Obama Clinches Nomination

[jayjaciv]

Two years into the Pelosi and Reid reign

You meant to write, "Eight years into the Bush reign," right?

The party or candidate that starts to exhibit true fiscal responsibility and sense should have a leg up on the competition.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I'm going to vote for the guy who doesn't want to continue the $200 million/day war for 100 years.

Now I've heard arguments blaming Clinton for Medicare and social security - none of which have been very convincing, as it's relatively easy to see through most blatant scapegoating - but blaming Clinton for Bush's prescription drug plan and NCLB (which is currently doing a great job of leaving thousands of students way, way behind) is a new one to me. If you can show me any evidence at all that either of those plans were even somewhat associated with Clinton then I'll promise never to spontaneously yell Obama's name while I'm watching CNN ever again.

I suppose we're also going to blame Clinton for Bush's reincarnation of Reaganomics as well? Uh-oh, trickle-down's only widening the income gap, it must be Clinton's fault.

Guys, it's uncomfortably hot outside. Pretty sure it's Clinton's fault.

[FLALAX]

Educate yourself of the history of NCLB. Its precursor was the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education acts based on standards based reforms, yes standard tests.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3346601.html

Here is the Clinton version of the prescription drug plan.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... /medicare/

There is a reason Ron Paul polled so well with true libertarians, Bush just dusted off Gore and Clinton ideas and made them his own.

[StrykerFSU]

Where are you getting the $10 minimum wage figure? Obama's website has the following:

Working on some other things today, but from http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/

Increase the Minimum Wage: As president, Obama will raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and index it to inflation so full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing – things so many people take for granted.

There are economic ramifications that follow raising the minimum wage, one of which would be putting people out of work. Small businesses will be hurt and employers may be forced to downsize or reduce benefits to offset the rising cost of wages.

As to his investments, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/25/805820.aspx

The Obamas don't appear to have substantial stock holdings. Their 2005 return, for example, lists modest dividends for UBS, JP Morgan Chase and Northern Trust Bank. It also lists a $2,072 gain for the sale of Biopharma stock and a $15,208 loss for the sale of SkyTerra Communications stock.

I'll work on fact checking some of the other statements mentioned in the article that I did not write. And I look forward to continuing the debate.

[StrykerFSU]

As part of his "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan, Barack Obama is in favor of nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/9/19/obama-pushes-for-higher-investment-taxes.html

Raise capital gains tax for fairness, not for revenue
Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%." It's now 15%. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.

Obama: What I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

Obama: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm
Never mind that secretaries are perfectly able to own stock as well. Anyone else a little unsatisfied with the Senator's reponse to the second point? Does Federal revenue go up when capital gains taxes are low or not?

Look out, I'm starting to feel vindicated.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel that we should try to manufacture a middle class by taking money from the "wealthy" and giving it to others.

Also enjoy paying higher social security taxes to pay for a program that will not be there when you are ready to collect.

A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that under Social Security's current rules, young college graduates will contribute about 5 percent of their lifetime earnings. Under Obama's proposal, that number would rise to almost 9 percent, taking these individuals' overall lifetime tax rate from 45 percent to 49 percent. By voting for Obama, a 22-year-old young college graduate earning $40,000 per year today would be opting to surrender an additional 4 percent of his lifetime earnings to the Social Security administration — and may get no benefits in return.

Put another way, Obama is proposing to significantly reduce the economic value of the college degrees his young supporters are struggling to attain and pay for. He is also reducing the incentives of his young supporters to stay in school even after graduating from college. By proposing higher payroll taxes, Obama proposes reducing or eliminating the value of those additional years of education.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9218

Is $97,000 now wealthy?

"If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,000," Obama wrote this week in an Iowa newspaper, "we could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."

Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3638710

I don't mean to be obtuse here, but now that I have corroborated the points made in the original post, that was attacked without the original article even being read, can we discuss those points without branding me a liar? And please don't tell me that it's all Bush's fault yada yada yada because that is not relevant to whether or not Obama plans to raise taxes or the min wage. Address the actual points and tell me why anyone who makes over $97,000 or holds investments would vote for someone who plans to raise their taxes. I am not making personal attacks on Obama, just questioning his proposed policies so it would be nice to get a response to that rather than fanatical knee jerk "straw man" nonsense because I dare criticize the chosen one's politics. Let's get back to shooting the poop.

