives, but more money. Unfortunately, if they do go out and gain new skills and find a better paying job, or if they do well and earn promotions where they are, they start to lose those benefits. I've seen calculations that when losses of benefits are figured in, the marginal "tax rate" on people in the lower middle income area may be as high as 40%. So you throw them a small payment which isn't enough to make real improvement in their lot, but it is enough to discourage them from doing things that lead to the only real way to improve their lot--better and higher-paying jobs.

I have talked with many people at the income level that they are relying on government assistance, and they tell me almost universally that the cliff-vesting nature of many government programs is a major deterrent to their interest in getting better jobs. When we decry the growing gap beween the higher and lower incomes in our society, we would be seriously amiss not to regard this as a major factor.

So on the one hand the taxes on the "rich" are going to discourage investment and growth and jobs. On the other hand, the payments to the "poor" are not going to make them "not poor," but are going to place an additional impediment in the way of thier actually doing the things they need to do to become "not poor." Great plan.

grol Wrote:69/70/75: I think Obama has plenty of backbone and is about as level-headed as a politico can be.

You got anything to base that on, other than wishful thinking?