Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
Anyone giving odds on that?
Will that be announced at the DNC?
Anyone giving odds on that?
Will that be announced at the DNC?
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Deano
Ancient Mariner
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I'd like to hear the inside scoop on it. Obama says he won't even think about a VP choice until he is officially locked in and Hillary is officially gone..... someone must have really hurt her before in the past; I wonder who? Hmmm..........
I'd like to hear the inside scoop on it. Obama says he won't even think about a VP choice until he is officially locked in and Hillary is officially gone..... someone must have really hurt her before in the past; I wonder who? Hmmm..........
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
Ha, don't bet it was Bill! She was probably in the closet with the video camera, so they could watch it later!
Ok, I think its funny, how things have changed in the last few years. After W's last win, the whole country seemed to think the Democratic party was dead on the vine and wouldn't be making a comeback anytime soon. Then, at mid-term, Dems won pretty handily, and everyone thought it was Hilary's presidency, hands down. Now, she has come close, but Obama is def the new face of the Dems, I think.
Ha, don't bet it was Bill! She was probably in the closet with the video camera, so they could watch it later!
Ok, I think its funny, how things have changed in the last few years. After W's last win, the whole country seemed to think the Democratic party was dead on the vine and wouldn't be making a comeback anytime soon. Then, at mid-term, Dems won pretty handily, and everyone thought it was Hilary's presidency, hands down. Now, she has come close, but Obama is def the new face of the Dems, I think.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
But that's the way it works, isn't it? Sometimes, a single phrase like
can lose you an election despite some of history's highest approval ratings...
wasted155 said:
But that's the way it works, isn't it? Sometimes, a single phrase like
"Read my lips. No more taxes."
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
Yeah, that is true. Its amazing the thing that can win or lose an election (half poked 'chads' aside). Honestly, it makes me happy to see that. I don't like to think that we, as a country, have grown stagnant. Change is the buzz word this year, and I'll be happy to see some.
Yeah, that is true. Its amazing the thing that can win or lose an election (half poked 'chads' aside). Honestly, it makes me happy to see that. I don't like to think that we, as a country, have grown stagnant. Change is the buzz word this year, and I'll be happy to see some.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
It's too bad. Hillary may have been a good president. Sadly, she has run up against one of the greatest political talents of the last 50 years. I can only hope that Senator Obama is able to reach out to her supporters and independents and Republicans. I really think he can do it.
It's too bad. Hillary may have been a good president. Sadly, she has run up against one of the greatest political talents of the last 50 years. I can only hope that Senator Obama is able to reach out to her supporters and independents and Republicans. I really think he can do it.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I like McCain - I'm not shocked you're voting for him - but I don't think he's going to win. The international community is watching this with baited breath, that's for sure. I don't think the Democratic talking point of "four more years of George Bush" is true. But I do fear that is how a McCain win would be interpreted by the international community at large.
My ideal government would be Obama as president, Jim Webb as VP, and McCain as the National Security Advisor. I think that is a task that he would be incredibly skilled at, and it would bring meaning to bi-partisanship.
Deano said:
I like McCain - I'm not shocked you're voting for him - but I don't think he's going to win. The international community is watching this with baited breath, that's for sure. I don't think the Democratic talking point of "four more years of George Bush" is true. But I do fear that is how a McCain win would be interpreted by the international community at large.
My ideal government would be Obama as president, Jim Webb as VP, and McCain as the National Security Advisor. I think that is a task that he would be incredibly skilled at, and it would bring meaning to bi-partisanship.
Deano
Ancient Mariner
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I believe that John McCain is incredibly more qualified to lead this country than Barrack Obama is. I have not liked Obama from the start, he runs his campaign like an advertising agency would pump out TV commercials; the problem with this is that the majority of the American public is gullible enough to suck it all up. I look at him as the consummate politician; promising everything and simultaneously saying almost nothing. I know he looks appealing to the international community but I think the job would be too much for him (at least at this point in his career). The prospect of him in the oval office scares the hell out of me.
The problem that John McCain is facing is that almost everyone in the world is now equating ANY republican to be the same as George W. Bush. This is simply not true. My impression is that more Republicans will be happier to see him finally leave office than Democrats will. I know for the international community the problem everyone wants corrected is the war in Iraq. I believe that John McCain will do this. What everyone needs to realize is that immediately cutting and running like the Democrats are proposing will only lead to more turmoil in the future. A withdrawal needs to take place, but it needs to be done correctly, carefully and with much planning in place. This cannot be done in a manner of months. I choose to think of the situation like this: If John McCain had been in office the past 8 years vice George W. Bush, I think the whole situation in the Middle East would be vastly different than it is now. We, of course, would still be present there but I feel that much more thought would have been put into the strategy and I know that McCain would have listened to his top Generals much more than Bush has.
