Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I do recall the article, and it was very smart and powerful. Problem is that I don't think we're talking about *that* much money. Admittedly, I haven't seen too much of Obama's trade protectionist stances, but while he has talked about such things, such as renegotiating NAFTA, I don't think it'll actually happen. I don't particularly think free trade with Bolivia is going to positively affect prices currently. More likely, prices in the US will be altered more by the plummetting dollar as the US gets further into debt and as they (shudder) may just print more money to pay off these massive bailouts.
Also, I don't think wage = productivity, since you have many people who make a lot of money but do not directly add into the economy. For instance, a CEO or a high-end criminal lawyer make millions, and do important jobs, but may not be directly "productive" as a guy making 30k/year working for GM in Detroit. I think Reaganomics (or as George H. W. Bush called it, Voodoo Economics) is a failed policy. It failed under Reagan and it failed under George W. Bush. In the end, people are still going to be paying less taxes under the Obama plan then they were in 1999, and that's all people.
Obama's plan will not increase taxes on small business either, which is a claim McCain loves to make. Big business? Probably, and I can't tell what the effect will be, but I do know that business tax in the USA is much lower than it is in Canada.
It was one of those things that just made my jaw drop. A definite, absolute WTF moment. I'm not going to call on some sort of probably partisan calculator, but it seems to me that the cost of doing what McCain suggested would be higher than instituting a Canadian-style health care system in the entire US of A. Which would probably be a better use of the money, if still retarded.
If Palin drops off the ticket, then her name remains on the ballot. However, she refuses the nomination of the electoral college. At which point, Sen. McCain would be inaugurated on Jan 20th without a vice president, and he could then utilize the Twenty Fifth Amendment to nominate whosoever he chooses. Congress would then need to ratify this nominee by a majority.
Also, CFH, don't know if you read the madness forum, but please check this out:
http://forum.maidenfans.com/index.php?topic=18021.0
cornfedhick said:I do think higher taxes on business and the most productive workers, coupled with trade barriers that will make goods more expensive (and thereby offset the extra few hundred dollars that lower-income workers would save in taxes), very well could further hurt the economy. See the article by Professor Boskin I posted in this thread -- page 16, Reply # 477. (I don't know how to link it.) Professor Boskin is very smart. He's at Stanford, so I necessarily think very highly of him.
I do recall the article, and it was very smart and powerful. Problem is that I don't think we're talking about *that* much money. Admittedly, I haven't seen too much of Obama's trade protectionist stances, but while he has talked about such things, such as renegotiating NAFTA, I don't think it'll actually happen. I don't particularly think free trade with Bolivia is going to positively affect prices currently. More likely, prices in the US will be altered more by the plummetting dollar as the US gets further into debt and as they (shudder) may just print more money to pay off these massive bailouts.
Also, I don't think wage = productivity, since you have many people who make a lot of money but do not directly add into the economy. For instance, a CEO or a high-end criminal lawyer make millions, and do important jobs, but may not be directly "productive" as a guy making 30k/year working for GM in Detroit. I think Reaganomics (or as George H. W. Bush called it, Voodoo Economics) is a failed policy. It failed under Reagan and it failed under George W. Bush. In the end, people are still going to be paying less taxes under the Obama plan then they were in 1999, and that's all people.
Obama's plan will not increase taxes on small business either, which is a claim McCain loves to make. Big business? Probably, and I can't tell what the effect will be, but I do know that business tax in the USA is much lower than it is in Canada.
On this [McCain's plan to buy up all bad loans in the US and the irresponsibility of massive debt bailouts], I agree with you completely, absolutely, unequivocally and 100%.
It was one of those things that just made my jaw drop. A definite, absolute WTF moment. I'm not going to call on some sort of probably partisan calculator, but it seems to me that the cost of doing what McCain suggested would be higher than instituting a Canadian-style health care system in the entire US of A. Which would probably be a better use of the money, if still retarded.
I agree with SMX that it is probably too late to get Romney on the ballots, but as you say, Palin could be - ahem - persuaded to withdraw, and McCain could promise to appoint Romney to fill the vacancy if elected. I'm not entirely sure whether that would be subject to Congressional approval, but if so, it would presumably be given. In any event, it's almost certainly a moot point, as McCain almost certainly won't do this.
If Palin drops off the ticket, then her name remains on the ballot. However, she refuses the nomination of the electoral college. At which point, Sen. McCain would be inaugurated on Jan 20th without a vice president, and he could then utilize the Twenty Fifth Amendment to nominate whosoever he chooses. Congress would then need to ratify this nominee by a majority.
Also, CFH, don't know if you read the madness forum, but please check this out:
http://forum.maidenfans.com/index.php?topic=18021.0