Questioning Obama's Critics: Why the Dislike?

[WarPhalange]

Are you including the cost of the war in Iraq into the deficit? If not, then why? Is it counted separately or something?

 

[lisab]

But they do have to be at least somewhat like-minded on certain issues. Otherwise, there isn't any reason to belong to the same organization.

True, but since you and I have only seen a small fraction of the sermons, and we know very little of the other things the church was doing in the community (e.g., charity work), it's hard to say just what those certain issues may be.

Personally I suspect it's that whole Jesus-Christ-Prince-of-Peace thing, but who's to say?

 

[mheslep]

...

I agree that the deficit likely will grow again by the end of 2008 because of these tough economic times.

Yes, looks like the deficit is on target to increase by ~2.5X: May 2007 -$68B, May 2008 -$165B. Ouch.

CBO Monthlies

ESTIMATES FOR MAY
(Billions of dollars)
  	Actual FY2007 	Preliminary FY2008 	Estimated Change
Receipts        164 	  	125 	  	       -39 	 
Outlays         232 	  	290 	  	       +58 	 
Deficit (-) 	-68 	  	-165 	  	        -97

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/93xx/doc9347/06-2008-MBR.htm

Again Congress shares some of the blame here as May reflects those rebate checks that just went out.

 

[vociferous]

The Deficit will grow because we have spent the last eight years without any kind of fiscal responsibility. The deficit will continue to grow because neither Obama nor McCain will deal with the problem.

Obama will try to raise taxes, but he will also allow the Democrats in congress to have free reign on spending, so the deficit will increase.

McCain may not allow the Democrats to increase spending like Obama would, but he also will be unlikely to increase taxes as much either.

Either way, the national debt will continue to increase. Clinton was one of the few Presidents who took the national debt seriously.

I think McCain has better potential in that regard, but based on his fiscal plan, I would not expect to see him balance the budget. Balancing the budget requires tax increases and spending cuts, neither one of which are popular.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm going to do this a bit at a time, whenever I get a chance:

1) Let the Bush tax cuts expire - from my understanding, the Bush tax cuts were not "for the rich" as so many like to say, but were actually an across-the-board tax cut; before them, the tax rates were 39.6, 36, 31, and 28 percent, and after them, 35, 33, 28, and 25 percent. So pretty much every income group except for the very lowest (those making under $10,000 a year) saw their tax rates drop. The thing is, the Bush tax cuts increased tax revenues. If you go the Congressional Budget Office website (www.cbo.gov) and look at the data, you see that the tax revenues initially dropped off, which is to be expected with tax cuts initially, but as of 2007, the tax revenues were up to $2.56 trillion, their highest ever. So they seem to have worked.

That's partly meaningless and the rest of it is just wrong.

0. Tax revenues have historically seen generally positive growth since the great depression - there's nothing special about that.

1. During the Bush years, total tax receipts have declined as many times as they had declined in all of the previous 30 years (Carter+Reagan+Bush Sr+Clinton)[1].

2. During the Clinton years, tax revenues fell 0 times and grew at an annualized rate of 6.8%. During the Bush years (2001 through 2005, CBO numbers) tax revenues fell thrice and declined overall at an annualized rate of 1.3%[1]. I think if you include 2006, 2007, this decline goes to almost exactly 0%. These are inflation adjusted numbers. The number you quote is not adjusted for inflation.

3. It is silly to say that tax revenues (unadjusted) "were their highest ever" value. That was true every single year of the two Clinton terms, and it was also true if you adjusted for inflation or looked at the fraction of the GDP. Not so for the 2007 revenue, which is still only at about the 1993 level as a fraction of GDP and almost exactly at 2000 level when adjusted for inflation.[1]

4. As a fraction of GDP, the revenues increased monotonically during the Clinton years, from 17.5% in 1992 to 20.9% in 2000. They have since been much lower, hitting a low of 16.3% in 2004 and climbing back up to about 17.6%.[1]

5. The CBO estimates that revenues from individual income taxes (as a percentage of GDP) would actually be about 2% higher, if not for the Bush tax cuts[2].

