I’m not endorsing John McCain. I can’t endorse a candidate whose views on social policies are so far apart from my own. I’ve never voted Republican, I voted for Clinton in the primary, and I would have enthusiastically voted for her on my early ballot had she been the victor.
I’m concerned about the Supreme Court. Will denying Obama my vote hurt that cause? Well, I’m not in a swing state, for one. But even if I were: with both nominees saying they’d appoint judges without litmus tests, with neither nominee truly liberal on abortion, with Obama’s early support for Justice Roberts turning only on political expediency, and with much less likelihood of Senate scrutiny for Obama’s choices, I can live with my choice not to vote for him.
I was greatly troubled by vast amount of sexism in the primary and since. The multiple slights to Clinton, and the fact that someone without her experience, who’d asked for her help when joining the Senate, would throw his name in after promising he’d serve through his first term. It echoed his treatment of Alice Palmer, his black female mentor –- an issue that I wonder why more women don’t seem to care about.
Items like this don’t reassure me, either.
Then there’s the “spread the wealth” stuff. As a libertarian democrat, I don’t think the government should interfere with individual rights like abortion and gay marriage. I also don’t believe in tax plans that are actually redistributive. I’m quite concerned about the implications of taxing some productive workers amounts over 60%. I do not think that the implications regarding jobs is simply a right wing talking point. I have been told that our company will eliminate jobs should taxes rise accompanied by Obama’s talked-about lifting of the cap on social security. Large, wealthy companies can easily pass off the costs of tax increases to consumers in the form of higher prices and to employees in the form of lower wages. Small businesspeople, like me and my partners, cannot always take such measures, and are more likely to cut employees.
Further, with the top brackets already taking in far lower percentages of the total pool of income than the percentages of the total tax pool they pay, I don’t understand how increasing those levels by the 15-20% that Obama has advocated (5% on income, 13-14% on social security) passes the “fairness” test. (Clinton would have gotten rid of the Bush tax cuts – the 5% -- but not touched social security). Income does not necessarily equal wealth. Is it fair for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay the same or a higher tax percentage than he does? “Warren Buffet takes a salary (taxable @ 35%) of $150K but has net wealth of $50+ billion. Under BO’s tax plan, he gets a tax cut.” Getting rid of loopholes that allow this makes perfect sense. Punishing small businesspeople without his kind of money in the bank, without the ability to use tax lawyers to evade taxes – doesn’t.
Selfish? Sure. My taxes would increase considerably under Obama. I didn’t come from money, and got into my current bracket by dint of specific efforts over five or so careers to find a risk that would pay off. But if you told me that the government would be able to take my retirement and actually direct it where it would do substantial good, I’d be all for that. I have no problem with good charitable decisions being made, and give away substantially higher percentages of my take-home than both current Democratic candidates on the ticket.
However, I do not believe the government in all its efficient wisdom will allocate my additional taxes wisely. (They’re now holding about 300 million in tax rebates because of address issues – quite difficult to understand). Even Obama acknowledges that tax cuts often do not bring added revenue, but claims his motivation is that they are “fair.” With the top 1% paying the same amount in taxes as the bottom 90%, how much more “fair” can you get? And if your plan doesn’t balance the budget, is likely not to bring added revenue, is likely to contract jobs, and will not hurt (or, will help!) your super-rich buddies like Buffet but only the small entrepreneurs, then why do it?
There were people, including some feminists, who didn’t support Hillary Clinton. As a strong supporter, I wasn’t one of them. And I felt some didn’t have substantive reasons not to support her. But for those who laid out policy reasons – they didn’t like her health care plan, or her tax plan (which didn’t include lifting the cap on Social Security), or something else concrete – well, I might not agree, but I certainly respected their right to a substantive opinion. And I believed their claims that they were genuinely rooting for a female candidate they could support.
Similarly, I think it will be great to have a President who is of color. That is something I expect will happen on November 4, and I think it’s a laudable accomplishment and something too long in coming – I was disappointed when Carol Moseley Braun, very liberal socially and centrist fiscally, dropped out in 04. Colin Powell – pro choice and gay marriage, fiscally conservative, would’ve voted for him in ’00 and maybe even in ’96 (despite my fondness for Bill) if he’d put his hat in either time, and how cool that he’s a limited partner at Kleiner Perkins.
