Obama VP - Blanche Lincoln?
|
Submitted by jaysonelliot
Posted: Friday, May 02, 2008 at 1:12 AM.  |
http://boxinasuitcase.com/index.php?title=blanche_lincoln&more=1&c=1&tb=... Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln might be the best running mate for Obama in this election. She's young (48), a great speaker, attractive, strong, and has the right mix of conservative and liberal values to sway Clinton voters and even some Republicans. Presidential politics are partially about issues, and Lincoln has an excellent resume there, but so much also hinges on the voters who aren't political junkies, and form their opinions based on a few Malcolm Gladwell "Blink"-style encounters. I first paid attention to Senator Lincoln in '04, and I still believe that she is a rising star. I expect to see this woman in the White House one day - might as well start as Obama's VP. |
Why not Wes
Posted: Sun, 05/04/2008 - 23:03.
It seems to me that if we are going to define the picking of a Vice President as an act in gap filling, than Wesley Clark would seem to be the perfect fit.
Beyond the military experience, which all agree Obama needs to balance the ticket, he is from the South. Obama probally still could not win there - but it could not hurt.
And lets be honest, a good looking cat with a semblance of name recognition makes for a heck of a figure head. He may have ran a crappy campaign in 2004, but he would be a nice ticket balancer, and if McCain picks Crist to be his VP the Dems will need a pretty boy.
Clark would be a great pick
Posted: Mon, 05/05/2008 - 08:27.
Clark would be a great pick for Obama. He's learned a lot about the political game since his run in '04, and despite the fact that he wasn't the best campaigner that year, he still managed to take as many states as Edwards (one) and get a lot of people (including Clinton people) excited about him.
He's an inspirational figure with an amazing resume, and hey, he's shorter than Obama too - which as we all know is a requirement for second fiddle - right, Lloyd Bentsen?
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060523/060523_bentsen_hmed_8a.hmedium.jpg">
I am curious about the mixed message
Posted: Sun, 05/04/2008 - 23:32.
One of the talking points that I think is gaining ground is that President Bush fatally misunderstands his roll as Commander-in-Chief. When asked about withdrawing troops from Iraq, he says that he listens to his commanders in the field. Yet the role of the President is to make the policy decisions that the commanders implement, not to haphazardly give the order to invade and then relinquish all further policy decisions.
Senator Obama has used this rhetoric to suggest that, as Commander-in-Chief, he will make the policy decisions and tell his commanders to implement that decision -- including when to get out of Iraq. This has the potential to draw a stark contrast with Senator McCain who has repeated President Bush's line about listening to his commanders regarding pulling out of Iraq. [I'll apologize now for not citing sources, but bed is in my near future and I wanted to get this idea out here before it fades]
So how does it impact this difference between Senators Obama and McCain if General Clark is asked to be the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee? Arguably, the only gap the General fills is in Senator Obama's military credentials. But if Senator Obama has already stated that he will make the policy calls on Iraq, then what purpose would General Clark serve?
I think -- and this is admittedly not an entirely finished thought -- that General Clark may actually weaken Senator Obama on military issues as his appointment would almost be an admission by Senator Obama that he cannot handle military issues on his own. Am I over thinking this?
It is all perception
Posted: Mon, 05/05/2008 - 12:24.
All valid points, but this thing is about perception.
The average voter is not going to disect an Obama/Clark ticket to the extent that you have. The one issue that voters can point to and say that McCain is head-and-shoulders above Obama is defense. By brining a General on board, one who has (to a limited extent) been through the rigors of presidential politics, Obama can to at least to some extent shrink the gap between him and McCain on the issue of defense.
Again, it is all about perception, Obama may be making the calls, and Clark may not even make the ticket that much stronger on defense but by having a General on the ticket, when the topic turns to defense it just gives Obama another card to play.
She looks interesting. At
Posted: Sat, 05/03/2008 - 02:39.