[1] Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007 [www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf[/URL]]
[2] http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9076/MainText.3.1.shtml

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm going to do this a bit at a time, whenever I get a chance

Researching and responding to multi-point posts can be quite time consuming. You should play teacher and assign one to each of the people who posts in this thread, based on their knowledge base.

This is after all, a homework forum.

And double up the work for Tsu and Evo. They are going to need something to do whilst recuperating.

 

[Gokul43201]

1) Let the Bush tax cuts expire ...

If Obama let's them expire, I believe he will, in a few years, likely decrease tax revenues.

This is in contradiction with the findings of the CBO, as pointed out in my previous post. Besides, Obama's plan doesn't just let "them expire", it replaces the Bush tax cut structure with a new structure.

I have read Obama only wants to let them expire for those making $250,000 and up, because that is more "fair," but what exactly does the word "fair" mean? "Fair" is just one of those terms politicians toss out there.

Or it is a term that reflects the social philosophy of the politician.

If you look at the data at the IRS site you will see that the highest-earning 2% pay the lion's share of the total tax burden, about 68% (which is the largest this income group has paid in history as far as the data goes; the lowest-earning portion of the population is paying the smallest portion of the total burden).

That is neither surprising nor indicative of the tax structure - it might simply be a reflection of income trends. After all, the top 2% also enjoy a historically high share of the income[1].

So I could say it would be more "fair" to tax this 2% at a very low rate, and tax the majority of the middle-class at 95%, to try to even out the revenues.

You are entitled to your own arbitration of fairness. If, for instance, you think it is fair to tax a person more than s/he earns, that's your choice. If you think that the amount of taxes paid (not the tax rate) should be independent of income, (i.e., the tax rate is inversely proportional to income) that's your choice. There probably isn't a single economist in the world that will agree with you on its economic value, and I doubt that even 1% of all people will find this "fair".

Obviously such a strategy would be ludicrous, but it would be one form of "fairness."

Like I said, you are entitled to it. But just because you have provided no philosophical basis for your judgment of fairness doesn't mean others don't have one.

The other thing is, since the Bush tax cuts increased total tax revenues, why increase taxes on those who pay the lion's share, and thus likely will cut down on their economic activity if their taxes go up further?

Faulty premise. Nevertheless, there are good arguments for cutting taxes on low-income groups, particularly during weak economic cycles - we have discussed these in other threads here.

And finally, small businesses form the backbone of America, and I believe (though I may be mistaken) that the majority of these small businesses are sole proprietorships and thus taxed at the normal tax rates, not the corporte rate.

So what is your point? First of all, it looks like you are doing an about-turn in your philosophy. While sole proprietors make up a majority of businesses, they take in a small fraction of business receipts. Just like the poor and the middle-class, who make up an overwhelming majority of the population, but not of incomes. Why is it that you have suddenly begun to care about the majority group rather than the majority contributor?

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of these owners earn less than $250,000, and will see a tax-cut, according to the Obama plan.[2]

And let's not forget that $250,000 is still middle-class, it's just well-off middle-class. Such folks are not rich.

At $250,000, you make over 5 times the median income, and belong in the top 2% of households.[3] While the upper-class is typically defined as the top 1%[4], the rich are typically defined as the top 5%[5]. If you make $250,000 or more, you are most definitely rich.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
[2] Tax Policy Center: McCain & Obama Tax policy effects
[3] US Census Bureau: HINC-04[\url]
[4] US Census Bureau: http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/hhinc/new06_000.htm
[5] L. Beeghley, The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States, New York, NY: Pearson (2004)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

the rich are typically defined as the top 5%.

I can't go along with that. The rich are typically defined as anyone who makes more than me. Bill Gates is the only American who doesn't think anybody is rich.

 

[Gokul43201]

I can't go along with that. The rich are typically defined as anyone who makes more than me. Bill Gates is the only American who doesn't think anybody is rich.