Sorry for editing my post but I wanted to clear it up a little.

[Dan Warren]

the fact that he is different than bush or republicans in general is the reason why some 20 million new voters voted for democrats.

Obama is no different...just wants it to look that way. McCain/Obama..same thing


you want real change?

RON PAUL '08

[Adam Gamradt]

Jason,

I didn't intend to lump all corporations together. My apologies for doing so.

I will write more later in response to your thoughtful reply, yardwork duty calls!

[jayjaciv]

Educate yourself of the history of NCLB.

Thanks, I did. Didn't even need the help of such a venerable conservative thinktank as the Hoover Institution (which lists both Rumsfeld and "Condi" as fellows).

No Child Left Behind was signed into law on January 8, 2002. The act reauthorized and amended federal education programs established under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). NCLB expired September 30, 2007 but the law is automatically extended in its current form until a reauthorization is passed or other legislative action with regard to the bill is taken.

http://www.nche.net/nclb/
(NCHE is a history education advocacy group which counts David McCullough, to whom Bush awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2006, among its trustees)

Clinton's implementation of standardized testing (which was an idea supported by Reagan and Bush the First - see your own link) can hardly be blamed for the almost universally maligned cluster@#$% known as No Child Left Behind.

This legislation marked an unprecedented intervention by the Federal Government in public education.

http://www.nche.net/nclb/docs/viewpoint.html

While Clinton did ask states to begin standardized testing, he was widely criticized for not giving the measure any teeth. Only 17 states adhered to his plan, simply because there were no fiscal consequences.
NCLB was an overreaction to this. It added all the financial teeth and took away all of the beneficial aspects of standardized testing. It demanded a focus on math and science and a nearly complete obfuscation of the liberal arts, including civics and history; this has been called a "dumbing-down" of education on many occasions (I am of the personal and possibly paranoid opinion that this was done on purpose - it's much easier to control a population that doesn't know how it's own government functions).
Simultaneously, the act called for a boatload of cash which would come from...nowhere. It demanded that states spend huge amounts of money to implement standardized testing which, again, most of them had NOT DONE up to this point. If the states did not do this, there would be large financial consequences, but there was simply no money to give to the states to do this.

This got windy quickly; my point is simply that there is a large difference between asking states to use standardized testing... and implementing a hulking, ineffective federalist commandment that is open-ended and hated by all in the education industry.

As for prescription drug plans.
Here is Clinton's actual prescription drug plan:
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000313_1.html
As far as I can tell, it's a pretty standard federal government plan that is the result of a compromise with Congress. I believe it is also one of Clinton's last big acts as president.

I will concede that you are right, in effect, that Bush's prescription drug plan does hark back to the Clintons; it follows a very similar plan to that fantastic Republican anti-Clinton talking point, Hillary's universal health care plan.
Bush used a mixture of public/private sector work in Medicare D in order to both appear to be doing something (anything!) and to appease his pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. The Clintons tried a same approach to universal health care and continue to be panned today. The result of Medicare D is that nobody can figure out what the hell is going on and people are driving to Canada to get drugs.


I am not saying that Clinton did everything right, or even that he did most things right. I'm just saying that he left office almost a decade ago, and blaming him for all the world's ills is not a panacea.

There is a reason Ron Paul polled so well with libertarians (including myself): Republicans are the new Spendocrats. Clinton (aka the antichrist) managed to get the nation out of the red briefly, which I suppose was an invitation to the new administration to spend as much money on as many worthless, ineffectual programs as they possibly could.

[semilaxed]

I would like to commend our lacrosse comunity for an inteligent dicussion on the facts. Many places have had to take there message boards down due to racist comments when dicussing Obama. I think it speaks quite well of our community after not so long ago being protrayed as racist, upper class jocks after the whole Duke thing.

[StrykerFSU]

At the risk of falling victim to additional ad hominem attacks, I'd like to add some issues raised by John Fund, columnist in the Wall Street Journal, in his article featured in this month's Newsmax.

...Obama wants to raise the national minimum wage to $9.50 an hour from its current $5.85...[The proposal] cuts profits for man-and-pop businesses, it drives other businesses to the edge - leading to more illegal hiring. It is also a surefire way to increase youth unemployment - especially in the inner cities.

