Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
cornfedhick said:
I am not a big fan of Bush the Younger, but I don't think his tax policy is to blame for the economic problems in the U.S. right now. The big problems with the U.S. economy are the credit crisis combined with out-of-control gas prices and an ill-considered war, none of which are directly, if at all, impacted by tax policy. If anything, the economy was rolling along so well that confidence in the ability of homebuyers to pay "subprime" mortgages was irrationally high, which led to the recent rash of foreclosures, the failures of financial institutions, the decline in the real estate market, and other problems.
You're 100% right in your analysis of the current issue with the US economy. But Bush's tax cuts were the cause of the return of the deficit back in...I want to say 2003 or 2004. Remember, US deficits have not counted the cost of the War in Iraq. So when they report a deficit of $300 billion, it doesn't include the cost to maintain forces overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq. The most recent and massive deficit is compounded by the problem with the economy. Taxes weren't a major cause, I agree - lower taxes are always condusive to a stronger economy when plausible - but there was a lack of market oversight by the government. That has nothing to do with the current discussion, so suffice to say, I am not blaming the Bush tax cuts for the state of the economy, but for the US governmental return to irresponsible spending habits during the first Bush administration.
cornfedhick said:
Furthermore, I don't see how Obama's spending plans (whatever they are -- they seem amorphous) would solve any of those problems. Obama's tax plan appears to be primarily redistributive -- 70% of my paycheck would go to other people. As it is, about half my paycheck goes to other people, and that's offensive. While I am not a strident "eat what you kill" believer in unfettered markets or zero welfare policies, I do think we shouldn't go too far the other way. I work long, stressful hours for my money, and I don't think I should be forced to give the lion's share of it to the government so it can, for example, bail out people who signed idiotic mortgages (or the rich banks who wrote those idiotic mortgages). Maybe that makes me a cold-hearted, selfish bastard, but I'm guessing I'm not alone.
Obama's spending plans are on his website, and are in some cases indeed very ambiguous. Though he has made some very clear statements on what he wants to do in certain sectors (green power, for instance), the basic idea is to spend money on infrastructure. I suppose the real reason these plans are ambiguous is that nobody really cares about the details, just like McCain's plans are entirely oversimplified. That's not how you get national news time, sadly. And I am shocked that 70% of your income would vanish to taxes. I am not in a high income level yet, but wealth is not being redistributed to me. I work for a living. Like I said previously a lot of money the US government blows is money no other sane country would touch. That includes bailouts for mortgages and it includes economic stimuli checks. I think there are a lot of excesses that government could reel in. The Democrats don't seem interested in it...Pelosi has handed out pork projects all over the place.
cornfedhick said:
Nor am I convinced that additional redistribution is necessary -- I don't know the answer to this, but I would be curious to learn whether the income gap between the wealthiest 20% of Americans (leave out the top 1% "super-rich") and the poorest 20% has grown or has shrunk under G.W. Bush, at least before the current crisis. While I might be persuaded that a slight increase in taxes to lower budget deficits might be fiscally prudent, I doubt that Obama's tax-and-spend plans would lower the deficits. For example, the removal of the cap on Social Security taxes would be a huge hit to upper-middle class workers in major cities, and would do nothing to reduce budget deficits.
It's my impression that the gap has increased, but I have nothing to back that up. As you say, leave out the super-rich, and those are the numbers usually reported. I honestly don't know enough about the Social Security taxes to comment on that, either. I suppose if Obama was intending to slash certain areas and increase spending in others, it'd make some sense. I preferred John Kerry's plan, which did involve rolling back *all* Bush tax cuts to the 1990s level.
I think Medicare is the real issue here. It seems to be the largest part of the US budget, leaving aside The War Against Terrorism (herein referred to as TWAT), and getting larger because HMOs keep charging more money. HMOs scare the hell out of me, and if people should be nailed with a windfall profits tax, it's them. For the amount of money the US government pumps into Medicare alone, the Canadian governments could supply health care for 10 times its entire population (and I live in the 2nd worst health care province...it's nothing like the stories on public health care go). If you reduced Medicare by 66%, it would cut the deficit in half, or more. So I approve of slashing spending...
cornfedhick said:
Your criticism of the Great Depression comparison has some merit, though I hope you would concede that the Great Depression would never have become "Great" had the government not imposed stupid, growth-stifling economic policies on top of poor market conditions. Finally, though you have no basis to give any credibility to my brother's views, I do. He is smart and apolitical -- he is proud of the fact that he never votes -- and simply looks at the effects that economic proposals have on human behavior (i.e., incentives). Even he thinks Obama's proposals are "wacky" and "stupid."
Absolutely. The Great Depression was the result of economic mismanagement through the mid 1930s, and I understand what you mean. If every single thing that occurs in the written article becomes true, the recession would get significantly worse. I don't think it will come to pass, and sadly, you can't really expect politicians to do everything they say. They're too used to making empty promises. If you recall correctly, during the primaries, Obama was criticised because his staffers told people in the Canadian PM's office that he really had no intention of renegotiating NAFTA.
And I apologize if I slighted your brother, I never meant to. My point was only that when a really, completely, irreversibly terrible idea comes out for candidates, most economists stand up and say, "WTF!" Like I say...if every single thing Obama has ever mentioned comes to pass...well, just like if every single thing McCain says comes to pass. Now, I have heard economists who think that Bush was brilliant, and many who don't (my econ profs at my alma mater were incredibly critical of Bush, so that is part of why I have a disdain for his tax ideas). But I have come to think the real problem with US government expenditures is the billions that are just shit away for no reason, and both the Republicans and the Democrats are to blame for that. The Democrats this time are encouraging it, but you have some folk like Ted Stevens (R-Intertubes) who just grab and grab and grab.
cornfedhick said:
(Even if that's the case in Germany or Sweden, let me just say that I'd rather live here than in Germany or Sweden, and leave it at that. As for Canada, there's a reason none of our best athletes really wants to play for the Raptors or Blue Jays, even though Toronto is famous for its cleanliness and awesome gentlemen's clubs, unless they get an adjustment for the higher taxes.) Nor am I sold on McCain -- leaving aside his tax policy, I can't help but shake the feeling that, deep down, the guy might be just a little bit insane. Nevertheless, ever since I started working I have become almost totally a single-issue voter. That issue is taxes. As much as I might admire Obama, it's hard for me to justify voting for someone who proudly proclaims that he will reduce my after-tax earnings by tens of thousands of dollars. If someone ran on a platform of, "I promise to take $X,000 more of your money and give it to someone else," would you vote for him?? Maybe if you are one of the people who will be getting that money (unless you think one day you might become successful and will have the government take your money, too). So, let him try to win with those folks' votes. I don't think he'll be getting mine.
Well, certainly, you're welcome to live wherever you want, and maybe major US athletes don't want to play in Toronto, but let's face it...neither would I, Toronto sucks. Besides, there's always Bob Barr to vote for (not joking in the slightest). Myself...well, I am a hint of a socialist in my belief in a strong, well-managed social safety net. I don't think the safety net in the USA is anything like that. So if that's what I was paying 70% for...I'd probably have the same opinions as you. Some high profile Americans are saying that they want their money handed over to other people (Warren Buffet, of course), but that's the beauty of democracy...though maybe it's time there was a third party in the United States.
)