Not anymore. This year, it's your good friend Mr. Buffet, who's at the top. At second place is Mexico's telecom mogul, Carlos Slim Helú, with Gates settling for a measly third place spot.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-03/2008-03-06-voa25.cfm?CFID=5382387&CFTOKEN=24497124

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This year, it's your good friend Mr. Buffet, who's at the top.

I called my good friend Mr. Buffet (Warren to me) and asked him. He said that Gates used to be rich, but that now nobody is.

 

[mheslep]

...Either way, the national debt will continue to increase. Clinton was one of the few Presidents who took the national debt seriously...

Hooey. The '94 Congress via the welfare reform and the Contract with America took spending and the debt seriously.

 

[WheelsRCool]

I'm going to do this a bit at a time, whenever I get a chance:
That's partly meaningless and the rest of it is just wrong.

0. Tax revenues have historically seen generally positive growth since the great depression - there's nothing special about that.

That's because the economy and the population have consistently grown has grown since the Great Depression.

2. During the Clinton years, tax revenues fell 0 times and grew at an annualized rate of 6.8%. During the Bush years (2001 through 2005, CBO numbers) tax revenues fell thrice and declined overall at an annualized rate of 1.3%[1]. I think if you include 2006, 2007, this decline goes to almost exactly 0%. These are inflation adjusted numbers. The number you quote is not adjusted for inflation.

Perhaps, but I would think the main reason for the sudden increase in tax revenues during the Clinton years was because of the Dot Com bubble.

3. It is silly to say that tax revenues (unadjusted) "were their highest ever" value. That was true every single year of the two Clinton terms, and it was also true if you adjusted for inflation or looked at the fraction of the GDP. Not so for the 2007 revenue, which is still only at about the 1993 level as a fraction of GDP and almost exactly at 2000 level when adjusted for inflation.[1]

Interesting point, but I do not think if taxes as a percentage of GDP go down, that this matters a whole lot, but rather taxes as a percentage of government spending. This would seem to mean that the economy is growing in size while people are allowed to keep more of their money. I understand government must increase in size with the economy and it's the size of the government as a percentage of GDP that we want to limit.

4. As a fraction of GDP, the revenues increased monotonically during the Clinton years, from 17.5% in 1992 to 20.9% in 2000. They have since been much lower, hitting a low of 16.3% in 2004 and climbing back up to about 17.6%.[1]

Again, I attribute this to the 1990s Dot Com bubble.

5. The CBO estimates that revenues from individual income taxes (as a percentage of GDP) would actually be about 2% higher, if not for the Bush tax cuts[2].

One thing I am confused about though: if the Bush tax cuts decreased revenues, as a percentage of GDP and adjusted for inflation, yet Bush has increased spending, then how has the deficit managed to shrink itself in the latter years of the Bush administration? If Bush and the Republican Congress hadn't been such spendthrifts, it might have turned to a surplus, or become a really small deficit.

Or it is a term that reflects the social philosophy of the politician.

Then he needs to clarify that to his audience. "Fair" is one of the most mis-understood terms in economics and politics.

That is neither surprising nor indicative of the tax structure - it might simply be a reflection of income trends. After all, the top 2% also enjoy a historically high share of the income[1].

Maybe, but historically, when the top income tax rate was 70%, capital gains taxes at 50%, etc...the middle-class were paying a larger share of the total tax revenue and the wealthy a smaller portion; after Reagan enacted his tax cuts, which aside from a few adjustments up or down here and there, this reversed itself.

You are entitled to your own arbitration of fairness. If, for instance, you think it is fair to tax a person more than s/he earns, that's your choice. If you think that the amount of taxes paid (not the tax rate) should be independent of income, (i.e., the tax rate is inversely proportional to income) that's your choice. There probably isn't a single economist in the world that will agree with you on its economic value, and I doubt that even 1% of all people will find this "fair".

That was just an example; I do not agree with it at all. I was just pointing out the danger of when a politician talks about "fairness" or "equality" without explaining exactly what they mean.

Like I said, you are entitled to it. But just because you have provided no philosophical basis for your judgment of fairness doesn't mean others don't have one.