...52% of all American now own stock...Ryan Ellis of the American Shareholders Association has examined the Obama tax returns for calendar years 2001 to 2006 and found that in all those years, the couple reported a mere $1,188 in dividends in 2006 and another $2,754 in dividends in 2005. In the previous years, they reported no dividends at all.

Michelle Obama's salary often exceeded $350,000 during this time period but she does not appear to have a 401(k) nor an IRA. The couple cashed out $6,260 from a pension or 401(k) plan in 2000.

Based on this, the Obamas differ from the majority of Americans, and myself, in that they do not value financial investment as an important part of personal financial planning. Per a previous post and as stated in this article, Obama has proposed raising the capital gains tax to 28%, perhaps because he mistakenly thinks that the majority of Americans are like himself and would not be adversely affected.

In 2005, according to the IRS, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households earning below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.

So raising the capital gains tax would in fact raise taxes on the majority of Americans, 79% of whom make less than $100,000.

[During an ABC debate] Obama vowed not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $200,000 a year. Minutes later, he completely contradicted himself when he proposed to raise the cap on the salary subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which currently stands at $97,500 a year.
When confronted with the discrepancy, Obama mumbled something about "exemptions" from some of the tax increase for those earning between $97,000 and $200,000 a year - a proposal that would eliminate much of the revenue gain he is seeking.

It was later explained that Obama would apply a 10.2% payroll tax surcharge to all income of more than $200,000.

The effect of such a move would be to raise overall income tax rates to 50% for higher income people...some 40% of American families already pay no income tax and that number would to a majority if Obama's proposal to create more than $100 billion in new tax credits were to pass.

Overall, Obama's tax plan would add up to a 39.6% personal income tax rate, a 52.5% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax, and a 55% estate tax.

...I'm going to vote for the guy who doesn't want to continue the $200 million/day war for 100 years.

This is a cute sentiment but also a misrepresentation of what Sen. McCain said and meant. We could debate it but I don't want to turn this thread away from Sen. Obama. UkraineNotWeak, feel free to start a McCain thread where we can debate his candidacy intelligently if the board isn't being fair and balanced enough.

[jayjaciv]

This is a cute sentiment but also a misrepresentation of what Sen. McCain said and meant.

I know, but it made me smile.
There is, however, a point to be made there that the money could be much better spent elsewhere.

I don't know much about the tax code since I have a low tolerance for boredom, but I've got a few issues.

Here are some actual facts. (via http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/101 ... ingCMJ.pdf):
Only 19 percent of the total number of tax filings in 2005 reported capital gains income. 23 percent reports dividends income, and the average combined income from capital gains and dividends was $5,841.
The 52% number you quote is misleading, as capital gains tax does not apply to dividends (the dividends tax actually has a pretty interesting history...it was apparently taxed at the same rate as wages until 2003).

Now for facts mixed with spin:
Assuming that the capital gains and dividends income are proportional to those figures, which they are almost certainly not, about 45% of that $5841 is from capital gains, which at a 28% tax rate would result in $735 in taxes. This is clearly not offset by Obama's $500 tax cut.
However, average numbers can be misleading. Use Rhode Island as a case study. It is ranked 27 out of 50 states in Average Capital Gains Plus Ordinary Dividend Income Per Tax Return (http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff90.pdf). This puts it about in the median for the US.
Now apparently they considered totally getting rid of the capital gains tax in the late 90s and the Poverty Institute put out a little fact sheet, here: http://www.povertyinstitute.org/matriar ... osite2.pdf

According to the IRS Statistics of Income, 73.9 percent of all net
income from capital gains in Rhode Island was reported by
taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of more than
$200,000 for 2003. This group represented only 1.9 percent of
Rhode Island tax returns. The average AGI reported by these
taxpayers was $462,755 – nearly 10 times the average AGI on all
Rhode Island returns of $47,874.The average capital gain reported
by these taxpayers was $78,454. By contrast, the average capital
gain reported by all other Rhode Island taxpayers was only $524.

A 28% capital gains tax on the group with an AGI over $200,000 (keep in mind the average AGI of these taxpayers was over $460,000...upper class by anyone's standards) would be $21,967, about 4.7% of their total income.
A 28% capital gains tax on the lower group would mean paying taxes of $146.72, on average - about 0.3%. This is also more than offset by Obama's propose $500 tax cut.