I think Obama has many admirable qualities. He hasn’t earned my vote, however.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
I understand and still hold you in the highest regard - I put my opposite reasoning on RL but totally understand those who cannot vote for him. BO did not deserve my vote but neither did Kerry and I voted for him. We are together regardless.
I have been told that our company will eliminate jobs should taxes rise accompanied by Obama’s talked-about lifting of the cap on social security
Yes. because the people on top couldn't possibly take less for themselves. Given the wealth disparities that have arisen over the past 25 years I'd say folks in your bracket have partied long enough. About time for a correction. The past 8 years haven't exactly seen an increase in jobs, at least not here.
So when the candidates said they weren't going to apply a litmus test for the SC you believed them? Ha!
SMMO -- if you think the people in the higher INCOME brackets are the folks on the top wealth-wise, then you missed many of the points in the OP. Wealth disparities haven't been created by taxes, which in some cases have been higher in Republican administrations.
Yes, I did believe them. If that were the only issue, my choice would be clearer, however. But it's not.
Well hey, I am ALL FOR closing loopholes for the very wealthy. Let's do that too.
Sitting here waiting for the dishwasher repair guy (see, I am too a real American) I hear McCain say "he thinks taxes have been too low and I think that spending has been too high." Apparently the good senator from Arizona thinks I am stupid. That 1500 bucks I got this spring didn't come from the Economic Stimulus Fairy. That was simply lending me back my own money.
The point is that the top 1% in wealth and the people in the top 1% in income are very different. Far from "partying," many top-one-percenters in income who are small business owners are recently in that bracket and don't have much savings, as well as high expenses.
It's been documented that raising taxes above a certain level doesn't increase receipts. Those who are the real fat cats can employ tax attorneys to do things like registering in Bermuda or funneling assets offshore. The real targets are usually the worker-bees, many of whom do not have family wealth.
The mechanisms for wealth to spread to the middle and lower classes involve expanding opportunity and incentive, and reducing upper-class loopholes and legacy policies. The critical way to lower wealth disparities is to eliminate the artificial constraints that keep people in poverty: unequal access to health care and education.
As I said, close the loopholes.
But if you told me that the government would be able to take my retirement and actually direct it where it would do substantial good, I’d be all for that. I have no problem with good charitable decisions being made, and give away substantially higher percentages of my take-home than both current Democratic candidates on the ticket.
This is pretty much irrelevant. Tax policy isn't and shouldn't be conflated with charity.
The critical way to lower wealth disparities is to eliminate the artificial constraints that keep people in poverty: unequal access to health care and education.
Yes, exactly. Something that doesn't really square with libertarianism.
SMMO -- I was not confusing taxes with charity, but explaining my thought process and motivation.
And, being a libertarian democrat is indeed consistent with what I said about health care and education:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/7/131550/7297
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/10/02/markos-moulitsas/the-case-for-the-libertarian-democrat/
Also, closing loopholes combined with maintaining rates where they are would increase tax revenues more effectively and with better economic result than Obama's plans:
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_6_05_BB.html
If you feel like saying, I'm wondering if there's a third party candidate you like.
Voting for Obama myself, but just curious...
ND: nope. I like a lot of things about McKinney, but am concerned about her not distancing herself from her dad's anti-semitic remarks and I'm also not aligned with her on economic policy, although I think she's better than either major party ticket leader on social policy. I'm not a Nader fan. Also -- I've never voted for a third-party candidate, because I'm skeptical about how much good that could do.
GC -- I hold you in high regard as well. I won't condition it with the somewhat patronizing "still," although I'm glad of course that you still do feel that way about me.
This clarifies the income/wealth distinction well:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/24/magazines/fortune/tully_henrys.fortune/index.htm
Re the Rich vs the Wealthy - um, cry me a river? I only wish I had $750 a month to sock away for my child's college, or could afford private school, or a car with less than 180K on it. Their problems are ones I would welcome.
