The Democrat Thread

[lostfan]

Mostly because it is the only way he gets attention in the press.

Since the Democratic primaries ended, I honestly cannot think of one thing McCain has said or done that's been newsworthy.

[southsider2k5]

and oddly his LACK of attention helps him because he tends to screw up a lot. If Obama did some of the stuff McCain says and does, he'd be outof the race already. But it's "Maverick McCain" to the rescue!!

 

"He screws up a lot" because that is the only thing that gets focused on. The other 99.9% of stuff just gets ignored so it seems like it was worse than it really is. Hell if I spent all day focusing on every Obama screw up, and there are plenty of them out there, I'd probably believe that same kind of crap.

[NorthSideSox72]

With everything else he wants to do, Clinton era tax rates will explode the deficit worse then it is now.

I am personally not a subscriber to the idea that raising taxes lowers gov't income and vice versa, always. I think there is truth to the idea that tax receipts are NOT perfectly in line with increases or decreases in tax rates - so I agree with the general principal behind it. But I think that this idea that raising taxes will lower gov't income no matter what, is just as silly as saying that increasing taxes X% will have that same X% increase in gov't income. They are both, in my view, laughably oversimplistic views.

 

I actually think that PERSONAL spending is becoming less and less sensitive to tax rates. People in this country spend and spend, its what they do. Rich people, even if they see big tax increases, will still spend nearly the same amount. Poor people and middle income people, in this Obama model, would actually have more cash in pocket, and will spend even more. So in terms of consumer spending, I think his tax increases will probably have a near net zero effect.

 

HOWEVER, I see a LOT of danger in his desire to make changes to taxes on cap gains, and on businesses. I think those increase would see a definite and significant decrease in business spending, and bad things happening in the markets. Not only will that screw up people's retirements, more immediately, it puts peoples' employers in a bad financial position as their market value fades and their profits drop. This pressure will, as it always does, be moved down the chain to the bottom rungs, where people will get laid off, not get raises, not get new jobs, etc.

 

In short, I have zero problem with removing the SS income cap (Obama's plan is slightly different than this though). I also have zero problem with a slight rebalancing of income taxes from middle to top, as long as the overall revenue stream remains constant. But I have SERIOUS problems with increases in cap gains taxes, and any increases in taxes on businesses.

 

And be careful here - if you overregulate an industry, that is in effect a taxation on that business line.

 

[lostfan]

The sector itself is in a liquidity crisis. The Fed Bank has been printing money like it has been going out of style to prop them up.

It's reversible... IF we were going to stop spending money like a bunch of coke whores. That's my main beef with Obama.

[kapkomet]

Since the Democratic primaries ended, I honestly cannot think of one thing McCain has said or done that's been newsworthy.

That should say something, on many levels.

[southsider2k5]

It's reversible... IF we were going to stop spending money like a bunch of coke whores. That's my main beef with Obama.

 

Its my main beef with the last eight years.

[NorthSideSox72]

The sector itself is in a liquidity crisis. The Fed Bank has been printing money like it has been going out of style to prop them up.

Sort of. I mean yes, the financial industry has all sorts of cards propping it up, and you could in theory say there is a liquidity crisis for that industry. And as I'm sure you'd say, yes, that effects everyone.

 

But this is not the same type of liquidity crisis, in scale or nature, that was going on in the 20's and 30's.

 

[kapkomet]

I am personally not a subscriber to the idea that raising taxes lowers gov't income and vice versa, always. I think there is truth to the idea that tax receipts are NOT perfectly in line with increases or decreases in tax rates - so I agree with the general principal behind it. But I think that this idea that raising taxes will lower gov't income no matter what, is just as silly as saying that increasing taxes X% will have that same X% increase in gov't income. They are both, in my view, laughably oversimplistic views.

 

I actually think that PERSONAL spending is becoming less and less sensitive to tax rates. People in this country spend and spend, its what they do. Rich people, even if they see big tax increases, will still spend nearly the same amount. Poor people and middle income people, in this Obama model, would actually have more cash in pocket, and will spend even more. So in terms of consumer spending, I think his tax increases will probably have a near net zero effect.

