2008 General Election Discussion Thread

[Balta1701]

The short answer is timing - and spending.

So...you're willing to argue that tax cuts increase revenue but that it's totally possible for that effect to be drowned out by much stronger effects. Then saying "The last 3 tax cuts all led to increased revenues" is simply meaningless because I can easily pull that exact same argument out of my hat. The government went deep in to debt with Bush's tax cuts because of wartime spending, and this is a classic method of economic stimulus. Coming out of a recession at the same time. So it's entirely possible to believe that Bush's tax cuts would have decreased revenue had the government not dove headfirst in to deficit spending and if they hadn't happened as we were leaving a recession.

[kapkomet]

So...you're willing to argue that tax cuts increase revenue but that it's totally possible for that effect to be drowned out by much stronger effects. Then saying "The last 3 tax cuts all led to increased revenues" is simply meaningless because I can easily pull that exact same argument out of my hat. The government went deep in to debt with Bush's tax cuts because of wartime spending, and this is a classic method of economic stimulus. Coming out of a recession at the same time. So it's entirely possible to believe that Bush's tax cuts would have decreased revenue had the government not dove headfirst in to deficit spending and if they hadn't happened as we were leaving a recession.

Just look at pure revenues, not bottom line (spending). Problem is with that, though, is other monetary policy.

[StrangeSox]

Just look at pure revenues, not bottom line (spending). Problem is with that, though, is other monetary policy.

 

Economics are like any large, complex natural system. It is extremely difficult or even impossible to completely isolate certain cause-effect relationships. One tiny, tiny little change in input values and you can get completely different results.

 

So, while I often hear from conservatives that "cutting taxes always leads to increased tax revenue," I view it with a large dose of skepticism.

[kapkomet]

Economics are like any large, complex natural system. It is extremely difficult or even impossible to completely isolate certain cause-effect relationships. One tiny, tiny little change in input values and you can get completely different results.

 

So, while I often hear from conservatives that "cutting taxes always leads to increased tax revenue," I view it with a large dose of skepticism.

The word always should be taken with a grain of salt, but I do think that as a whole tax cuts stimulate the economy and raise revenue inflows to the government over a relatively short period. Long term, of course that doesn't work.

[southsider2k5]

Economics are like any large, complex natural system. It is extremely difficult or even impossible to completely isolate certain cause-effect relationships. One tiny, tiny little change in input values and you can get completely different results.

 

So, while I often hear from conservatives that "cutting taxes always leads to increased tax revenue," I view it with a large dose of skepticism.

 

I don't think anyone has said ALWAYS. There is diminishing marginal returns to take into account, as well as the multiplier effect. But in general, yes it does increase revenues. Its the same reasons that increasing prices leads to less items sold.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think anyone has said ALWAYS. There is diminishing marginal returns to take into account, as well as the multiplier effect. But in general, yes it does increase revenues. Its the same reasons that increasing prices leads to less items sold.

 

Some tell me ALWAYS. Not here, and I didn't mean to imply that's what you, Kap, or anyone here has said.

 

Your example of individual store pricing is a lot less complex system than world's largest economy. It's easier to study that and see why people are buying less, what alternative goods they are buying instead, if the competitors are getting more, etc. I'm just saying that it seems hard to me to isolate increasing, decreasing, or leaving the taxes the same from what the rest of the economy is doing to determine if it leads to increased or decreased revenues.

 

Then again, like I mentioned to you before, I've never studied economics too in depth so I might just have no idea WTH I'm talking about!

[southsider2k5]

Some tell me ALWAYS. Not here, and I didn't mean to imply that's what you, Kap, or anyone here has said.

 

Your example of individual store pricing is a lot less complex system than world's largest economy. It's easier to study that and see why people are buying less, what alternative goods they are buying instead, if the competitors are getting more, etc. I'm just saying that it seems hard to me to isolate increasing, decreasing, or leaving the taxes the same from what the rest of the economy is doing to determine if it leads to increased or decreased revenues.

