FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

As I said FD, I use TPC and I use Factcheck. If you want to make those two groups your only bible for economics and tax policy, that is your prerogative, but I choose to depend on a quite a bit larger base than that. I trust Forbes to do competent research more than I depend on either Factcheck or TPC for reasons I have already stated and I generally look for additional sources to collaborate Forbes as well. I recommend that for any who want to deal in facts rather than mere propaganda.

Oh christ-on-a-bike, Foxfyre, do you even remember how this conversation started?

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Get it from FD's post please. You can hunt it up as easily as I can.

Yes, I found it. It's the second link in the above post. I edited that post.

This seems to be a side-by-side comparison of the tax plans, as proposed by the candidates. It's not even an analysis about whether or not those goals would be achievable. Much less are they voicing an opinion.

Just comparing the candidates' proposals.

I don't understand why you take issue with that.

I didn't. I took issue with FD's rather obsessive attempt to make that side-by-side comparison, based on the cited sources, somehow more credible than the analysis I offered from Forbes. And since the TPC piece goes back to last June and was to be updated as more information 'became available' I have to presume that Forbes is far more current than TPC as well as being a credible source for this kind of information.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Right. And the whole reason I posted it was to show where the Forbes article left things out -- giving McCain props for doing something that Obama also proposes (but not saying so) and dinging Obama for things McCain also proposes. Thats all. A sane person might wonder why it took two pages of posts to get Foxfyre to accept it as evidence, if she ever does.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

As I said FD, I use TPC and I use Factcheck. If you want to make those two groups your only bible for economics and tax policy, that is your prerogative, but I choose to depend on a quite a bit larger base than that. I trust Forbes to do competent research more than I depend on either Factcheck or TPC for reasons I have already stated and I generally look for additional sources to collaborate Forbes as well. I recommend that for any who want to deal in facts rather than mere propaganda.

Oh christ-on-a-bike, Foxfyre, do you even remember how this conversation started?

Yes I do. And I will admit to a great deal of irritation and exasperation that we are not discussing the merits of the two candidate's respective plans instead of you trying to discredit Forbes.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

And I will admit to a great deal of irritation and exasperation ...

That's what happens when your expectations don't square with the facts.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I am not trying to discredit Forbes. I never said boo about the credibility of Forbes, only that the article you posted was an opinion piece and the one I cited was footnoted side by side comparison that did not offer opinion. I am (was) trying to debate the points in the article by offering an alternate source, which you were dismissive of. I am (was) only trying to get you to accept it as a valid source, and in doing so, I admit to a fair amount of exasperation myself. How do you expect to discuss the merits of these two plans when you will not accept credible sources as evidence?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I discredited Forbes. FYI, economics is not science; it's an art. There is no formula that will provide answers to any economy - present or future. What Forbes provides is an opinion; that's all, and I say he's wrong, because what happened with Bush's tax cuts never created jobs. Forbes' assumption that the wealthy will invest more in the economy if they save on taxes is a bunch of BS. People invest when there is potential for profit, and investments by itself does not create jobs or profit.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

One thing I've noted about you Cicero over the years is that you are fast to pass judgment, and are intolerant of any opinion that doesn't exactly match your own. You claim that I'm not a "good example" of Buddhism, but that is apparently because you in your infinite wisdom have decided that "good Buddhists" shouldn't be Conservatives, or Republicans, or support the national leadership.

You might be more credible if you could rise beyond invective and narrow prejudices.

1 Reply

Forbes doesn't mention critical parts of either candidates plan, in an attempt to make McCain's plan look more palatable then Obama's. It is an opinion piece, one which carefully selects facts to fit a conclusion. And there's nothing wrong with that. But to cite it as an impartial look at the two candidate's plans? Hardly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

I am not trying to discredit Forbes. I never said boo about the credibility of Forbes, only that the article you posted was an opinion piece and the one I cited was footnoted side by side comparison that did not offer opinion. I am (was) trying to debate the points in the article by offering an alternate source, which you were dismissive of. I am (was) only trying to get you to accept it as a valid source, and in doing so, I admit to a fair amount of exasperation myself. How do you expect to discuss the merits of these two plans when you will not accept credible sources as evidence?

Okay, I accept that is what you were attempting. That isn't what I thought you were communicating to me. You seemed to be saying that the Forbes piece was moot and we should pay attention to your (better) source, and you seemed to be returning to that theme every time I attempted to focus on the content. And no way do I think your source is better than Forbes nor do I think whoever posted that side by side comparison would attempt to claim that their information was more accurate than Forbes. I apologize if I misunderstood.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't. I took issue with FD's rather obsessive attempt to make that side-by-side comparison, based on the cited sources, somehow more credible than the analysis I offered from Forbes.

