The Khalidi thing strikes me as nothing more than desperate from a campaign that is already deep in the gutter.
As Stephen Colbert noted - next we'll be learning all about Obama's association with the chupacabra. "He started his campaign in its lagoon!"
You might just as well be appalled at this, Patti:
Quote
In regards to Khalidi, however, the guilt-by-association game burns John McCain as well.
During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.
A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)
The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."
Of course, there's seemingly nothing objectionable with McCain's organization helping a Palestinian group conduct research in the West Bank or Gaza. But it does suggest that McCain could have some of his own explaining to do as he tries to make hay out of Khalidi's ties to Obama.
The source here is The Huffington Post - which is, of course, hardly unbiased. But no more so than Fox is for McCain and the Republicans, so it's probably an equally valid source of info. Or not, as the case may be.
Me, I'd check out anything said on either very carefully before forming an opinion on it or, indeed, expressing my astonishment that anyone else wouldn't take it at face value and gospel truth without checking it at all. :rolleyes:
If it is true however, then McCain is either treading on very thin ice by trying to make a mountain out of a molehill on Obama's links to this man or he is confident that the US media will not mention his own dealings on the subject.
Given their silence on his associations with Falwell when he made such a song and dance about Wright, perhaps it's a pretty good gamble at that. :p
LabRat
Athos: If you'd told us what you were doing, we might have been able to plan this properly. Aramis: Yes, sorry. Athos: No, no, by all means, let's keep things suicidal.
re: the difference between socialism and Marxism. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole thing. As you know, I'm taking college courses, and one of them touched on the difference between socialism and communism, which made things clearer for me. Communism (more or less the same as Marxism?) is a system where the state has total control over labor, capital, and all other resources (factors of production). Socialism, according to the text, is when the state has control over *some* key industries (like, for instance, banking... hmm), or only part of the economy. But the redistribution of wealth part wasn't discussed.
Quote
(and ALL taxes are redistributive, after all, as is just about all government spending)
Um, no. Ideally, in America, taxes go to pay for state and federal services like interstate highways, the courts, and defense. Services that can't be provided by anyone else. There's been a lot of redistribution built into the system over the decades, but that's a bug, not a feature. IMO. Obama, however, clearly likes that part, and wants to increase it. Come to think of it, I'm guessing the socialism part is because with higher tax rates, government controls a larger percentage of GDP?
Quote
Since when has Obama even hinted at opposition to private enterprise? Has he so much as suggested public control of private corporations? Of course he hasn't.
No, other than railing against "greed on Wall Street" etc (which McCain does, too ), and Joe Biden telling an audience that they'll make those CEOs pay for their errors, and, I quote, "their pensions go first." I thought pensions were supposed to be private property? I heard something about increasing the minimum wage, too, but that may have been Congress. But anyway, no, of course he hasn't openly campaigned that way, because he knows that in America, it would be toxic to his campaign.
Quote
This is one thing I loathe about modern-day politics; accusations which may be completely untrue - such as Obama not being born in the US, or Palin cutting spending on special needs - or which are at best misleading make their way around blogs and gossip sites as fast as a virus, and they're impossible to kill completely. There are plenty of voters out there who still believe some of these inaccurate or misleading rumours.
Agreed. If we truly had impartial journalism, that would cut down on it. But since very few people think *any* networks are unbiased, there's room for rumors to thrive. Think about it -- you try to prove something to me based on the New York Times, I'm gonna dismiss it out of hand. Vice versa, if I'm citing Fox News, ditto.
Patti -- I know how you feel, but Kathy's right. We've got to keep this respectful to all the viewpoints. If you want to vent, there are lots of places where you can do that among friends. Here's not the right place for that.
LabRat, I tend to agree with you, which is why I haven't paid much attention to the Khalidi stuff. But video of Obama actually applauding anti-Semitism would stir up quite a fuss. We don't have nearly the level of anti-Semitism over here as you do in Europe. And US policy towards Israel is a definite issue. It would probably change some votes. Not a lot, probably, but it's a close election to start with.
