http://weareillinois.org/connect/newsDetail.aspx?newsID=3482.
"But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class."
Data suggests that when you lower the capital gains tax it raises revenue. It's a bit tricky to understand, but you can get some perspective by learning about the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve).
But when logical rational fails and you still want to raise capital gains on middle class americans, you can reference CEOs/hedge fund managers and the sprinkle on a little health care and schools.
"Mr. Obama answered by citing rich hedge fund managers. Raising the capital gains tax is necessary, he said, "to make sure . . . that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can't do that for free.""
Same story. Different candidate.
You are conveniently forgetting to mention that the surge in revenue when Capital Gains tax is lowered is very temporary, and is a reaction to folks selling assets which have appreciated in order to show the gain during the new lower tax period. In the long run this cannot be sustained, In a country of 275 million do you think 100 million stock owners are not the "middle class"? I don't understand your comment "...who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class." What is your definition? Nice title for this thread. It would be nice to know how tax proposals put forth by the candidates would impact their personal life, but we don't get to see Cindy McCain's returns. I am sure she is not hiding anything. The McCain camp must have thought her return would be very helpful to their candidacy but they had to respect her privacy...
B is for Business mutilates small children...
...and by that I mean mutilates their future by misrepresenting presidential candidates!
What a cheap tactic.
Also, the laffer curve is third day of Intro to Econ. It was written by Laffer on a napkin.
All of the candidates have a deeper understanding of economics than napkin intro to econ level. They just come to different conclusions of what action the more complex models recommend. Oh wait, that's not true, Dick Cheney (I'm not making this up) was there for that napkin and has been allowing it to dictate his policy for the last 34 years.
That napkin has been running our country's economy into the ground for the last eight years!
However, the napkin has not officially served in office yet. Perhaps we should elect it president for the next couple of terms.
So no, unless you count the napkin, data does not support the Laffer curve. You can even read your own linked article and see that it is fallacious.
Oh the rich irony of a commenter saying "economics is more complex" when the first words out of his mouth is that someone who disagrees with Obama is mutilating children.
Actually, raising the capital-gains tax rate has very little effect on middle-class folks, however you choose to define them, even though many do own stocks. This is because the vast bulk of the stock they own is held in IRAs, 401(k)s, and other similar tax-deferred and/or tax-sheltered pension plans. The special capital-gains rates don't apply in this case; withdrawals from a 401(k) are taxes as ordinary income regardless of the type of underlying assets they were held in prior to withdrawal.
If there is good economic logic for raising capital gains taxes, Obama simply could answered the question and enlightened us. Instead, hedge fund managers are greedy. This looks like the same old politics so I thought it was worthy of a fun post to point out Obama's cheap tactic.
"Mr. Gibson dared to point out this inconsistency, which regularly goes unmentioned in Mr. Obama's fawning press coverage. But Mr. Gibson also probed a little deeper, asking the candidate why he wants to increase the capital gains tax when history shows that a higher rate brings in less revenue"
An ABC guy questioning the president because "history shows.....". Did Mr. Gibson not indicate this in his questioning during the presidential debate?
"All of the candidates have a deeper understanding of economics than napkin intro to econ level. They just come to different conclusions of what action the more complex models recommend."
Let's just hope they are not using the model that our governor is using. : )
questioning the presidential candidate...I meant to say.
I suspect that Obama will end up being like most of our politicians--he will propose policies that he believes will take from the rich, and most of us will be defined as rich, to give to the poor, all the while taking advantage of tax benefits for the wealthy, ala Teddy Kennedy who routinely does this. And before anyone jumps on me for supporting "mutilators of children", please note that I said most of our politicians, which includes both Republicans and Democrats.
Otherwise, will Michelle Obama give up her million dollar mansion to benefit the downtrodden?
The Laughter Curve (so named because it causes rational economists to break out in spontaneous laughter whenever it is mentioned) is a conjecture that is not supported by data. As such, it is in good company with the similarly-supported ideas of intelligent design and abstinence-only education. The Laughter curve is invoked by wealthy economist-wannabes in an effort to justify a reduction in their rate of taxation, in the belief that it will increase the wealth of society; however, evidence shows that the benefit disparately favors the rich economist at the expense of social programs that would help the poor get off the streets.
Though the Laughter Curve has never been shown to increase net taxational revenue in a real system, economist-wannabes still cling to its misguided tenets on the basis that "in the ideal system, it will work." Said economist-wannabes are, however, creating an incongruous argument, as they scoff at the similar phrase of Marxism-Communism.
Much more reflective of real conditions is the Neo-Laughter Curve, in which Martin Gardner, a mathematician and satirist, examined data and ROTFL'ed at anyone who believed the Laughter Curve. His curve illustrates the mathematical truism that given point A and point B, there are a gazillion ways to possibly get between them.
This post is brought to you by the letter F, the number -$9,372,600,000,000, and the sound of Nelson laughing.
Factcheck.org mentioned this issue in their analysis (it's the last thing they discuss at the bottom of the page) of the PA debate claims. Unfortunately they didn't really get into the effects if one raised the tax, just briefly examined the uncertainties beyond the initial gains if one lowers the tax.
The thing that bugged me about it was that both candidates suggested they might raise the tax after swearing not to raise taxes on anyone who makes less that 200-250k per year. This is a bill that would effect almost anyone with a 401k and/or other investments. It could also lower returns for services, such as retirement/medical funds, that may have contributions/rates/etc that are at least partially affected by investment returns.
