finknottle

I've touched on this before but never got a bite, so I'll ask the question one last time in a slightly different way: 38% of households currently pay no income tax. That number is expected to rise to 50% under Obama's plan. If you pay no income tax, what incentive do you have to oppose increasing federal spending? Why would you oppose a politician that promises yet more, knowing that the bill will never fall on your shoulders directly? What happens when it becomes a clear majority of the electorate? (They will pay, of course, through the creep of alternate popular taxes such as payroll, gasoline, whatever. Ironically, these are regressive...)

Interesting piece from the Atlantic on why one economist picks McCain over Obama on economic issues, but with limited enthusiasm. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809u/mccain-economics

I think he was sincere and probably would have accomplished something overall had 9-11 not changed his focus. Instead our enemies have festered and are friends have been left hanging by an anti-trade congress...

I know it is a huge stretch, but the thing that creeps me out about Obamomania is that if a Chavez were ever to come to power here, this is how it would happen. Ride a wave of popularist support, offer popularist policies and lofty visions, promise better times for the masses and demonize the rich, and then demonize the opposition... There have been several reports recently about grassroots Obama organizations taking down the switchboards of local news organization airing opposition commentators...

Wow - they were a lot better behaved than the protesters at the RNC. As far as I can tell they filed out in an orderly manner when asked...

I assume that everybody knows that Hagel, despite being a Republican, was in the Obama camp early and was considered a VP candidate. So this is about as earth-shattering as Lieberman attacking the Obama ticket.

For most people, if it had been privatized years ago they would be up. SS takes the money you put in and assigns an interest rate for you, determined by the total amount. If you are maxing out, I think the return is just on the negative side of zero. For most, it's 1-3%. If you contributed almost nothing and were always below the poverty line, it's like 4-6% [it's been awhile since I've seen the numbers, they are hard to find, but I think that's about right]. If the market averages 5% most years (a conservative estimate) and has a big 25% crash right after you retire, you still win.

A tax credit is credit for taxes considered already paid - so if your amount owed drops below zero, you get a refund. Examples include the the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Tax Credits for (having) Children. They tend to go to the poor. This is how you 'lower' the taxes on people paying no income tax - tax credits for things like low income fuel assistance actually sends them money in the form of a refund, considered a rebate for external expenses. So I think the 95% refers to the entire population of filers, not on the 95% that actually pay anything; and that they will all either pay less or get more (according to the Obama camp), not just the 65% who pay something now. [And under his plan, the number of people who pay income tax is projected to fall to only 50% of the households.]

In a thread that suggests teaching disaster preparedness is a step towards Guantanomo Bay, I think responding with a little hyperbola is in order.

Good find. Children should not be taught "family preparedness plans in the case of emergencies." It goes against every fiber of the dependancy socialist state that we are striving for in '08.

Not impuning with your motives, simply warning against what I see is a dangerous temptation to politicians. As I said, I myself am in favor of infrastructure rebuilding, particularly the energy and communications infrastructure. Even though the latter is fine, we get 'leap-frogged' technologically by the emerging countries. That's one of the reason the Asian 'small tigers' become so attractive for technology companies. And conversely, one of the things that stem the flood of high-tech jobs from the US to places like India is our reliable energy supply and fast delivery support generally.

But the ability to lead and get things done isn't. And Paul has shown no ability to get things done on the national stage, and was unable to even influence the issue agenda in the Republican Primaries. That's a recipe for disaster for any president, particularly one facing a hostile congress.

Sadly, you touch on what I think is a key problem: the Right has spent so much time crying wolf about moderate Democrats (like Clinton and the DNC), that now that there is an opponent who truly deserves to be painted as the most liberal candidate nominated in a century, it falls on deaf ears.

No - and that's my point. I am in favor of rebuilding infrastructure, carefully planned out. It is IMO one of the competative economic advantages that the US has and must be maintained. But rebuild what we need, because we need it, not because it creates jobs. I am against hijacking the cause to be sold as a palliative for our economic woes. Once you go down that path you begin to ignore real economic issues and focus on 'government contracts for the district.' Before you know it you're spending a good portion of the GDP paving and repaving the beltway in an endless loop, and making alot of construction unions happy. It is the kind of thinking that say's natural disasters are good for the economy because of all the jobs they create. It also reminds me of India; the pressure is so create to create jobs that they pay millions of people to walk around the streets in the morning with a branch, sweeping dust; and companies are forced to hire people that do nothing but serve tea. It is difficult to break out of a cycle of government-funded dependency once it takes root. Japans problems were not caused by the construction. Funding construction allows them to show they are doing something. But in a society that has become pain-averse, it also allows them to ignore fixing the real corporate and banking problems. Construction spending has become a sort of 'third rail;' they no longer need it, it doesn't stimulate consumer spending as intended, but any pull-back meets harsh resistence.