She looks interesting. At this point I think that who Obama might pick as his VP is pretty speculative. He might end up being forced to take Clinton as his VP.
I was always interested in the idea of Jim Webb of Virgina as Obama's VP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb
He has solid military credentials. Secretary of Navy under Reagan, he wrote the military classic about Vietnam "Field of Fire".
I think he would appeal to working class whites, which would be good for Obama's demographic problems.
Anyway, Thomas Barnett brought him up on his blog as an idea and its one that has really stuck with me.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2008/03/im_just_saying.html
He is the scrappy Scot-Irish fellow who said he wanted to slug President Bush when Bush asked him about his son, who is serving in Iraq.
The problem with Sen. Webb . . .
Posted: Sun, 05/04/2008 - 19:42.
Senator Webb might make a good choice except for the fact that he is more useful in his current role: soon to be Senior Democratic Senator from Virginia. With Governor Mark Warner poised to take retiring Senator John Warner's seat, the Democrats are going to have two Democratic Virginia Senators for the first time since 1971.
Under the Code of Virginia, § 24.2-207, a vacancy in the Senate is filled by election. The Governor may only make a temporary appointment if the vacancy occurs within 120 days of the election (July 7th), but that appointment only lasts until the next November general election. Keep in mind that Virginia has off-year gubernatorial elections so Virginia will have November general elections in both 2008 and 2009.
Lets assume that Senator Webb is the Vice Presidential selection and the Democrats win the Presidency, but Senator Webb does not resign from his Senate seat until sometime after July 7, 2008 but before January 20, 2009. In that case, Governor Tim Kaine (Democrat) would make a temporary appointment to the seat, which would then be an open race in 2009. Perhaps the best selection for Governor Kaine would be himself given that he cannot stand for reelection. However, if he were to appoint himself then Republican Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling will take over the Commonwealth (and greatly increase his chances of winning the Governorship in November 2009). Further, Governor Kaine may have a problem standing for election with his recent positions on the death penalty and gun rights -- meaning that this seat would not be secure, which is potentially problematic if the Democrats do not pick up additional senate seats.
With the Senate so close (48+2 to 48) it becomes risky for Senator Obama to pick a Democrat Senator from a red state as this may potentially impact the composition and control of the Senate.
yeah your right that is a
Posted: Sun, 05/04/2008 - 21:48.
yeah your right that is a big risk. I dont think it worth losing the Senate.
I still think that Jim Webb is someone with Presidential aspirations one day. You can just see it.
Webb definitely balances
Posted: Sat, 05/03/2008 - 22:01.
Webb definitely balances Obama on some of the working class white vote, but he seems like he could end up being more of a liability than an asset if the Republicans attack.
He just eeked past Allen in his Senate race, which I remember was unusually heavy on the coverage (I guess Allen's "Macaca" comment did that) - I was surprised that a military veteran with a record like Webb's had trouble beating a guy like "All Hat No Cattle" Allen.
He's got the whiff of scandal on him, too, with his controversial novels that he's written containing all kinds of sexual deviancy.
If he was an especially charismatic personality, or had some great cause that could overcome those things, I'd like him, but I'm afraid he could drag Obama the wrong way.
Maybe I'm just letting my own preferences come in here, but I really see Lincoln as a rising star Obama could use.
Yeah I remember thinking it
Posted: Sat, 05/03/2008 - 22:57.
Yeah I remember thinking it was strange that his senate race was so close, especially considering the high level of douche baggery that George Allen displayed during the election, but then again unseating an incumbent is always a uphill battle. (remember when he was a Republican possibility for 08?) Webb was on Meet The Press a couple of months ago, and I was watching it with my father and we both noticed that his bearing and manner were very presidential. It's not hard to pick these guys out (the serious contenders) once you know what your looking for. (mostly ego) I had the same feeling watching Obama's 2004 DNC speech. It's one of those "This guy is going places" moments.