Similary the SS/FICA cap being raised would affect folks with much lower incomes closer to half of what they promised not to raise taxes on. Obama, after being pressed said he might exempt people in between, and Hillary made no assurances on this.
A dramatic shift from earlier in the debate where they directly pledged they would not raise taxes on folks under 200 or 250k. Suddenly a bunch of the tax increases became maybes. Bugged me since I have friends who have 401k investments, and I use some investment based options myself. I'd hardly consider myself part of "the rich" who needs a larger tax burden, direct or indirect. I'm still perturbed by the George Ryan DMV price hikes that pretty well drill low income folks the hardest.
As far as the title, a clever double entendre, I thought. Not sure what the fuss was about. At least it wasn't as misleading as an AP headline I saw a couple months back:
"Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights"
I had a good laugh with that one.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Most 401Ks and IRAs are not taxed as capital gains unless you withdraw funds early. And even then (I am not an accountant) I think the tax is locked at a fixed percent - something like 20% for the IRA, I believe. That is part of the paperwork you sign when you sign up.
In order for a rise in the capital gains tax to impact "100 million Americans" it would require all of those Americans to cash out stocks or investments. Again, the 401Ks and IRAs most of us have are post-tax income. In other words, you have already paid taxes on the money that goes into those accounts. And that tax is an income tax, not a capital gains tax. That might not be the case with the 401Ks, but even those escape tax penalty unless you need to cash it out early. If you leave it alone, you will pay almost no tax ever.
So where does this notion of 100 million Americans come from? Does anyone have any evidence that 100 million Americans pay the capital gains tax every year? I'd love to see that data.
I will just also repeat the point that the laffer curve is not well respected by economists. We have had large tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans for the last seven years, and you can see where that has gotten us. The middle class salaries are stagnant, at best, while the economy has boomed and shifted wealth to the top percentiles. Has the wealth trickled down? No. Should we think it will this time? No.
This system doesn't work. Trickle-down economics is not good for the middle class, or the majority of Americans. If anyone has evidence to prove otherwise, please provide some links. I would LOVE to see those numbers.
My concern with the 401ks and other savings based on investments and investments made by funds one may rely on is that the more expensive you make it for the investors on the other end, the less money will be available for returns to you. Not that you necessarily pay the tax yourself directly... although obviously some folks making under 200/250k do have direct investments that they would be taxed on directly with this. It's one of those nifty hidden taxes, like the other half of SS/FICA taxes that increase the cost of your labor to the employer, but not because it goes into your or anyone else's pocket other than the government.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Of course if the folks on the other end have lost billions of dollars gambling on the futures market of mortagages, that would be thousands of times more catastrophic than anything you are discussing.
Good thing that hasn't happened, right?
xian... true enough. Of course if my roommate blew my rent money on gambling instead of paying the land lord, I wouldn't want to see him get a cut in pay at work to make it even harder for him to pay me back. Sure, I might get a bit of schadenfraude (sp?) out of the deal... but in the end it just makes it even worse for me. I consider the two only partially related... but neither helps me.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
The laffer curve is no less simple than the justdoubleit model used by Illinois democrats. Doubling sales tax in cook county, proposing doubling income tax for the state, and now Illinois' favorite Chicago export wants to double (almost) the capital gains tax.
Why is it a good idea to justdoubleit the capital gains tax? Because hedge fund managers......
The laffer curve was referenced to give some perspective so that one can comprehend that revenues can go up when tax rates go down. The laffer curve can be used equally to demonstrate that revenues increase when you raise taxes, should the goal be to maximize revenues. I don't know why the goal would be to maximize revenues as a function of GDP (neo laffer curve), instead of just maximizing revenues. But now we're getting into highly detailed and intriguing conversation.
Another interesting conversation is how many people are affected by capital gains and just how are they are being affected. Capital gains would affect people who buy and sell houses and stock. But wait, I thought he pledged not to raise taxes on us? But I'm not a hedge fund manager and I'm going to have my tax raised when I sell an asset.
But even still now we're talking about more interesting conversation about what constitutes middle class. $250k or $200k? Wow!
All of these interesting conversations and Obama is asked a simple question and he references Hedge Fund managers and looks like a shady idiot. The people watching don't need to understand the laffer curve if they feel that increasing the capital gains tax impacts them.
It looked like a sneaky political maneuver by a sneaky politician to me. I suspect there were more than a few people watching who scratched their heads over that one and were thinking the same thing. Most of them were my fellow economist wannabes who don't like it when we have less money to spend.
"...and now Illinois' favorite Chicago export wants to double (almost) the capital gains tax."
To be fair, Obama suggested that was the maximum of what he'd support... not that he thinks we should go to that maximum. As much as I dread having having another Chicago Democrat not only blocking consideration of and votes on and eventual passage of legislation on "small town America" right here in Illinois, let alone having one in federal office doing the same with federal legislation... and as much as think it would be absurd to go on the attack on investors when our country needs economic stimulus... I think there's plenty to complain about with Obama without needing to exaggerate it.
The fact that he reneged on his pledge on taxes when it comes to those under 200k within the same debate is plenty of ammo right there. Policies to go on the offensive against "the rich" when our economy needs "the rich" to keep the economy moving are just poorly timed and nonsensical right now. The Democrats generally favoring anti-stimulus policies while they issue dire warnings of a recession is just mind boggling. But I hope voters are paying attention. These "bitter" candidates need to get off their jealousy/revenge tactics quick if they want to convince Americans they really want to help the economy and not just get those dern "rich people."