PJ
"You told me you weren't like other men," she said, shaking her head at him when the storm of laughter had passed. He grinned at her - a goofy, Clark Kent kind of a grin. "I have a gift for understatement." "You can say that again," she told him. "I have a...." "Oh, shut up."
the number I heard is Obama wants minimum wage to 9.50 by 2010.
I shudder at that. that's a 50%ish hike in minimum wage and I know small business that would go under/hike prices/cut jobs but I GUARANTEE you DH or I [salaried] won't see an extra dime while all of our costs go up.
Minimum wage was never meant to be a LIVING wage... it's for high school kids and those who've never been in the work force not to try to raise a family on - and those who do try to do that - IMO - will likely never be able to do so easily because the costs of goods and services goes up in proportion to the 'wholesale' cost of those those goods and services. Gas/distribution costs go up? So does the price of goods. Wages go up? So does the price of goods - proportionally or even out of proportion if businesses feel they can get away with it. Those that can't get away with it will go under/cut jobs/cut benefits/etc.
Carol, as for the minimum wage, I think there are two good reasons for keeping it low. First of all, if the minimum wage is low it will be cheap for employers to hire. People who can't find a job any other way may find that an emplyer is willing to give them a chance if the pay they'll get is so low anyway. But if the minimum wage is raised, it's going to cost employers more to hire, and more of them may be unwilling to hire, and unemployment could rise. That would certainly not be a good thing, not for anybody.
The second benefit of a low minimum wage is that the goods and services produced by people earning the minimum wage will be cheap. It is going to be cheap for the rest of us to buy the stuff that the minimum earners produce. That is certainly very good for the rest of us, those of us who earn more than the minimum wage.
But for me, a left-wing person, a low minimum wage is nevertheless very problematical. Take a look at this picture from 'Västra Hamnen', a newly-built and uppity part of my hometown of Malmö. As you can see, lots of big rocks and boulders have been placed right next to the waterline. But if you look at this picture very closely, you may be able to see that some of the boulders, though none of the most nearby ones, look extremely smooth and shiny:
How did some of the rocks get so shiny? Well, because they were ground and polished until they shone, of course. But here's the deal. They were not polished in Sweden, but in China. Take a look at this map of the world:
Can you see Sweden, marked in purple in northern Europe? Well, the boulders in Västra hamnen were loaded onto a ship and brought by that ship to China, marked in yellow on that map. Can you imagine the cost and general bother of shipping those boulders all the way to China and back again? Just to have them ground and polished? Why couldn't we do that in Sweden instead?
Well, you guessed it. In Sweden, the people who do that sort of work cost too much, that is, their wages are 'too high'. Also, they have the right to all sorts of protection and good working conditions. Grounding and polishing rocks creates a lot of silicate dust, which clogs up and destroys people's lungs. Last year there was a documentary on Swedish television about workers who ground and polished rocks in China. Not only was their pay lousy, but almost all of them died in their fifties or earlier, because their lungs were clogged up with silicate dust.
Ah, but it was cheap for us to have those boulders polished. And the boulders do look pretty when they glitter and shine. So who cares about those Chinese workers and their clogged-up lungs? And who cares about those Swedish stone workers who remained umemployed while the Swedish boulders were being polished in China? It was a good deal for the rest of us Swedes.
I once saw a documentary about illegal immigrants picking oranges at an orange plantation in Florida. These workers were not given money in exchange for their work, but instead they were given tokens which they could use to buy goods in the store which was owned by the their employer. The documentary followed one of these workers, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, and kept check, more or less, on what he bought in that store. It wasn't very much. However, when the fruit-picking season was over, this worker ended up owing his employer about a thousand dollars! Yes, because the employer said that the worker had bought too much in the employer's store, so after working in the orange yard during the whole fruit-picking season the worker had not earned a cent, but instead he ended up being in debt!