Keep in mind that, in my opinion, there is no actual desirable candidate in this election. McCain will just do a better job. I honestly believe that. There aren't too many people I know that want the world's opinion of the United States to be corrected more than I do
.
I believe that John McCain is incredibly more qualified to lead this country than Barrack Obama is. I have not liked Obama from the start, he runs his campaign like an advertising agency would pump out TV commercials; the problem with this is that the majority of the American public is gullible enough to suck it all up. I look at him as the consummate politician; promising everything and simultaneously saying almost nothing. I know he looks appealing to the international community but I think the job would be too much for him (at least at this point in his career). The prospect of him in the oval office scares the hell out of me.
The problem that John McCain is facing is that almost everyone in the world is now equating ANY republican to be the same as George W. Bush. This is simply not true. My impression is that more Republicans will be happier to see him finally leave office than Democrats will. I know for the international community the problem everyone wants corrected is the war in Iraq. I believe that John McCain will do this. What everyone needs to realize is that immediately cutting and running like the Democrats are proposing will only lead to more turmoil in the future. A withdrawal needs to take place, but it needs to be done correctly, carefully and with much planning in place. This cannot be done in a manner of months. I choose to think of the situation like this: If John McCain had been in office the past 8 years vice George W. Bush, I think the whole situation in the Middle East would be vastly different than it is now. We, of course, would still be present there but I feel that much more thought would have been put into the strategy and I know that McCain would have listened to his top Generals much more than Bush has.
Keep in mind that, in my opinion, there is no actual desirable candidate in this election. McCain will just do a better job. I honestly believe that. There aren't too many people I know that want the world's opinion of the United States to be corrected more than I do
.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
And I would never say your opinion doesn't count, man. I know what you mean - like I said, John McCain would be an infinitely better president than Dubya has been. "John McCain is running for George Bush's third term" - a talking point, and it's not true. It's pretty clear, to me, that a government run by McCain would have many good points. He is committed to moving on the environmental issues that are very important, and I believe he would be a formidable warrior against lobbyists. There are some areas where I don't like McCain, such as his opposition to gay marriage and abortion; however, I think his overall attitude that it is a states' issue, not a federal issue, is mostly admirable when compared to the social conservatives that have dominated US politics for too long.
I don't care for the way Senator McCain has begun pandering to the very right-wing preachers he once tried to stand apart from. To me, this is standard politicking, trying to solidify the Republican base by appealing to people he maybe ought to not appeal to. Falwell, Hagey, et al. I don't judge McCain by the content of what these preachers say, but I do think that his attempt to be linked to them is purely selfish in nature, and that he maybe should not be so surprised when these people come out hating Jews, Catholics, and whatever else they have to say. I think it's different to Obama's preacher problems, by the way - not better or worse, different.
If John McCain is President, the US will likely be out of Iraq in 2-3 years. He's not stupid enough to go up for the 2012 election with the war still going on, and I think he wants to step back and let the Iraqis take over with a somewhat stable government. The difference is that the Democrats (let's not be silly here, it's not just Obama, but every candidate pledged to remove most or all forces from Iraq) want to do it without some assurances that the civilian government would remain stable. The question is: how long will any government remain without US backing, tomorrow or in 15 or 20 years. But that's a discussion for another place.
If there is anything I think is a little foolish there, Deano, it's using the phrase "cut and run". Both Obama and Clinton discussed a phased withdrawal with the hope of allowing the Iraqi gov't to take over. The difference is that regardless of whether the Iraqi gov't can take over, the withdrawal continues.
When it comes to what Obama says in regards to what he wants, I think he's been fairly clear on some aspects. Withdrawing from Iraq, creating a student credit, his health care plan. His other plans have been less vocal, but his platform is out there. I don't think John McCain has said what his plan is, either. Aside from remaining in Iraq till the job is done...I am struggling to think of his other promises to date that have gotten mentioned at his platform speeches. He has discussed scaling back nuclear stockpiles, and trying to get Russia kicked out of the G-8. But I have read his platform (like I read everyone else's platform), and I know what he wants to do.
What I am trying to say here, is that I don't think Obama has been any different than any other US politician in relying on rhetoric or vitriol while not talking about his platform. John McCain doesn't get headlines for talking about creating a new international organization of certified democracies; he gets headlines by saying that Barack Obama should go to Iraq (which he should). Barack Obama doesn't get headlines for talking about mandating the extension of high speed internet or for talking about increasing the amount of customs regulators that watch imports from China; he gets headlines for attacking John McCain as Bush's third term.