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
xian... true enough. Of course if my roommate blew my rent money on gambling instead of paying the land lord, I wouldn't want to see him get a cut in pay at work to make it even harder for him to pay me back. Sure, I might get a bit of schadenfraude (sp?) out of the deal... but in the end it just makes it even worse for me. I consider the two only partially related... but neither helps me.
Makes sense. I see it more as, "This is what we get when we let small government people run our massive government--a complete collapse of pretty much every single government entity." I don't want your roommate to get a pay cut, but I do want to see him have less control over the household finances.
This current administration is the most powerful argument that as long as we are stuck with two giant government parties, we might as well pick the one that is halfway decent at running a giant bureacracy. I will definitely miss some, but just off the top of my head:
1. Appointed an anti-environmentalist to run the EPA-->mass problems due to lack of regulation
2. Allowed the FAA to turn into a cronism partnership with airlines-->failure to comply with safety regulations and what could be a serious comprising of our air flight system.
3. Appointed some horse guy to run FEMA-->complete mismanagement of federal NOLA efforts that combined with ridiculously bad local events to create a situation where only affluent areas were rebuilt and the most devastated areas are not three years later. Many homeowners who had been paying crazy insurance money received nothing and were given toxic, temporary trailers that cost almost enough to permanently restore their home.
4. All the Rumsfeld war crap to the tune of trillions of dollars.
5. Appointed Gonzales--he went around torturing people or extraditing people to be tortured.
6. Appointed people who have run the FDA into the ground.
7. Appointed "terrorist" Paige to Education, implemented the worst educational policy imaginable in cahoots with Kennedy.
8. Lack of regulation of billion dollar side bets on the market with no cross booking-->massive fraud by major banking companies-->sinking of our economy.
Anything else?
Things are much worse than they have been in my lifetime. It's not just that the economy sucks, it's that all of the protections against politicians just handing our money to big corporations to lose have been destroyed. If you want to see want an empire in decline looks like, look at us.
This isn't doom and gloom--I have plenty of hope we will rebound. But I would like to see some thoughtful massive government, since pissing away money has got to be the most destructive measure.
Xian-I don't think Bush is running again and McCain has been at odds with Bush on some of those issues like Rumsfeld and Torture (your word). I wonder what those things or attacking people like you have to do with the Capitol Gains tax, my guess is you don't have a good response? If Obama is going to raise taxes on Capitol Gains he knows that it is a tax increase on the middle class who are a part of the 100 million people who pay Capitol Gains. If he doesn't know that then he doesn’t know anything about taxes and the economy.
I don't think that's the case, but I'm not an accountant either. I think distributions from Traditional IRAs are taxed as regular income. Most people's income decreasing during retirement, so they're likely to be in a lower tax bracket. Roth IRA distributions are tax-free. In neither case are there capital gains.
According to this graph, roughly 20% of taxpayers have capital gains income. This page says it's only 7% of all taxpayers, with the overwhelming majority of the amount earned going to the top 1%.
Sorry, if you are going to be an abrasive jackass for the sake of being so (your question is already answered above), I'm not going to answer you. Have a nice night.
xian... add to that list his latest appointment to the VA... a guy who has a major conflict of interest with a private firm that contracts with the VA for services. I disagree with a bit of your list... but not strongly by any means. Bush's appointments have generally been major disappointments, if not initially, definitely after they were tested.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Who's an a abrasive Jack***'s?
Anything else?
*cough*Bolton*cough*
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccaineconomics/
Here is a link to John McCain's economic platform.
---------------------
I think one could make an argument that raising capital gains will increase revenue because there will likely be a selloff at the lower rate before the new rate takes affect.
I also think less people will be affected by capital gains because home values have decreased and not increased, so in this scenario they are not subject to cap gains.
Does anyone have any insight to backup that revenue increases from a reduced capital gains rate are only temporary?
What is great about this topic is that it wasn't just brought up by a child mutilating blogger, it was brought up by ABC news at a presidential debate.
Given that times are tough and we're going to need sensible solutions to work though it all, raising tax rates because Hedge Fund managers are wealthy makes Obama look weak and idiotic. I suspect the economy is going to be high on voter's minds come November.
LOL! Xian calling someone else an abrasive jack*** after he wrote: "B is for Business mutilates small children". Pot..kettle..black.
You've been sold a bill of goods. The Laffer curve is bunk, and this is the curve that refutes it:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
What happens to the Federal debt when partisans of the Laffer curve start directing the budget? It's the segments in red. Hint: they're the parts going in the wrong direction. Trickle-down economics just plain didn't work, and you'd think the GOP would be too embarrassed to try to dredge it up again.
1. In another thread the conservatives are called the angry ones - somebody tell Xian.
2. If you think the Laffer curve is bunk, consider how much OT you would work if the tax rate was 100% on OT wages.
3. As to the Laffer curve and the capital gains rate, people can avoid that tax by not selling stuff (fewer transactions). I don't know if raising the rate to 25 or 30% would keep a rich guy from selling Exxon stock to buy GE stock, but it's hard to imagine it would not go into the thought process.
4. 401ks/IRA distributions are not taxed at the cap gain rate. The 20% number is a penalty on early withdrawal, and is added to the regular tax you pay on it as you recognize the income. (It is brutal - don't do it.)
That's a bit like basing your car purchase on, "consider how much you'd drive if gasoline was $10,000 per gallon."
you mean that you might extrapolate that the more something costs the less of it people demand - yeah, that would be pretty dumb, huh
Anon 11:53 - The laffer curve does not (pretty sure) take into account government spending. Interesting chart. If you spend more than you take in, you will have a deficit. I'm not a fan of deficit spending because I referenced the laffer curve.