I dont know a whole lot about Lincoln, but I'm sure Obama is going to pick someone who is a rising star, i doubt he will make a choice like Bush made with Cheney. I do know that for bad or worse, Dick Cheney has really redefined the role of a vice-president, so it will be very interesting to see who ends up being the VP and how the Democrats either decline or accept that redefinition in their choice.
I have a feeling it's going to be a relative unknown, regardless of who it is.
It might be Clinton, but i just seriously that she is going to just fall in line after this primary.
What has always struck me in watching the debates is the obviously deep level of distaste she has for Obama. That being said, JFK and LBJ got over it and worked together, so maybe these two can also.
It just seems to me that the Clintons would disenfranchise every voter who voted against them, if they thought it would get them back in the White House. Very much the ends justify the means kind of politicians.
I agree with you about
Posted: Mon, 05/05/2008 - 08:20.
I agree with you about Clinton. I wonder if she would actually manage to lose votes for the Democrats if she were on the ticket as VP?
I'd really hate to see either an Obama/Clinton or a Clinton/Obama ticket. It's too much of a cop-out, a "second place gets VP" approach that sounds like how we did it in the 18th century. After all, if we're getting a "dream ticket" with both of them on the Democratic slate, why not take it another step and give McCain the VP slot for a bipartisan "dream ticket?"
At any rate, I agree that her distaste for Obama would probably keep her from joining him as his running mate.
Completely Agree
Posted: Mon, 05/05/2008 - 11:14.
A further problem to a dream ticket is Senator Clinton's unmentionables: her favorable/unfavorable ratings. The last time Senator Clinton's unfavorables were under 40%, Arsenio Hall had a show. And I think it's safe to conclude that, but for her negatives, Senator Clinton would have been the next President. Why would Senator Obama want to take on those negatives?
The best argument in favor of Senator Obama selecting Senator Clinton for Vice President is that her surrogates have successfully crafted the narrative that, right or wrong, the nomination has been taken away from a hard working woman who deserved it and that resonates with women sufficiently so that many would rather vote for Senator McCain. Personally, I think that narrative holds more water with the pundits than with most women (who generally find this rather insulting). However, should Senator Obama accept this as a potential outcome of the elongated nomination battle, then I think he would be better served by selecting another female running mate who lacks Senator Clinton's negatives, which brings us back to Senator Lincoln . . .
"The last time Senator
Posted: Mon, 05/05/2008 - 15:12.
"The last time Senator Clinton's unfavorables were under 40%, Arsenio Hall had a show."
What a quote! I love it.
I agree that Clinton would probably hurt Obama in some aspects, but ultimately whoever the nominee is; I think will be the next president, despite McCain looking somewhat stronger than anticipated right now. November is a long time off and I would be willing to bet that the economy continues to tank at least until next year. "Its the economy stupid" as Carville said. I just dont in any circumstances see the any party staying in office after a performance like the past 8 years. I think there is an elephant in the room and his name is George W. Bush, i dont think McCain is going to be able to distance himself enough by November and still be a Republican. Maybe his only shot at the White House is a Vp slot with Obama.;)
Lets just cancel the election now and go with that!
Possible VP
Posted: Fri, 05/02/2008 - 16:12.
Looks like she is pretty pro-free trade. Probably won't allow her to be the pick.
McCain can't hit her on the
Posted: Fri, 05/02/2008 - 16:47.
McCain can't hit her on the trade issue, since he's to the right of her position. Any voter considering that as their issue will still go Obama over McCain, as the veep's position doesn't carry the weight of the candidate's.
VP picking is all about balancing and filling gaps, so there are bound to be some ideological differences. That's her strength, really - she's a centrist in the Clinton mold, without the Clinton baggage.
Yea, but that means Obama
Posted: Fri, 05/02/2008 - 16:51.
Yea, but that means Obama can't hit McCain on it either. There goes all those Reagan Democrats he's been looking to pick up.