Obama may not end up being the ideal Commander-in-Chief, but he can find people who can give him the information he needs. McCain may not be the best economist, but he can find someone to do that and provide him with the information he needs there.
Though if we were all lucky, FDR would rise again and merge with Reagan and Jefferson, then rule as king.
Deano said:
And I would never say your opinion doesn't count, man. I know what you mean - like I said, John McCain would be an infinitely better president than Dubya has been. "John McCain is running for George Bush's third term" - a talking point, and it's not true. It's pretty clear, to me, that a government run by McCain would have many good points. He is committed to moving on the environmental issues that are very important, and I believe he would be a formidable warrior against lobbyists. There are some areas where I don't like McCain, such as his opposition to gay marriage and abortion; however, I think his overall attitude that it is a states' issue, not a federal issue, is mostly admirable when compared to the social conservatives that have dominated US politics for too long.
I don't care for the way Senator McCain has begun pandering to the very right-wing preachers he once tried to stand apart from. To me, this is standard politicking, trying to solidify the Republican base by appealing to people he maybe ought to not appeal to. Falwell, Hagey, et al. I don't judge McCain by the content of what these preachers say, but I do think that his attempt to be linked to them is purely selfish in nature, and that he maybe should not be so surprised when these people come out hating Jews, Catholics, and whatever else they have to say. I think it's different to Obama's preacher problems, by the way - not better or worse, different.
If John McCain is President, the US will likely be out of Iraq in 2-3 years. He's not stupid enough to go up for the 2012 election with the war still going on, and I think he wants to step back and let the Iraqis take over with a somewhat stable government. The difference is that the Democrats (let's not be silly here, it's not just Obama, but every candidate pledged to remove most or all forces from Iraq) want to do it without some assurances that the civilian government would remain stable. The question is: how long will any government remain without US backing, tomorrow or in 15 or 20 years. But that's a discussion for another place.
If there is anything I think is a little foolish there, Deano, it's using the phrase "cut and run". Both Obama and Clinton discussed a phased withdrawal with the hope of allowing the Iraqi gov't to take over. The difference is that regardless of whether the Iraqi gov't can take over, the withdrawal continues.
When it comes to what Obama says in regards to what he wants, I think he's been fairly clear on some aspects. Withdrawing from Iraq, creating a student credit, his health care plan. His other plans have been less vocal, but his platform is out there. I don't think John McCain has said what his plan is, either. Aside from remaining in Iraq till the job is done...I am struggling to think of his other promises to date that have gotten mentioned at his platform speeches. He has discussed scaling back nuclear stockpiles, and trying to get Russia kicked out of the G-8. But I have read his platform (like I read everyone else's platform), and I know what he wants to do.
What I am trying to say here, is that I don't think Obama has been any different than any other US politician in relying on rhetoric or vitriol while not talking about his platform. John McCain doesn't get headlines for talking about creating a new international organization of certified democracies; he gets headlines by saying that Barack Obama should go to Iraq (which he should). Barack Obama doesn't get headlines for talking about mandating the extension of high speed internet or for talking about increasing the amount of customs regulators that watch imports from China; he gets headlines for attacking John McCain as Bush's third term.
Obama may not end up being the ideal Commander-in-Chief, but he can find people who can give him the information he needs. McCain may not be the best economist, but he can find someone to do that and provide him with the information he needs there.
Though if we were all lucky, FDR would rise again and merge with Reagan and Jefferson, then rule as king.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I'm largely with Deano. Obama is much smarter than McCain, so I have fewer concerns about his competence and ability to govern. I just don't like Obama's ideology, to the extent he has articulated it. He is incredibly liberal, will raise taxes and is, in my view, wrong for the economy. Although McCain will never threaten to win a Nobel Prize in economics, at least he is smart enough to know he can't control the economy and that government probably shouldn't be in that business, anyway. Interestingly, there are a lot of people on this forum who claim to be libertarians who appear to like Obama, which seems incredibly inconsistent to me. Obama is the opposite of a libertarian. He is a big-government supporter who will try to get the government to solve problems and then raise taxes to pay for it. Iffour eight years of George Bush have proven anything, it is Ronald Reagan's noteworthy quote: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" (Another one of my favorites is "Government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem." Never mind that the government got pretty damn big under Reagan -- these notions are as true today as they were then.) In contrast, McCain is closer to being a libertarian, far more so than Bush. He seems less inclined to regulate morality, which has been my biggest disappointment with the Republican Party over the past decade or more. I could not care less about gay marriage or flag-burning. Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992 put it best: "It's the economy, stupid," and still is, even more than the Iraq war.