Now you may point out that the worker in question was an illegal immigrant, and no one had forced him to make his way into the United States to work. That's a good point. But here's the deal. According to the documentary, most oranges in Florida are in fact picked by illegal immigrants, who earn next to nothing. And because these workers earn so little, or nothing at all, oranges that are sold all over the United States are cheap. If they had been picked by American workers earning the minimum wage, they would have been much more expensive. And if they had been picked by American workers earning 9.50, they would have been really very much more expensive.
Middle class people like you and me, Carol, benefit if poor people work for terribly low wages under terrible working conditions. Because the stuff we buy get cheaper that way. But can we be proud of ourselves for asking for the cheapest stuff, even if it gets that cheap only if it is produced by people earning hardly any money at all?
As for the economic difficulties of the middle class, remember that not all of it, and probably not most of it, has been caused by the poorest people, regardless of how you look at it. One reason for the current economic crisis is that so much money has been redistributed from low- and middle-income people to the very richest ones, who have become almost exponentially richer while the low-and middle-income people generally have become somewhat poorer. One thing that happened at the banks was that up to 50% of the banks' profits went into bonuses for its executives! The banks would certainly have been better off if most of their profits had been invested back into the banking business instead. By the way, I read in the New York Times (I know, I know...) that at least some banks planned to use their 'bailout money' not to give loans to people who needed it, but to buy other banks and give bonuses to their executives.
It's easy to blame poor people, but I think rich people have done more to create the economic downturn that we see today.
I don't know about the illegal worker but for the moment I'll keep my thoughts on that to myself...
However, minimum wages don't apply to farm workers - they have a different system for them.
I'm not saying that being one step above slave labor is a good thing. What I am saying is that when minimum wage goes up to 9.50, I won't be able to afford to take my kids to Wendy's [like I did last night b/c they did a GREAT job sitting at Walmart while we got the oil changed/battery checked] because instead of costing me $6, it would cost $10 and my oil change would have cost me $35 instead of $22 and all the other costs have gone up accordingly. My husband and I will not get raises, but all of our goods that we buy will go up in price and our real buying power will go WAY down with a 50%ish raise in minimum wage. Why? Because we've worked our tails off to get an education and a job that pays [currently] well above minimum wage. Our bosses would already have to give considerable raises to employees that do make minimum or less than the new minimum. They won't be able to afford to give us raises as well.
Just guessing that the real buying power of 95% of Americans would go down. Especially with such a huge jump in such a short time.
So much for that new flat screen TV we've been eyeing - we wouldn't be able to afford it after we bought food and clothes for our family.
Carol [who will probably get said TV before Christmas but that's not the point]
Edit: It's early and I missed my point... My point is that if real buying power goes down for most Americans, all that discretionary buying stops. Fast food restaurants might be okay because they're fairly cheap, but slightly nicer ones won't be. Pizza will be picked up, not delivered. Best Buy will see a decrease in sales. So will all the other places. Then they've laid people off already because of the increase of minimum wage, so they lay more off because of the decrease in sales. The buying power of those on minimum wage won't actually increase nearly as much either because all of the goods they buy will go up in price for them too. So I fail to see how raising something that wasn't designed to be lived on in the first place is going to solve the problems of the poor.
I'm solidly middle class, and my 'wealth' hasn't been redistributed to the wealthy. The top 5% already pays something like 90% of all taxes and 40% [or more] Americans don't pay any at all. I get a tax welfare check every year - I get back more than I pay in. I disagree COMPLETELY with the principle, but I'm not going to turn it down either. That said, we plan on making a lot more money someday. The government already screws up enough with the money of mine they do get through payroll taxes etc, I have no desire to give them anymore. That said, I do plenty on my own - without government help - to help those less fortunate than myself. I don't need the people who can't balance a budget to save their life telling me the best way to take my money to give to someone else. Not even to me.