Again, then, they need to explain their basis. A lot of people do not understand said basis. I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Me personally, I would prefer a flat tax. For example, 20% of someone earning $500,000 is a lot more than 20% of someone earning $50,000 (not saying I favor a tax rate at 20%, just using an example there).

Faulty premise. Nevertheless, there are good arguments for cutting taxes on low-income groups, particularly during weak economic cycles - we have discussed these in other threads here.

Yes, but the Bush tax cuts already cut taxes on these groups; they were higher under Clinton. I do not see the rational to raise them back up for high-earners. When you combine the current 35% Federal income tax for highest-earners, with state, county, town/city, etc...taxes, you can easily end up paying over 50% to the government in taxes. I do not see why these people should see their taxes raised.

What Senator Obama's plan essentially is saying is he is going ot increase taxes on those who got educated and worked their butts off (and in certain states high incomes like $250K and up are nothing) to earn more, meanwhile he will lower taxes on those who chose professions that pay little and did not work hard to rise up higher in income.

I will look for some of these arguments though.

So what is your point? First of all, it looks like you are doing an about-turn in your philosophy. While sole proprietors make up a majority of businesses, they take in a small fraction of business receipts. Just like the poor and the middle-class, who make up an overwhelming majority of the population, but not of incomes. Why is it that you have suddenly begun to care about the majority group rather than the majority contributor?

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of these owners earn less than $250,000, and will see a tax-cut, according to the Obama plan.[2]

It isn't that I do not care about the majority, it's that I do not want to unfairly tax the minority.

Many doctors, psychologists, engineers, etc...are high-earners who are sole proprietorships. Nevertheless though, that's a good point. I focus on the majority here because these businesses employ the majority of the workforce, and we do not want to burden them in ways that will end up harming everyone with lower wages or being fired...like you say, for ones that make under $250,000, they will see a tax cut, however, Obama is intending to raise the minimum wage, which will cost them more.

At $250,000, you make over 5 times the median income, and belong in the top 2% of households.[3] While the upper-class is typically defined as the top 1%[4], the rich are typically defined as the top 5%[5]. If you make $250,000 or more, you are most definitely rich.

Mmm...maybe the technical definition, but these days days, if you want to live the "hollywood" lifestyle, you need at least $5 million in liquid assets and more around $250,000 per month in disposable income.

 

[vociferous]

Hooey. The '94 Congress via the welfare reform and the Contract with America took spending and the debt seriously.

Congress is not the President, now is it? It takes two to tango.

 

[Gokul43201]

Congress is not the President, now is it? It takes two to tango.

While I agree that Clinton was economically astute - just echoing Greenspan's opinion here - the tight fiscal responsibility of the Clinton years was almost more in spite of him than due to him. That said, Clinton's own proposals for most of the spending bills passed by Congress were not significantly more extravagant than what Congress wanted. I think Clinton's first veto was on an appropriations bill that passed Congress with only a 1% smaller total than Clinton had asked for.

 

[mheslep]

While I agree that Clinton was economically astute - just echoing Greenspan's opinion here - the tight fiscal responsibility of the Clinton years was almost more in spite of him than due to him.

Agreed, on both points, though I'd change 'almost' to 'surely'.

That said, Clinton's own proposals for most of the spending bills passed by Congress were not significantly more extravagant than what Congress wanted. I think Clinton's first veto was on an appropriations bill that passed Congress with only a 1% smaller total than Clinton had asked for.

The long term entitlement programs dwarf all the bridges to no where and expensive military hardware of the day appropriations. The Clinton administration was dragged along despite great protest on welfare reform - he veto'd it twice - his attempts to take credit for it now not withstanding. Welfare was an out of control entitlement prior.

 

[Gokul43201]

5) Wants to Increase the Cap On Salaries Subject to the Social Security Payroll Tax - This I believe is currently set at $97,500. Obama contradicted himself in the ABC debate when he said he would not increase taxes on those earning under $250,000, but then said he would increase the cap on salaries subject to the SS payroll tax...but that is $97,500. There are a lot middle-class folks who earn between $97,500 and $250,000.