I also note that the international community's opinion will not make a damn bit of difference in deciding who is elected. While most sensible American recognize that it is important to reestablish our credibility in the world, the truth is that many (myself included) simply don't care what the rest of the world thinks when it comes to our candidates. We're voting for our own leaders, not yours. So, even if someone in France thinks Obama would be better than McCain (or vice versa), that is not going to be something voters care about. (So there.
) This is not meant to be inflammatory or to discourage people from voicing their opinions in this forum and others. It's interesting what others think. It's just not going to affect how we vote. Never has, probably never will.
I'm largely with Deano. Obama is much smarter than McCain, so I have fewer concerns about his competence and ability to govern. I just don't like Obama's ideology, to the extent he has articulated it. He is incredibly liberal, will raise taxes and is, in my view, wrong for the economy. Although McCain will never threaten to win a Nobel Prize in economics, at least he is smart enough to know he can't control the economy and that government probably shouldn't be in that business, anyway. Interestingly, there are a lot of people on this forum who claim to be libertarians who appear to like Obama, which seems incredibly inconsistent to me. Obama is the opposite of a libertarian. He is a big-government supporter who will try to get the government to solve problems and then raise taxes to pay for it. If
I also note that the international community's opinion will not make a damn bit of difference in deciding who is elected. While most sensible American recognize that it is important to reestablish our credibility in the world, the truth is that many (myself included) simply don't care what the rest of the world thinks when it comes to our candidates. We're voting for our own leaders, not yours. So, even if someone in France thinks Obama would be better than McCain (or vice versa), that is not going to be something voters care about. (So there.
) This is not meant to be inflammatory or to discourage people from voicing their opinions in this forum and others. It's interesting what others think. It's just not going to affect how we vote. Never has, probably never will.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
It would be difficult to assume George W. Bush is a libertarian when he is more of a monopolist. However, I will disagree wholeheartedly on many aspects of basic economics. Reagan's economics failed; Dubya's economics failed. Trickle-down is a terrible idea, and that is what Bush Jr. has promulgated with his tax policies. The only politician with the balls in the last 20 years to raise taxes was George H. W. Bush - a very smart man who sacrificed his political career to make the US viable again. His son has spent the US into a hole that cannot be escaped without both major cutbacks and tax increases. However, Obama has only pledged to raise taxes on the top 1%; he has said that the Bush tax cuts on the middle and lower class should remain at this point.
To relate a point, in Canada in 1988 we were inundated with debt in similar proportions to what the US is seeing now - 500 billion dollars in debt for 29 million Canadians, with a deficit of around 60 billion per year. The only way we could pay this back was to raise taxes - 7% sales tax was the major tax hike. This tax hike, along with sometimes crippling cuts to services, allowed for us to get the deficit under control and start paying off the debt. The end result, 20 years later...the Canadian dollar is the same strength of the US dollar, and our economy is fairly booming. If the US economy was strong, we'd be doing even better, but our economy is surviving in a much stronger state than the US economy - a state of affairs that hasn't existed since the 1910s.
The first economic rule for either Senators Obama or McCain has to be to balance the budget. Neither candidate has discussed this much...but a balanced budget would instantly kick the US dollar back up, and help to bring the trade imbalance with China back into some reasonable existence. Aside from that, the economy *shouldn't* be regulated too much, other than to break up monopolies and cartels (big oil!) and to force companies to hire Americans instead of Mexicans. I don't think either candidate has said more than that, I don't think either of them have said much else. Obama has mentioned the need to provide infrastructure funding and retrain workers to partake in the new economy; McCain has discussed providing funding for fuel solutions and clean energies. Neither of which are bad things - the government provided the first funding for intercontinental railways, the Panama Canal, and computers, so why not wind, solar, and biopower?
A quick comparison of both economic policies; John McCain wants to cut taxes even more, so does Sen. Obama. The difference is that McCain targets everyone including business owners; Obama targets almost specifically the middle class.
Check it out on their webpages:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Iss ... fecc78.htm
By and large, the leader of the United States is the leader of the free world, and it is a very good thing when the President of the USA is respected internationally. It makes trade easier and helps to get things done. It may not be a major thing on Americans' minds, but it should be considered all the same. So while you are voting for your own leader, it is true that as the United States does, eventually everyone else follows.