I understand if you thought FD was criticising the credibility of Forbes. I didn't get that.

Also, the original analysis of the candidates plans was not the side-by-side matrix that you criticised for the sources used, but rather the first link here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693

There's a 45-page, well-sourced PDF file to be found at the link which analyses the actual proposals.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I didn't. I took issue with FD's rather obsessive attempt to make that side-by-side comparison, based on the cited sources, somehow more credible than the analysis I offered from Forbes.

I understand if you thought FD was criticising the credibility of Forbes. I didn't get that.

Also, the original analysis of the candidates plans was not the side-by-side matrix that you criticised for the sources used, but rather the first link here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693

There's a 45-page, well-sourced PDF file to be found at the link which analyses the actual proposals.

Yes and I commented on that in an earlier post re the parent organizations - the other is the Brookings Institute--and why I am reluctant to use the Urban Institute as a sole source either. I do frequently compare the Urban/Brookings data side by side with Cato/Forbes/Heritage et al when it is possible to do so and have noted striking differences in their conclusions. Certainly these groups do not all agree on the effect of tax policy.

Who do you believe in such cases?

Obama has proved in no uncertain terms that he is only parroting sound bites that are being fed to him re economic policy and that he doesn't fully understand much of it.

McCain has had some ideas in the past with which I took strong exception, but I think if you take each suggestion each man has laid out there--one by one and not as a whole group--and explore what they mean, the more reasonable concept does become much more clear even if we can't all be experts in tax policy and economics.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

If investments by itself created jobs and profit, the wealthy will be investing now.

0 Replies

@Asherman,

It has nothing to do with conservative buddhists; your assumptions just show your ignorance.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes and I commented on that in an earlier post re the parent organizations - the other is the Brookings Institute--and why I am reluctant to use the Urban Institute as a sole source either. I do frequently compare the Urban/Brookings data side by side with Cato/Forbes/Heritage et al when it is possible to do so and have noted striking differences in their conclusions. Certainly these groups do not all agree on the effect of tax policy.

Who do you believe in such cases?

Let's have a look at the self-described missions of those institutions, shall we?

The Urban Institute wrote:

Our Mission

The Urban Institute gathers data, conducts research, evaluates programs, offers technical assistance overseas, and educates Americans on social and economic issues " to foster sound public policy and effective government.

Our Commitments

* Use rigorous, state-of-the-art methods to analyze public policies and programs
* Bring sound objective evidence to public policy decisions
* Deepen public understanding of policy issues
* Save government and communities time and money through research on effective and efficient programs
* Work to make our Washington, D.C., metropolitan area a stronger community

The Brookings Institution wrote:

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:

* Strengthen American democracy;
* Foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans and
* Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.

The Cato Institute wrote:

Cato's Mission

The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.

The Heritage Foundation wrote:

Our Mission

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

I'd say that a think tank that describes itself as promoting conservative or libertarian policies and values will arrive at different conclusions than an institution that doesn't seek to propagate specific ideas.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Think what you will. I go by what I see the groups doing, publishing, presenting, and the degree of impartiality built into it. I have frequently seen both Cato and Heritage being extremely critical of the GOP, the Republican President, and policies/activities they represent. I have NEVER seen the Urban Institute take on a liberal concept with more than the mildest criticism and even then it was preferable to the conservative alternative. That is probably explained that the President was an LBJ and Carter darling and the staff is stacked with Democrats.

But again, you seem to be dealing with credentials rather than the content of the discussion. You are certainly welcome to prefer your sources to the sources I trust more. But sooner or later, can't we get to comparing the actual tax and economic policies? Please?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

IMO, Brookings does do a better job than the Urban Institute by the way.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Okay.

Now let's say that an equal cross the board tax rate cut nets the following:
A $100,000 refund to the guy who paid $1 million in taxes.
A $1,000 refund to the guy who paid $10,000 in taxes.
A $500 refund to the guy who paid $5,000 in taxes.
A $5 refund to the guy who paid $50 in taxes.
No refund to anybody who paid no taxes.

Obama says this isn't fair, and the principle must be fairness separate from whatever effects such a tax rate reduction does to the economy.

McCain says that the tax code should be structured to maximize economic growth, create jobs, and leave more money in the hands of the wage earners who drive the economy. He is concerned that the policy be done responsibly and without increasing the National Debt, but he doesn't care if somebody who has paid more in gets more back.

Who is right?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Speaking for myself, if Obama's magnanimous tax cut for senior citizens does not include capital gains, he will be imposing a huge hardship on those seniors who depend on their retirement investments to live. We'll have to see if that flies, huh?

Long term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than normal income. They will pay less with or without a tax cut.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Just about every evaluation of the two tax policies says McCain increases the national debt more than the Obama policy does.

0 Replies

FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know