August 29, 2012
-
A Faltering Campaign?
So! It's time for another election. This time Obama doesn't seem to be able to get by on his charisma, and he can't run on his record, so he's reduced to having Bill Clinton do his campaign commercials. I wonder if the deal is to let Hillary replace Bidden as the VP candidate to give his lackluster campaign a boost. That would be something: running on the backs of a former president and his wife, neither of whom like him.
(UPDATE): Well, that didn't happen. Maybe there's a deal to support Clinton's daughter in her effort to enter politics. We'll see.
Comments (11)
This election will probably be a close one and won by using the electoral college rather than by popular vote. Obama's biggest problems have been a rather timid approach to Congress - letting Pelosi and Reid do their thing and not using his bully pulpit enough. Obama also more-or-less has let the Republican Congress define the playing field.
As far as the economy goes, he has the lowest government spender since Eisenhower (Forbes May 24,2012) which has probably been a huge mistake - even though the Republicans goaded/forced him into this position. Government spending has a lot more impact on the economy than a tax cut for the wealthy - cut their taxes and they just get to trade more numbers with each other.
All that money goes into "The Market"or to Grand Caiman - not directly into the economy.
I agree that we should not spend more than we have available - that means making more $ available to the government - that means more $ collected via taxes - that means going where the $ is - to the very wealthy and corporations. I do think every working American should pay something - all of us do through FICA taxes - but a token Income Tax payment would be a good idea.
Times of relativly high tax rates have ALWAYS been times of economic growth - check out the Historical Abstract of the US (most libraries have a copy - and it's online)
@tychecat - The electoral college needs to be revamped. It was originally intened to eliminate the advantage the rural communities had over the cities to control the outcome of an election; but with the population shift from the rural communities to the cities over the last 50 years, the large cities can now almost dictate the outcome of an election. One only has to win a few key states now to win an election. That disinfranches a large part of the country. Sounds like rule by minority to me. This situation has got to change.
@tychecat -
Why do greedy corporations send jobs overseas? Because it's cheaper! So let's make it even *more* expensive here!
Corporations are not real people. When you "punish" a corporation with more costs (regulatory or tax), you are punishing the primary participants in the corporation:
customers (higher prices), employees (lower wages, or jobs moved overseas), and investors (lower returns on your retirement account). The CEO is unlikely to have a reduced salary.
The only useful purpose taxing corporations serves is to discourage particular products the government disapproves of.
Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary because his income is less (90k vs 6 figures). "The rich" (vs playboys) don't need as much income because they are already rich. Raising income and capital gains tax affects the wanna' be rich (i.e. the middle class) - keeping the riff raff out of the club. The already rich just move their investments overseas.
Actually, "the rich" is *not* were the money is. Confiscating 100% of the income *and* assets of everyone making more than 200K/yr (Obama's definition, which doesn't include Buffet) pays the interest on the debt for a few months - and then that golden goose is dead.
Whatever the government spends is removed from the economy. If taxes don't remove it from your paycheck, then US Savings Bonds divert your savings from productive investments - or else inflation reduces the value of your money ("quantitative easing" is New Speak for "printing" fiat money). Foreign debt *is* a big problem, but is currently small compared to GDP (and growing in a worrisome manner). So it doesn't really matter whether taxes are raised or lowered, or how high the internal debt goes. What matters is how much of the GDP is confiscated via (more than 60% unconstitional) Federal spending.
Neither major party is proposing any serious cuts in spending. But I'm going with the Republican big spenders in the hopes of forestalling nationalization of health care.
@CustomDesigned - Where did you get the idea that "Whatever the government spends is removed from the economy"? what do you think they do with the money? Tax cuts at Fed , state, & local level have forced the firing of thousands of govt. employees - which has had a serious effect on local economics - The Federal Govt. is the single largest employer and contributor to the economy - more federal cuts mean more recession.
Nationalization of health care would be a step forward in repairing out out-of-balance economy - we would not continue to pay more than twice as much for health care per capita than any other country. Of course, maybe you own stock in an insurance company? - talk about removing money from the economy - and incidentally, getting rich off of other people's misery.
Warren Buffet's income is a good deal more than his secretary's - but he pays taxes at a much reduced rate - probably less than 15%. Most of his income is long term capital gains or tax-free.
I do much the same thing on a much smaller scale - I don't pay ANY taxes on about 30% of my income (muni bonds) - and those investments made over 5% last year -how did you do?
@tychecat -
Removed from the productive economy.
The Federal Budget is Always Balanced
@CustomDesigned - Suggesting that government spending is "Removed from the productive economy" is absurd on its face: Government funded research and development is responsible for a very great deal of our modern living - the media we are communicating in is one example. I think your main concern is rather that government spending means government control. The very idea that a democratically elected government may choose to assert control over a nation's economy and check the worst excesses of what was once called "The Robber Barons" is anathema to those financing the Nevada Policy Research Institute -for example..
@tychecat -
What is the difference between a robber baron and the government? (Note: initial employment with robber barons was freely chosen.)
@CustomDesigned - Difference between "Robber Barons"and the government? Simple, we control the government in a democracy. the RBs control the government in a plutocracy - which seems to be the direction Romney wants to take us. His is, after all a pretty good example of the 21st century equivalent to a Robber Baron
@tychecat -
You don't control the government in a democracy. At best, you get to help choose some of the leaders. Employees of the robber barons freely chose to work for them. What conditions made it difficult for most employees to leave the employ of a robber baron? What policies created those conditions? What policies is Obama promoting?
Tychecat said: Suggesting that government spending is "Removed from the productive economy" is absurd on its face.
"Spending" by definition removes goods and services from an economy. If the Federal budget were mostly NASA and DARPA, we wouldn't be in so much trouble (unconstitutional - but I would actually vote for an amendment to Federally finance NASA and basic research). Unfortunately, they are a tiny fraction. Half of the spending is for unconstitutional (for the *federal* government) entitlements. The biggest constitutional budget item is "defense" - which is also bigger that it should be with unnecessary wars. I am not amused by pretending it is a "police action" and not a war.
I guess I haven’t read such unique material anywhere else online.
PPI Claim
Comments are closed.