 

Then again, like I mentioned to you before, I've never studied economics too in depth so I might just have no idea WTH I'm talking about!

 

Anyone who tells you "always" in economics is full of it. Its not a study of absolutes. If you want something to read and learn a little bit about why people believe tax cuts drive governmental revenues, read up on the multiplier effect. This is pretty dry, but it gives an idea of what the theory is there.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplier_effect

[StrangeSox]

Anyone who tells you "always" in economics is full of it. Its not a study of absolutes. If you want something to read and learn a little bit about why people believe tax cuts drive governmental revenues, read up on the multiplier effect. This is pretty dry, but it gives an idea of what the theory is there.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplier_effect

 

Thanks for that, I'll definitely read it through. I was never arguing that it doesn't work that way (I think I've used the retail sales analogy on here before), just that there should be a big ol' caveat on "tax cuts increase tax revenue."

[Heads22]

nerds nerds nerds nerds nerds

[southsider2k5]

nerds nerds nerds nerds nerds

 

If you understood it, you wouldn't be a democrat anymore

[Heads22]

If you understood it, you wouldn't be a democrat anymore

 

NERD

 

Eh, I'm still too socially liberal.

[EvilMonkey]

NERD

 

Eh, I'm still too socially liberal.

You sure you don't mean socially awkward?

[southsider2k5]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109834/Gallup-D...n-Tracking.aspx

 

 

PRINCETON, NJ -- It's official: Barack Obama has received no bounce in voter support out of his selection of Sen. Joe Biden to be his vice presidential running mate.

 

Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 23-25, the first three-day period falling entirely after Obama's Saturday morning vice presidential announcement, shows 46% of national registered voters backing John McCain and 44% supporting Obama, not appreciably different from the previous week's standing for both candidates. This is the first time since Obama clinched the nomination in early June, though, that McCain has held any kind of advantage over Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

 

 

 

The race for president has been virtually tied since mid-August. In this period, Obama's support from national registered voters has consistently ranged from 44% to 46%. The 46% currently supporting McCain is technically his best showing since late May/early June, but is not a statistically significant improvement over his recent range from 43% to 45%. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.)

 

An analysis of historical election poll trends by Gallup Poll Managing Editor Jeff Jones shows that recent presidential campaigns have enjoyed a small (though short-lived) bounce from the running mate announcement. This includes a four percentage point bounce for John Kerry in 2004 after selecting John Edwards, a 5-point bounce for Al Gore in 2000 with his announcement of Joe Lieberman, and a 3-point bounce for George W. Bush in 2000 upon choosing Dick Cheney. Bob Dole received an extraordinary 9-point bounce in 1996 after bringing Jack Kemp onto his ticket.

 

All of these bounces occurred before the respective party's convention began, and in most cases the candidates received an additional boost in the polls upon completion of the convention. Thus, any increase in Obama's support in the coming days would seem to be more the result of the star-studded and well publicized Democratic national convention than the apparently lackluster Biden selection.

 

The official Gallup records will show that support for Obama declined by two percentage points in Gallup Poll Daily tracking (from 46% to 44%) conducted immediately before and after the Aug. 23 Biden announcement. (Because the announcement was made at 3 a.m. on Saturday, Aug. 23, all Gallup interviewing conducted that day can be considered post announcement.)

 

Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking result includes interviewing on the first night of the Democratic National Convention (Aug. 25). However, much of this interviewing, particularly in the East and Midwest, was conducted before the prime time convention speeches by Sen. Ted Kennedy and Michelle Obama. The Gallup Poll Daily tracking results reported tomorrow may start to indicate whether voters are impressed enough by what they are seeing at the convention to give Obama the bounce that typically occurs as a result of a party's convention. -- Lydia Saad

[Heads22]

Dammit, where's our Jomentum

[mr_genius]

Dammit, where's our Jomentum

 

 

"Jomentum!"