The laffer curve can equally be leveraged to argue that tax rates should be increased. ABC referenced stats that argue that lowering the capital gains increased revenue and the laffer curve sheds some light on how that just might be possible.
I do NOT assume that all people understand that if tax rates go down, tax revenues can possibly go up. I do NOT assume that all people understand if price goes down, profits can go up.
Xian has a history of getting angry in my threads. http://www.illinipundit.com/2008/01/04/pizza-pi. I admire the passion. : ) God Bless ya Xian, I hope you are not taking this personally.
The Laffer curve is intuitive and I find it hard to believe that you argue against it.
Now there may be a disagreement of where on the curve revenue is maximized but that there is a curve is clear. You may freely argue that taxes were already low and so lowering them decreased revenue. However that is not what you’re arguing. You seem to attribute all of the increase of the debt to GDP ratio to a decrease in realized revenue from taxes but the reality is that it was a growth in spending that seems to be the main cause. Let’s look at some data of revenue increase and outflows. FISCAL USG BUDGET YEAR REAL PERCENT GROWTH FROM 1993 1975 -25.3 1976 -27.8 1977 -24.6 1978 -24.5 1979 -24.9 1980 -20.6 1981 -20.6 1982 -18.5 1983 -14.8 1984 -13.2 1985 -6.7 1986 -9.7 1987 -11.3 1988 -9.9 1989 -5.5 1990 -4.3 1991 -0.6 1992 2.2 1993 0 1994 0.7 1995 -1.1 1996 -1.4 1997 0.3 1998 1.7 1999 4.1 2000 3.3 2001 8.1 2002 13 2003 14.7 As can be seen above your huge increases in debt to GDP correspond very well with the increase in budget spending. The lesson learned is that you don’t tax your way out of debt but you cut spending to get out of debt. The average American could use that lesson as well. You don’t earn your way out of debt you have to cut your spending. For a better exploration of the subject see: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/BG1443.cfm
Xian- Bush a “small government” person…. News to me.
Yes a tax cut can take in more revenue and then a President and Congress can spend the new revenue and more.
True facts: 1. There is a 10% excise tax on early withdrawals from IRAs/401(k)s, in addition to ordinary income tax. 2. Assets invested in 401(k) plans are not subject to current tax (ordinary or capital gains) to the plan participant until such time as they are withdrawn, when they are taxed as ordinary income (contributions are deductible to the employer when made, and are made pre-tax by the employee (exception for relatively new Roth after-tax option)). 3. Gains on the sale of a principal residence are not capital gains, as your residence is not a business asset (different for strictly rental property or if you have a home office that you depreciate, etc.). Most people never pay gain on sale of personal residence due to rule which excludes gains up to very large amount ($500,000 for married, maybe). 4. Lower capital gains rates do motivate people to sell appreciated assets, and incentivize them to recognize current taxable income, rather than taking advantage of tax-deferral mechanisms such as like-kind exchanges and tax-free mergers. In theory, this makes the economy more efficient because people act in ways that make economic sense rather than mainly to save taxes. 5. Many, many small business owners will pay capital gains tax when they sell their hardware store and retire. Yes, they might make more than $250K that year, but that hardly makes them "rich."
LOL! Xian calling someone else an abrasive jack*** after he wrote: "B is for Business mutilates small children". Pot..kettle..black.
I was using satire. Sorry if it was unclear. Remember, looking for patterns is a good skills. Then again, so is the english grammers, and I's far from perfect meself.
Xian has a history of getting angry in my threads. http://www.illinipundit.com/2008/01/04/pizza-pi. I admire the passion. : ) God Bless ya Xian, I hope you are not taking this personally.
Actually, as I read this I am ROFL (rolling on the floor with Laffer). As I was in the cited thread. Look at the sarcastic quips in my posts. Then I get attacked by a random anonymous poster who can't do math (doesn't understand the area of a circle formula). I response calmly and factually. When I mentioned condescension, I was just talking about this quote, "This example comes in handy when some passionate and creative thinker starts talking about percentages and self preservation. I have created some 15 minute republicans leveraging this example. Most of the time, however, the conversation doesn’t go much further because it is usually followed by a long pause and a quick change in subject."
You responded thoughtfully at the end and I left it at that. There was one ironic portion of your quote, "I assume (for better or worse) that everyone I talk to knows how to apply the area formula. If there is debate over the math, I don't bother." Clearly, the person attacking me in the thread (not you), didn't have any clue how to apply the area formula.
But no, I wasn't angry at Runforcoverliberals. He just made a jackass post in which he restated what had already been said and addressed above and did so in a particularly abrasive way:
Xian-I don't think Bush is running again and McCain has been at odds with Bush on some of those issues like Rumsfeld and Torture (your word). I wonder what those things or attacking people like you have to do with the Capitol Gains tax, my guess is you don't have a good response? If Obama is going to raise taxes on Capitol Gains he knows that it is a tax increase on the middle class who are a part of the 100 million people who pay Capitol Gains. If he doesn't know that then he doesn’t know anything about taxes and the economy.
I have no problem with his opinion, but I was having a conversation that digressed a bit with Glock and then he goes on the attack for no reason. I wasn't angry. Mostly, I just figured he should know the exact reason why I wasn't going to answer his point again.
There's something else important, but I'll save it for the next post so it doesn't get lumped together.
