Why Obanomics Sells For Now

True story related from a former business colleague. Several 20 - 30 something consultants were in a meeting that also included a couple of old hands. One of those ran the company. After discussing business the talk turned towards politics.

Most of the younger consultants were enthused with Obama and of course his ability to bring "change." The two more senior guys were for McCain.

As they wrapped up, the fellow who ran the company basically said, "Well, be sure and drop me a line and let me know how you're doing next year."

The consultants looked a little puzzled. It was a longer range gig.

The manager told them that with Obama's new tax policies in place, they'd be looking to cut back. And one of the first things to go would be their reliance on so many consultants. So, as far as he was concerned, most of them would be out of a job.

Point being, there is a large percentage of the work force that didn't experience the Carter years. He's just a kindly old man and they've never even experienced a real tax increase on "wealth," let alone one in a business climate already drifting South.

They'll learn. The economic change many people are voting for probably isn't the type of change they have in mind.

Also see Obama's climb down the economic rungwith his tax plan. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know where this is going. A newly installed Obama will come on TV and tell the American people how tough things are right now. How they are tough for the government, too. Those tax breaks? Well, maybe some earners are going to have to do without. And as for tax increases? Well, come on down!

It's the only way his economics even begin to wash budget-wise. That wealth he's going to tax will end up hidden away tax free and he'll come after the real middle-class because that's where the bulk of the money is.

It ain't change, folks, just progressive Democrat tax and spend policies, as usual. You've seen it before if you've been around long enough.

Comments

[Lala]

Conservatives are talking a lot about John Galt.

[scarshapedstar]

"It ain't change, folks, just progressive Democrat tax and spend policies, as usual."

Hear, hear. I propose fiscally responsible tax-cut-and-spend policies. I'm even going so far as to implement this scheme in my own life by maxing out five credit cards and never paying them off. EAT THAT, KARL MARX!

[Anon]

You can't convince any Obama supporters of this though, they don't think he will tax the middle class and you can't convince them otherwise. Yes, they are in for a rude awakening.

You can add the destruction of the Republican Party to Bush's list of accomplishments. At least half of the people I know who are voting for Obama are doing so in reaction to Bush's mismanagement, nothing much to do with Obama's message.

[chris]

Cut back? So you cut the top line to save on taxes??? What dopes. Gotta love the GOP base. Dumb and greedy.

[Worst President Ever]

You might want to check with Wall Street, car companies, car retailers, mortgage assessors, etc. etc. etc. Cause most of them are laying off and it's not because of something that might, maybe, could happen someday. It's because Bush and his cronies have just about destroyed the economy.

And when you talk about Socialists, don't leave out President Bush - cause he's actually doing it.

Tax and Spend Liberal Clinton left behind a budget surplus. Name the last republican to do THAT?

[Anon]

The securities debacle is not specifcally Bush's fault, and it is extremely simplistic to blame Bush for something that has been in the making for many years.

[mark l.]

"Tax and Spend Liberal Clinton left behind a budget surplus. Name the last republican to do THAT?"

I'll name the last republican congress to do that-class of 94...

it was on their campaign platform, called the contract with america.

can you name the last democratic congress that provided a balanced budget?

people who want smaller govt are horrified by the potential of a uni-polar govt. It was bad enough with the gop from 02-06, waht inspires you to believe it will get better?

[mark l.]

wpe-

you might want to read the constitution-

"Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

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

given your party affiliation, I am really not surprised by complete lack of understnading about the roles of govt.

[The CryptKeeper]

"Cut back? So you cut the top line to save on taxes??? "

You (liberal) clowns just don't get it, do ya?

For the 1000th time:

* Tax cuts in general, leave a substantial amount of money in the economy.

* Businesses can then use that additional, unmolested income to expand their business and the fortunes of others.

* Growing business unrestrained by taxes can create jobs and business opportunities.

All of that leads to economic growth.

Taxing the "rich" and taxing corporations, and taxing capital gains on the other hand, leads to economic hardship:

* Steep Capital Gains taxes decrease the incentive to invest in American securities; investors will take their omney elsewhere.

* Death taxes (inheritance/estate tax) robs the wealth passed down within families, which could have been used to provide jobs and economic growth. Instead, that cash would now go to a monstrously inefficient entity that has no competition: that's right, the government.

* "Progressive" income taxes punish hard work, cleverness, ingenuity, and drives corporations away from America. We still live with the legacy of the last boob who sat in the Oval Office, Jimmah Cahtuh, and thought steeply progressive taxes were the cat's meow: it's called the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) never indexed for inflation - and with eaching passing year, it destroys the wealth earned by incresaingly larger shares of the middle class (families easily below Obama's $250k/year "limit").

In short, tax cuts (coupled with prudent, frugally cautious spending) = economic growth and happy times for America.

Tax hikes - when introduced by Democrats who just LOOOOOOVE tossing taxpayer money away on social engineering experiments - destroy the economy, especially when done in years of a cyclical downturn.

[mark l.]

"November 18, 1995
Web posted at: 7:30 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton vowed again Saturday to veto the Republicans massive plan to balance the budget."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-18/index.html

it would seem, gpe, that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[The CryptKeeper]

Mark, I wonder if sometimes our breath is wasted reasoning with these apes that wander in from DKos and other lefty troll-dens.