I have heard an interesting argument that high capital gains taxes damage the economy due to people holding on to their assets (the best way to not have to pay a capital gains tax is not to sell any of your capital). I don't necessarily find this to be a compelling argument, but it is food for thought.
It will also be a difficult sale to the older folk, who presumably have more of their wealth tied up in capital gains. We'll see if it matters much to them.

I'm just thinking out loud here. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.

[laxfan25]

In 2005, according to the IRS, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households earning below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.

Well that's interesting that 79% of tax RETURNS with capital gains came from households wtih incomes below $100K, but it doesn't say what % of captial gains INCOME came from those same households. I dare say that might change the numbers a bit.

As for the hoary old assertion that raising the minimum wage would cause a major spike in unemployment and large pain for mom & pop businesses, I guess we could take it the other way and say that if everyone was willing to work for nothing that unemployment would be wiped out - a great thing, right?
$9.50 an hour - let's assume that you're fortunate to work for someone at that wage for 40 hours a week (and not for someone that cuts their employees off at 30 so they don't have to give them any benefits - not that that would ever happen) and that you actually get paid vacation - that nets you a whopping $19,760 a year. Perhaps you're a single parent with a couple of children? You're probably not that concerned about an increase in the captial gains rate.

What you ARE concerned about is the massive spike in gas prices, since a large part of your income is spent on getting to work, and the large increase in food costs, since you're trying to feed yourself and your family. There is real pain out there, and they might feel that the current administration's botched policies in the Mideast and the resulting uncertainty it has caused in many areas may be part of the problem.

[StrykerFSU]

On the growth of the investor class, the 52% referred to in my post:

Slightly more than half of all U.S. households own stock, either directly or through retirement accounts such as 401(k)'s and IRAs, according to the Investment Company Institute. In the early 1990s, that fraction was only about a third. And in the early 1980s, just a fifth of all households invested in stocks. During the 2004 presidential election, about 46 percent of investors, according to polling by Zogby International, identified themselves as members of the investor class.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2006/10/13/

laxfan25, I understand what you are saying but I don't think I get why it matters. Just because someone makes more money than another from investments makes taking more of their money away from them justified? Why is it okay to take money away from people that are arbitrarily tagged as "wealthy"? I don't buy the argument that "oh, their rich. They won't notice it."....as Sen Webb used to justify the proposed tax increases to pay for his new GI Bill. If anything, it's people that invest smaller amounts that will feel the pinch of a 28% capital gains tax rate.

As someone who has retirement and savings accounts, a mortgage, investments, and stocks I don't understand why I should vote for someone who would increase my taxes. The Federal Government taxes my income and then wants to tax me again on money I save or invest? With apologies to Sen. Obama I don't think it is fair that I should be taxed at a higher rate than other citizens because I engage in smart financial planning.

As for all of his proposed tax credits, I thought he was going to simplify the tax code so middle and lower class Americans didn't have to waste time and money figuring out their tax bill (though people in these economic classes already have far simpler taxes than wealthier Americans). I'd like it if I didn't pay $235 to have my taxes done but I don't think a larger number of possible credits is going to make the code easier for me to decipher.

[laxfan25]

The reason someone might vote for a candidate who says that we need to raise taxes is that you might believe somewhat in fiscal responsibility, which ironically used to be a hallmark of conservative philosophy.
President Bush and the neo-cons have waged the entire war on Iraq on our national credit card, which to me is very hypocritical. If you're going to ask for a national sacrifice to start that war, you should be upfront with its costs, both current and well into the future. Even if we pulled out today, the costs to treat the many physically and psychically wounded veterans over their lifetimes is going to be quite large. The expansion of the GI Bill to pay back those that have really made a true sacrifice seems only fair, and there is also a huge cost to rebuild and restock the military.
This kind of recognition of fiscal need and the methods of meeting that need are where real leadership is needed, not happy talk about a continued free ride. The recent stimulus package was a fine example of taking the easy way out - everyone gets some free money! (Oh, but in reality it's a cash advance on your credit card). The recently passed Farm Bill is another example of an ill-advised handout that benefits the agricultural conglomerates that will derive the lion's share of the rewards while cloaking the bill as a measure to help Ma and Pa Kettle.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a huge fan of taxes, and I'd rather someone else pay that bill, but I think it is unjust to give that bill to our children and grandchildren.