EDIT: I just want to make it clear that I don't expect my opinions of the political race to convince anyone to vote differently, and I would be discouraged if they did so. What I want is for people to get out and vote, period. Voting is the centre of our way of life; it's what people like my father and Deano and millions of others have fought for over the many years since Lexington and Concord. I encourage everyone to vote; I encourage everyone to not just watch CNN or Fox News or whatever...but to read the platforms, listen to the whole speech, and learn about your local candidates as well. If everyone takes the time to educate themselves and then get out there and cast a ballot...then regardless of who loses, the everyone wins.
cornfedhick said:
It would be difficult to assume George W. Bush is a libertarian when he is more of a monopolist. However, I will disagree wholeheartedly on many aspects of basic economics. Reagan's economics failed; Dubya's economics failed. Trickle-down is a terrible idea, and that is what Bush Jr. has promulgated with his tax policies. The only politician with the balls in the last 20 years to raise taxes was George H. W. Bush - a very smart man who sacrificed his political career to make the US viable again. His son has spent the US into a hole that cannot be escaped without both major cutbacks and tax increases. However, Obama has only pledged to raise taxes on the top 1%; he has said that the Bush tax cuts on the middle and lower class should remain at this point.
To relate a point, in Canada in 1988 we were inundated with debt in similar proportions to what the US is seeing now - 500 billion dollars in debt for 29 million Canadians, with a deficit of around 60 billion per year. The only way we could pay this back was to raise taxes - 7% sales tax was the major tax hike. This tax hike, along with sometimes crippling cuts to services, allowed for us to get the deficit under control and start paying off the debt. The end result, 20 years later...the Canadian dollar is the same strength of the US dollar, and our economy is fairly booming. If the US economy was strong, we'd be doing even better, but our economy is surviving in a much stronger state than the US economy - a state of affairs that hasn't existed since the 1910s.
The first economic rule for either Senators Obama or McCain has to be to balance the budget. Neither candidate has discussed this much...but a balanced budget would instantly kick the US dollar back up, and help to bring the trade imbalance with China back into some reasonable existence. Aside from that, the economy *shouldn't* be regulated too much, other than to break up monopolies and cartels (big oil!) and to force companies to hire Americans instead of Mexicans. I don't think either candidate has said more than that, I don't think either of them have said much else. Obama has mentioned the need to provide infrastructure funding and retrain workers to partake in the new economy; McCain has discussed providing funding for fuel solutions and clean energies. Neither of which are bad things - the government provided the first funding for intercontinental railways, the Panama Canal, and computers, so why not wind, solar, and biopower?
A quick comparison of both economic policies; John McCain wants to cut taxes even more, so does Sen. Obama. The difference is that McCain targets everyone including business owners; Obama targets almost specifically the middle class.
Check it out on their webpages:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Iss ... fecc78.htm
cornfedhick said:I also note that the international community's opinion will not make a damn bit of difference in deciding who is elected. While most sensible American recognize that it is important to reestablish our credibility in the world, the truth is that many (myself included) simply don't care what the rest of the world thinks when it comes to our candidates. We're voting for our own leaders, not yours. So, even if someone in France thinks Obama would be better than McCain (or vice versa), that is not going to be something voters care about. (So there.
By and large, the leader of the United States is the leader of the free world, and it is a very good thing when the President of the USA is respected internationally. It makes trade easier and helps to get things done. It may not be a major thing on Americans' minds, but it should be considered all the same. So while you are voting for your own leader, it is true that as the United States does, eventually everyone else follows.
EDIT: I just want to make it clear that I don't expect my opinions of the political race to convince anyone to vote differently, and I would be discouraged if they did so. What I want is for people to get out and vote, period. Voting is the centre of our way of life; it's what people like my father and Deano and millions of others have fought for over the many years since Lexington and Concord. I encourage everyone to vote; I encourage everyone to not just watch CNN or Fox News or whatever...but to read the platforms, listen to the whole speech, and learn about your local candidates as well. If everyone takes the time to educate themselves and then get out there and cast a ballot...then regardless of who loses, the everyone wins.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I never suggested that Dubya was a libertarian. He isn't even close. As for balancing the budget and tax policy, I don't know if I buy Obama's line about taxing only the top 1%. I don't think that's true. I do think that Obama will want a more progressive tax system that taxes the wealthier more. That much is obvious. This has a facial appeal to many, I suppose, but is misguided. To have long-term economic growth, you need investment, which requires savings. Wealthier people simply save more money than the so-called "middle class." (Whatever that means -- it really depends on what area of the U.S. in which you live. It is very different in places such as Manhattan, San Francisco, or the westside of Los Angeles, where a salary of $100,000 won't even get you a decent apartment, as opposed to smaller towns in the Midwest, where one can afford a 2,500 sq ft home on a salary of half that.)