Beat them over the head with a clue bat as much as you like, and they still keep on coming back with the same old tired talking points.

Gluttons for punishment, they are.

[chris]

"Steep Capital Gains taxes decrease the incentive to invest in American securities; investors will take their omney elsewhere."

Are you a shill or just stupid? A US person (either corporation or individual) is taxed on their Worldwide Income. Therefore it doesn't matter where you invest, you still have to pay US tax over and above any foreign tax credit that you receive. Conversely, a foreign person can invest in US equities by purchasing them locally, thereby having no connection to the US and not falling under US tax jurisdiction.

What a dope...

[IslamoLlama]

"-- You might want to check with Wall Street, car companies, car retailers, mortgage assessors, etc. etc. etc. Cause most of them are laying off and it's not because of something that might, maybe, could happen someday. It's because Bush and his cronies have just about destroyed the economy. --"

Alright, in all seriousness, "Bush and his cronies" didn't destroy the economy. That's like Bush taking the safety wheels off his kids' bikes and - when they tries to ramp-jump a bus - blaming him for the trip to the hospital.

Bush turned off the oversight. That was bad. But the companies that created this mess aren't White House employees (at least, not most of them). No one forced Merril Lynch to buy up hundreds of billions of risky CDOs. No one twisted GM's arm into making 6000 lb SUVs on the eve of a gas crisis. No one government supervisor demanded insurance companies spike their rates. Bushies didn't lay off all of Circuit Cities highest paid employees to save a buck, only to watch the business crater a year later.

The notion that Bush (or Obama or McCain) waved a magic wand and killed the economy is foolish. Bush was merely the enabler.

The notion that businesses will collapse under tax rates that were standard fare in the Reagen-Bush I years is equally foolish. If a 35% corporate tax on net profits has been crippling American businesses, where did all the growth during the first 6 years come from? If a 25% tax on personal capital gains (not including 401ks, Roth IRA accounts, CSAs, HSAs, or the myriad other tax shelters available to the investor class) is such a brutal blow to personal wealth, explain how the stock market performed so well under Clinton.

If a company has to lay off a bunch of consultants to make ends meet and its because the personal tax rate went up for the highest earners in the business... well, hell, I can't tell you what math went into that equation but its not the math used in my company and its not the math used in any of the companies my business serves.

I can't tell you how much Obama's tax plan will cost my business, but his universal health care plan will save my company hundreds of thousands of dollars. It will increase the business of my company's clients by orders of magnitude. And it will improve the quality of life for millions of people in my city. For every sob story, I can tell you a tale of how the Obama Plan brings a smile. For every man saying "this'll cost me too much", I can show you a woman saying "this'll save me a bundle". The aye's have it, and for good reason.

[mark l.]

"Mark, I wonder if sometimes our breath is wasted reasoning with these apes that wander in from DKos and other lefty troll-dens."

malthus is in his grave, laughing.

Intelligence and history are two valuable resources. The former is empirically being diluted by our education system and the latter is being re-written by the same people who have diluted the former.

[jharp]

"The manager told them that with Obama's new tax policies in place, they'd be looking to cut back."

We're already there, fool. Please turn off Fox, Rush, and Hannity.

We were teetering on the verge on a complete financial collapse until Bush the socialist nationalized the banks.

And do you mean Obama's tax cuts are going to be harmful?

Obama's middle class tax cuts are exactly what we need along with his heath care reform and ending the 12 billion per month war.

Trickle down economics is a complete failure. Economies are built from the ground up. A strong middle and everyone wins.

[Anon]

You are dreaming if you really think Obama's health care plan is going to save you hundreds of thousands of dollars. Like most of his policy proposals it relies on mostly smoke and mirrors..he's going to pay for it from the money he gets by taxing the rich and from some kind of miraculous 'savings' he's going to find within the system. It is all BS, like almost all of Obama's actual policies are.

[Anon]

What a joke, how do you think he's going to get out of Iraq without a bloodbath? We're stuck spending billions in Iraq for the forseeable future, just like John McCain said.

[mary]

"In exactly one week, we have a very real chance of electing Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

But we're not there yet.

Yesterday in Canton, Ohio, Barack made a powerful case for why we need to keep fighting right through Election Day.

Will you watch Barack's closing argument and make a donation of $25 or more to get every vote we need to win?

(link for donation and after you make a donation you get to the video)

For the next week, we need to work like the future of our country depends on it -- because it does.

We only have one opportunity to make history and get this country on a new path. And if we let up now, John McCain will win.

(second direct link to make a donation and then watch the video)

(third link to make a donation and to go to the "keep fighting" link)

Thank you for everything you're doing to support this campaign in the final push,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America"

As usual at least 4 or 5 links asking for more money?

I wonder if we will receive a record number of emails today?

It pisses me off, the guy has an obscene amount of money? What the hell is he doing with it that he wants more and more and more?

[mary]

Some guy on the internet isolated four themes that are in every single speech BO makes.

Bet the same themes are inherent in eveyr single e mail that comes out of that campaign.

BTW, I asked around. People are afraid not to contribute. They actually said it that way. And not cause they are afraid he won't win. I'm just so fed up.