Let's face it, taxes will be raised. War is expensive, as is bailing out the truly wealthy. Only one candidate is telling the truth, the other one is treating us like children asking "is it going to hurt?" Yeah, it's going to hurt.
Re the Rich vs the Wealthy - um, cry me a river? I only wish I had $750 a month to sock away for my child's college, or could afford private school, or a car with less than 180K on it. Their problems are ones I would welcome.
Once again there are the assumptions. Not all "the rich" fit this description. I have been guilty of doing this sort of thing in the past - and still do from time to time. I know what it's like to live without money or any safety net. But I also know I have often made unfair assumptions about others' living situations based solely on their income (or even just their *perceived* income). The fact is most of us do not know the details of another's financial situation, so it's unfair to assume that someone is stocking away hundreds of dollars in a college fund versus using those dollars to pay for medical care of an ailing parent. Frankly those types of assumptions make me furious.
This is a great blog post. I'm going to forward it and the accompanying links to a couple family members who think Obama is some Messiah. Oddly enough as a Chicagoan, I did not hear about the Alice Palmer bruhaha, but I'm not surprised to hear that it happened. I was appalled by his reaction (or lack thereof) to the sexism being tossed Hillary Clinton's way. He loves to trot out Michelle and the girls for all the typical political bs and claims to be concerned about his daughters' futures, you'd think he would've been just as upset by the sexist comments regarding Hillary thinking, "That could be MY daughter one day".
I had two very good reasons not to vote for Obama, the main one being that FISA crap. This just takes the cake.
Those were examples taken directly from the article Octo linked.
I forgot this gem:
Selden says his family has just $200,000 in savings outside of the college fund. "With how well we're doing, I thought I'd have $1 million by now," says Selden. He has watched his retirement and college savings accounts shrink by 25% since last year. Selden reckons he'll save another 5% of his salary and postpone pet projects like an expansion of the playroom.
SMMO -- your sympathy or lack thereof for the HENRYs in the quoted article is besides the point. The point is whether they are productive and whether that productivity and ability for immigrants and folks not born into money to achieve their goals should be encouraged. The Kwon family pictured is a good example of people rolling up their sleeves, achieving something, carrying a lot of debt and expense, and being concerned that their entrepreneurialism will be punished.
It is most likely that the Bush tax cuts will need to phase out rather than become permanent. It's getting rid of the social security cap that has the HENRYs and would be HENRYs concerned. Nobody is talking about not wanting to do his or her fair share to get rid of the deficit. Obama's plan is to redistribute the HENRYs' earnings, in some cases to non-taxpayers. That's not going to get rid of the deficit.
Further, have you heard of the Laffer curve? Above a certain tax level, receipts actually decrease. Data indicates that with the planned social security actions, we'll be at that level.
Re Amber's point -- totally agree. Characterizing people as having lightweight problems based on income level is ignorant and pointless. The folks profiled in the CNN article are from a variety of racial and economic backgrounds and some were noted to have substantial expenses and very limited ability to save. I am not claiming everyone has the ability to transcend unequal starting advantages -- and that is an issue worth discussing.
But many people, who choose less-stressful careers (which is their perfect right), turn around and mock folks who've chosen to take financial risks in more-stressful careers and who've made good, claiming it's OK to then sock them because they are despicably lucky. That behavior carries with it unfair assumptions about others' circumstances and motivations.
I've worked since I was 16 and am still paying for my education. My husband was the first person in his family to go to college, and we're still paying for that too. Rats for us that we just didn't work hard enough to make it easy. After all, there is an endless need for the highly paid professions! Who needs teachers when there are playrooms to be expanded.
Of course I've heard of the Laffer curve. I laugh at it. The entire Hayek/Rand/Greenspan way of thinking is finally FINALLY getting its long due reaming. About fucking time.
Why is that a "gem?" The Seldens are a two-income black family who didn't get a big headstart from rich parents. He is a dentist and she is a pediatrician. Believe me, they cannot retire on 200K, what's wrong with them wanting more? With two kids, age 6 and age 3, why shouldn't they want a bigger playroom? They're not pretending to be among the most unfortunate, they just want to do their best. Do you know whether they take care of sick relatives or relatives in bad neighborhoods? Do you know what their pro bono activities are? Why would you set yourself up to judge them?