Carol [again, who's not sure that's coherent because she's on about 4.5 hours of sleep]
Just guessing that the real buying power of 95% of Americans would go down. Especially with such a huge jump in such a short time.
...
My point is that if real buying power goes down for most Americans, all that discretionary buying stops. Fast food restaurants might be okay because they're fairly cheap, but slightly nicer ones won't be. Pizza will be picked up, not delivered. Best Buy will see a decrease in sales. So will all the other places. Then they've laid people off already because of the increase of minimum wage, so they lay more off because of the decrease in sales.
Carol, I'm not going to take part in a discussion about what the future will be like, because that is something we can't know. Personally, admittedly, I don't believe that a doubling of the minimum wage would lead to a loss of income for 95% of Americans. But there is nothing I can do to prove or bolster my view, so I'm reduced to stating it. And the future may prove me wrong anyway.
Let me tell you about the first time I had a discussion (or maybe an argument ) with a person who eventually invoked the future to 'win' our debate. This guy was a red-hot communist, really, and he kept insisting that we needed to bring the communist revolution to all of the world, because communism on Earth would eventually lead to Paradise on Earth. I kept insisting that he was wrong, and I cited as many examples as I could from communist countries where so many people didn't seem to think that they were living in Paradise at all.
But suddenly our debate was all over, and my opponent had won, even though I couldn't understand how it had happened. This was his closing argument:
"You criticize the communist countries of today for being imperfect. Well, remember that it took capitalism 200 years to achieve a measure of perfection. Communism has only been around since 1917. You have to wait for a hundred years, and then the Soviet Union and other communist countries will be like Paradise!"
When he had said that to me, I was speechless. My opponent was in fact telling me that he knew the future, while I would never presume to say that I did. And I was absolutely unprepared to respond to him.
Did this guy in fact believe that he knew the future? I have no way of knowing if he did think so. But if he did, it must have been because he had studied Marxism so thoroughly that he absolutely believed that history must unfold the way Marx had predicted that it would. It was a staggering thought. This guy believed in Marxism the way Evangelical Christians believe in the Bible. Or else, you know, he was just a fake who was looking for a way to win a debate.
Well, Carol, I think of my opponent from all those years ago as either a spineless fake or a scary, fanatical fundamentalist. You are definitely neither of those! You didn't claim to know what would happen if Obama gives the minimum wage a substantial hike. You told us that you were just guessing what the consequences would be. And guessing is all that any of us can do when it comes to the future, and that means we have only a limited opportunity to have a reasonable and rational debate. (I hope you understand I wasn't criticizing you here, only trying to explain why I generally shy away from debates about the future. It isn't as if I haven't stated my own beliefs about the future, though!)
Still, I want to quote the New York Times again. This is from a column by Paul Krugman:
Quote
The long-feared capitulation of American consumers has arrived. According to Thursday's G.D.P. report, real consumer spending fell at an annual rate of 3.1 percent in the third quarter; real spending on durable goods (stuff like cars and TVs) fell at an annual rate of 14 percent.
So it appears that consumer spending is already down, even though the minimum wage hasn't been raised. Therefore, if Obama raises the minimum wage and consumer spending keeps on declining, maybe that will be because of the change of the minimum wage, but maybe the real reason will just be the general bear market and the recession.
Below is a link to a video on Youtube some of you might care to watch. I've heard it's the most watched election related video on Youtube. It is less than 2 minutes long but wonderful. I won't comment further as i wouldn't want to be accused of "venting".
I don't have to go into great detail but I will say that I feel my guesses are reasonably accurate because it has happened in the past. There are those who will probably show stats to the other side, but that's what happened to me, my family and those I know.
And *incomes* wouldn't go down for most, but *buying power* would. Based on what I've seen in my own personal experience, that's what would happen.
the number I heard is Obama wants minimum wage to 9.50 by 2010.