What the hell is BO doing with that obscene amount of money he has collected? Most everyone working on his campaign is a volunteer. People make phone calls from their own phones, their own dime. Phone banks are donated by corporations?

It is a valid question.

[mary]

"Obama's middle class tax cuts are exactly what we need along with his heath care reform and ending the 12 billion per month war.

Trickle down economics is a complete failure. Economies are built from the ground up. A strong middle and everyone wins.

Posted by: jharp | Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 02:04 PM"

You are delusional and you are spreading mistruths.

Look, there is no way he is going to have a strong middle class with his policies. And, if you think we are teetering on the edge of collapse I would suggest that you do some research about the great depression. Increasing taxes is not the way to make a strong middle class.

Today on a finance board someone said that the rich people that BO wants to tax have already planned their exit strategies from THIS COUNTRY. The person said that if BO is elected a lot of these people have purchased property outside the country and moved their assets. The guy/girl made a very good argument for this strategy, as they refer to it.

So, if the people BO is going to tax leave en masse, then who is he going to tax....duh...the middle class. Biden is already recorded yesterday as saying $150 for the thresh hold.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- It pisses me off, the guy has an obscene amount of money? What the hell is he doing with it that he wants more and more and more? --"

If you look at Obama's actual cash on hand, it's relatively small. When he pulls in $150 million, he spends it. He opens more campaign offices, puts out more orders for campaign fliers and signs, and buys up more TV ad time.

Obama's campaign has spread to states like Tennesse and West Virginia that he shouldn't have had a shot in hell of winning. Simply playing in those states gives him swing in the polls and forces McCain into a bigger defensive posture. It also buffets future Democratic Senators who don't have the advantage of his massive war chest by helping to turn out the general Democrat vote in those areas.

"-- You are dreaming if you really think Obama's health care plan is going to save you hundreds of thousands of dollars. Like most of his policy proposals it relies on mostly smoke and mirrors..he's going to pay for it from the money he gets by taxing the rich and from some kind of miraculous 'savings' he's going to find within the system. --"

$12 billion / month in Iraq? $500 billion / year on the bloated military? Even John McCain admits that the system is swollen over with wasteful spending. Where do you think McCain plans on funding his next round of tax cuts from?

Obama needs to raise taxes on the rich in order to cut taxes for the poor. That's just part of his balanced budget. But the health care plan is potentially budget neutral once it starts collecting premiums. Medicare and Medicaid to quite well, despite what the anti-government types like to claim. The Postal System and Amtrak are both required to turn a profit. And Social Security actually brings in a surplus of wealth - so much so that Congress regularly raids the trust to pay for massive deficits (you might remember Al Gore's "lock box" - stopping Congressional raiding of the SS trust fund was what he was referring to).

I have my doubts about Obama. Doubts about his ability to pay the bills aren't among them.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Trickle down economics is a complete failure. Economies are built from the ground up. A strong middle and everyone wins."

In that case, inner-city Chicago, Philadelphia, and other places where the government has pumped billions of dollars in welfare checks should have the strongest and most robust economies in the country.

They don't.

The reason is that economics follows a basic premise; the fact that people are successful and wealthy strongly correlates to their degree of intelligence, education, skill, and motivation.

Obama's idea of that, based on what he funded, pushed, endorsed, and supported goes like this:

"Like other leaders of the rites of passage movement, Carruthers teaches that the true birthplace of world civilization was ancient “Kemet” (Egypt), from which Kemetic philosophy supposedly spread to Africa as a whole. Carruthers and his colleagues believe that the values of Kemetic civilization are far superior to the isolating and oppressive, ancient Greek-based values of European and American civilization. Although academic Egyptologists and anthropologists strongly reject these historical claims, Carruthers dismisses critics as part of a white supremacist conspiracy to hide the truth of African superiority."

And it gets even better than that.

"Carruthers is a defender of Leonard Jeffries, professor in the department of black studies at City College in Harlem, infamous for his black supremacist and anti-Semitic views. Jeffries sees whites as oppressive and violent “ice people,” in contrast to peaceful and mutually supportive black “sun people.” The divergence says Jeffries, is attributable to differing levels of melanin in the skin. Jeffries also blames Jews for financing the slave trade. Carruthers defends Jeffries and excoriates the prestigious black academics Carruthers views as traitorous for denouncing their African brother, Jeffries. Carruthers’s vision of the superior and peaceful Kemetic philosophy of Ptahhotep triumphing over Greco-Euro-American-white culture obviously parallels Jeffries’ opposition between ice people and sun people.

More of Carruthers’s education philosophy can be found in his newsletter, The Kemetic Voice. In 1997, for example, at the same time Carruthers was advising SSAVC on how to set up an African-centered curriculum, he praised the decision of New Orleans’ School Board to remove the name of George Washington from an elementary school. Apparently, some officials in New Orleans had decided that nobody who held slaves should have a school named after him. Carruthers touted the name-change as proof that his African-centered perspective was finally having an effect on public policy. At the demise of George Washington School, Carruthers crowed: “These events remind us of how vast the gulf is that separates the Defenders of Western Civilization from the Champions of African Civilization.”