The politicians you favor are much more wealthy than the Seldens, and have taken advantage of numerous questionable deals to get wealthier. If wealth makes someone's personal story a "gem," I guess whoever gets into the White House, it will be quite sparkly.
There is nothing wrong with them wanting more. What is wrong is expecting me to pity them, which is I believe the article's intention. I also resent the implication that those who don't have an extra 30K a year for college savings aren't working hard and just sit around reading Proust and feeling relaxed about life.
SMMO – I think there is some projection going on here. I didn’t claim that working hard is always rewarded appropriately. I did say that some of the folks in the article have taken risks others haven’t. This is not about you, obviously I cannot speculate about your and your husband’s careers and choices. The point is that we do know that many of the HENRYs have taken risks because they’ve prioritized money.
I’m not arguing that prioritizing money is the end all be all. Just that, why should we mock them for wanting to keep more of it? And why call them, or me, Randian? I’ve said I’m fine with giving up the Bush tax cuts, cutting spending, giving the middle class a tax cut, and keeping the Soc Sec cap where it is – basically, Hillary’s plan. A nice, Democratic plan. I am not OK with a 60%+ tax, and even Obama has wavered about what that would do in a bad economy. What he hasn’t acknowledged is why, if it’s not a good idea in a bod economy, it would be a good idea in a better one. Ultimately, I think he may wait on Social Security, for reason he's hinted about. But it makes me nervous.
My parents are/were underpaid educators (one has retired, the other is an adjunct), and I am very sympathetic to the unfairness of the people who sometimes do the most important jobs being paid wages on which it’s difficult to save or sometimes, to live. But there’s a reason some of Obama’s U of Chicago advisors have written papers critical of the highest brackets nearing the levels he’s talking about, and it’s not Ayn Rand. It’s concern that it will have a contracting effect on entrepreneurialism and job creation – both of which aid academica.
Also, where in the article did it talk about the HENRYs wanting pity? They’re upset they have less than they hoped. They complain about it, which is human nature. And someone published that. None of that indicates they’re asking for pity from those who aren’t in their bracket.
Aspasia -- thanks! Good to see you.
I would like to weigh in cautiously on the "closing loopholes" arguments made by SMMO and Octogalore.
By "loopholes," I mean deductions from an INDIVIDUAL'S taxable income.
"Closing loopholes" has been advocated by both Left and Right since after World War II. But at least in my opinion, current loopholes at lower income levels (less than $120k?) don't reduce revenue enough to make closing those loopholes a means of significantly increasing revenue.
Closing current loopholes on higher individual income brackets (greater than $250K?) also would not significantly increase revenue, because, at least as I understand it, current loopholes on higher income brackets are far fewer and proportionally smaller than loopholes on incomes less than $120K. That makes sense from a revenue standpoint because it means less revenue is likely to be lost through loopholes on higher incomes (depending on how tax rates are set). But it also means that closing loopholes on higher individual incomes, without also increasing rates, is not likely to significantly increase revenue.
Also, at current rates, approximately 51% of revenue from Federal individual income taxes is collected on incomes of $200K or greater. So, at current rates, the Federal government is probably close to maximizing the revenue it can collect from higher income brackets, and closing loopholes on higher individual incomes will not by itself significantly increase revenue.
(Note: My figures are taken from a 2004 article in the online New York Times, which also stated that the $200K+ income bracket at that time comprised not more than 10% of taxpayers. Exact numbers will certainly have changed since then. My arguments about loopholes are remembered from tax accounting classes that I took six years ago, and also news reports on taxation.)
So much for loopholes in individual income tax assessments.
The loopholes that I have never heard discussed are loopholes in CORPORATE income tax law, and that's where I understand the most likely potential gains in tax revenue to be, along with far stricter enforcement of reporting standards and stricter collection.
In fact, at least as I understand it, the stricter enforcement of reporting standards and stricter enforcement of collection are far more urgently needed for increasing tax revenue from corporate income taxes, because as long as enforcement of reporting and collection is as lax as it currently is, changes in the tax code will simply paper over the continuing revenue losses through lax enforcement.