<sarcasm>Yay another minimum wage hike being proposed.</sarcasm>
California minimum wage is already $8/hr. We've got the high cost of living here to go along with it, too. We've been seriously looking at moving out of California because the cost of living here is so high, but if we move and they raise the minimum wage that high, I guess the only thing we'd get out of it would be more annual rainfall (hate living in a desert).
I found an interesting website awhile back that lists information for cities all over the US, city-data.com . One of the things it lists is the cost of living index. 100 is the US average. My town (Ramona, CA) is 116.3 and New York, NY, is 135.9. Both are places where the state minimum wage is higher than the Federal minimum wage. I know this is just two examples, but here\'s a nifty website that lists minimum wages all across the country. Feel free to see if you can find a place with a higher minimum wage and a low cost of living.
Tara
Edited to add: This website has a color-coded map that shows costs of living on a state by state basis.
Rose: You're NOT keeping the horse! Doctor Who: I let you keep Mickey, now lets go! Doctor Who, The Girl in the Fireplace
Originally posted by Patti: Below is a link to a video on Youtube some of you might care to watch. I've heard it's the most watched election related video on Youtube. It is less than 2 minutes long but wonderful. I won't comment further as i wouldn't want to be accused of "venting".
the number I heard is Obama wants minimum wage to 9.50 by 2010.
<sarcasm>Yay another minimum wage hike being proposed.</sarcasm>
California minimum wage is already $8/hr. We've got the high cost of living here to go along with it, too. We've been seriously looking at moving out of California because the cost of living here is so high, but if we move and they raise the minimum wage that high, I guess the only thing we'd get out of it would be more annual rainfall (hate living in a desert).
I found an interesting website awhile back that lists information for cities all over the US, city-data.com . One of the things it lists is the cost of living index. 100 is the US average. My town (Ramona, CA) is 116.3 and New York, NY, is 135.9. Both are places where the state minimum wage is higher than the Federal minimum wage. I know this is just two examples, but here\'s a nifty website that lists minimum wages all across the country. Feel free to see if you can find a place with a higher minimum wage and a low cost of living.
Tara
Edited to add: This website has a color-coded map that shows costs of living on a state by state basis.
I'm very happy to live in Texas... where our cost of living is low, there is no state income tax and our overall economy is doing better than the rest of the nation.
Some stats in the state are skewed by the hispanic/illegal population near the border, but with that taken into consideration, we are doing fine.
Sorry I've been gone for a while, but I've had a bear of a sickness lately and haven't done much but read about my favorite football team. (American football, not soccer)
Antibiotics have finally kicked in... it only took two doctors and two months to get them to prescribe it after I started getting far worse... so I'm feeling much better now.
And in time for the election tomorrow, too.
As for Kathy's question about tax credits for moving businesses out of the country, Obama's probably correct. There are thousands of little pieces of the tax code that do contradictory things, most of them put in by individual Congressmen or Senators into a much larger bill as riders or earmarks, usually to help a specific campaign contributor or business in his/her district. That there are tax laws like that in place is a disgrace. The tax code is so large that nobody knows everything that's in it, but what's most important is the big picture when it comes to taxes. I say simplify the whole thing and toss out all the special interest tax laws, but that was done once in 1986. But like cockroaches, they survive and come back little by little.
As for bad associations, people point out G. Gordon Liddy as the bad guy McCain's been associated with. What's he done that's comparable to all the bad guys associated with Obama? He was part of a group of third-rate burglars stealing information from the DNC headquarters at the Watergate Apartments. He was convicted and did his time and is now a radio talk show host, often regretting what he did earlier. He is not an unrepentant terrorist. And McCain was still an active duty Naval officer at the time Liddy got out, not even in politics yet.
Charles Keating was also brought up, but people forget that McCain was exonerated in court as a member of the Keating Five. Some say the prosecutors went after him just to fill a Republican quota since the other four were Democrats.