According to Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, Carruthers’s training session on African-centered curricula for SSAVC teachers was a huge hit: “As a consciousness raising session, it received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey....” These teacher-training workshops were directly funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Another sure sign of the ideological cast of SSAVC’s curriculum can be found in Annenberg documents noting that SSAVC students are taught the wisdom of Ptahhotep. Carruthers’s concerns about “menticide” and “genocide” at the hand of America’s white supremacist system seem to be echoed in an SSAVC document that says: “Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us.”"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQ0YjhlOGVhYjQ0OWRhZjI2MmM4NTQ4NGM5Mjg0MzU=

Given that Barack Obama supports teaching racist hate and pseudohistory in public schools, I fail to see how his presidency would do anything but push the United States backwards. Add to that his belief that welfare recipients should receive as much as working people and that those who make more money should be punished and have their earnings taken away from them by crushingly-higher taxes, and what we see is that Obama's primary interest is in destroying any sort of individual initiative and teaching everyone to be a ward of the government.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- BTW, I asked around. People are afraid not to contribute. They actually said it that way. And not cause they are afraid he won't win. I'm just so fed up. --"

???
What are you even smoking? "Afraid not to contribute"? Is Obama going to show up at your house and break your knee-caps? Drop a severed horse head in your bed while you sleep? Eat an orange and die of a heart attack while playing with his grandson?
You mind clarifying a little bit?
???

[Anon]

Social security brings a surplus of wealth? LOL. Sure it does if you don't bother to factor in the millions of retirees who are going to lay claim to that "surplus" that doesn't exist anymore. Talk about new math, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

We are stuck in Iraq and anyone who thinks that $12B a month is going to be free for Obama to use as he sees fit is dreaming. It won't happen.

I didn't think anyone in America thought the post office and Amtrak were well run...but if you think they are efficient and truly profitable then no wonder you think Obama is going to save you hundreds of thousands of dollars and that its okay to raid the SS trust.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[IslamoLlama]

"--
In that case, inner-city Chicago, Philadelphia, and other places where the government has pumped billions of dollars in welfare checks should have the strongest and most robust economies in the country.

They don't.
--"

They don't? ORLY? Chicago is the third biggest city in the country with a city-wide GDP that rivals some states. Philadelphia is a major trading capital of the eastern seaboard and home to a number of Fortune 500 companies. They are both literally overflowing with residents with immigrants and native Americans alike flocking to the capitalist Meccas for every job from janitor's duty to college professor to CEO.

You want to talk about a city that's fallen in the trash, just check some of the red state capitals. Mobile, Alabama? Round Rock, Arkansas? Topeka, Kansas? Explain how these deep red states have produced cities that surpass Chicago and Philly. Please. I'll wait.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"But the health care plan is potentially budget neutral once it starts collecting premiums. Medicare and Medicaid to quite well, despite what the anti-government types like to claim."

Ah, but you see, IslamoLlama, under the Obama system, what the Federal government will do is collect the premiums for these through the payroll tax -- but then pay out of Federal dollars collected through income tax "credits" for people that are greater than the premiums collected.

Can you explain how a plan that collects premiums from people, then provides them healthcare services for free AND returns the full amount of their premiums and then some to them in cash, is "budget neutral"?

The answer: it isn't. It's very similar to what Enron did, which is moving expenses off the books and using revenue generated from other sources to make something look better than it is. In this case, what happens is that successful working people are being taxed three times -- once through the payroll tax to pay for their own Social Security and Medicare, once to pay for other peoples' Social Security and Medicare, and once again via income tax.

Meanwhile, the welfare-supported typical Obama voter pays nothing in income taxes, gets rebates in excess of what they pay in payroll tax, and receives free healthcare and Social Security at others' expense.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Social security brings a surplus of wealth? LOL. Sure it does if you don't bother to factor in the millions of retirees who are going to lay claim to that "surplus" that doesn't exist anymore. --"

Yes. Check the records. Do the math. Social Security isn't scheduled to go "bankrupt" for another sixty years. These numbers make some very vague hand-wavy predictions about US population, age of retirement, and economic growth to reach such a conclusion of "bankruptcy" and are continually disputed. As it stands, SS pays out less than it takes in and it will continue to do so for no less than a generation to come.

[jharp]

"Ah, but you see, IslamoLlama, under the Obama system, what the Federal government will do is collect the premiums for these through the payroll tax -- but then pay out of Federal dollars collected through income tax "credits" for people that are greater than the premiums collected."

This is a lie.

The federal government will not collect the premiums. What you describe is a single payer system. And though I favor it, Obama does not.

[Anon]

Vague predictions? All you have to do is look at the ratio of workers to retirees when SS was created and the current ratio of workers to retirees and the projected ratio of workers to retirees going forward and you will know all you need to know about SS's solvency.

Spending money we don't have is what has got the country into this dismal state in the first place.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Ah, but you see, IslamoLlama, under the Obama system, what the Federal government will do is collect the premiums for these through the payroll tax -- but then pay out of Federal dollars collected through income tax "credits" for people that are greater than the premiums collected.