Reagan Democrats
Posted: Wed, 05/07/2008 - 16:35.
Obama hasn't carried the Reagan Democrats in any of the primaries thus far and with a moderate Republican on the top of the ticket they aren't likely to stay in the Democrat's corner come November.
Ha!You really think McCain
Posted: Wed, 05/07/2008 - 20:13.
Ha!
You really think McCain is ever going to shake off Bush enough for the fact that McCain is a moderate to even matter? I doubt it. The Republicans are toast for a while, or at least until they adjust to this new political realignment that is taking place and if they dont, well I guess there going to be victims of their own idealogy, unadaptable species tend die out.
Absolutely
Posted: Wed, 05/07/2008 - 21:44.
This year should be a walk in the park for the Democrats but they simply can't get their act together due to their overly complex nomination process.
I fail to see how the Democrats will be able to win over independent voters by nominating the most liberal member of the US Senate. Not to mention his extremely short and insignificant list of accomplishments.
Although I don't like McCain he's the only GOP candidate who can ensure the Republicans hold the White House this year.
Obama can't win with only the black, youth, and elite vote. He's the 2008 version of McGovern. If he's nominated it will be ugly in November.
I think the dems can win the
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 14:05.
I think the dems can win the independent voters because simply put John McCains effort to position himself as the safe change candidate, are not credible, nor will they sell when his policy positions are with some exceptions, just an extension of Bush policy And I also dont see the American people electing someone who admitedly doesnt know a whole about the economics, just as the economy is heading into a recession. Look, if Bill Clinton was able to manufacture a recession in 1992 and was successfull in unseating an incumbent president who only a year before had a approval rating of 90% because he managed to convince Americans they were about to start hurting in their pocketbooks, then I dont see the American people electing someone who had promised the same policys that got us into this mess when their pocketbooks are hurting. People think that Obama is like Dukakis, who did lose, but let me tell you that if Reagan had screwed the pooch as royally as dubya has, then Dukakis would have won.
HAHA
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 14:13.
So you're saying Obama is on the same level as Dukakis? Your expectations aren't very high.
Tell me, how will Obama's policies improve the economy? Increases taxes will take money out of the wallets of consumers. It will increase the risk on investments thus lower tax revenue. Taxing oil companies will increase the price of gasoline.
Please, step outside of the "hope" and "change" message and get specific. What about Obama's proposals will improve out economy?
No, I think Obama is a bit
Posted: Mon, 05/12/2008 - 18:36.
No, I think Obama is a bit more like JFK than Dukakis. My point is that the dems could run Mickey Mouse and the republicans could run the resurrected body of Jesus Christ himself, and I still think the mouse would win. In a landslide.
Your perspective reminds me of an animal frozen in the headlights. You Republicans better wise up quick, or ya'll risk becoming a historical lesson.
Income Taxes and Consumers
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 14:57.
President Bush's tax cuts, passed by the Republican Congress, altered the tax distribution in this country in a flawed way. Under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (and subsequent acceleration in 2003) there was an across the board 3% cut on tax rates for all but the top income bracket (those earning more than $349,700). This top income bracket was reduced by 4.6%. The extra 1.6% that the top tax bracket received cost the government more money than the entire tax cut for the next income bracket -- and only benefited 950,000 people!
According to Austan Goolsbee, University of Chicago Professor and Obama Advisor, when Senator Obama speaks of eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, he is only talking about this top income bracket. Therefore the only consumers who will have less money due to taxes are those who make more than $349,700 per year, and I think that demographic will continue to consume things regardless of their tax rate.
Meanwhile our economy will receive an extra $26-billion in revenue per year. I think this is a pretty good trade off.
Back to the original point
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 16:03.
How will raising taxes on all but those making less than $75k a year improve our economy?
No, No, No.
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 15:09.
If the Bush tax cuts expire they will result in the largest net tax increase in our country's history. I don't make $350k a year and the Bush tax cuts in '03 lowered my tax burden.