I am going to stop now because this post is already overlong, and I apologize for its length.
But to summarize: At least as I see it, loopholes themselves are not the problem. The real problem, as I see it, is lax enforcement in the reporting/collection of CORPORATE income taxes.
But also, on individual incomes above $200K, rates will have to be increased in order to significantly increase revenue. Closing loopholes by itself will not be enough.
That's all. If anyone needs to correct any of the above, I hope they will feel free to do so. I appreciate being allowed to post.
poeschl, thanks for the interesting analysis. You seem to contradict yourself here, though:
"Also, at current rates, approximately 51% of revenue from Federal individual income taxes is collected on incomes of $200K or greater. So, at current rates, the Federal government is probably close to maximizing the revenue it can collect from higher income brackets..."
vs
"But also, on individual incomes above $200K, rates will have to be increased in order to significantly increase revenue. Closing loopholes by itself will not be enough."
I think you were right the first time. The Laffer Curve can be demonstrated mathematically. The only question is, at what level does it peak. Obviously, it must be zero at either end. Removing the Bush tax cuts could result in a maximization of revenue. The social security cap being lifted to infinity would not.
Also, short term revenue maximization isn't the end of the story. Long term maintenance of the incentive to create and strive is critical for this country. At times when we had highest-bracket taxes over 50%, the situation for entrepreneurs tax-wise and otherwise in other countries still provided an attractive contrast for our country. That's much less the case now. (And in the linked article, Laffer illustrates why such brackets, even short term, didn't maximize revenue). And the effects of diminishing incentive and longer-term job contraction cannot be seen in a short term look at revenue collected.
If you truly believe your second quoted segment above, I have a hard time understanding how you can be a fiscal conservative.
Yeah, I like you too, but I am disappointed. I would have preferred you simply not say that you didn't vote for him. (don't ask, don't tell) But I know lawyers like to talk or they wouldn't be lawyers! :P
At this point, Octo, many working class people of my acquaintance are so strapped and frightened, you have the spectacle of conservative Christians ready to sing every verse of The Internationale. You can blame whoever for that, but that IS the way things stand right now... we are afraid all our hard work will mean nothing, and we started with nothing to begin with.
Better to spread the wealth peacefully than food riots, pharmaceutical riots, gas riots, burning down Malibu and Central Park West, etc. I do not exaggerate--if the poor/working class are this scared and this furious in arguably the most conservative county in the USA, I can only imagine how it is in the big cities.
I think it was Eleanor Roosevelt who said, "Civil rights or civil war?" Let me paraphrase: wealth redistribution or revolution. And you know, the Reign of Terror, the Khmer Rouge, etc, did not stop to ask for your creds.
You sound rather divorced from this reality right now... the panic of the lower classes seems not to have touched you much. That is also how McCain/Palin sound. This is a class divide of epic proportions. If Obama wins, at this point, it will be because people think they are getting fucked, they look around and think, WHO is fucking me?
Better they take it from you legally and peacefully than some of the historic alternatives.
And I speak not in threatening or menacing tones, but very logically, rationally, matter-of-fact...I am still a peacenik vegetarian who hates bloodshed, except in the movies. This is what I see, and why I linked songs like "Golden Country" on my blog.
Small businesspeople, like me and my partners, cannot always take such measures, and are more likely to cut employees.
Why don't you all voluntarily decide to earn less so that you can keep some employees? Why is that option simply understood to be off the table? WE are always expected to earn less when the economy tanks, and we do expect it and adjust. Why are the rich always kept afloat?
And yes, that was rhetorical, I know the answers. But will the angry mob?
They still eat meat, and you know, they wanna keep right on eating it.
your sympathy or lack thereof for the HENRYs in the quoted article is besides the point.
Ohhhhhh, Octo, no no no no --that IS the point. That is exactly the point.
We no longer care what happens to them. And they better understand something: WE take care of their cars, their kids, their houses, their lawns, their alarm systems, their bloodwork for the lab, their teeth, their bank paperwork, their dogs. We read their tarot cards and sell them glucosamine and wheat germ oil. We mop up when their kids pee on the floor in the store. We wait on their tables.
