Economic liberals state your case for Obama:

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I would like add my 2 cents to this discussion, but I don't know who you define as rich. Income level please.

Also Obama is going to cut taxes for the middle class, what is this income level going to be.

$200K+ for Edwards
$250K+ for Obama, Hillary

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/bu...2leonside.html

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

$200K+ for Edwards
$250K+ for Obama, Hillary

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/bu...2leonside.html

That is not rich. That level is still middle class.

Rich is 15 million per year or more, but no way is anything less than a million rich.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

$200K+ for Edwards
$250K+ for Obama, Hillary

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/bu...2leonside.html

You bet people at those income levels will change their spending habits. Most of them will in my opinion try to maintain their saving habits. They will pay the taxes by cutting back on their spending.

I am already thinking of cutting back on my spending habits because the dems look so strong and I am not only worried about taxes, I am worried about being able to maintain my income level in a declining investment environment.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's not just a question of slacking off, but if they will hold back investment, or divert investment out of the states. And when the investment climate is bad, people are looking to China, Brazil, India and even Russia. Tax rates are part of the equation, but not the only part.

I know the difference between elasticity and inelasticity. Liberal economists study the markets and try to reason around them. Liberal politicians ignore them in their calculations.

I have not seen adequate documentation that wealthy business people work harder say in Sweden to recuperate lost investment, but rather they look elsewhere or cheat on their taxes.

Is it good social policy to adopt a tax strategy which encourages and rewards its citizenry for cheating rather than being honest?

Clinton's taxes did affect the economy in a delayed manner once the phony tech bubble burst early in W's tenure. You give too much credit to Clinton, and ignore the foibles of the tech bubble. It was phony markets that benefited his image.

We have a far more complex and different economy than FDR's time so comparisons are invalid.

So how did Clinton's tax hikes affect investment levels?

As for the tech bubble, wait! I thought taxes hurt investment. How in the world did it cause over-investment?

Takes hikes--> ____________--> Tech Bubble
(tell your fantastic causal story)


btw, tech bubble was Clinton's fault. It was because he de-regulated too much to maintain good relations with Wall Street. Ask his chief economist.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

You bet people at those income levels will change their spending habits. Most of them will in my opinion try to maintain their saving habits. They will pay the taxes by cutting back on their spending.

I am already thinking of cutting back on my spending habits because the dems look so strong and I am not only worried about taxes, I am worried about being able to maintain my income level in a declining investment environment.

don't worry, increased savings induce investment.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

don't worry, increased savings induce investment.

Surely you understand the difference between "maintain", my word and "increased" which is your word.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Surely you understand the difference between "maintain", my word and "increased" which is your word.

oh sorry, I missed that. still, investment environment won't decline (just maintain).

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

As I stated before, whomever gets elected President is going to spend his/her first 2 years in office unraveling Iraq and traveling abroad quite a bit to strengthen relations.

I'm sorry for hijacking, but 3D has stated this several times now and I have to say something. Iraq will be on the U.S. foreign policy agenda for the next 20 years, if not the next 50. We invaded and occupied. We are not going to be out in two years; hopefully we will see significant "boots on the ground" troop reductions, but we are there for a while. Like Collin Powell warned Bush, we now own that country.

No new president is going to come in and make any major change in Iraq policy simply because there are no other options than staying this course, which appears to be working now. Oh, they'll lie and say they've made changes that have had positive effects, but the truth is they will make very little change. If Obama spends two years focusing on Iraq he will be wasting all of us a lot of time.

[ChinoCoug]

Here's a good summary from Romney's adviser on differences between L/R economists.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/...ft-differ.html

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

If Obama spends two years focusing on Iraq he will be wasting all of us a lot of time.

The entire Iraq was has been a huge waste of time (and money). What difference does a couple more years make?

If we are not largely pulled out of Iraq in the next few years, that would be disappointing. Military troops engaged in active combat for a longer period of time than any of our previous involvements....except for Vietnam, of course...which irony does not escape me.


Our presence there for the next 20 years and Colin Powell saying we own Iraq now is odd, given that we do not engage in nation building....