And what do you know? The Keating Five was a banking scandal where Dems were up to their eyeballs with sweetheart mortgage deals just like Jim Johnson and other Democrats are tied in with Countrywide Mortgage today. Some things never change.
Fast forward a few years and once again, Dems are up to their eyeballs in another banking catastrophe.
Oh, btw, people have this impression that Wall Street consists of Republicans. Virtually everyone high up in the investment banking community is a Democrat. The chairman, CEO of Lehman, chairman and CEO of AIG are Democrats. The same with Merrill Lynch. Even Hank Paulson from Goldman Sachs, while a Republican, is hardly a right winger. It's tough to find a conservative Republican anywhere there. That's one reason why Republican presidents have had such a hard time finding good candidates for Treasury Secretary that have a name on Wall Street. There aren't that many to choose from. They're about as rare as Republicans in Hollywood. Alan Greenspan, btw, is a Democrat, married to ultra-liberal Andrea Mitchell of NBC News.
Then again, my favorite Fed Chairman is a Democrat, Paul Volcker, so they're not all bad. Greenspan and Bernanke, the two who followed Volcker, were disasters.
Now on to policy.
On raising taxes and increased protectionism, does anyone remember what happened in 1929 after Wall Street had a meltdown? President Hoover raised taxes and increased protectionism by signing the Smoot-Hawley Act, two of the prime reasons the Great Depression came about. Hoover took a recession and made it the Great Depression as the double hit raised unemployment to a record 25%.
FDR failed to make much of a dent in the Great Depression with the New Deal as unemployment stayed at record highs and the economy stayed in the toilet for a decade. Most economists agree today that FDR prolonged the Great Depression with his policies and that it was World War II that brought us out of the Great Depression with near-universal employment as millions of men were drafted into the armed services and women were brought into the workforce for the first time out of necessity for the war effort, creating symbols like Rosie the Riveter.
Now it's 2008. We've had a banking catastrophe and Wall Street has had a meltdown. Obama proposes raising taxes and unilaterally redefining NAFTA and refusing to allow a free trade agreement with other nations in the western hemisphere, such as Colombia, all in the name of more protectionism. We've seen this act before. Recession + protectionism + higher taxes = Great Depression. We'll see how dynamic our economy is in warding off Obamanomics if he wins tomorrow since our economy is not the same as it was in 1929. Personally, I'd rather not see a repeat of the 1930's.
And on the issue of taxes, according to the latest IRS information, the top 50% pay 97.1% of all federal taxes while the lower 50% pay 2.9% while 40% pay zero income taxes. The percentage paid by the top 1%, 5%, 10%, and 50% have all doubled since the beginning of the Reagan Administration. Bush's tax cuts moved four million families off of the tax rolls making it even more progressive than before.
To get a perspective, the top 1% makes about 12% of the income. They pay about 35% of the taxes. The top 10% make about 25% of the income and pay about 60% of the taxes. The bottom 50% make about 25% of the income and pay 2.9% of the taxes.
The tax code is plenty progressive and doesn't need to be more progressive. Unfortunately, even when Republicans cut taxes, they make the tax code even more progressive. Ronald Reagan did it and so did George W. Bush.
As for Obama's tax plan, there aren't 95% of tax payers who can have their income taxes cut. So what's he going to do? He's going to increase tax credits, giving checks to people who don't pay taxes. That's called welfare, not a tax cut. There also aren't enough "rich" to pay for his $1 trillion in new spending. The only place to get that kind of money is from the middle class. It's no wonder the threshold for rich keeps dropping. Governor Bill Richardson and Joe Biden keep lowering that threshold.
I can already hear people saying, "but Ronald Reagan created the Earned Income Tax Credit that now pays people who don't pay taxes." Not true. Reagan did indeed create the EITC to help low-income families, all right. But his original EITC never gave people back money they didn't pay in. It was only later that the EITC began to pay people who didn't pay taxes.