WE are the people who do the work for the rich. They no longer respect US (as in, care what happens to US), therefore, we no longer respect THEM. Noblesse Oblige always WAS a very risky business, and nothing to base an entire economic system on. In the words of the Doors, they got the guns, but we got the numbers.
After a point, people won't ASK, they will TAKE. They will start fucking shit up deliberately. They will STEAL and BURN SHIT DOWN. They will leave the little darlings unattended and let them electrocute themselves. They will tell you your refrigerator or car is fixed and it won't be. They will spit in your restaurant food, if they don't already. (Maybe next time, arsenic or risin.) Etc. I have read Peter Kropotkin, and I know how it goes.
It is rapidly progressing to that point, heads up!
I am voting for the person who seems to get that and might be able to head it off. Maybe he doesn't really, but he certainly talks as if he does.
The other candidate is obviously aligned with the people in the article, married to the Anheuser Busch heiress, and is (proudly) part of the problem.
I actually worry about regional insurrections on election day, if voting is suppressed. I worry about violent regional uprisings, or worse, if he loses.
When a hard-core fundie tells me "Sweden's system sounds pretty good actually, I looked it up!" I figure all bets are off.
They’re upset they have less than they hoped. They complain about it, which is human nature. And someone published that. None of that indicates they’re asking for pity from those who aren’t in their bracket.
I believe the point of the article was "see, something is wrong with the tax code. These nice folks here can't make the jump from rich to super duper rich" and, well, I don't agree. I don't see it as a problem, at least not compared to 50 million without health insurance, etc etc etc.
I can't believe I have to make the same point to you wrt Obama that I had to make with supposedly feminist acquaintances who felt that HRC had just too bad an image to be a credible candidate. When you give credence to that shit, whether it be "she's a horrible ball busting witch" or "he's a dirty guy from THE CHICAGO MACHINE" (which I think we all know is code for black) then you let Karl Rove etc. know that their tactics work.
We've had progressive taxation in this country for a long time. It is hardly some radical, wild-eyed notion. Why would you object to being termed Randian (which I actually didn't do) when you clearly are a supply sider? Greenspan was extremely influenced by her. Linking to the Heritage foundation? Oh, Octo.
Also, everything Daisy said.
RE: Octogalore's response.
I'm going to try to respond briefly because I have to get back to work.
Regarding my apparent contradiction: In the first paragraph that you quoted, my language was confusing.
I should have written something to the effect of, "the Federal government is maximizing the revenue that can now be gotten if RATES REMAIN UNCHANGED, i.e., unless rates are increased."
Regarding the Laffer curve: The question is indeed at what point does revenue peak.
But, if I understand the Laffer curve correctly (and offhand I'm not sure that I do), it presents tax rate increases in isolation from additional/ancillary changes in the tax code.
But changes in the tax code do not have to be limited to rate increases alone.
Moderate rate increases need to be coupled with targeted tax CREDITS (not deductions from taxable income) which are designed to help taxpayers, especially small/medium employers, immediately reduce their actual tax payments by spending their business revenue on activities specified in the tax credit legislation.
Tax credit legislation is, in effect, very limited government direction of the economy. But, if designed wisely, tax credits can, in the short term, contribute to sustaining job creation. That's what I was taught, anyway.
The problem with tax credits is that, precisely because they enable a taxpayer to immediately reduce his actual tax payment, overuse of tax credits does risk reducing Federal revenue to the point of increasing the Federal deficit. So tax credit legislation has to be written very, very carefully (obviously).
Getting back to tax rate increases:
The actual rate increases themselves don't have to be so high as to unacceptably impede job creation. I myself do not believe that the Obama/Biden administration will actually raise rates as high as Obama has suggested during his campaign. My own expectation is that negotiations with a Democratic or bipartisan Congress will lead to less punitive rates.
So it is my belief that moderate rate increases, coupled with very-carefully-written tax credit legislation, can increase revenue and encourage job creation at the same time.
I would also add that, in addition to moderate rate increases plus tax credits, the cap on taxable income for FICA can be raised by a moderate degree (the cap doesn't have to be eliminated altogether), the age of retirement can be postponed to an age from anywhere from 67 to 70, and Social Security benefits can be reduced, as a measure to increase Federal revenue. Even George W. Bush publicly proposed raising the cap for FICA, without eliminating the cap altogether.