2. If you think the Laffer curve is bunk, consider how much OT you would work if the tax rate was 100% on OT wages.
This is actually one of the many problems with the Laffer curve--you picked an exact example of why the Laffer curve is bunk.
If the tax rate was 100% on OT wages, that would not affect me at all because I already, like countless Americans work unpaid OT. If suddenly I were paid, but taxed 100% on OT wages, I would probably work the same as it'd be pretty difficult to work more, but it certainly wouldn't discourage work.
Many great economic minds have pointed out that the 0% and 100% tax rates would not result in the absolutes that the Laffer curve depicts so concretely. I have also pointed it out and I certainly don't group myself in with great economic minds ;P.
Xian- Bush a “small government” person…. News to me.
You are completely right to put "small government" in quotes--I should have done so in the first place. The fact is that Bush and friends are not in any way small government or conservative. However, they did run a very transparently fake small government campaign that somehow fooled some conservatives into voting for them TWICE, even as they developed the most incompetent, massive government in the history of the union.
Xian it's hard to tell from you’re regular attacks and your use of satire. I think I am allowed to post on this blog I have not been ask to leave. The torture comment is just a difference of opinion which you apparently took personally.
The fact is that Bush and friends are not in any way small government or conservative.
Put down the Kool-Aid, Xian. If you can't see the conservative nature of this government, then I would suggest spending a little less time on this blog.
William F. Buckley, the King of modern conservativism, was a part of the McCarthy hearings and continually pushed the idea of investigating "traitors" (like Edward R. Murrow) during the Cold War. It is hardly a leap to see how these pillars of conservative thought have translated into our "War on Terror" - with American citizens being arrested and held without trial, essentially on the whim on the administration.
This administration has cut taxes every way possible, even in the midst of a large and very expensive war. They have deregulated dozens of important industries, allowing the "invisible hand" to roam more freely, resulting in economic catastrophe. They have sat back on designer planes while thousands of the poorest Americans screamed out for help on the Gulf Coast. After all, that's not the federal government's job, right?
I could go on. I have nothing but respect for your opinions, Xian, but the idea that Bush is not a conservative president is just incorrect. Setting up a medicare expansion (which, btw, just funnels more tax dollars into the private sector) does not render one a liberal, especially when the overwhelming amount of evidence implies staunch conservativism. This idea, like the laffer curve, is extremely bunk. Just an attempt to reframe Bush's toxic presidency in a way that deflects criticism from the real culprit: conservative ideas.
Hell, just watch the ******** coming out of the Supreme Court in the next couple of months and then tell me this hasn't been a conservative presidency.
Bush is not for small government. Bush is not for controlling spending. And Bush has implemented the least conservative foreign policy in forty years.
He's done some conservative things, but on balance, I would have to say that one could certainly make a prima facie case that Bush is a neo-con rather than a traditional conservative.
Boon is always good for a hearty laugh! Keep up those Daily Kos talking points, D!
Nobody knows better than D.Boon what conservatives think.
Especially not conservatives.
Right. George Bush and his administration are not conservative. Not at all! What was I thinking?
You all can spin, spin, spin the worst Presidency in American history as much as you want. Keeping making (or mostly NOT making) the argument that Bush's problems come from a lack of conservative principles, instead of the opposite. Heck, someday you might actually convince someone besides fellow travellers that there is some merit to these claims.
But I'm not buying it. Look at the McCain platform. Staying in Iraq ad nauseum. More tax cuts for the wealthiest. Diminishing regulations. What, exactly, is not conservative about these positions again?
Cling to the medicare prescription drug plan as the life raft in a sea of bad ideas. See! If he hadn't expanded Medicare everything would have been fine. Or grasp desperately at NCLB. See! Massive expansion of the government's role. He CAN'T be a conservative.
Perhaps your brand of conservativism exists in a vacuum, and has never been tried. Perhaps the Godhead Ronald Reagan's policies (which we now know were so damaging to this country) were not actually conservative, nor GHWBush. Perhaps only in the comfortable space between "true" conservative's ears does the real conservativism exist.
And so let us go forth and try it again. More tax cuts! Bomb Iran! Deregulate the toxic waste dumps! There are profits to be made! Let the real conservativism fall down like rain!
And four years from now we'll be in worse straits, with the captains of the ship arguing that this time they are really ready to start reading the map.
Was Bill Clinton progressive?
"Was Bill Clinton progressive?"
Nope.
Oh, please. Of course Bill Clinton was a progressive. Was he a pure progressive who never steered away from the path? No. But to claim that his policies were never progressive is just ridiculous.
I don't understand this desire be absolutist about the terms and the actions of the presidents. Bush is, on the whole, a very conservative president. Did every single policy resemble conservative thought? No. Did every single Clinton policy reflect the left wing? No.
Clinton increased taxes on the wealthiest and diverted those revenues into programs that helped the middle and lower classes. His social policies were pretty progressive as well. He had his failures, but he was hardly a conservative.
Bush has had his conservative failures. But to claim that his presidency is not a conservative presidency is just lunacy. Or, more specifically, a desperate attempt to rescue conservativism from its practitioners.
But many people, especially on the right, think Bill Clinton's presidency was very progressive. Does their thinking it make it so? And does their labeling of Bill Clinton's presidency as progressive mean that we can conclude that progressivism doesn't work? Jobs went overseas, poverty increased, the middle class didn't grow, rich people got richer, health care sucked, there were riots and murders and global warming and even interventions in foreign lands.