[NorthSideSox72]

Dammit, where's our Jomentum

National polls are still useless. Check the swing states and do the math, that's where it matters (unfortunately).

 

[mr_genius]

National polls are still useless. Check the swing states and do the math, that's where it matters (unfortunately).

 

For sure. There is actually a good chance McCain gets the popular vote and loses electoral college (and the election).

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

For sure. There is actually a good chance McCain gets the popular vote and loses electoral college (and the election).

And in a way, I'd like that, because then you'd have the GOP getting bit by the Electoral College bug. The Dems were bit in 2000. With them both bit, maybe we'll shelve that thing for Presidential elections finally.

 

[mr_genius]

And in a way, I'd like that, because then you'd have the GOP getting bit by the Electoral College bug. The Dems were bit in 2000. With them both bit, maybe we'll shelve that thing for Presidential elections finally.

 

Won't happen IMO. The Dems who are currently complaining about it will fully endorse the electoral college if they think they have will have an advantage for a while.

Edited August 26, 2008 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

Won't happen IMO. The Dems who are currently complaining about it will fully endorse the electoral college if they think they have will have an advantage for a while.

DING.

[whitesoxfan101]

Won't happen IMO. The Dems who are currently complaining about it will fully endorse the electoral college if they think they have will have an advantage for a while.

 

Of course. They condemned the electoral college in 2000 as the most evil thing in recent political history, but had that got that extra 100 thousand votes in Ohio in 2004, they'd have won the election in similar fashion and you wouldn't have heard a peep. I personally think the electoral college system is garbage, because as long as I live in Illinois and vote for a republican in the election my vote pretty much does not count, but nobody in politics said a word about it until what happened in 2000.

Edited August 27, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[NorthSideSox72]

Won't happen IMO. The Dems who are currently complaining about it will fully endorse the electoral college if they think they have will have an advantage for a while.

Probably. I can dream.

 

[jasonxctf]

its the bottom of the ninth, winning runner at 3rd base with 2 outs. Time to bring a pinch hitter off the bench. Do you want the 2008 version of Frank Thomas or Alexei Ramirez?

 

If you want Frank, then you are thinking about his experience. He's dealt with these situations before and you feel comfortable. You are voting for John McCain.

 

If you want Alexei, then you are thinking about his potential. He's untested in these situations but has proven himself as a darn good hitter. You are voting for Barrack Obama.

 

[whitesoxfan101]

 

This ad isn't a product of the McCain campaign, and in a development surprising to nobody, I haven't heard any media even acknowledge it exists. Now this ad is obviously quite slanted to make Obama look bad, but the general points of the argument (what Ayers did, his quotes, and the fact he is connected to Obama from his Chicago days) is accurate. And I also saw Obama's rebuttal to this (can't find it on youtube, but it's probably there) and it's pretty damn lame, saying Ayers did this stuff when Obama was 8 as if that matters, and some lame s*** like that.

 

This isn't like Willie Horton was to Dukakis, but I think this will end up hurting Obama in November in the era we live in with terrorism a major issue to a lot of people. The funny part is the Obama people have threatened legal action against stations airing the ad, even though I would love to hear what in this ad is illegal. As I said, the ad obviously is exaggeratory in nature, but the general information in it is pretty accurate.

Edited August 27, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[HuskyCaucasian]

The funny part is the Obama people have threatened legal action against stations airing the ad, even though I would love to hear what in this ad is illegal. As I said, the ad obviously is exaggeratory in nature, but the general information in it is pretty accurate.

I have to find the link, but many of the clips int he video were lifter from a movie and they did NOT ask permission to use the, The movie maker is suing for copyright violation and requesting they pull the ad.

 

By the way, McCain promised to denounce outside groups who ran negative ads. His response to the ad: well... it's got some good points!

Edited August 27, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000