False.

The 6.2 percent payroll tax is now applied to all wages up to $102,000 a year, which covers the entire amount for most Americans. Under Obama’s plan, the tax would not apply to wages between that amount and $250,000. But all annual salaries above the quarter-million-dollar amount would be taxed under his plan, Obama said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1100633

 

[Astronuc]

The discussion on Taxation of Income/Wealth and Fairness was put in a separate and new thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=242455

 

[Gokul43201]

2) Raise the capital gains tax - Again, every time capital gains taxes have been lowered, whether by Democrats or Republicans, tax revenues from them have increased. When John F. Kennedy lowered them, revenues went up. When President Clinton lowered them in the late 1990s, revenues increased; it is believed that Clinton's lowering of them in the late 1990s was partially responsible for the surplus we saw in 2000.

False. This is also covered in the CBO report I linked to in my earlier response.

The other issue is I don't think Senator Obama knows enough about economics to understand what he is doing.

Somewhat off-topic, but do you think his Republican opponent has a better hang of macroeconomics?

For example, his economic advisor, University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee (hope I got the spelling right there), has done research and doesn't believe that lowering capital gains taxes, over the long run, increases tax revenues. He thinks that's a misconception. Now I disagree with that, but the thing is, during the ABC debate with Hillary, they asked him, "Why raise capital gains taxes at all?" (since they have always increased revenues when lowered). Instead of responding with something like, "Well, that is a misconception that some people, in particular Republicans, have, that lowering capital gains taxes increases revenues, yada yada..." instead he was just stone-walled it seemed.

"It seemed" may be the key clause there.

Here's http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_pennsylvania_democratic_de.html

MR. GIBSON: All right.

You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."

It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don't propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending unless you're eliminating some spending or you're finding some new revenue. That's how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy, and it's going to change when I'm president of the United States.

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we've got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we've got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

So, it seems to me that the following are the key points of Obama's position:

1. He would look into the possibility of raising Capital Gains Taxes . You appear to have omitted that important point from the title you gave this section, as well as from the argument you made.

2. A strong motivation for such an increase is to enforce a fair form of taxation. In my opinion, the returns and the "fairness" are often correlated over the long term (at least whenever the fairness is almost universally undisputed). Oppressive systems will ultimately collapse, and fair systems will be self-sustaining over large timescales.

3. A regressive tax scheme (a lower tax rate(%) for a larger income) is unfair.

4. Any correlation between revenues and Capital Gains tax rate depends strongly on current market conditions, and a positive correlation may or may not emerge, accordingly (contrary to Gibson's assertion). This is also counter to your personal opinion, but it is much more accurate than the assertion of such a correlation (lower lowering rates and increasing revenues). The CBO's own assessment (linked in earlier post and quoted below) is that there is no such correlation that can be extracted from the data, and that it is more likely that the opposite correlation should exist, if any (i.e., lowering rates lowers revenues over the long term).

5. Revenues are more strongly correlated with market conditions, and fixing market weaknesses will do more for revenues than dropping the CG tax rate.

Of course, he didn't go into details of why Gibson's question was based on a faulty premise. I'll quote for you, the brief explanation given by the Congressional Budget Office. You can decide whether it would be helpful to provide a similar explanation to a national audience. I personally wish it were, but I don't think it would be.

Because taxpayers can choose when to realize capital gains (and losses), more gains are realized when tax rates are lower. However, over time, the increase in realizations induced by lower tax rates is not sufficient to offset the direct impact on revenues from the tax reduction itself, for two reasons. First, revenues will always increase by less than realizations following a tax cut because gains are taxed at the lower rate. For example, if the rate were lowered from 20 percent to 15 percent (a 25 percent reduction in the tax rate), realizations would need to increase by a third just to keep revenues unchanged. Second, increases in realizations are generally much larger in the short term than over the long term because some of the additional revenues in the short term come from gains that would have been realized in later years.