They have never really pulled out of the recession following the real estate collapse in the 1990. This in turn wrecked havoc with their banking institutions, which had a lot of bad loans on their books... sound familiar yet? They turned to the tried-and-true philosophy of increasing social spending to prime the economy, engaging in massive public works projects over the years with no effect. The economy stagnated, and the 1990's are refered to in Japanese business circles as 'the lost decade.' The stock market, which had reached it's all time high in late 1989, ground steadily downward before turning around in 2003. Even in the past few years, the excitement over the Japanese economy has been less about it's modest return to adequate performance than simple hope that they might have finally ended their recession.

It's been better in the past few years, but things seem to have hit the wall and I expect the decline to resume Most growth has been fueled by the infusion of cheap labor, lower corporate taxes than in the US, and the addition of relatively minimaly-regulated nations such as Ireland and Portugual. As their economies have equalized, growth has faltered. Overall I think the outlook looks poor. If you have any experience doing business in Europe, you know that simply hiring a person to start or expand a business is a long-term financial committment. You can't fire them, you can't lay them off, you can't eliminate the position. The result of this union paradise is nobody creates new jobs unless it is an absolute sure thing. And the result of that is an unemployment rate that would shock Americans. Our unemployment rate has been between 2-3% for almost two decades. We began screaming recession when it rose to 5% this year, and went apoplectic when it spiked to 6.1% this month. In contrast, the unemployment rate in the EU is the lowest it's been in decades: 6.8%. Just going back to 2003, the rate in the EU was 9.2%! It is informative to break the EU down into the Nations whose business environments most resemble the US (UK and Ireland), and Old Europe which is the favored model of the Democrats (France, Germany, and Sweden). In this most favorable of times the more US-like countries have unemployment rates of 5.2%, while socialized Europe has a rate about 7%; and the disparity exists over time.

They are going to stop taking risks with their own money to start businesses when the potential reward is reduced. If you want to see what the outcome of this enlightened Democratic philosophy towards the workplace is, look no further than Europe. Job and business creation lags far behind the rest of the world. Even company expansion is hindered, when in many countries the simple act of hiring an employee commits you to paying his salary for a year.

Household, not single filers. Small-business entrepenuers tend to be in the single-filer 80-200k demographic, and things look bleak when you also factor in tax changes effecting health insurance and dividends (since their only retirement plan is out-of-pocket stock purchases). And if you raise the social security ceiling (they are currently talking about a 'donut'), don't forget that they pay it twice: once themselves, and once as a company-matching tax which for an S-Corp is essentially out-of-pocket too. For every extra $1,000 that a guy working for a big company pays into SS, an entrepenuer pays $2,000.

'Cept for the social security ceiling and a few other things, on paper at least. But with spending promises to don't add up (in fairness neither do McCains), and more importantly a Democratic House and Senate whipped up into a wealth-transfer frenzy, what makes you so confident that they will raise the rates only to what Obama is currently suggesting? Remember, in 2001 it was Congress that lowered the capital gains tax below what Bush asked for. The President only recommends and potentially vetos - it is Congress that writes the legislation.

We need to invest more in infrastructure, but the Democrats are coming dangerously close to seeing the issue as a giant jobs program. If Japan is any guide, it may mire us even deeper in recession.

Would you support a drooling idiot if his campaign manager handed him a scripted set of platforms that you agreed with? Are assessments of competance, experience, judgement, demeaner, etc all out of bounds? Or is it that it never occured to you that some people have concerns about Obama himself?

My stock portfolio is down 25%. As far as I am concerned, my social security is effectively 0 - they just have not admitted it yet. BTW, Obama's plan for increasing the ceiling on Social Security contributions will help the budget short-term but worsen and slightly advance the insolvancy of social security itself - more money in, more money+interest out.

I'm not sure that's the kind of community organizing he did - it's hard to say, because much of the history is blocked out. But a common view is that he organized the community, in the demonstration sense, to force the government to address issues. He wasn't a community self-help sort of organizer. Either way, it doesn't solve the basic universal problem that all local officials face: throttled by too much red-tape and regulation of the governments own making.

How do you measure heavy lifting? How about the percentage of your year spent working, the proceeds of which go entirely to the USG? I look forward to your definition.

How do you know this? Would you expect them to stick a big "this illegal crime brought to you by Students for Obama, paid for by Obama '08" banner up? If the shoe was on the other foot I have no doubt everybody would be blaming Karl Rove.