 

HOWEVER, I see a LOT of danger in his desire to make changes to taxes on cap gains, and on businesses. I think those increase would see a definite and significant decrease in business spending, and bad things happening in the markets. Not only will that screw up people's retirements, more immediately, it puts peoples' employers in a bad financial position as their market value fades and their profits drop. This pressure will, as it always does, be moved down the chain to the bottom rungs, where people will get laid off, not get raises, not get new jobs, etc.

 

In short, I have zero problem with removing the SS income cap (Obama's plan is slightly different than this though). I also have zero problem with a slight rebalancing of income taxes from middle to top, as long as the overall revenue stream remains constant. But I have SERIOUS problems with increases in cap gains taxes, and any increases in taxes on businesses.

 

And be careful here - if you overregulate an industry, that is in effect a taxation on that business line.

Sure it's overly simplisitic. But in this case, listen to what Obama's going to do. I'm telling you, what you're saying here is enough that the man shouldn't even get serious consideration for the presidency, because he's going to fundamentally destroy the system (yes, destroy is my choice of words). Let's increase the minimum wage to $10+ an hour, index it to inflation, WOOT! THAT way, the RICH and dirty corporations will have to pay the POOR more!!! Bulls***. The "rich" and "corporations" will just stop hiring. What will that do? And then, contract the earnings, tax those more... you get the picture. Jimmy Carter waves hi.

 

[southsider2k5]

Sort of. I mean yes, the financial industry has all sorts of cards propping it up, and you could in theory say there is a liquidity crisis for that industry. And as I'm sure you'd say, yes, that effects everyone.

 

But this is not the same type of liquidity crisis, in scale or nature, that was going on in the 20's and 30's.

 

I'd actually argue with the savings rates and borrowing rates of today, a liquidity crisis is worse today than it was then. people are a lot more dependant on the financial sector than they were 80 years ago.

[HuskyCaucasian]

McCain's Campaign Light on Actual Details

 

While campaigns typically snow reporters with white papers (detailed reports on policies) and policy minutiae, many of the domestic policy plans of John McCain have been notably short on details.

 

Analysts caution that both McCain and Barack Obama have produced policy pronouncements that are just as much election documents as workable proposals; after all, that is what presidential candidates do. But when it comes to the metric of paper produced, McCain trails Obama in spelling out the nitty-gritty.

 

"The Obama people are much more detailed," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan advocacy group dedicated to balancing the budget.

 

Consider McCain campaign senior adviser Taylor Griffin’s description of his candidate's plan for fixing Social Security:

 

"The history of the Social Security debate has taught that too many specifics, especially during a presidential campaign, has polarized the debate," he said of the program that McCain called "an absolute disgrace [that's] got to be fixed."

 

Will he contrast his plan to that of his opponent? "Sen. McCain believes this is so important that we do not politicize this debate during an election season."

 

What, then, is the plan? There doesn't appear to be a page dedicated to it on the McCain website....

[lostfan]

That should say something, on many levels.

e.g., the fact that he has not said or done anything newsworthy? Excluding the ads because that's been getting attention.

 

It's not like I haven't been paying attention but for the past 2 weeks (or whenever Obama's trip ended) all the focus has been on the ads and how they relate to Obama.

[kapkomet]

e.g., the fact that he has not said or done anything newsworthy? Excluding the ads because that's been getting attention.

 

It's not like I haven't been paying attention but for the past 2 weeks (or whenever Obama's trip ended) all the focus has been on the ads and how they relate to Obama.

You might think there's a reason for that, maybe?

 

You're getting there...

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

McCain still lying about his earmarks

 

One of the myths that John McCain has pawned off on the public most successfully is the one about his inveterate hostility to earmarks. For years McCain has been claiming that he never has put a single earmark in any bill.

"I have never a

s

k

ed for nor received a

s

ingle earmar

k

or por

k

barrel project for my

s

tate..."

"I've never done any favor

s

for anybody

—

lobbyi

s

t or

s

pecial-intere

s

t group

—

that'

s

a clear, 24-year record."

You see McCain's assertion about earmarks parroted all over. The Myth has such a grip on the public that The Google doesn't know of anyone ever using the expression 'McCain inserted an earmark' - until now, that is.

 

However as BarbinMD has documented repeatedly, in his eagerness to shower federal money on constituents and cronies McCain does indeed resort to earmarks. For example, McCain slipped a $ 14.3 million earmark in the 2004 Defense authorization bill (from which it jumped into the appropriations bill) to purchase land near an Arizona Air Force base. The earmark had not been approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee nor requested by the President nor part of Pentagon planning.