It is difficult to disentangle tax-induced changes in realizations from other factors that cause realizations to increase. Capital gains realizations rose by 45 percent in 1996 (before the 1997 tax cut) and by 40 percent in 1997 (after the tax cut). The increase was 25 percent in 1998. The increases in tax liabilities were larger in 1996—50 percent—but much smaller in the following two years, growing by 19 percent in 1997 and 12 percent in 1998.

Realizations also rose following the 2003 tax cut, by 20 percent in 2003 and by 54 percent in 2004. By contrast, tax liabilities increased by only 4 percent in 2003 and by 41 percent in 2004. Those increases came after a prolonged drop in both capital gains realizations and liabilities, however. Realizations in 2004 were still about 23 percent below their peak in 2000, and liabilities were about 43 percent below the 2000 level.

Separating the effects of changes in the tax rate from other factors affecting capital gains realizations is difficult. The best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains tax rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains—and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.9 Estimates of the effect of capital gains legislation on revenues include taxpayers’ response to the changes in the tax rate on capital gains. Taking that effect into account, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated at the time of enactment that the reduction in the capital gains rates in 1997 and 2003 would result in a small revenue loss through 2004.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9076/MainText.3.1.shtml

 

[WheelsRCool]

False.

Well, I hope he's telling the truth with that. He confused people though with saying he considered increasing it during the debate. I would disagree with increasing taxes on those who make more than $250,000.

Somewhat off-topic, but do you think his Republican opponent has a better hang of macroeconomics?

NOPE! I don't think McCain knows jack about economics either. For me, it's just a matter of choosing the lesser of two garbage cans (there is the matter of foreign policy as well).

1. He would look into the possibility of raising Capital Gains Taxes . You appear to have omitted that important point from the title you gave this section, as well as from the argument you made.

I didn't omit that part on purpose at all, but that is a good point, he said he would look into it.

3. A regressive tax scheme (a lower tax rate(%) for a larger income) is unfair.

I am not for a regressive income tax scheme at all, I am just not for increasing the tax rate to much larger percentage for the higher-earners, in comparison to the lower-earners.

4. Any correlation between revenues and Capital Gains tax rate depends strongly on current market conditions, and a positive correlation may or may not emerge, accordingly (contrary to Gibson's assertion). This is also counter to your personal opinion, but it is much more accurate than the assertion of such a correlation (lower lowering rates and increasing revenues). The CBO's own assessment (linked in earlier post and quoted below) is that there is no such correlation that can be extracted from the data, and that it is more likely that the opposite correlation should exist, if any (i.e., lowering rates lowers revenues over the long term).

Interesting, I will look more into it.

5. Revenues are more strongly correlated with market conditions, and fixing market weaknesses will do more for revenues than dropping the CG tax rate.

Of course, he didn't go into details of why Gibson's question was based on a faulty premise. I'll quote for you, the brief explanation given by the Congressional Budget Office. You can decide whether it would be helpful to provide a similar explanation to a national audience. I personally wish it were, but I don't think it would be.

Do you believe though that a President can actually "fix" market weaknesses, though? If you are a monetarist, you will more likely lean along the line that the government can't really do anything for the economy, as it is mostly self-regulating. If you are a Keynesian, then I think you believe the government can actively manage and stimulate the economy.

 

[physucsc11]

I'm not sure if this NY times article has been referred to in any previous postings, but I think it sheds much light on the Obama tax/ fiscal policy discussion. It is 8 pages long but I think everybody needs to read it in order to be better prepared to talk about Obama's economic policies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/m...ta1&adxnnlx=1219651322-lekANJp6SYXkUrkrHeLEaQ

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting article in the time. If one selects print, one can read it as continuous document.

John McCain’s economic vision, as he has laid it out during the campaign, amounts to a slightly altered version of Republican orthodoxy, with tax cuts at the core. Obama, on the other hand, has more-detailed proposals but a less obvious ideology.

This is an important difference.

In section 3 -

The Chicago School believes that markets — that is, millions of individuals making separate decisions — almost always function better than economies that are managed by governments. In a market system, prices adjust whenever there is a shortage or a glut, and the problem soon resolves itself. Just as important, companies constantly compete with each other, which helps bring down prices, improves the quality of goods and ultimately lifts living standards.