Obama has promised a tax cut to the middle class, which he has redefined as those making $75k or less. People making $80k, especially living in large cities, are not rich and should not be classified as such.
Increasing taxes on the rich, which is a group largely comprised by small business owners will reduce jobs, increase investment risk, and slow economic growth.
And our economy will not receive $26B in revenue. Our economy is not measured based on the amount of money the federal government collects in tax receipts. They are two completely distinct things. However, I wouldn't expect a liberal to understand that the world doesn't revolve around the Federal government. Try some education:
Ah Civility!
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 15:34.
You are absolutely right about tax receipts not equating to the economy. I mispoke. The Federal Government will receive an extra $26-billion to help reduce some of the costs associated with the Republican's mismanagement of our government. Now, I'll be one of the first to admit that $26-billion is not much in comparison to the cost of the Iraq War, but it at least moves the bottom line in the right direction.
What metric are you using to determine the largest net increase in our country's history? Because I'm pretty sure the largest tax increase came with the passage of the 16th Amendment.
Would you also mind citing your source that defines the majority of those in the top income tax bracket as being small business owners?
And I would also point out that just because the Heritage Institute calls something a Myth or Fact, certainly does not make it so. While I would take issue with most of your chart, I am especially flabbergasted with the last one. How do you justify that when the actual tax rates for the top income bracket was reduced by a greater rate than for any other income bracket? Before Bush's tax cuts the top income tax bracket paid 39.6% and now pay 35% (or 4.6% reduction compared to 3% for the other tax brackets).
$26B
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 15:53.
The economy was booming, gas prices were low, and home ownership was at an all time high until the Dems took office in '07. Who is mismanaging government?
Formatting
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 15:55.
The forum formatting here is horrible.
The link for the entire graph is here:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart6_lg.gif
Wow
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 16:27.
This is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. Wait -- yes I do.
I'll assume that your crack about the Democrats causing the housing bubble to burst and the dollar (to continue) to fall leading to higher gas costs is mere sarcasm. Please let me know if I'm wrong about that because that necessitates a far scarier conversation.
As to your chart, there is hardly enough information there to make a meaningful retort -- does that account for inflation? But I can see that we're talking about very different things. I am discussing the top income tax bracket and their disproportionate tax cut. Those who received a 4.6% tax cut instead of a 3% tax cut make up less than 1% of all tax returns filed (2005). Those individuals (the rich) are paying far less under the Bush tax cuts than before.
Maybe this is an honest confusion of terms (who exactly are the rich?), but I think it's the Heritage Institute purposefully manipulating data until it says what they want it to say. When people talk about the Bush tax cuts being tilted towards the rich, they are talking about those in the top income tax bracket (those who got a higher reduction) -- they are not talking about the top 20% of households.
Back to the original point
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 16:04.
How will raising taxes on all but those making less than $75k a year improve our economy?
Please show me
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 16:30.
Where do you get that statement? Would you show me where Senator Obama has proposed raising income taxes on those making less than $75k per year? Then I can comment on that statement in context.
Proposing a tax cut on
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 21:55.
Proposing a tax cut on only those who make $75k or less as stated here:
The tax cuts would apply to workers with salaries less than $75,000. Obama said the plan will ``jumpstart the economy by putting money in the pockets of those who need it most and will spend it quickly.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOeNqgdy90uQ&refer=home
If you raise everyone's taxes by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, which if you think are "fair" or not have lead to record low unemployment and growth, will raise the taxes for all. Then by cutting the taxes on only those making less than $75k (which Obama defines as "middle class") will result in a tax increase for anyone making $75k or more. AND his tax cut is only $1,000 which is roughly what people making $40-50k recieved under the Bush Tax cut plan.
Although, afterall... he's proposed $900 billion in new spending and entitlement programs so he has to pay for it somehow.
I wouldn't expect you to know this though. It's hard to comprehend it all through the "hope" "change" and "future" rhetoric that's constantly repeated.