"Even though thi

s

project i

s

in clear violation of the McCain rule becau

s

e it wa

s

not authorized nor reque

s

ted, we are happy to provide the fund

s

at hi

s

reque

s

t and the reque

s

t of other member

s

of the Arizona delegation,"

s

aid Hou

s

e Appropriation

s

Committee

s

po

k

e

s

man John

S

cofield.

 

S

cofield al

s

o noted that the provi

s

ion may violate other tenet

s

of McCain

’

s

"por

k

" rule

s

becau

s

e the purpo

s

e of the fund

s

—

to acquire land to prevent the encroachment of re

s

idential development near the ba

s

e

’

s

live-fire range

—

i

s

not included in Defen

s

e

’

s

long-term

s

trategic plan

s

and may not be achievable within a five-year time frame.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[lostfan]

You might think there's a reason for that, maybe?

 

You're getting there...

Yes, there's absolutely a reason for that.

 

The reason is the fact that he has not said or done anything newsworthy.

 

Has he given a major policy speech? Has he outlined or re-emphasized a plan for anything? Has he gone overseas and met with foreign leaders lately (yeah, he did it before, and yeah, he got coverage)? Has he done anything besides campaign and whine about the media? No, he hasn't. Doing things like whining about Obama "playing the race card from the bottom of the deck" is working for him so this is what he's doing.

Edited August 1, 2008 by lostfan

[NorthSideSox72]

Sure it's overly simplisitic. But in this case, listen to what Obama's going to do. I'm telling you, what you're saying here is enough that the man shouldn't even get serious consideration for the presidency, because he's going to fundamentally destroy the system (yes, destroy is my choice of words). Let's increase the minimum wage to $10+ an hour, index it to inflation, WOOT! THAT way, the RICH and dirty corporations will have to pay the POOR more!!! Bulls***. The "rich" and "corporations" will just stop hiring. What will that do? And then, contract the earnings, tax those more... you get the picture. Jimmy Carter waves hi.

 

Actually, I agree with Obama that the minimum wage needs a serious bump, and an inflationary increase built in. I don't have a target number in mind because I don't have the data in front of me, but, it hasn't increased anywhere near inflation since it was installed. Yes, it will result in some limited decreases in hiring, but not that much - places that are looking for minimum wagers are ALWAYS hiring, its the nature of it.

 

I'd actually argue with the savings rates and borrowing rates of today, a liquidity crisis is worse today than it was then. people are a lot more dependant on the financial sector than they were 80 years ago.

 

OK, see, that's the opposite of logical to me. Which means I must be missing something in what you are saying. Can you clarify?

 

[southsider2k5]

OK, see, that's the opposite of logical to me. Which means I must be missing something in what you are saying. Can you clarify?

 

People today are totally dependant on the banks loaning money today. Typically people have car loans, student loans, mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans etc. That didn't happen in the 30's. The banking sector collapse reverberated through the economy big time back then, even when most people did not need the banks like they do today. Banking liquidity has a much larger affect on today's world.

[StrangeSox]

Actually, I agree with Obama that the minimum wage needs a serious bump, and an inflationary increase built in. I don't have a target number in mind because I don't have the data in front of me, but, it hasn't increased anywhere near inflation since it was installed. Yes, it will result in some limited decreases in hiring, but not that much - places that are looking for minimum wagers are ALWAYS hiring, its the nature of it.

 

The problem I see with tying it to inflation is two-fold:

 

1) It assumes that the starting point was a good choice and adjusts from there

2) What if we ever have deflation? Will politicians actually allow minimum wage to fall?

[Balta1701]

People today are totally dependant on the banks loaning money today. Typically people have car loans, student loans, mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans etc. That didn't happen in the 30's. The banking sector collapse reverberated through the economy big time back then, even when most people did not need the banks like they do today. Banking liquidity has a much larger affect on today's world.

I was trying to imagine a couple months ago when the Bear bailout happened what it would be like if one of the really big banks, something bigger than IMB, wound up in the hands of the FDIC. Think Bankone, Citibank, BofA, etc., the ones that people use for everything. It's hard for me to fathom the disruption. Hell, just imagine if the company that held 1/3 of the credit cards in your wallet suddenly said it wouldn't take it any more, and on top of that you had a bank account with them so you couldn't write a check and you couldn't get cash out of an ATM until you got your FDIC check and cashed it?