Obama also plans to raise the capital gains taxes from its current 15% to 20% and 28%. That's a quick way to eliminate revenue. Just as an example of how tax cuts work, Bill Clinton cut the capital gains rate from 28% to 20% in 1997, which he signed because his pollster Dick Morris told him to do it. In one year, revenue from capital gains doubled from about $50 billion to $110 billion as capital was freed up and investments increased. According to Keynesians, that shouldn't be possible. That $50 billion should have fallen to $40 billion or less according to leftist theory.
Reagan had done the same thing with his tax cuts taking all income tax rates down from a maximum of 70% to 28%. Revenue in 1980 was $550 billion. By the end of the Reagan Administration, revenue topped $1 trillion.
As a perspective on how American companies are not very competitive in the world market, France has the highest capital gains taxes in Europe at 5%. American businesses pay 20%.
Clinton also recognized that his tax on yachts in 1993 meant to soak the rich didn't work the way he thought it would. Rich people stopped buying yachts and tens of thousands of workers were thrown out of work. The tax was abolished a few years later without fanfare, a tacit admission that raising taxes lowered revenue, in this case to zero, as an entire industry vanished and many people lost their jobs. Remember, J-O-B-S is a very important three-letter word, according to Joe Biden. He wants to raise taxes on employers so that people will have more jobs.
BTW, I'm still waiting on the Clinton middle class tax cut. I remember distinctly when Clinton campaigned on that, hitting President Bush (#41) for raising taxes. I also remembered that one month after his inauguration, Clinton abandoned his middle class tax cut and raised taxes by record amounts, retroactively, including regressive gasoline taxes and the boosting of the taxable level of Social Security benefits, hurting the elderly.
The only taxes he ever cut were capital gains, and that was because his pollster told him to sign the bill that the Republican Congress passed.
The most devastating of Obama's tax increase proposals will be the lifting of the Social Security tax ceiling, currently at $105,000 in income. That translates to an immediate 6.2% tax increase on top of what people already paid, but it becomes double for small businesses who file as S-Corps, Proprietorships, and Partnerships. They'll end up paying an additional 12.4%, an enormous tax increase on top of income tax increases, since they pay both the employer and employee portion. Can we say bye bye to J-O-B-S?
I should also remind people that the deficit had grown to over $400 billion in the aftermath of the dot com bust and 9/11. The Bush tax cuts reduced the deficit to $146 billion in fiscal year 2006, the last Republican budget. In 2007, with a Democratic Congress and Bush's budgets DOA, we have over a $450 billion deficit, more than double. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
Now it's 2008. I've heard this story before. Whenever a Democrat promises a middle class tax cut, it's time to hide your money under the mattress since it never happens. You can probably count on a big tax increase coming your way. Oh I'm sure the EITC will be boosted, giving money to people who pay no taxes, but if you do pay any, I wouldn't hold your breath. The last time a Democrat cut anybody's income tax was in 1963 under supply-sider John F. Kennedy. They've all promised it, though. Somehow the follow-through never happens.
On the issue on the availability of abortion doctors, I read an article back in 2002 about the South Dakota Senate race and how abortion was an issue back then. It said that essentially the lack of demand made it non-viable for any abortion doctor to actually practice in the state. In red states where abortion is considered bad, there aren't that many clinics since not many people have them as compared to blue states. In South Dakota, there was a single doctor who came from a neighboring state (I forget which one) who was brought in once a month by Planned Parenthood.
So women who wanted to have an abortion either had to wait for the doctor to arrive and then drive a long distance to get to the doctor's office or they would have to drive to another state where there were many more doctors who would perform abortions.
I can't attest to the accuracy of the article, but it makes sense.
-- Roger
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin
I should mention another potential tax increase that will strongly hit the middle class that has been proposed by Democrats in Congress, but has not been mentioned by the Obama campaign.