Does the Clinton presidency prove that progressivism doesn't work?
Conversely, does it prove that progressivism exists in a vacuum and has never been tried?
Or can reasonable people recognize that presidential administrations are almost never ideological absolutes, and most often include vast chunks of middle-of-the-road gobbledygook which pleases noone?
"I don't understand this desire be absolutist about the terms and the actions of the presidents. Bush is, on the whole, a very conservative president"
But you're the one who is being absolute!
Bush, on the whole, has been conservative in only two or three areas: tax cuts, free trade, and judicial appointments, and is only conservative on judicial appointments because conservatives forced him to abandon his plan to put Harriet Myers on the Supreme Court.
Bush has been very non-conservative (even progressive!) on campaign finance, entitlement expansion, federal education policy, growth of federal spending, and health care.
Yet you continue to tell conservatives that we must, on the whole, agree with the policies of the Bush Administration despite loud protests from conservatives as many of those policies were being implemented. You do this because you see some sort of partisan advantage in bludgeoning conservatives with his Presidency, and yet you call us partisan for correcting you on it.
I think you are refusing to see that issues like torture, rendition, wiretapping, etc. are also a part of the conservative tradition. It might not be a history you are comfortable with, but it is all there. Most of your heroes were patting Joe McCarthy on the back when he was at the height of his powers. Hell, conservatives like Goldberg still think he had a point. J. Edgar Hoover "never voted for a democrat" in his life.
I can't even imagine how you could claim Bush has been progressive, or even non-conservative on an issue like health care.
And don't forget Iraq. You personally carried a lot of water for this administration regarding Iraq. In fact, it is pretty damned hard to find a single conservative voice who was against the war from the start. I don't mean after it all went to hell in a bucket (which still took most conservatives several years to realize), I mean at the start of the whole fiasco.
This whole argument started when Xian claimed that Bush was not "in any way" small government or conservative. That is an idea that is floating around this blog and the internet. It is just not true. Bush is a reflection of years of conservative think tank proposals put into action. And his presidency is a disaster because of it.
I, for one, will never forget it.
I am reminded of Alice in Wonderland.....
"I can't even imagine how you could claim Bush has been progressive, or even non-conservative on an issue like health care."
Medicare expansion / prescription drug benefit.
Lack of any sort of effort to introduce competition and reduce regulation in health insurance.
"And don't forget Iraq. You personally carried a lot of water for this administration regarding Iraq. In fact, it is pretty damned hard to find a single conservative voice who was against the war from the start. I don't mean after it all went to hell in a bucket (which still took most conservatives several years to realize), I mean at the start of the whole fiasco."
Ah, here's the rub. Conservative is not shorthand for "supports the war." Supporting the war is not equal to conservatism, and does not automatically makes one's positions on every other issue conservative. Although the media commonly confounds the two positions, I would hope that you would know better. Just because President Bush bears responsibility for the War in Iraq doesn't mean that most other positions he's taken are conservative, or automatically transform his positions into conservative dogma just because they're now his positions and he happens to support the war.
And, yes, I support the war in Iraq and consider myself conservative, even though many local conservatives don't think I'm a conservative.
"Bush is a reflection of years of conservative think tank proposals put into action. And his presidency is a disaster because of it.
I, for one, will never forget it."
Well, if you need a boogeyman, so be it. Just don't be surprised when nobody rises to the bait when you next write "GWB said X, and GWB is conservative, so therefore X (and all conservatives!) must be eeeevvvvvvviiiiilllllll."
Politics of Hope and Unity and Change and One America and all that jazz, right?
Have a great day.
I'd argue that there are plenty of places where GWB does not act in the conservative tradition, such as his utter disregard for the Constitution, his failure to effectively lead his military, and his doctrine of pre-emptive war.
But there are those for whom "conservative" merely means "pro-business" -- and by that measure he's a conservative's conservative. The only thing he has been *very* effective at is funneling public and private money (much of it borrowed from your grandkids) into corporate hands. The economy is facing a very tough couple of years for most of us, and when corrected for inflation median incomes have been going backwards throughout the Bush administration, but for the top of the top, all that's happened is a small but acceptable rise in the cost of yacht fuel.
At the start of 2002, Halliburton was trading at about $5. At the moment it's edging toward $48. It's good to be the king.
But there are those for whom "conservative" merely means "pro-business" -- and by that measure he's a conservative's conservative. The only thing he has been *very* effective at is funneling public and private money (much of it borrowed from your grandkids) into corporate hands.
By that definition, farm and ethanol subsidies are both very conservative - I for one would take strong issue with that definition.
"But there are those for whom "conservative" merely means "pro-business" -- and by that measure he's a conservative's conservative."
Sure there are.
But there are also those for whom conservative means pro-business in the sense of being predisposed to free markets rather than using the government to redistribute wealth from taxpayers to corporations. And I think that's the definition of conservative which would be accepted by most conservatives, and is therefore more accurate.
And it's yet another example of how this Administration hasn't been conservative.
anon... At the start of 2002 was during the recession... when Halliburton and many other stocks dropped like a stone. I can only guess you picked that arbitrary beginning point for effect... since looking at their historical stock values... it shows a steady progression from the Clinton days and through the Bush days... with a major kick in the wallet during the recession that they have since recovered from, like many businesses. But it certainly seems more dramatic your way. Bravo.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"In fact, it is pretty damned hard to find a single conservative voice who was against the war from the start. I don't mean after it all went to hell in a bucket (which still took most conservatives several years to realize), I mean at the start of the whole fiasco."