In its more extreme forms, the Chicago School’s ideas have some obvious flaws. History has shown that free markets aren’t so good at, say, preventing pollution or the issuance of fantastically unrealistic mortgages. But over the last few decades, as Europe’s regulated economies have struggled and Asia’s move toward capitalism has spurred its fabulous boom, many liberals have also come to appreciate the virtues of markets.

The mortgage crisis is certainly a classic example of the failure of market self-regulation.

The situation during the Clinton administration would have been very different if the price of oil had doubled or tripled. Some of the problems we see now would probably have occurred earlier. In addition, Clinton was not faced with an ill-conceived and costly war and occupation as is the case for Bush. Finally, the financial markets were not so highly-leveraged.

Without reducing federal spending, McCain's tax cuts/reductions will further undermine the US economy. When SS and Medicare obligations pickup in 2011, that will greatly increase the strain on the federal budget, especially if the US is still spending (and borrowing) to finance the occupation of Iraq and war in Afghanistan.

 

[B. Elliott]

Is there any truth to what I'm hearing about a suit being filed against Obama due to him not being a natural born U.S. citizen? Or how about the photo of the school register from when he was listed as Barry Soetoro in Indonesia?

 

[turbo]

Is there any truth to what I'm hearing about a suit being filed against Obama due to him not being a natural born U.S. citizen? Or how about the photo of the school register from when he was listed as Barry Soetoro in Indonesia?

Links? No point in floating rumors if we can't see the sources.

 

[WarPhalange]

Is there any truth to what I'm hearing about a suit being filed against Obama due to him not being a natural born U.S. citizen? Or how about the photo of the school register from when he was listed as Barry Soetoro in Indonesia?

He was born in Hawaii. McCain was born in Panama. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? Although he was born in a military base, so it was still considered US territory and he's natural-born. There was some argument over it, but it was straightened out.

 

[Astronuc]

Is there any truth to what I'm hearing about a suit being filed against Obama due to him not being a natural born U.S. citizen? Or how about the photo of the school register from when he was listed as Barry Soetoro in Indonesia?

But then, according to a Wikipedia article - "Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Obama, Sr., a Black Kenyan of Nyang’oma Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann Dunham, a White American from Wichita, Kansas." Last time I checked, Hawaii is a state within the US. If his mother is a US citizen, then her son is also, especially since he was apparently born on US soil. Case closed!

 

[B. Elliott]

Links? No point in floating rumors if we can't see the sources.

I was a little hesitant to post it due to not knowing the reliability of timesherald. I definitely haven't heard anything about it in the mainstream media.

http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20089295&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13056.htm

 

[B. Elliott]

He was born in Hawaii. McCain was born in Panama. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? Although he was born in a military base, so it was still considered US territory and he's natural-born. There was some argument over it, but it was straightened out.

No, I never even heard of McCain being born in Panama. That's definitely interesting though. I wonder if McCain will come under major fire from that bit? If he hasn't already.

*edit* Nevermind, here we go...

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his advisers are doing their best to brush aside questions — raised in the liberal blogosphere — about whether he is qualified under the Constitution to be president. But many legal scholars and government lawyers say it's a serious question with no clear answer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/

Thankyou for mentioning that WarPhalange.

 

[Evo]

But then, according to a Wikipedia article - "Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Obama, Sr., a Black Kenyan of Nyang’oma Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann Dunham, a White American from Wichita, Kansas." Last time I checked, Hawaii is a state within the US. If his mother is a US citizen, then her son is also, especially since he was apparently born on US soil. Case closed!

Actually, he would be a dual national. Can a US President have a nationality other then US?

My father was an American and I was born in America, but my mother was still a French citizen (not naturalized) when I was born. So I have French and US Nationality, as would Obama have US & Kenyan Nationalities. Did he ever formally renounce his Kenyan citizenship?

McCain, being born on a US Military base would be considered born on US soil, and would not be a dual national.