Mistatement
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 23:33.
Now we're getting somewhere. So you think Senator Obama will raise taxes by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Yet the quote you provided only refers to a proposal to lower the tax rate on those with incomes under $75k -- it does not discuss the Bush tax cuts at all.
I think it would be prudent to mention here that we're only talking about personal income tax right now, which is but one part of the Bush tax cuts. Some of those tax cuts, such as the estate tax, have provisions called sunset clauses that terminate those tax cuts at a certain point in the future. It is my understanding that the personal income tax cuts do not have a sunset provision therefore they cannot expire.
So your basic assumption that Senator Obama will raise personal income tax by failing to reauthorize the personal income tax cuts (while showing a lack of understanding about how legislation is passed) is erroneous because those particular tax cuts do not need reauthorization. The only way to raise those rates to pre-2001 levels (a 3% increase) is to pass legislation raising the rates. Can you show me where Senator Obama has said that he will urge Congress to raise the personal income taxes on those making more than $75k per year? Because here are two articles (one is Senator Obama's actual plan) that say he will reverse the Bush income taxes for the wealthiest (the top tax bracket).
CNN & Senator Obama's Plan
One more problem with your post. The Bush tax cuts have not led to record low unemployment. Check the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which demonstrates that the unemployment rate went up after the Bush tax cuts and that the unemployment rate has been highest during Republican administrations.
Please undertake some basic research and independent thought before insulting those supporting Senator Obama.
Tax Burden Shifted to the Rich under Bush
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 22:01.
Popular mythology also suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts shifted more of the tax burden toward the poor. While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income households pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because the millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut.
In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.
Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmakers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's collective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers lowered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers, The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.
Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. (See Chart 6.) By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.
Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 percent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/207.html
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=7718
I think we need a new topic for taxes...
Posted: Thu, 05/08/2008 - 23:43.
I have many factual problems with this post. But I'll keep it to this so we can get back to Senator Blanche Lincoln. Most people I know, including myself, would have had little problem from a fairness standpoint if there was an across the board 3% reduction in taxes. Of course I would've argued that a cut in personal income tax was probably imprudent while fighting a war, which was only worsened by the tragic decision to launch a second war while further cutting taxes. But at least the tax cut would be fair. However, what we saw was a 3% reduction in the rates for all Americans except the wealthiest who got one-and-a-half times the rate cut experienced by average Americans (4.6%). This is what I want reversed, and this is what Senator Obama will propose to Congress: that those making over $360,000 a year should not get an extra reduction in their taxes.
And the more I think about it, the more Senator Lincoln makes a lot of sense.
Why?
Posted: Fri, 05/09/2008 - 00:08.
Why shouldn't those making over $360k also get a tax cut?
How will raising taxes on the rich help our economy?
How will raising the capital gains tax help out economy?
Why can't you answer these questions?
Sigh
Posted: Fri, 05/09/2008 - 13:15.
Please reread what I've explained. (1) The tax cuts were a terrible idea given the wars the administration was planning on waging. BUT (2) if you're going to cut taxes then don't cut everyone's taxes except the extreme-rich by 3% while giving the extreme-rich a 4.6% tax cut.
As for the captial gains tax, the point is being made that when CGT was cut in the 90s more revenue came in because more people were investing. That is a specious argument at best. Most economists will tell you that the increased revenue has several causes and not all of them are associated with the CGT. For example, there was a tech boom, the switch to online stock orders made it easier for people to invest and launched the armchair day trader, and several accounting scandals drove an artificial increase in the markets that tempted more people into investing. There have been some studies that show an brief increase in revenue but this is not exactly sustainable. So you would have to reduce CGT every few years to sustain increased revenue until you hit a point of no return where the rates are so low that no money is flowing in.
Also read the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office report on this same issue: here.
I'll try again...
Posted: Fri, 05/09/2008 - 18:39.