IIRC, Pat Buchanan was very vocal and very public in his opposition to the Iraqi war from the very beginning. I could be wrong about that, but it's what I remember.
"Conservative is not shorthand for "supports the war." "
In fact, I would have thought exactly the opposite. The conservative tradition that I am familiar with historically opposed foreign adventures, and I can't imagine anything more in opposition to that than the invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation.
There seems to be a very loose usage of terms at work here. In particular, it would be inaccurate to say that "conservatism" is anything and everything that the majority of Republicans or religious fundamentalists do or say. That sort of definition is so broad as to be both meaningless and redundant.
I would argue that Bush himself probably isn't even really a neo-con personally; he's just going along with the team on most stuff. As far as I can tell, his only real ideology or philosophy is greed. In his pursuit of power for himself and wealth for his patrons, he has had only one constant value: personal loyalty over everything else, including competence. Everything else seems to be malleable.
* rolling eyes *
C'mon, Glock, you're better than that.
Want me to start at the beginning of the Stupid War, which you'll recall Bush unilaterally began in March 2003? By then Halliburton was trading at $10, not $5. Still an extraordinary leap away from $48. Almost 500% in 5 years.
It's good to be the king.
Anon... look at the charts... you'll see that I'm right. Your rolling eyes aside. You can imply I'm some sort of a hack all day long... doesn't change the facts. Sorry.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Not sure what is left to add to this trainwreck of a conversation. Apologies for the threadjack. The only thing I think could possibly help us to resolve this impasse would be an analysis of the major decisions of the Bush administration that have negatively affected the country, with a classification of each as "conservative" or "non-conservative". Something like:
And on and on we could go. At the end, I suspect that the vast majority of major policy that has come from the WH since '01 has been conservative. And the more conservative it has been, the more it has trashed the country. But that's just my take.
Is Bush a 100% conservative? I guess not. Are we using absolutes conveniently when it fits out need to not associate with a terrible president who happens to be mostly a conservative? You betcha.
"War in Iraq - conservative - effect on trashing the country: large
NCLB - sort-of-conservative - effect on trashing the country: medium"
Again, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on your characterization of both of those. NCLB is entirely too significant a sea change and entirely too invasive and entirely too big an expansion of the federal role to ever be considered even "sort-of-conservative."
Similarly, invading a foreign country that has not attacked us first is about as far from traditional, mainstream conservative foreign policy as it can get, and this is arguably the single biggest act of the Bush administration on nearly every level.
We have a global economy. This global economy operates under the laws of supply and demand. This is economics 101 (or earlier). When a Saddam invaded Kuwait, he attacked the world economy. Because of our dependency upon oil, and his propensity to attack and threaten all his neighbors, we had no choice but to kick him out of Kwait. When he refused to abide by the UN agreement, he got what was coming to him. If we had not entered Iraq, we could well be looking at $9 a gallon gas prices. We have no way of knowing what Bush knew.
To suggest that Obama was a genius that figured out that we should not be in Iraq right out of the Illinois Senate is an insult to my intelligence. If he did not know that Rezco was buying his side yard, he had no clue about what was going down in Iraq. At least in the house purchase, his wife Michelle had knowledge that trees and a concrete fence surrounded the house he was purchasing and had surround it for many years. If he cannot figure out what is as plain as the nose on his face, he cannot figure out our foreign policy either. To allow someone to make up stuff as he goes along is dangerous.
Similarly, invading a foreign country that has not attacked us first is about as far from traditional, mainstream conservative foreign policy as it can get, and this is arguably the single biggest act of the Bush administration on nearly every level.
Kevin - meet Ronald Reagan, the Godhead of modern conservativism. Mr. Reagan personally approved of military and/or CIA operations in countries that hadn't "attacked us first" like Nicaragua, Grenada, Lebanon, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Panama (did I miss any?). He sent weapons to the likes of Sadaam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Kevin - meet Henry Kissinger, the Godhead of modern neo-conservativism. Mr. Kissinger personally approved of military and/or CIA operations in countries that hadn't "attacked us first" like Chile, Cambodia, Laos, Argentina, East Timor, Vietnam, and literally dozens of others. Kissinger has warrants out for his arrest in places like France and Brazil. He is actually considered a war criminal in many parts of the world where he dare not travel (like pretty much all of Latin America).
Should I bother with Nixon and Eisenhower? Should I bother mentioning that organizations like the Project for the New American Century (chock full of conservative big wigs) was calling for an invasion of Iraq as early as 1998?
I guess I wonder exactly what conservative bible everyone is reading. I certainly can't find any trace of this conservative movement that believes in an isolationist stance towards the rest of the world. Please enlighten me with the words of one of the cornerstone thinkers of the "let's stay the hell out of wars in other parts of the world" conservative movement.
As far as NCLB goes, it is ALL about accountability - a buzz word in conservative education circles since Bill Bennett (another Iraq War supporter) published his "America At Risk" report back in the Reagan days when most of us were going through school and getting a pretty good education. You might not know it, but when I went to school in the 1980s we never learned anything. Couldn't do math. Couldn't spell. Hell, public schools were TERRIBLE back then. Bill Bennett told us so, dontcha know?
But either way accountability is the part of NCLB that was insisted upon by the conservatives, and it is the part that is causing the most problems. 100% meeting or exceeding by 2014. You think Ted Kennedy came up with that part?
So that's why it is sort-of-conservative. Personally, I think it is a back door strategy to destroy public education (another hallmark of conservative thought), but that's just my conspiratorial nature.