Also, all my above and previous arguments are made on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts will not be renewed. I should have stated that in my first comment earlier today.
Finally, I urge everyone to remember that not only do we need to increase Federal revenue, but Federal spendng needs to be brought under control, and that means changing Federal spending priorities.
Since, if I recall correctly, entitlements and defense spending are our largest Federal expenditures, we would have to modify both entitlements and defense spending, and the latter means changing our methods in the War on Terror. With wars already going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, the change in methods won't be radical. But we do have to reconsider how we fight the War on Terror.
The only alternative to the above proposals, that I'm aware of, is to borrow more, and that's become dangerous.
But again, I hope that anyone who needs to correct my arguments will feel free to do so, especially regarding the Laffer curve.
Daisy – thanks for responding.
RE “I would have preferred you simply not say that you didn't vote for him.” I didn’t know the right to free speech was selective.
Also, let me clarify something that I hoped was clear from the post and my comments above. I would have voted for a candidate who did in fact plan modest redistribution: HRC. She would have eliminated the Bush tax cuts. She would also have cut spending and focused funds on health care and educational incentives to stop the very panic you mention. What I object to is the 15-20% increase resulting from BO’s talked about lifting of the Soc Sec cap. I think this will result in job contraction that will target the exact demographic that you mention. Again, the upper classes and big corporations won’t be as affected by this. They are not as income-dependent. Small businesspeople, from whom derive 2/3 of the jobs in this country, are.
Accusing me of being “divorced from this reality” not only misses the point but is untrue.
As you may know (or not), I've gone through periods without health care, and I've had teeth fall out because of resorting to having friends fill cavities and do root canals. I've supplied health care for family members who don't have it. I have been on my own since 17, and I can tell you that while having educated parents is a major privilege, it doesn't always pay the bills. Going through freshman year on three hours of sleep is also a privilege, but it's much easier on seven. Having the class privilege to strip in Vegas instead of Girls Girls Girls at the Airport (where I've done time as well) is great, but nicer when you have people to bail you out when you lose a job.
More recently, in my pro bono educational counseling work, I work with immigrants and other poor families in the poorer districts in the San Fernando valley. I understand the changes in lifestyle that have happened during this administration.
I am concerned, though, that people who simply notice that people are angry are divorced from the reality that it’s not a zero sum game. If you could take wealth from one group and give it to another, that would be one thing. The problem is, at a certain point the pie gets smaller.
Further, your suggestion that small businesses voluntarily decide to earn less is not well founded. You do not know what people’s expenses or lifestyles are. Businesses are for-profit, and if they voluntarily choose to make less profit, they will lose their most productive employees and will go under. If one could force all businesses to jointly agree to limit profits, that would be one thing. Your suggestion, while well meaning, is sadly not feasible.
.
SMMO – regarding “giving credence” to negative statements about Obama, if you feel it’s inappropriate for me to be concerned about his treatment of Alice Palmer, his black female mentor, or that this is somehow racist, I don’t know what to say.
I linked to the Heritage foundation because Laffer himself is the best source for discussion of the Laffer curve, and that’s his last article about it (that I know of). Please, spare me the shock and disgust. I also linked to Daily Kos. We don’t need to be afraid of information itself.
Poeschl: “I myself do not believe that the Obama/Biden administration will actually raise rates as high as Obama has suggested during his campaign. My own expectation is that negotiations with a Democratic or bipartisan Congress will lead to less punitive rates.” Hmm, so you do agree that the rates he’s suggested are punitive, and that “moderate rate increases, coupled with very-carefully-written tax credit legislation” would be better advised? Then, we agree.
Racist? I didn't use the term, so not sure where that is coming from. You claim to find admirable qualities in Obama but in every-damn-post you mention Alice Palmer. I have yet to hear admiration. Alice Palmer is important. It disappoints me, but I prefer to deal in what is rather than what could have been. Obama isn't perfect. Nor is HRC, not by a long way. My point is acting as if progressive taxation is some sort of scary beyond the pale commie plot is Roveian.