Why are you avoiding the questions? I've asked them numerous times now:
How will raising taxes on the rich help our economy?
How will raising the capital gains tax help out economy?
And if I've proven the rich pay the largest share of the taxes in this country, why shouldn't they receive the largest portion of the tax cut?
And, if the increase in capital gains tax isn't directly related to the drop in the capital gains tax rate (which Clinton dropped more than Bush) as you claim it certainly had a large part to do with it. The "tech boom" was more profitable because investment risk dropped when the capital gains tax was reduced. It was further reduced by George Bush and the economic slowdown we faced in 2001 and after 9/11 was eliminated in 2003 when Bush dropped the tax rate to it's current level. And despite all these tax cuts, by a Democrat and a Republican tax revenue went up, investment risk went down which increased investment... what good will raising the rate back to the 1992 level of 28% as Obama has proposed? And the capital gains tax does not only tax the rich. Nearly half the country owns stock or other investments that would be subject to the tax.
Your entire argument on raising the tax rate on the rich is because you think it isn't "fair" they got a larger tax cut percentage. But if the tax cut also eliminated entirely the tax burden for thousands of citizens why is it such a bad thing?
Plus, the war has increased domestic economic growth which in turn creates job and raises tax revenue. We are fighting two wars but the overall cost of the war is a very small percentage of our overall spending and if out of control spending in other areas were cut we wouldn't have an issue with a deficit. Bush proposed billions in spending cuts in his most recent budgets and Congress as not approved them.
Try one at a time.
Posted: Fri, 05/09/2008 - 20:55.
Your questions are not being avoided -- you just ask five of them at once. Ask one at a time and perhaps we can cover all of them. I've already addressed why the Bush tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich. I've also shown how lowering the capital gains tax does not increase the overall revenue received from the tax. Now, I'll address why I think these taxes are a good thing for our economy. If I'm missing another question -- ask it politely in an additional post, and I'll do my best to explain my position on that question.
You asked how these taxes help our economy and I'll do my best to answer that. As you know, when the government does not have enough money to fund all programs then it has to borrow on credit sufficient capital to cover the difference. The recent credit crunch is a visceral demonstration that there is a fixed amount of capital available to serve as credit. Now, when the government borrows money to cover its' expenses it is reducing the overall credit available. This limits the capital available for private citizens to borrow.
Additionally, increasing the government's debt also decreases the value of the currency. Admittedly, a falling currency reduces the cost of American goods overseas and that should help manufacturing; however, that tends to help plant owners more than labor as salaries stay the same but costs of goods go up as the American dollar cannot buy the same amount of goods. This has been a contributing factor to the rise in the costs of gasoline (increased oil costs are directly connected to increased demand from China, controlled supplies by OPEC, and a falling dollar). This contributes to increased business costs for all sectors, which further erodes any benefit from increased manufacturing sales overseas.
Another way that an increased debt adversely affects the economy is by forcing more tax revenue to go to paying down the debt instead of social programs such as education that will adversely affect our ability to develop young talent and forcing our nation to further rely on H-1B visas to fill high tech professional positions (and lead to our companies training talent that is more likely to return home, which is a net brain drain for our nation).
So yes, it hurts our nation's economy to reduce tax revenue while increasing our national debt. And sure we could eliminate spending, such as the biggest drain on the federal treasury: the Iraq War.
Huh?....
Posted: Fri, 05/09/2008 - 22:44.
The Bush tax cuts gave a larger percentage tax cut to the rich in terms of tax rate. However, since the tax cuts also cut taxes on the poor and middle class the overall income tax burden shifted TOWARDS the rich beacuse thousands of people in the lower income brackets no longer had a income tax liability. I've provided evidence of this to show you but you've clearly failed to comprehend it.
Reducing the capital gains tax most certain did increase the tax revenue.
