Obama '08?

He has. He does put out a great sounding plan from the microphone or for website 'sound bites', but I haven't seen anybody do an objective analysis of his plan who likes it much

Foxfyre wrote:

He has. He does put out a great sounding plan from the microphone or for website 'sound bites', but I haven't seen anybody do an objective analysis of his plan who likes it much

She says, and then pastes in two more quotes from the Cato Institute -- a think-tank specifically founded to further right-wing economic policies.

You don't get this in Chicago if you don't EARN it.

But what I can't seem to figure out, for the life of me, is why Michelle Obama who makes $300,000+/year thinks it's perfectly OK to let her mother live in a run-down house in a gang-infested SouthShore neighborhood.

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

He has. He does put out a great sounding plan from the microphone or for website 'sound bites', but I haven't seen anybody do an objective analysis of his plan who likes it much

She says, and then pastes in two more quotes from the Cato Institute -- a think-tank specifically founded to further right-wing economic policies.

I chuckled when I saw the Cato links earlier too. But Krugman and several others have panned his plan as well. And with good reason I might add. It doesn't do anything other than appease the "It's not fair!" crowd who seems to think that "the rich" are getting away with something. Of course, if the system was made "fair" across the board those very same people would be having hissy fits.

How to Label Cato

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.

Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is--or used to be--the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, China, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society's problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.
http://www.cato.org/about.php

You really didn't do your homework on the Cato Institute, did you. Please dissect this statement from their website--a statement that I defy you to show they have violated in any way--and then tell me again that Cato is a 'think-tank specifically founded to further right-wing economic policies.'

Quote:

The Cato Institute is far more libertarian (little "L") - fiscally conservative; socially liberal than right-wing though they don't think the definition of 'libertarian' quite gets it done for them. It in no way was created to be a 'right-wing think tank'.

Nimh usually does better scholarship. Probably if it had been anybody but me citing Cato's analysis of Obama's economic plan, he would have at least checked to see what they are all about.

The Cato Institute is far more libertarian (little "L") - fiscally conservative; socially liberal than right-wing [..]. It in no way was created to be a 'right-wing think tank'.

real life wrote:

Didn't Obama suggest eliminating the payroll tax cap?

I don't know, but if he did, it's about time. That someone who makes 200K/yr pays a lower percentage of overall tax than someone making $95k/yr has always rubbed me the wrong way.

Time and again, the rookie Senator has said he would not raise taxes on middle-class earners, whom he describes as people with annual income lower than between $200,000 and $250,000. On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."

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.

By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary

And one of the centerpieces of my economic plan would be to say that we are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are earning -- who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to a thousand dollars worth of relief.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, you both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and 200-and-what, 250,000.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it. But it would be between 200 and 250,000.

During Wednesday's Democratic presidential debate, Charles Gibson of ABC News made the following statements about capital gains taxes:

"Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent and George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent and in each instance when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money."
"So why raise it [the capital gains rate] at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected."
These statements, echoed in a Wall Street Journal editorial today, are seriously misleading, as explained below.

Cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. That's the conclusion of the federal government's official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the Bush Administration's own Treasury Department.

Sen. Barack Obama was less than clear last night about where income threshold is where people should take that hit. He was honest in saying new spending programs should be paid for, not borrowed; it takes some courage for a politician to have a truthful discussion about tradeoffs, something President Bush has studiously avoided. Obama's proposal to eliminate the income cap on payroll taxes, now at $102,000, whatever its merits, is huge because payroll taxes are huge, as any working person knows. So is his suggestion that capital gains taxes should rise to 28 percent from 15 percent, as anyone who owns stocks knows.

It should be noted that McCain's gas-tax holiday is pure populist foolery, and his tax-cut plans don't add up. Yet his adviser Douglas Holz Eakin may be right when he says it is preposterous to think the Bush tax cuts will just disappear in 2010, bringing a happy flood of revenue to the federal government for Democrats to spend, whether they call it investing or not. Bush will leave to his successor the blame for "losing" Iraq. So too will he leave the choice to raise taxes, while his own spending will have been forgotten. It's a perfect trap.

Foxfyre wrote:

The Cato Institute is far more libertarian (little "L") - fiscally conservative; socially liberal than right-wing [..]. It in no way was created to be a 'right-wing think tank'.

What I wrote, Foxfyre, is that it was "specifically founded to further right-wing economic policies". Whether they are socially liberal or conservative, therefore, is completely irrelevant. "Libertarian" and "fiscally conservative" = "right wing economic policies".

Fer chrissakes, the "About us" page you just cited at length talks of the institute's commitment to "limited government, the free market", "free-market capitalism", "libertarianism" and "market liberalism." Ergo, right wing economic policies.

Again and again, they call themselves "market liberals". Now the word "liberal" may, as the Cato Institute writes in this very text, have "clearly been corrupted" in contemporary America, but that's why they explain at length what they mean with it and what is meant with it in the rest of the world: it's what you call libertarianism.

Hell, in the very mission statement of sorts that you pasted in, the Cato institute describes how it is devoted to "lower taxes" and "skepticism about the benefits of .. the welfare state". So basically, in order to prove that Gibson's claim that lowering capital gains taxes will increase revenue is correct, you turn to an institute that's specifically devoted to promoting the idea that lowering taxes is good. And then you talk about the objective analyses of Obama's tax plans you've read. Well, anything by Cato would not be an "objective analysis".

I accept your prejudice re Cato, Nimh.

So far, I am unaware of anybody who has been able to topple their conclusions based on any verifiable data that is honestly presented, so they must be doing something right (meaning correct).

Foxfyre wrote:

I accept your prejudice re Cato, Nimh.

It's "prejudice" to point out that the Cato Institute's own About Us page proclaims its adherence to libertarian economic ideology - and specifically, to promoting tax cuts? Prejudice to note that a think-tank openly committed to defend tax cuts is not an objective source about the value of tax cuts? Eh, OK..

Foxfyre wrote:

So far, I am unaware of anybody who has been able to topple their conclusions based on any verifiable data that is honestly presented, so they must be doing something right (meaning correct).

In Revel's post just now:

[URL=http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm]EXPERTS AGREE THAT CAPITAL GAINS TAX CUTS LOSE REVENUE [/URL] Cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. [b]That's the conclusion of the federal government's official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the Bush Administration's own Treasury Department.[/b]

Or: Revel, Revel .. you cant really expect Foxfyre to take the word of, what, the federal government's own official revenue-estimating agencies and the Bush Administration's own Treasury Department, when she's got that of a libertarian think tank! I mean, come on.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation''s premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.

In addition, the Center explores the tradeoffs between competing budget and tax proposals that reflect different priorities, such as tax cuts that primarily benefit upper-income households versus investments in programs aimed at low- and moderate-income households or initiatives that benefit the nation as a whole, such as improving education or the environment.

Thanks for clarifying the CFPP background if that was disputed at all.

So the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Administration's Office of Management and Budget, the Treasury Department, the Congressional Research Service (all mentioned in revel's link, quoted by nimh) cite facts and figures from the CATO Institute?

engineer wrote:

real life wrote:

Didn't Obama suggest eliminating the payroll tax cap?

I don't know, but if he did, it's about time. That someone who makes 200K/yr pays a lower percentage of overall tax than someone making $95k/yr has always rubbed me the wrong way.

Well , if it's the percentages that make it fair, why don't you support a Flat Tax?

Everybody pays the same low percentage. Period.