I believe in a progressive tax system, the need for which is outlined in the following numbers from the work of economist Edward Wolff at NYU in 2004...

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%.

Figure 2a: Wealth distribution by type of asset, 2001: investment assets



Figure 2b: Wealth distribution by type of asset, 2001: other assets

As you can see in figure 2a, while all levels of society have investments, almost 60% of business equities and financial securities are owned by the top 1%! You can bet that they'll be leading the charge against an increase in capital gains taxes, because it will affect everyone. Don't fall for that. Remember also that a lot of working class citizens are investing via 401-K's, which is pre-tax savings that won't get taxed until retirement.

Figure 2b shows that for the bottom 90%, 63% of their wealth in 2001 was in their homes. With housing prices plummeting the last few years, this is a great source of pain to many. As a local example, housing prices have declined 30% over the past year in my market, and last month 38% of home sales were foreclosures! The only category that approaches their percent of the population is Debt, at 74%.

As for the complexity of the tax code, I don't think the majority of the exemptions and credits were put in for the benefit of you and I.

[StrykerFSU]

As for the hoary old assertion that raising the minimum wage would cause a major spike in unemployment and large pain for mom & pop businesses, I guess we could take it the other way and say that if everyone was willing to work for nothing that unemployment would be wiped out - a great thing, right?
$9.50 an hour - let's assume that you're fortunate to work for someone at that wage for 40 hours a week (and not for someone that cuts their employees off at 30 so they don't have to give them any benefits - not that that would ever happen) and that you actually get paid vacation - that nets you a whopping $19,760 a year. Perhaps you're a single parent with a couple of children? You're probably not that concerned about an increase in the captial gains rate.

How many people out there are actually trying to support a household on the federal minimum wage?

Relatively few Americans earn the federal minimum wage.[1] In 2005, 1.9 million Americans reported earning $5.15 or less per hour.[2] This amounted to 2.5 percent of all workers earning hourly wages and 1.5 percent of all workers in the United States. But these numbers include workers who also earn tip income. Many of those earning less than the minimum wage work in restaurants and so make more than the minimum after taking their tips into account. Using another measure of earnings that includes tips, 1.3 million Americans earn the minimum wage or less per hour, or 1.1 percent of the total working population.[3]

Even the vast majority of older adults who earn the minimum wage live above the poverty line. They have an average family income of $33,600 a year, well above the poverty line of $19,806 per year for a family of four. Most of them choose to work part-time, and a sizeable number are married. The average older minimum wage-earner simply does not fit the stereotype of a worker living on the edge of destitution.

Here are a few important characteristics of the 47 percent of minimum wage-earners who are over the age of 24:

* More than half—56 percent—work part-time jobs.
* They have an average family income of $33,606 per year.
* Just 23 percent live in poverty, while 45 percent have incomes over twice the poverty line.
* They are better educated than younger minimum wage workers. Just 22 percent have less than a high school education, while 39 percent have only a high school diploma and 21 percent have taken some college classes.
* 66 percent are women.
* 43 percent are married.

...while some minimum wage-earners do live below the poverty line, these workers are far from representative. Only one in five minimum wage-earners lives in a family that earns less than the poverty line. Three-fifths work part-time, and a majority are under 25 years old. Minimum wage-earners’ average family income is almost $50,000 per year. Very few are single parents working full-time to support their families—no more than in the population as a whole.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm to check sources.

It would seem that white kids working in the mall are most likely to benefit from Sen. Obama's min wage hike. He'd be sure to get a fist bump from them.

But laxfan, I do agree with you regarding Bush's explosive spending and that the American public as a whole has not been asked to sacrifice for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem as I see it is that Sen. Obama has countless spending programs in mind to go with his tax hike ($850 Billion in 4 years according to one estimate) so I don't see where the benefit is. I'm wholly for cutting spending but I see funding the war as absolutely necessary where as I don't agree with footing the bill for someone else's health care....to name but two examples. Ironically, we would be hiking up our taxes just as other nations in the world are lowering theirs, some even instituting the flat tax. Let's keep the money flowing into the Federal Government low and cut the money that's going out.

[OAKS]

How many people out there are actually trying to support a household on the federal minimum wage?

"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." —President George W. Bush, to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005

As always the great deciderer inserts foot directly in mouth.