Well beyond the forecasted amount.
http://i29.tinypic.com/sv5guf.jpg
It also increased capital investments
http://i29.tinypic.com/1enq1f.jpg
Where on earth are you coming up with this? We have cut taxes and increased tax revenue. Tax revenue was up 12% on 2006 returns. The deficit shrunk in 2006.
The biggest drain on the federal treasury is entilement programs. The Iraq war is a drop in the bucket. It's amazing how far off you can be.
If people are hurting for cash taking more out of their wallets by raising taxes certainly won't help.
And if raising taxes was to be used to pay down the national debt that would be one thing. But Obama has proposed $900 billion in new spending. Where will that money come from?
You keep claiming we have reduced tax revenue but that is an outright lie.
The historical average for tax revenues as a percentage of GDP for the last 45 years—roughly, the span of the modern taxation era—is 18.2%; in 2006, the government collected 18.4% of GDP as tax revenues. Even if you throw out the Bush budgets of 2002-2006, the average rises only a tenth of a percent, meaning that America is still above its historical average. The same holds true for budget deficits. The historical average is 1.6% with the Bush years, 1.5% without, making last year's 1.8% budget deficit look less than outlandishly out of line.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/02/funny_about_that_budget.cfm
You're clearly outmatched here. You don't understand the economy (no surprise as you're speaking right out of Obama's playbook) and you don't understand taxes (again no surprise). Your entire argument over why the Bush tax cuts are a bad thing is because the "rich" got a larger tax cut. Well they pay by far the largest portion of the taxes in the country. Shouldn't they get the largest tax cut? If so, why not? - That is the one question I would like you to answer; since you can't handle 5 at once.
You can have the final word but ...
Posted: Mon, 05/12/2008 - 17:37.
I’m glad we can both agree that the tax rate for the top income tax bracket was reduced by a greater rate than for any other tax bracket. This is certainly an indisputable fact.
A Correction
As for tax burdens, I understand what you mean but I think you may be drawing the wrong conclusion from what would appear to be a logical argument. You’ve stated that since a greater number of Americans have no tax liability under the Bush tax cuts it stands to reason that the tax burden has shifted upwards towards all those who do pay taxes. This is also an indisputable fact. However, I would caution that the upward shift caused by a greater number of Americans with no tax liability has been offset for those in the top income tax bracket by their additional 1.6% tax cut.
Consider the class of Americans who paid income taxes before the Bush tax cuts but who had no tax liability after the Bush tax. In order for the tax burden to have been shifted onto top income bracket, instead of off it as I have asserted, the taxes no longer paid by this class would have to be greater than the additional tax break the top income bracket paid. In 2005, the total income taxed by the top tax bracket was $565,391,974,000. The additional tax cut this bracket received (1.6%) saved this bracket $9,046,271,584. Given that this additional savings is approximately triple the size of what the lowest income tax bracket paid in taxes, I seriously doubt that the upward shift in tax burden caused by more low-income tax payers having no tax liability was greater than the downward shift in tax burden caused by the additional tax cut enjoyed by the top tax bracket.
More Numbers
A quick check with the CBO shows that through April the government has spent $341 billion on the military, $337 billion on Medicare and Medicaid, and $148 billion on the debt (Social Security cost $350 billion but the Social Security tax brought in revenues of $528 billion). It really depends on what you classify entitlement programs as and whether you credit the receipts generated by the social security tax against the outlays, but the above makes it clear that military spending is far from a drop in the bucket.
Wrapping Up
To a degree, I have enjoyed this conversation. I understand where you’re coming from on these issues, and many of our disagreements come from a different definition of terms. We also have a number of policy disagreements over the role of the government and what is a fair taxation system. I have tried to remain civil discussing these policy differences and refrained from the tempation to make derisive comments about your opinions. However, I really have no interest in continuing a dialog when your questions are wrapped in the very insults that wreck havoc with our current political discourse. I hope that underneath the anger you’ve gained some perspective on the progressive side of the tax debate, as I have on the conservative side.