Can you explain how a plan that collects premiums from people, then provides them healthcare services for free AND returns the full amount of their premiums and then some to them in cash, is "budget neutral"? --"

Obama's health care plan is voluntary, for starters. The only stipulation in the bill levies a tax on businesses that don't provide some sort of health care of their own. So if you work for a cheap-ass business that refuses to front any money for your health care, they're going to take a hit.

Individuals, on the flip side, are allowed to buy any health insurance the like or no health insurance at all. They'll be extended a tax deduction that allows them to write off the cost of the health insurance against their income, but the premiums will still be going towards someone - either a taxable entity like Aetna or Blue Cross or the government program fund.

Those folks who are too poor to afford any health insurance will receive extended assistance from Medicaid. These funds will be paid for in part by the tax levied on businesses who fail to provide health insurance. Further funds can be found by rolling back Medicare Part D and letting the government haggle over drug prices. Finally, because health insurance doesn't get used until someone actually gets sick, the risk pool will be large enough such that people too poor to pay premiums won't overburden the system such that paying participants will notice diminished service.

The system isn't perfect. There are initial start-up costs, statistical fluctuations (if a pandemic flu sweeps through, you might expect the program to suffer a loss that year), and other expenses. But it can be done. In numerous other first world countries - from Japan to Switzerland - it has been done with remarkable success. And I've got more faith in an Obama government health care system than in my current private insurer.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Vague predictions? All you have to do is look at the ratio of workers to retirees when SS was created and the current ratio of workers to retirees and the projected ratio of workers to retirees going forward and you will know all you need to know about SS's solvency. --"

Sorry, bro. Mega-math fail. As GDP increases, you need fewer workers to support more retirees. The proportion of workers-to-retirees in the 40s was much smaller than the current ratio. Furthermore, the SS Trust has its own investments - mostly US Treasury bonds - so the pool of trust money grows on its own. Harvard - for instance - has a $40 billion trust fund. It doesn't have to collect a dime from students for the next 200 years and it will remain solvent.

So yeah, your math is wrong and your logic is bad. And you should feel bad for approaching the problem so simplistically. Shame on you.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Chicago is the third biggest city in the country with a city-wide GDP that rivals some states. Philadelphia is a major trading capital of the eastern seaboard and home to a number of Fortune 500 companies. They are both literally overflowing with residents with immigrants and native Americans alike flocking to the capitalist Meccas for every job from janitor's duty to college professor to CEO."

Let's see....Chicago is $500 million dollars in the hole and is looking at continued structural deficits of $200 million each year for the foreseeable future.

http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/politics/tag/Budget%20Deficit/

Philadelphia is currently $450 million dollars in the hole and looking at deficits of at least $650 to $850 million over the next five years.

http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2008/10/09/News/News-Brief.Citys.Budget.Deficit.Could.Grow.To.850.M-3478133.shtml

All this is despite the fact that Philadelphia is ranked number one in terms of individual tax burden and heavy business taxes, and Chicago levies the highest sales taxes in the United States.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/20/taxes-philadelphia-baltimore-biz-beltway-cx_bw_jz_1020taxes.html

http://www.webcpa.com/article.cfm?articleid=26937

Funny what happened in both cases.....businesses left, people stopped purchasing in the city, and they moved to other places that were far more hospitable.

[Worst President Ever]

"Given that Barack Obama supports teaching racist hate and pseudohistory in public schools, I fail to see how his presidency would do anything but push the United States backwards. Add to that his belief that welfare recipients should receive as much as working people and that those who make more money should be punished and have their earnings taken away from them by crushingly-higher taxes, and what we see is that Obama's primary interest is in destroying any sort of individual initiative and teaching everyone to be a ward of the government."

Another rant of lies and fear from the McCain camp. "Crushingly-higher" - that's hilarious. 95% of people will get a bigger tax cut under Obama than McCain.

More BS from the McCain camp.

As for Bush being merely an enabler, I think he deserves more credit - or blame - than that. A competent administration - that actually believe government can work - would have recognized the problem and either stopped it or mitigated it.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Obama's health care plan is voluntary, for starters. The only stipulation in the bill levies a tax on businesses that don't provide some sort of health care of their own. So if you work for a cheap-ass business that refuses to front any money for your health care, they're going to take a hit.

Correction. What we have now is voluntary, inasmuch as businesses can choose whether or not they will provide health insurance. Under Obama's plan, businesses will have no choice, which is an immediate burden placed upon employers that can only be made up by two things -- raising prices or reducing employee populations.

Strike one.

"They'll be extended a tax deduction that allows them to write off the cost of the health insurance against their income, but the premiums will still be going towards someone - either a taxable entity like Aetna or Blue Cross or the government program fund."

A "tax deduction"? More like another welfare check from Obama, taken from income taxes paid by those who are working -- meaning that those who are employed will be forced to pay their own healthcare premiums, plus pay for the healthcare premiums of other people.

Strike two.

"Finally, because health insurance doesn't get used until someone actually gets sick, the risk pool will be large enough such that people too poor to pay premiums won't overburden the system such that paying participants will notice diminished service."

So Obama's plan doesn't intend to pay for preventative care visits. Figures.

