The Economics of Democrats

[30ashopper]

Thanks!

I came away very impressed, and curious as to whether anything this detailed and nuanced has been written about McCain's plans.

If you find it please post, i've been looking for something like that as well.

 

[TooFarTampa]

The problem for Obama is that it took the writer thousands of words to properly describe his economic policy. It's hard for that to compete with folks who just repeat "tax and spend liberal" over and over and over and over again. In fact, all this research and analysis that many of us are doing is just depressing to me on some levels, because I know that the vast majority of voters have made up their minds based on very little information.

In the article, Obama was asked to summarize his vision for the economy. Here is his response. It's not a sound bite but it is eloquent.

Specifically, I wondered, did he think he had a message that compared with Reagan?s simple call for less government and lower taxes.

He paused for a few seconds and then said this:

?I think I can tell a pretty simple story. Ronald Reagan ushered in an era that reasserted the marketplace and freedom. He made people aware of the cost involved of government regulation or at least a command-and-control-style regulation regime. Bill Clinton to some extent continued that pattern, although he may have smoothed out the edges of it. And George Bush took Ronald Reagan?s insight and ran it over a cliff. And so I think the simple way of telling the story is that when Bill Clinton said the era of big government is over, he wasn?t arguing for an era of no government. So what we need to bring about is the end of the era of unresponsive and inefficient government and short-term thinking in government, so that the government is laying the groundwork, the framework, the foundation for the market to operate effectively and for every single individual to be able to be connected with that market and to succeed in that market. And it?s now a global marketplace.

?Now, that?s the story. Now, telling it elegantly ? ?low taxes, smaller government? ? the way the Republicans have, I think is more of a challenge.?

 

[MattChrist Live]

Any article that starts out like this - "Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class." I know is biased so there's no point in reading it. Now if you can come up with an honest and non-partisan assessment of each plan, that I'll be more than happy to read.

I believe the Tax Policy Institude did a study of both plans. The summary was basically - both plans stand to run up the national debt the heights unseen. But, and this is important, McCain will be forced to work with the democrats in congress, Obama will have his way with them. Another good reason to vote McCain - Palin this November.

I hate to break this to you, but in a major election anything someone reads is biased. Not necessarily because the author is biased (although sometimes), but because the reader has already made up their mind and are less willing to challenge themselves by taking two minutes to read an opinion that differs from their own.
I'm certaintly guilty of doing just that, but this is why I make a point to watch Fox News a few times in the week.

Excellent post Matt. Your clear and concise explanation makes total sense.

How's school? I bet you are thriving in the college atmosphere and all the brain stretching options that are easily found!

UF is wonderful! I just finished my first week and was pleasantly susprised to find that I only have one large class (around 200 students)...all my other classes are capped at 15-16. Tell your son and all the other Seahawks to take advantage of those AP Classes. I think I took about every one offered and am glad I did!

Go Gators!

 

[GoodWitch58]

Matt, glad to see you are staying in touch. Check in with the Graham Center for Public Policy if you get a chance...
Go "Noles! LOL

 

[DemoLady]

New York Times - 8/31 - Interesting data

Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats. . .

The accompanying table. . . tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families ? which means that incomes were equalizing.

In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House ? thus widening the gap in income.

The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do.

 

[dunefrog]

Thanks for continuing a rational debate, Matt. My rebuttal:

I've been having a rigorous debate with a good friend of mine over the economic policies of Senators Obama and McCain. He, much like dunefrog, believes that the supposed tax burden on the poor is a "Democrat-created Phenomenon." Now, for the most part, my friend and dunefrog are correct. The Wealthiest Americans (approximately less than 1% of the population) do indeed pay the bulk of the taxes.

Two points here. It seems like you are saying that the extremely regressive PAYROLL tax is NOT a Democrat-created phenomenon. Even though you say your friend and I are correct. I think you are saying we are correct only about the wealthiest paying the bulk of taxes but that it is just a "belief" that the payroll tax is a Democrat tax. Please clarify.

Republican thinking believes that tax cuts solve everything .

This is a bit unfair don't you think? Some might call it a "strawman." I don't think all Republicans think this at all. Most do think that government is too big and tries to do too many things and does most of those things poorly. They for the most part do believe that if government was smaller and would focus on doing what it did well, then we would not need to collect as much in taxes.

See the wealthier certainly do contribute more to the economy in monetary terms, but the middle and lower classes provide the foundation of the economy. If they?re not given financial relief, accomplishing the bedrock of the American dream (opening and growing their own business so they may one day join the ranks of the higher tax bracket) becomes harder to accomplish with a smaller income. That smaller income means less money is available to start up a business, and less money is available to provide for their family. Moreover, any student of history knows the economic importance the middle class plays.

Exactly my point. Government is taking 15% of their income off the top in PAYROLL taxes for a program that many on both sides of the aisle have said is insolvent. Why don't the Democrats work on social security privatization? True, this would not lower taxes immediately. But at least some money would be there for retirement in 30 years. And this tax WAS thought up and pushed through by Democrats, and the Democrats continue to block any type of reform in that system.

If the lower economic classes are having a harder time and spending less, than my business is hurting. If the lower economic classes aren?t given a chance to prosper (through hard work, mind you) then their children see little reason to try in school, and the present economy stagnates while inflation increases, then even life for me becomes more expensive.

Do you really think the rich just want to stick it to the poor? Most rich and successful people know how the world works. They know you can't let the "poor get poorer" without harming the economy. But this is a free country and the poor and middle class have the potential to work hard and contribute or not. If their contribution is something the marketplace wants to pay for, then they too will do just fine. Our class system is very mobile. People are not stuck in poverty. But the choice to move from one tax bracket to another is more a decision by the individual than it is a decision by someone in government.

I know you are voting for Obama no matter what I say. And I don't think the world will come to an end if he wins. And one day you probably will be in a high tax bracket. And YOU may not mind giving your money to a group of people who waste it on their own little pet projects.

But, if you watch closely, most of these new and improved governmental "solutions" to the world's problems will fail and other new and improved "solutions" will be needed. All these solutions will cost lots of money (someone else's money...by the way). When they fail, the politician who proposed them will get unelected and write books and go on the speaker's circuit, making millions. But we taxpayers will get just the shaft.

I'm all for saving the world, Matt. A lot of work can be done. But instead of relying on government to do this, start a non-profit or a charitable foundation. Follow your passion to help the poor and middle class achieve more by helping them directly. Who knows I might even contribute.

 

[Neu!Turismo]

Obamanomics (Advanced)

If you haven't seen this, it's worth the read. (Pretty long article)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Not exactly entertaining, but solid.

 

[TooFarTampa]

If you haven't seen this, it's worth the read. (Pretty long article)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Not exactly entertaining, but solid.

I agree but, see my post No. 10 above. Don't make them read it twice. :funn:

 

[Neu!Turismo]

I agree but, see my post No. 10 above. Don't make them read it twice. :funn:

My bad. I should have read the whole thread.
Sorry about that.

 

[Jdarg]

My bad. I should have read the whole thread.
Sorry about that.

It's OK, and just shows you are on the high intelligence plane with TFT, who is revered by many SoWallers for her brains, cool head, and beauty (just like the GOP VP candidate;-)).

BTW!