For example, let's assume I am in Obama's "top 1%". A higher percentage of my income would go toward savings than spending than the average American (and I would still spend a lot). Assume that every dollar taxed would have been saved -- almost certainly untrue, but we'll get to that in a moment. Instead of going into savings, and then invested in other businesses by banks or investment firms, that dollar goes into the government bureaucracy. I submit that the latter is a far less efficient engine for economic growth than the former. In fact, revisiting the assumption of a moment ago, probably only 70-80 cents of my dollar would have been saved; the rest would be spent. Even the spending would benefit the economy -- if I build a vacation home in Vail, that means money in the pockets of the people who finance and build the house. Indeed, that's how the government plans to use my dollar. It would have spent that money, too, on various projects, but only after taking out most of it to pay for the government bureaucracy itself. Thus, you get maybe a roughly equivalent amount of spending, maybe even less, and significantly less savings and investment. One could argue that it is more socially redeeming to have the government spend the money on schools than for me to spend it on a vacation home. Fair enough. However, if you want to redistribute wealth, then the most economically efficient thing the government could do is actually to redistribute it -- take my dollar and give it to a poor person. Now, this smacks of Marxism, but it would at least funnel the money back into the market, and even then would still require a bureaucracy to manage. This is largely what the U.S. government recently did in its economic stimulus plan, by sending every taxpayer (except those making more than a certain amount) a "rebate" check. If I'm in the top 1%, I'm not getting any rebate, but I am subsidizing those who do. Yet, rather than simply have me give money to a poor person (or donate it to a charity, church, school or something else), my dollar gets washed through the government machine such that only a few pennies of my dollar actually make it to those in need.
My point is, a dollar in the investment account of a rich person creates more economic growth than if that dollar were sent to the government. Mock "trickle down" economics all you want, that is a fact. Could it result in a widening of the gap between rich and poor? Yes, which is why I'm not necessarily opposed to redistributive tax programs or government incentives to nudge private businesses into directions that the free market might neglect. I'm not advocating a ban on taxes or government. I am, however, advocating policies that encourage, rather than discourage, private investment and economic growth. And I submit that for most people, once they have spent money on their mortgage, utilities, food, clothing and essential entertainment (such as Iron Maiden records), most of what the government doesn't tax would be put in the bank and invested. Which is why I am generally in favor of McCain's tax policy rather than Obama's.
I never suggested that Dubya was a libertarian. He isn't even close. As for balancing the budget and tax policy, I don't know if I buy Obama's line about taxing only the top 1%. I don't think that's true. I do think that Obama will want a more progressive tax system that taxes the wealthier more. That much is obvious. This has a facial appeal to many, I suppose, but is misguided. To have long-term economic growth, you need investment, which requires savings. Wealthier people simply save more money than the so-called "middle class." (Whatever that means -- it really depends on what area of the U.S. in which you live. It is very different in places such as Manhattan, San Francisco, or the westside of Los Angeles, where a salary of $100,000 won't even get you a decent apartment, as opposed to smaller towns in the Midwest, where one can afford a 2,500 sq ft home on a salary of half that.)
For example, let's assume I am in Obama's "top 1%". A higher percentage of my income would go toward savings than spending than the average American (and I would still spend a lot). Assume that every dollar taxed would have been saved -- almost certainly untrue, but we'll get to that in a moment. Instead of going into savings, and then invested in other businesses by banks or investment firms, that dollar goes into the government bureaucracy. I submit that the latter is a far less efficient engine for economic growth than the former. In fact, revisiting the assumption of a moment ago, probably only 70-80 cents of my dollar would have been saved; the rest would be spent. Even the spending would benefit the economy -- if I build a vacation home in Vail, that means money in the pockets of the people who finance and build the house. Indeed, that's how the government plans to use my dollar. It would have spent that money, too, on various projects, but only after taking out most of it to pay for the government bureaucracy itself. Thus, you get maybe a roughly equivalent amount of spending, maybe even less, and significantly less savings and investment. One could argue that it is more socially redeeming to have the government spend the money on schools than for me to spend it on a vacation home. Fair enough. However, if you want to redistribute wealth, then the most economically efficient thing the government could do is actually to redistribute it -- take my dollar and give it to a poor person. Now, this smacks of Marxism, but it would at least funnel the money back into the market, and even then would still require a bureaucracy to manage. This is largely what the U.S. government recently did in its economic stimulus plan, by sending every taxpayer (except those making more than a certain amount) a "rebate" check. If I'm in the top 1%, I'm not getting any rebate, but I am subsidizing those who do. Yet, rather than simply have me give money to a poor person (or donate it to a charity, church, school or something else), my dollar gets washed through the government machine such that only a few pennies of my dollar actually make it to those in need.