Furthermore, you're also admitting that those who choose not to work will still receive free health care at the expense of everyone else, as well as welfare checks. In addition, those who do work will have to pay, not only their own premiums, but those of people who are not working.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Funny what happened in both cases.....businesses left, people stopped purchasing in the city, and they moved to other places that were far more hospitable. --"

Businesses and people left, you say? Why that must explain Chicago's status as 3rd fastest growing city in the US! And look who's at number 5... it's our old friend Philly!

http://www.chicagoareaplanning.org/news/release_4-4-07.asp

And no shit they're in a money crunch. We're entering a recession. Who could have predicted a recession would bring on budget deficits?

I mean, if you want to be fair, we've had a Republican President for the last 8 years - with a Republican Congress for the last 6 - and we've racked up $5 trillion in year-over-year budget deficits. But I guess that doesn't count because something something mumble mumble the secret liberals did it.

[North Dallas Thirty]

95% of people will get a bigger tax cut under Obama than McCain.

Actually, Barack Obama isn't cutting taxes; in fact, he intends to repeal all the Bush tax cuts and INCREASE the payroll tax.

What Obama is doing is giving "credits", which is promising to rebate you for money he's already taken from you in taxes.

If Obama were cutting taxes, he would reduce the rate and never take the money in the first place, just like Bush did. But Barack Obama can't do that because then the money stays in the pockets of people who actually earn it, instead of providing Obama a slush fund that he can divvy out based on how he wants to reward and punish people.

Classic example: Obama's "Make Work Pay" credit, which progressively vanishes as you earn more and more. In other words, for every additional dollar you make in salary, Obama will take a dollar away from your welfare benefit. In that case, you have a very logical choice, if you work hard, you'll get more money from your job, but less in welfare, and if you don't work at all, you'll get the same amount in welfare as you would have if you worked hard.

Who's going to work if you can receive the same amount in welfare?

[Anon]

I'd say you are the one being simplistic at best and at worst deceptive.

The federal government itself admits that if no changes are made to SS that within 25-30 years retirees will see major benefit reductions and that SS will begin to see a negative cash flow as early as 2017. I also don't know where you are getting your info. on the ratio of retirees to workers but it has dropped from 17-1 in the fifties to 3-1 today with no end in sight.

I also don't know what makes you think the GDP is going to keep going up especially with increases in the corp. tax rate.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- What we have now is voluntary, inasmuch as businesses can choose whether or not they will provide health insurance. Under Obama's plan, businesses will have no choice, which is an immediate burden placed upon employers that can only be made up by two things -- raising prices or reducing employee populations. --"

Well fuck a duck. Go cry about it.
"Oh boo hoo! I have to provide my employees with a standard of living above that of your average hobo! Why can't I go back to the good old days when I could run a cotton mill on the backs of a buncha permanently indentured servants and pay them in table scraps and beatings?"
Welcome to modern society. Businesses are required to pay for employee health care. Don't like it? Move to a third world country.

"-- So Obama's plan doesn't intend to pay for preventative care visits. Figures. --"

??? Where did I say that?
Preventative health care is cheaper and more efficient over the long term.

"-- Furthermore, you're also admitting that those who choose not to work will still receive free health care at the expense of everyone else, as well as welfare checks. In addition, those who do work will have to pay, not only their own premiums, but those of people who are not working. --"

Wow, learn to read! Where did I even mention welfare checks? Or "those who choose not to work"? Ever heard of the "working poor"? If you make less than $10k / year, you can't afford insurance premiums. We currently have CHIP and Medicaid to subsidize the poor. Obama's program simply streamlines the process and - in the case of CHIP - keeps the money aimed at health care and not insurance company profits.

But please, keep swinging. You've almost struck out.

[Worst President Ever]

"The rich would pay more under Barack Obama's tax plan, and the poor and middle-class would pay less, a nonpartisan analysis finds. Under John McCain's plan, the rich would pay much less than they do now, the poor and middle-class would pay a bit less, and the federal deficit would grow, the study found."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article

[IslamoLlama]

"-- I also don't know what makes you think the GDP is going to keep going up especially with increases in the corp. tax rate. --"

There are no planned increases to the corporate tax rate. Obama simply opposes McCain's 10% cut. If opposing a cut is an increase... I can't help you there.

"-- Actually, Barack Obama isn't cutting taxes; in fact, he intends to repeal all the Bush tax cuts and INCREASE the payroll tax.

What Obama is doing is giving "credits", which is promising to rebate you for money he's already taken from you in taxes.

If Obama were cutting taxes, he would reduce the rate and never take the money in the first place, just like Bush did. But Barack Obama can't do that because then the money stays in the pockets of people who actually earn it, instead of providing Obama a slush fund that he can divvy out based on how he wants to reward and punish people. --"

You're either wrong or lying. I can't tell. Obama's tax cuts will be in the form of a $500 tax credit. Bush's tax cuts for those making less than $250k/year increased the child tax credit.

Nowhere in Obama's plan does he intend to raise the payroll tax, except for earners making above $250k/year.

As for the "slush fund"? What are you even talking about? When did the US Treasury become a "slush fund"? Do you even know how our tax system works? Congressional power of the purse? Executive checks and balances? Anything?