Boon: You are mistaking individual acts of Republicans and others on the political right for conservatism. They are not the same thing. You are also confusing the dynamic of the last fifty years with the way things "have always been." That is also a mistake.
Conservatism has nothing to do with political parties, it has to do with political philosophy. There are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. In fact, until the Goldwater faction took over the Republican party, the Democrats on the whole were arguably the more conservative party.
What it has mostly to do with is an attitude towards the nature of growth, and by extension, change. Conservatives like it slow and traditional, without major disruptions or overhauls. They like it close to home, well grounded in familiar values, and time tested.
Historically, that has mostly meant smaller government, balanced budgets, local control, property rights, individual freedoms, strict adherence to the Constitution, and isolationism except in obvious self-defense. This has, of course, been complicated by periodic offshoots of conservatism, most notably the rise of social conservatism that seeks to preserve traditional notions about religion and morality. Over the last couple hundred years, though, the broad strokes have been remarkably consistent thematically.
The fact that some Republican presidents have repeatedly violated these principles does not change what conservatism is; it simply means they did a lot of things that weren't very conservative.
And do not ever, ever, ever confuse neo-cons with traditional conservatives. They are two completely different animals on a number of counts.
You don't have to take my word for any of this. It's part and parcel of the history of political thought, and easily searchable. Just don't make the mistake of confusing the acts of any one party or adminstration for conservatism itself.
Conservatism has nothing to do with political parties, it has to do with political philosophy.
The issue of whether or not Bush is a conservative seems irrelevant to me right now. That is a conversation that can not be resolved because no one will be able to agree on what the phrase "is a conservative" actually means.
So what about those policies? What about specific actions taken by this administration that have hurt this country? Can we look at those and say they are or are not conservative? Can we say that cutting the capital gains tax is a conservative idea and then illustrate how it has hurt the economy (it has)? Can we say that deregulating the financial sector is a conservative idea and then illustrate how it has hurt the economy? Or is that all off limits as well?
Are we only allowed to discuss the concept of "conservative" while reading Chesterton, Freidman, or Irving Kristol? Or are we allowed to actually point to moments in time when these ideas were put into practice, and the massive damage they have done to real, living people?
I've noticed that no one seems very interested in defending the policies of the Bush administration, even when they are clearly conservative policies. Instead we get hand wringing and chest pounding about someone daring to claim that Bush "is a conservative". A nice distraction, but anyone who is following along must clearly recognize it as just that - a distraction.
the distraction is your own making - just criticize the policy and we will discuss it.
obama was one of the leaders of the million man march with farrakhan.
"obama was one of the leaders of the million man march with farrakhan."
And, um, about a million others, including a number of people from Champaign County: church leaders, political leaders, and just plain folks. The Million Man March was not solely a Farrakhan project, nor even primarily a Farrakhan project. It was a bi-partisan, cross-denominational coalition of people from all walks of life nationwide, and its primary focus was to encourage black men to step up and take responsibility for their families and their neighborhoods and their country.
I probably shouldn't be responding to this sort of anonymous drive-by sneer at all, but your clear implication is so infuriatingly ignorant that I simply can not let it pass unchallenged. In the interest of my blood pressure, I'm begging you to do a little research on this from impartial sources. I'm confident that if you do, you'll soon come to understand how wrong your statement was.
Two idiots can play at this game!
Hitler=white guy
Jesus=not a white guy
Which are you, Hitler or Jesus?
"I probably shouldn't be responding to this sort of anonymous drive-by sneer at all, but your clear implication is so infuriatingly ignorant that I simply can not let it pass unchallenged."
God Bless "Teh Intertubes."
"Which are you, Hitler or Jesus?"
Heh.
In fact, "Obama's Tax Evasion" had a number of flaws in it. For example, in support of the claim that when the "tax rate has risen over the past half century, capital gains realizations have fallen", the article states that the "most recent such episode was in the early 1990s". However, the included chart clearly shows that realizations ROSE in every year from 1991 to 2000 except for a small drop (as a percentage of GDP) in 1994. More importantly, I think that the editorial's analysis is far too simplistic. I have posted a discussion of this point in the April 28th post at http://usbudget.blogspot.com/.
Why does it have to be conditioned as relative to GDP?
If GDP increases, tax income increases, but the tax increase as a percentage of the GDP has decreased, is that automatically bad? It is very feasible for the tax income to be greater even though tax income is less relative to GDP.
On the other hand, it would be bad if the primary concern was to preserve that respective piece of the Pi.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS182962+23-Jan-2008+PRN20080123
"Faced with a fragile economy early in his presidency, President Bush responded
with a series of tax cuts, including reduced taxes on capital gains and
dividend income. These measures were designed to stimulate capital investment
and produce more jobs. The study notes that the stimulus package had positive
effects on the economy and government finances. The economy grew, the
government gained revenue and the rich now pay a larger share of taxes than
ever. For example:
-- The rate of business capital investment underwent a U-turn -- from negative
business investment spending in the two years before the tax cut to an average
annual increase of more than 10 percent in the three succeeding years.
-- In the four years since the cut, federal revenues increased $740 billion
and revenues from the capital gains tax nearly doubled to $110 billion.
-- There was a sizable "unlocking effect" from the lower tax rate, meaning
that investors voluntarily sold stock and other assets at a much higher volume
once the tax rate was reduced, nearly doubling the amount of capital gains
realized."
Emphasis added to NEARLY DOUBLING the amount of capital gains realized