Daisy wasn't, I believe, suggesting small businesses earn less, she was suggesting that small business owners take less profit for themselves personally. That is quite different.
SMMO -- you suggested that talking about Chicago politics (which I did re the Palmer anecdote) is code for black. That's where I'm getting that.
Re "I have yet to hear admiration," I believe I've noted my respect for Obama. In my post of 9/1, for example, I noted "he has many gifts, is a brilliant tactical politician and charismatic speaker."
"My point is acting as if progressive taxation is some sort of scary beyond the pale commie plot is Roveian."
"Beyond the pale commie plot" are your words. I don't believe I've used any loaded words. I don't think Obama is scary. If he'd had more experience and hadn't supported what I view as sexist choices and comments, I could overlook the statements he's made about Social Security and hope, like Poeschl, that he'll move away from that with sounder advice. My reasons for not voting for Obama are many. Not one in and of itself is the full justification, it's the entire picture.
Progressive taxation? Not in itself an issue. We already have that. I don't remember a time we haven't. I've talked about where my issue with that starts and where it stops.
As you know from discussions during the primary, before Obama's and Hillary's tax plan differences became clear, I already felt very negative about how his campaign was handled. Promises that were broken. The party's treatment of the Clintons and the campaign's support of that. The FISA reversal. All this left a very bad taste in my mouth.
Regarding Daisy's suggestion. What do you think "suggesting that small business owners take less profit for themselves personally" means? It means the limited partners and shareholders make less so that employees can make more or not lose jobs. I think that's a great idea. Problem is, it's hard to implement. Some productive LPs and shareholders will always make income-maximizing decisions.
The example of my company is not a great one because that employee wasn't productive and the senior partners were probably going to let him go at some point in any case, this just gave them a rationale.
The other job eliminated was one where an ofer hadn't gone out yet, so nobody was cut, but a future job was eliminated. One could argue: well, the partners could reduce compensation so as to open up a job. Well, while families work that way, businesses don't. It's hard to have loyalty to someone who hasn't come along yet. And this company already has pro bono projects, such as (last year) burn victims and (this year) scholarships to low income law students. Ultimately, asking people who have picked a risky, non-salaried job to reduce comp when they may already be doing this to finance family and personal goals, isn't going to work on a large scale, whether or not it could work in our particular company.
In many small companies, there is not enough profit margin to risk losing productive shareholders or managers. Even if it's a choice owners support, they usually will not take the risk to lose the lifeblood of their companies.
It's easy to be negative. Why not share who is getting your vote?
Easy? I've been roundly condemned for being negative.
SMMO wrote:
There is nothing wrong with them wanting more. What is wrong is expecting me to pity them, which is I believe the article's intention. I also resent the implication that those who don't have an extra 30K a year for college savings aren't working hard and just sit around reading Proust and feeling relaxed about life.
I have to agree w/ Octo - to me this reads like projection.
I did not see the article as setting up any of the families as deserving of pity. It presented the facts of their situations and explained the difficulties they have faced and continued to face - but I did not see it as trying to say, "Look how hard it is for these families, they have it so much worse than anyone else! We should all feel so sorry for them!"
I also did not see the implication that those who don't have an extra $30K are relaxing and not working hard.
If you can point to specific excerpts where you saw this then I will def. stand corrected.
The comment seemed like projecting to me bc it sounded very familiar - by which I mean, it sounded like things I have said in the past (and no doubt will say in the future, too - hey, no one is perfect). It is easy to feel resentful of people who you perceive as having an easier time than you and not recognizing that. But I try to check myself when I notice that I'm doing it - I remind myself that perceptions are just that and are often colored by our own experiences, and rarely do I have enough information to draw the conclusion to which I've jumped. (If I *do* have enough information, then it's a different story.) I also know how it feels to be on the other side of the equation - having someone draw erroneous conclusions about me and my life because they know where I work and based on that assume things about my salary, and based on THAT assume things about my life as a whole. That actually makes me REALLY angry, because they know nothing about my background, my family, my living situation, any of it. Because I know how that feels, I try extra hard not to do it to others.
Post a Comment