[kapkomet]

Actually, I agree with Obama that the minimum wage needs a serious bump, and an inflationary increase built in. I don't have a target number in mind because I don't have the data in front of me, but, it hasn't increased anywhere near inflation since it was installed. Yes, it will result in some limited decreases in hiring, but not that much - places that are looking for minimum wagers are ALWAYS hiring, its the nature of it.

I agree, but only to an extent - personally, I think that minimum wage laws should have a floor, but me legistlated from the state level and not the federal. A $10.50 minimum wage will hit harder in Nebraska then it would in New York, or Illinois. Different areas of the country have different needs and can absorb it differently.

 

[kapkomet]

Yes, there's absolutely a reason for that.

 

The reason is the fact that he has not said or done anything newsworthy.

 

Has he given a major policy speech? Has he outlined or re-emphasized a plan for anything? Has he gone overseas and met with foreign leaders lately (yeah, he did it before, and yeah, he got coverage)? Has he done anything besides campaign and whine about the media? No, he hasn't. Doing things like whining about Obama "playing the race card from the bottom of the deck" is working for him so this is what he's doing.

Well, I've agreed with you that McCain is not going to get elected by b****ing about Obama. He has to differentiate himself, which is going to be NEGATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to all the Obamatrons (read one in this thread, ) but at the same time, questions need to be raised about his leadership, his influences from the past (hell, read his own book, I have some SERIOUS issues with him from that alone), and what he wants to do from an economic standpoint. All of those policies need to be debated and told why they are bad for our country (NEGATIVE TO OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!)...

 

Anyway, McCain is not the anit-Obama. He's McCain. And if his sorry ass doesn't get away from that position (anti-Obama) he's going to get destroyed in the election.

 

[lostfan]

I agree, but only to an extent - personally, I think that minimum wage laws should have a floor, but me legistlated from the state level and not the federal. A $10.50 minimum wage will hit harder in Nebraska then it would in New York, or Illinois. Different areas of the country have different needs and can absorb it differently.

That makes a lot of sense.

 

$10.50 is a fair amount of money in some parts of the country. Try that in DC though.

Edited August 1, 2008 by lostfan

[NorthSideSox72]

I agree, but only to an extent - personally, I think that minimum wage laws should have a floor, but me legistlated from the state level and not the federal. A $10.50 minimum wage will hit harder in Nebraska then it would in New York, or Illinois. Different areas of the country have different needs and can absorb it differently.

That's definitely true, and some states already do that. The floor can be federal, but should be based on living in a state with the lowest cost of living. Then adjust COLA for it based on a survery of market basket increase in, say, the lowest 5 states. Other states can, and should, then increase on their own as needed.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I agree, but only to an extent - personally, I think that minimum wage laws should have a floor, but me legistlated from the state level and not the federal. A $10.50 minimum wage will hit harder in Nebraska then it would in New York, or Illinois. Different areas of the country have different needs and can absorb it differently.

I would agree with that.

 

I'll put it in terms that I have knowledge of .

 

My wife and I are considering moving to Iowa sometime inthe next few years. For $125,000 i can buy a nice 3 bedroom house in the country or in IC / CR. In Schaumburg / Roselle where I live now.... it buys me a beat up condo.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

I agree, but only to an extent - personally, I think that minimum wage laws should have a floor, but me legistlated from the state level and not the federal. A $10.50 minimum wage will hit harder in Nebraska then it would in New York, or Illinois. Different areas of the country have different needs and can absorb it differently.

 

That I totally agree with. Its yet another thing that needs to be state based.

[NorthSideSox72]

People today are totally dependant on the banks loaning money today. Typically people have car loans, student loans, mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans etc. That didn't happen in the 30's. The banking sector collapse reverberated through the economy big time back then, even when most people did not need the banks like they do today. Banking liquidity has a much larger affect on today's world.

And see, there is a key there - the loan dependency is a definite issue, but I actually think the belt tightening on loans will be a good thing in the long run. People get loans on too many things, and run up credit card bills for too many others. If it gets harder to do that, there will be an ugly interim adjustment period, but then people will simply not be able to stretch as far, and that's actually good.

 

I just don't think this is like the pre-depression days here. I don't see it.