That looks like Strike Three to me, NDT. Looks like you're out. And as I've wasted more than enough time on this, I'm out too. Enjoy the next week under a Utopian Republican Administration. Be sure to stock up on guns and cheetos. It's going to be a long 8 years for you guys.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Businesses and people left, you say? Why that must explain Chicago's status as 3rd fastest growing city in the US! And look who's at number 5... it's our old friend Philly!"

You did READ your article, didn't you, IslamoLlama?

http://www.chicagoareaplanning.org/news/release_4-4-07.asp

"Of the five U.S. regions with the highest estimated populations in 2006, metropolitan Dallas saw both the fastest growth rate (16.3 percent) and highest numeric increase (842,449 people)."

In other words, Chicago was the third-fastest growing area OF THOSE FIVE REGIONS, with Philly being dead last.

Also, you probably missed this last part:

"According to the Census Bureau, more than four-fifths of all U.S. metropolitan areas (305 out of 361) had a larger population in 2006 than in 2000. Each of the 50 fastest-growing areas grew by at least 13.8 percent, which is more than double the national population growth of 6.4 percent during the same period."

So perhaps you can explain to us, IslamoLlama, how Chicago can be the "3rd fastest growing city in the US" with a growth rate of 4.5% -- when the AVERAGE growth rate of the 50-fastest growing metropolitan areas was 13.8%.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Furthermore, IslamoLlama, Joe Biden -- you know, your Vice Presidential candidate -- stated yesterday that the taxation change threshold would be $150k.

[Worst President Ever]

"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."--John McCain, May 2001

Guess he changed his mind.

[Spartan112]

So wait, what it sounds like is the guy threatened to fire them if they voted Obama...isn't that a federal crime? And isn't your "former colleague" obstructing justice by not reporting this crime? Typical republican felon...

[Lala]

"Furthermore, the SS Trust has its own investments - mostly US Treasury bonds "

Hysterically funny. The government takes your money, puts it in its own bonds, and pays interest on it. Where does it get the money to pay interest?

[Anna]

What is truly sad is that the Obama supporters are too dense to understand that the economy is the fault of congress. I used to wonder why Bush was being so demonized in the media and now I understand it. He is to be scapegoat for the excesses of congress because they caught up with the economy under his watch.

The same dolts that blame Bush also give credit to Clinton for Newt Gingrich's congress balancing the budget. Oh, for those days!

Do they really think Bush sent thugs out to threaten bank officers if they didn't make loans to minorities and others obviously unable to repay them? Nope, that was ACORN that did that among other leftie orgs.

So is they are so stupid they are blaming Bush for the mortgage meltdown (which dwarfs any military spending, BTW) then how on earth can they even begin to understand what their Messiah whom they literally worship is actually going to do to them?

They are not capable of understanding the economy or they wouldn't be supporting Obama in the first place. It is going to be Greedy Evil elected by the Ignorant. Sad day for this country.

[Anna]

I love the way the liberals say Clinton balanced the budget!

Hilarious! Was Gingrich and Republican congress who did that but those drinking the KoolAide don't really care for the facts anyway.

Just like in the Obama Liberation Theology, truth doesn't matter, only the party line.

[Dennis D]

What is so hard about researching Obama? Did he CHANGE Chicago? He has no record of legislative accomplishment so I must assume they support him because of race or they dolts actually fall for campaign BS that some political expert told Obama he should say.

Obama reminds me of the Wizard of Oz and when these young Dorothy Liberals pull back the curtain and see the ObamaWizard is a fraud they will not be happy.

[mark]

Fascinating article. So by far the biggest explosion in personal wealth for the masses, job growth for the masses, education advancement for the masses and lifespan elongation for the masses that happened back in the 1940's to 1970's didn't really happen? Back when the top tax rate on the wealthy was during the FDR, Truman, Eisenhower up to the Carter years was 70 to 92%? That was a horrible time? Yet the last 8 years were a wonderful time?

There was profound economic stagnation during the Carter years directly related to very high prime rate due to Volcker and the Fed. Carter let that happen and in so doing he destroyed inflation once and for all. Nixon tried price supports and Ford had WIN buttons to take on inflation. But Carter, the so called wimp, had the balls to do what works. He sacrificed his presidency for America. And the wingnuts work hard to convince us that Reagan did it. Preposterous.

But to go back to my original point. You suggest that Obama's tax plan will destroy the economy. Yet, when the economy was at it's absolute screaming forward best was from WW2 to about 1975 at a time when tax rates were 70 to 90%. Clinton had one of the single biggest tax increases in 1993 and the economy screamed forward. So much for the argument that tax increases destroy the economy. Facts just don't go there.

Oh, back when the top tax rate was closer to 70 to 90 was the time when we could afford to build an entire interstate highway system from scratch, to electrify every nook and cranny of America, to have a war on poverty and a war in Vietnam, Urban renewal and Pell grants and what not to explode advanced education in America.

And we did all that at the same time!!!! (Not that all those programs worked)

Supply side economics, with tiny government and no regulation on the corporations and no rights for workers was all the rage from 1776 to circa 1920. yes there was progress in the USA during that time. But progressive policy and ideology was more or less in control from 1920 to 1980, though it wasn't really till 1935 or so for it to really get going. And the progress that was seen during that period blew away the progress seen in the 19th century, as well as the much slower overall progress -- for the American masses -- then we've seen since circa 1980. So the time when this planet saw the biggest screaming forward in progress was the time with higher taxes on rich people and higher regulation of corporations and stronger Unions. It just was regardless of all the right wing propaganda.