And yes, there is a suit filed against Obama.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2066207/posts

Seems there is even more than his Kenyan nationality issue, he could be Indonesian if this is proven to be true.

Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama's mother naturalized in Indonesia and Obama followed her naturalization, as he was a minor and in the custody of his mother. Obama failed to take the oath of allegiance when he turned eighteen (18) years to regain his United States Citizenship status.

 

[WarPhalange]

Actually, he would be a dual national. Can a US President have a nationality other then US?

Kenya doesn't acknowledge dual citizenship.

http://kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap6.html#97

But I'm guessing you can't be a dual citizen to be POTUS. National laboratories require you to be US-only citizen for clearance stuff, and POTUS gets highest clearance obviously.

My father was an American and I was born in America, but my mother was still a French citizen (not naturalized) when I was born. So I have French and US Nationality, as would Obama have US & Kenyan Nationalities. Did he ever formally renounce his Kenyan citizenship?

See above.

McCain, being born on a US Military base would be considered born on US soil, and would not be a dual national.

Yeah, but the argument was whether that still counted as US soil if it wasn't part of the 50 States. Last I heard it's all clear for him, though.

 

[Evo]

Kenya doesn't acknowledge dual citizenship.

http://kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap6.html#97

Obama was born when Kenya was a British colony, so he would be British, not Kenyan. But if you look at the lawsuit, it claims that Obama became a naturalized citizen of Indonesia.

Another mess is that supposedly Obama's birth record was found in Kenya, and that shortly after his birth his mother flew to Hawaii and registered his birth there also. Just gets interestinger and interestinger.

 

[quadraphonics]

But I'm guessing you can't be a dual citizen to be POTUS. National laboratories require you to be US-only citizen for clearance stuff, and POTUS gets highest clearance obviously.

Legally speaking, the United States does not recognize dual citizenship either. Practically, it's a very different matter, with who-knows-how-many dual (and triple and more) citizens running around the country. But in the unlikely situation that you end up in a position where the specifics of your citizenship are important from a legal standpoint (running for public office would be the big one, but maybe you want to avoid a draft or get caught up in some esoteric lawsuit), it could come up.

 

[turbo]

The "Obama isn't a natural-born citizen" line is desperate and wrong. A little Googling will pull up tons of articles such as this one:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

 

[Evo]

The "Obama isn't a natural-born citizen" line is desperate and wrong. A little Googling will pull up tons of articles such as this one:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

If you read the snopes comments, there are questions about his citizenship that are unresolved (see my posts above). His Hawaii birth certificate may not be legitimate due to the fact that he appears to have been born in Kenya, then brought to the US where his mother then filed for a US Birth certificate, well, that's not legal (if true) and he may be an Indonesian citizen. Nothing like this has ever happened before in a presidential race. Did you read the lawsuit? Sounds like they have proof that they will furnish to the court.

 

[turbo]

If you read the snopes comments, there are questions about his citizenship that are unresolved (see my posts above). His Hawaii birth certificate may not be legitimate due to the fact that he appears to have been born in Kenya, then brought to the US where his mother then filed for a US Birth certificate, well, that's not legal (if true) and he may be an Indonesian citizen. Nothing like this has ever happened before in a presidential race. Did you read the lawsuit? Sounds like they have proof that they will furnish to the court.

I read the pleading of the lawsuit. Anybody can bring a lawsuit, for any reason, and allege anything that they claim to be able to prove.

Here is a certificate of a live birth that shows that Obama was born in Honalulu.
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

The nay-sayers are going to have a lot of hoops to jump through to prove that Obama's mother somehow committed fraud and Obama is a foreign national.

 

[Evo]

I read the pleading of the lawsuit. Anybody can bring a lawsuit, for any reason, and allege anything that they claim to be able to prove.

Here is a certificate of a live birth that shows that Obama was born in Honalulu.
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

The nay-sayers are going to have a lot of hoops to jump through to prove that Obama's mother somehow committed fraud and Obama is a foreign national.

That's just it, they claim to have the original birth records from Kenya where he was born.

Only time will tell, I guess it will come out in court.