Congressional Democrats want to change how 401K retirement contributions work. Instead of allowing people to put money in the investments of their choice, the Congressional Democrats want all 401K money to be invested in US government bonds. Since Ted Kennedy is likely not going to last in the Senate for much longer, Congressional Democrats are proposing this in his name.
The net effect of the bill, first, is to take away choice from anyone who wants to create a retirement fund and makes all retirements dependent on government.
Second, Congress would take away the deductibility of 401K's. Today, all contributions up to 15% of gross income is done with pre-tax money with all taxes deferred until distribution. The new proposal would take away that tax deductibility, making the contributions after-tax money.
So for those who contribute money to a 401K, they would now be taxed on that money immediately.
Congress does not have the votes now to pass such a travesty, but they likely will if they get 60 votes in the Senate. That makes it vitally important to keep the Senate more balanced. Undoubtedly, Obama would sign this legislation as it vastly increases the power of government, so a filibuster would be the only way to stop it.
-- Roger
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin
Ethnica, I know we've had back-and-forth debate on this thread, but for the most part people have been respectful, both to each other and to the candidates. I think this comment of yours crosses a line. I'd like to invite you to edit it, please.
Roger, this information about what Congressional Democrats want to do about 401Ks is news to me. May I ask what your sources are?
There are probably economic complexities here that I don't comprehend, but it really doesn't make sense to me that any party would want to do that. AFAIK, BOTH parties agree that Social Security is a mess right now, and that when all the Baby Boomers retire there won't be enough money coming in to fund current payments. So people are told NOT to count on the government and Social Security. If the pre-tax contribution advantage is removed, most people will probably make smaller contributions to their own accounts, which makes them even less prepared.
If this is just a tax grab by the Democrats, as you might be arguing, I would think that there are better ways to go about it. Canada faced a major fiscal crisis with an ever-mounting budget deficit in the 1990s, but as far as I know, they never made any similar threats about RRSPs, which serve a similar role to the 401K/403B plans. It certainly would have brought in some easy revenue for the government, in a climate that is used to higher taxation and bigger government. I would have thought they would be more likely to attempt it than any US political party.
Truthfully, no matter how far left one feels that the Democrats are leaning, I do find it hard to believe that they would contemplate such a move with the rising senior population.
Kathy
"Our thoughts form the universe. They always matter." - Babylon 5
Since the proposal is offering a mere $600 subsidy, that means there's a tax increase on anyone making more than $12,000 a year as everyone would be FORCED to join this government-run program for their 401(k) and FORCED to contribute 5% of their gross income. If you currently don't contribute to a 401(k), that's essentially 5% of your money they're taking away without you being allowed to choose not to participate. People who now get employer matching of their 401(k)'s will likely see that disappear, too.
Basically what we'll have is Social Security II. The first one doesn't work and will go bankrupt in just a few years. Now the Democrats want to do it again.
This is socialism. It is government taking over people's private investments and eliminating the choice of those people.
Why would they want to do such a thing? These people believe in big government and government taking over as much of our lives as possible. They define success as how many people are dependent on government while conservatives believe that success means how many people no longer need government.
-- Roger
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin
If the Democrats choose to push this through, this will have further repercussions. With a $4.5 trillion 401(k) system essentially taken away, that means a tremendous amount of capital will leave the stock market and into government coffers.
Since companies use much of this capital to invest in growth, this portion would disappear.
If you think the stock market is low now, it will go even lower with so much 401(k) money disappearing.
It seems the stock market just loves Obama, seeing as 10% of its value has disappeared in just two days.
-- Roger
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin
"He started his campaign in its lagoon!"
), and Joe Biden telling an audience that they'll make those CEOs pay for their errors, and, I quote, "their pensions go first." I thought pensions were supposed to be private property? I heard something about increasing the minimum wage, too, but that may have been Congress. But anyway, no, of course he hasn't openly campaigned that way, because he knows that in America, it would be toxic to his campaign. 