I'm sorry if this note is disjointed. I'm tired. But I'm also pissed at the absurd and discredited mantra that Democrats stifle the economy with taxes and Republicans always cause a boom with less taxes. History proves you wrong. And all the propaganda out of the Cato Institute and the Heritage foundation and other right wing think tanks that care more about the needs of the ruling class than for the needs of America and the needs of Americans won't make it otherwise. Though they certainly have a lot of us duped.

Empower the people -- who I believe are the backbone of this nation -- thru controlled capitalism and get progress for all. The nation as a whole screams forward in progress in all spheres. This requires the rich to pay real taxes and to block corporations from screwing the people thru regulation. This is the only way America can stay ahead of the world. And it worked.

Empower the rich and get token progress for the nation, but the rich can get super yachts and etc... If that's where you think the backbone of America is so be it. But just watch as the nations that learn to empower it's masses screams past us in all the measures of progress.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Fascinating article. So by far the biggest explosion in personal wealth for the masses, job growth for the masses, education advancement for the masses and lifespan elongation for the masses that happened back in the 1940's to 1970's didn't really happen? Back when the top tax rate on the wealthy was during the FDR, Truman, Eisenhower up to the Carter years was 70 to 92%? That was a horrible time? Yet the last 8 years were a wonderful time?"

There's just one little problem with that analysis, Mark; it conveniently ignores the fact of this little thing called World War II that managed to ensure that, during virtually the entire period you mention, the US was the only game in town in the world economy. It didn't matter if the government was taxing people insanely; Great Britain, continental Europe, and Asia had had virtually all their industrial stock and capital destroyed. There was no competition, and American manufacturers could simply pass along any cost increases that resulted from government taxation.

Add to that the fact that, during that period, entitlement programs, currently the majority of Federal and state budgets, were a tiny fraction of it then. Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist until the last part of the 1960s; furthermore, Social Security benefits were not indexed to annually increase with inflation until 1972, and prior to that had only been increased a few times by acts of Congress, even as wages shot upward in response to inflation and payroll tax receipts rose identically.

In short, you gave up interstates and education so that you could give fraudulent payments to criminals.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921/

To summarize, you can afford a lot when a) there's no competition and b) you're not paying for entitlement programs. But that's not what's happening today, Mark; you and your fellow Democrats actually have to start paying the bills for the free health care and free retirement you promised people, and you also have to deal with the fact that other countries are able to produce goods and services for a fraction of the cost that US companies have to charge to meet the Obamamessiah's tax demands so he can pay his welfare-addicted voter base.

A few more historical points so that you may inform yourself:

"There was profound economic stagnation during the Carter years directly related to very high prime rate due to Volcker and the Fed."

Incorrect. Volcker did not become head of the Federal Reserve until August of 1979, three years into Carter's Presidency, and the economic stagnation had begun far before that. The economic problems resulting from Volcker's tightening of monetary policy allowing the prime rate to float did not come to a head until Reagan's Presidency.

"Clinton had one of the single biggest tax increases in 1993 and the economy screamed forward."

Of course, what leftists and Obama supporters forget is what happened to wealth inequality and wages.

"According to Economic Policy Institute economist Jared Bernstein, median inflation-adjusted U.S. wages fell by 3.1% during 1989-1997. Hourly pay, meanwhile, stagnated or fell for the bottom 60% of the U.S. work force, including 80% of all male workers. Real wages fell by 6.7% for male workers and rose by just 0.8% for women, about one-tenth as fast as in the 1980s. U.S. poverty rates rose to nearly 14%, historically quite high, while middle-class wealth fell by 3%. Concurrently, the share of total national wealth held by the top 1% of U.S. households ballooned from 37.4% to 39.1%. The wealthiest 10% of all households pocketed nearly 90% of the profits from the '90s' stock-market run. Average corporate executive pay has doubled since 1989 and is now a record 116 times what a typical worker earns."

http://hss.fullerton.edu/sociology/orleans/jackpot.htm

And finally:

"The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000--a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax hike (illustrated in the graph above). Employment increased by another 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period (illustrated in the graph below). Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm

The problem with your analysis, Mark, is that it is tainted with the typical belief of the Obama socialist that those who are rich got so without working hard or having any exceptional gifts or talents. This is not surprising; after all, looking at John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi, your party leaders, all of whom owe their wealth to inheritance and/or marriage, you simply can't comprehend how people could have earned the money they have.

However, what socialist societies like Cuba and the Soviet Union have rather convincingly demonstrated is that you get that for which you pay; that is, if your doctors make the same amount as factory workers, ultimately they will demonstrate the same skill and fluency as factory workers. Only America, with its rampantly unfair system (at least to socialists) in which those with skills, education, thrift, and motivation succeed, while those who choose not to get an education, who choose not to work, and who choose to prioritize spending over saving and responsibility do not, remains the world's pre-eminent economic superpower. Indeed, the countries of the EU are being forced to unravel their massive safety nets that make welfare as profitable as working since they simply can no longer afford them.