My point is, a dollar in the investment account of a rich person creates more economic growth than if that dollar were sent to the government. Mock "trickle down" economics all you want, that is a fact. Could it result in a widening of the gap between rich and poor? Yes, which is why I'm not necessarily opposed to redistributive tax programs or government incentives to nudge private businesses into directions that the free market might neglect. I'm not advocating a ban on taxes or government. I am, however, advocating policies that encourage, rather than discourage, private investment and economic growth. And I submit that for most people, once they have spent money on their mortgage, utilities, food, clothing and essential entertainment (such as Iron Maiden records), most of what the government doesn't tax would be put in the bank and invested. Which is why I am generally in favor of McCain's tax policy rather than Obama's.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I understand what you're saying about savings; savings power the banks, the banks power business, business pays people, people save. I get the that. I also know what you mean about the difference between making $100,000 in one area compared to the other, and cost of living indexes should be included in tax graphs. That is pretty obvious to me, anyway.
Unfortunately, rich people do not always invest their money in America (or Canada, or wherever you live). Warren Buffett is the exception, not the rule. The rich store their wealth off shore, in Swiss banks, and that sort of thing - not all of their wealth, but a large portion of it. I don't have exact numbers, but I do know that is true. Using the stimulus cheque as an example, if every cheque was put in the bank, that would have had the result of putting $150,000,000,000 into the banking system entirely in the US of A. *that* would help. The idea of providing savings bonds for children? That's a great idea, puts money right into the banks, giving them more power.
Now, before I address what was wrong with the stimulus package, I think it's important to point out the reason why savings can't be considered the only source of economic benefit, and why the package was targeted towards people who would spend it. The rich save, sometimes in the US, sometimes not; the rich invest - sometimes in the US, sometimes not. The middle class buys and saves exclusively in the US. The economy is targeted, generally, towards the middle class. Luxury vehicles exist but are not the prime revenue for companies, for example. Big screen tvs, surround sound system, all start out as extreme luxury items and are now well within the power of the middle class to obtain - that's how it works. So if the middle class does not spend, there becomes less incentives for business to develop, because the 1% can't pay all the bills of businesses; and the banks can't loan that much out. The middle class needs money to spend AND save or the economy stops.
Trickle-down works on the theory that if the banks can lend more, more jobs will be created, then more money will go into the economy, causing more incentive for banks. But it didn't work. Reaganomics failed to avoid the late 80s recession, and some argue, added to it. Similarly, the economic policies of the post Great War world (protectionism and laisse-faire economies) contributed DIRECTLY to the Great Depression. It took billions of public spending by FDR and World War II to pull the US economy out of that hole. The fact of the matter is this: if the USA invests in infrastructure, that money goes to both places - it provides thousands if not millions of jobs, and stimulates business, putting money into the top 1%. If the USA cuts taxes to the middle class, they will spend it, and put that money back towards the 1%.
The stimulus package wasn't a bad idea, except that it wasn't paid for with money that was freely available for spending. Unfortunately, cornfedhick, your 1%r didn't pay for it - your grandchildren did. The money for the package was borrowed from China and other debtors to the United States. This may assist with a momentary boost to the economy but it will harm in the long run. The economy needs more than a temporary jolt. It needs a fix...I don't think either Obama or McCain are presenting a comprehensive platform. For a nation that is 9.5 trillion dollars in debt, I don't think massive tax cuts is a very good option. If you pay your deficit and pay your debt, you can take taxes lower than before. The 7% sales tax I mentioned previously has been reduced to 5%. The tax will likely be gone in the next 30 years, as Canada's debt is paid down. Imagine if the USA had no debt at all...imagine the funds available at that point.
I understand what you're saying about savings; savings power the banks, the banks power business, business pays people, people save. I get the that. I also know what you mean about the difference between making $100,000 in one area compared to the other, and cost of living indexes should be included in tax graphs. That is pretty obvious to me, anyway.
Unfortunately, rich people do not always invest their money in America (or Canada, or wherever you live). Warren Buffett is the exception, not the rule. The rich store their wealth off shore, in Swiss banks, and that sort of thing - not all of their wealth, but a large portion of it. I don't have exact numbers, but I do know that is true. Using the stimulus cheque as an example, if every cheque was put in the bank, that would have had the result of putting $150,000,000,000 into the banking system entirely in the US of A. *that* would help. The idea of providing savings bonds for children? That's a great idea, puts money right into the banks, giving them more power.
Now, before I address what was wrong with the stimulus package, I think it's important to point out the reason why savings can't be considered the only source of economic benefit, and why the package was targeted towards people who would spend it. The rich save, sometimes in the US, sometimes not; the rich invest - sometimes in the US, sometimes not. The middle class buys and saves exclusively in the US. The economy is targeted, generally, towards the middle class. Luxury vehicles exist but are not the prime revenue for companies, for example. Big screen tvs, surround sound system, all start out as extreme luxury items and are now well within the power of the middle class to obtain - that's how it works. So if the middle class does not spend, there becomes less incentives for business to develop, because the 1% can't pay all the bills of businesses; and the banks can't loan that much out. The middle class needs money to spend AND save or the economy stops.
Trickle-down works on the theory that if the banks can lend more, more jobs will be created, then more money will go into the economy, causing more incentive for banks. But it didn't work. Reaganomics failed to avoid the late 80s recession, and some argue, added to it. Similarly, the economic policies of the post Great War world (protectionism and laisse-faire economies) contributed DIRECTLY to the Great Depression. It took billions of public spending by FDR and World War II to pull the US economy out of that hole. The fact of the matter is this: if the USA invests in infrastructure, that money goes to both places - it provides thousands if not millions of jobs, and stimulates business, putting money into the top 1%. If the USA cuts taxes to the middle class, they will spend it, and put that money back towards the 1%.
The stimulus package wasn't a bad idea, except that it wasn't paid for with money that was freely available for spending. Unfortunately, cornfedhick, your 1%r didn't pay for it - your grandchildren did. The money for the package was borrowed from China and other debtors to the United States. This may assist with a momentary boost to the economy but it will harm in the long run. The economy needs more than a temporary jolt. It needs a fix...I don't think either Obama or McCain are presenting a comprehensive platform. For a nation that is 9.5 trillion dollars in debt, I don't think massive tax cuts is a very good option. If you pay your deficit and pay your debt, you can take taxes lower than before. The 7% sales tax I mentioned previously has been reduced to 5%. The tax will likely be gone in the next 30 years, as Canada's debt is paid down. Imagine if the USA had no debt at all...imagine the funds available at that point.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
What I wonder about America:
Now.. does the majority of the voters really want change or isn't it suddenly not important anymore if Obama will be the candidate?
I'm very curious what the answer will be on election/judgement day: How sincere is the wish for change? Will race be more important? The only answer lies in the outcome, I'm afraid.
What I wonder about America:
Now.. does the majority of the voters really want change or isn't it suddenly not important anymore if Obama will be the candidate?
I'm very curious what the answer will be on election/judgement day: How sincere is the wish for change? Will race be more important? The only answer lies in the outcome, I'm afraid.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
Both candidates offer change; the difference is, they offer different styles of change. I'm not sure they're all that different, aside from the Iraq thing and health care.
Both candidates offer change; the difference is, they offer different styles of change. I'm not sure they're all that different, aside from the Iraq thing and health care.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I don't think that is entirely fair, if you are refering to race. I don't think that we have to elect a black man just to prove that we want change. Everyone that I know wants change in Iraq-- and many think McCain could be the one that makes that change. Doesn't make it wrong. There will be change no matter what, the current administration will be gone.
Forostar said:
I don't think that is entirely fair, if you are refering to race. I don't think that we have to elect a black man just to prove that we want change. Everyone that I know wants change in Iraq-- and many think McCain could be the one that makes that change. Doesn't make it wrong. There will be change no matter what, the current administration will be gone.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
As a foreign observer, I find it incredibly hard to sift through the varying talking points from time to time. I don't think John McCain is a maverick very much. I do think John McCain is sincere and doesn't care for Bush so much. If he has voted with Bush recently, it's mostly because the Democratic Congress is cowardly and hasn't tried to pass much to force Bush to veto, except for Iraq War bills...which McCain would support! So there is only some truth with this stuff.
As a foreign observer, I find it incredibly hard to sift through the varying talking points from time to time. I don't think John McCain is a maverick very much. I do think John McCain is sincere and doesn't care for Bush so much. If he has voted with Bush recently, it's mostly because the Democratic Congress is cowardly and hasn't tried to pass much to force Bush to veto, except for Iraq War bills...which McCain would support! So there is only some truth with this stuff.