Obama '08?

All the evidence previously posted would say you are wrong, Engineer. If Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire my husband and I would take a significant hit and we are nowhere near the upper middle class or even the middle of the middle class. We have the means to weather that, but other small business owners and people nearing retirement might not be able to handle it as well. He simply cannot eliminate those tax cuts without hitting the very people he promises not to hurt.

If you would like to discuss the pros and cons of tax policy in general, however, a good place would be HERE

At this point in time, how many middle class families can afford "a few thousands per year"?

McGentrix wrote:

At this point in time, how many middle class families can afford "a few thousands per year"?

That's the thing. Most can't without making some significant changes. My husband and I will likely let a couple of part time employees go ...

Democrats must choose Obama
Published: April 21 2008 03:00 | Last updated: April 21 2008 03:00

Barack Obama goes into tomorrow's Pennsylvania primary as strong favourite, whatever happens, to secure the Democratic presidential nomination. Yet the vote on Tuesday could still go either way.

This is a sign of how close this race has been and how deeply it has divided the party.

Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton are both strong candidates and each appeals powerfully to distinct segments of Democratic support. This has heightened the risk of bitter division.

After tomorrow's vote, the Democrats should move quickly to affirm Mr Obama's nomination. That is not just because his lead in elected delegates is already unassailable and the contest should be brought to a swift conclusion. It is also because he is, in fact, the better candidate.

The contenders' differences on policy look small and in reality are even smaller. Their disagreement on healthcare mandates, for instance, frequently emphasised by Mrs Clinton, is of little practical significance. A mandate to obtain insurance, as proposed by Mrs Clinton, does not achieve universal coverage unless enforced with punitive sanctions, which she does not advocate.

Both candidates, in effect, are proposing near-universal coverage. The virtues of their schemes (much improved access, no denial of insurance to those with pre-existing conditions) as well as the defects (weak control of costs) are much the same.

In almost every area of policy, whether their thinking is good (as with improved support for displaced workers), bad (their opposition to liberal trade) or too vague to say (Iraq), there is little to choose between them.

As voters understood all along, this has therefore been a contest of character, temperament and (sadly but inevitably) identity. Mr Obama's most loyal supporters, once they were persuaded that he might actually succeed, have been black. Mrs Clinton's, certain at the start she would win, are women.

Mr Obama has fought a brilliant campaign, out-organising his opponent, raising more money, and convincing undecided Democrats as well as the country at large that he was more likeable, more straightforward and more worthy of trust.

On form, he is a spell-binding orator and holds arena-sized audiences in thrall. He is given to airy exhortations, it is true, but genuinely seeks consensus and has cross-party appeal.

Mrs Clinton's campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate's fitness to be president is debatable - but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise.

In fact, the campaigns have underlined the contenders' respective strengths and weaknesses.

Mr Obama's consistent and relaxed demeanour attested to his coolness (in both senses, his swooning young admirers would add); it seemed to affirm his authenticity. In contrast, Mrs Clinton's hyperactive advisers dressed her in a new personality each day, sometimes several in the course of an interview. They wheeled out Bill Clinton, to remind people of the 1990s, then reeled him back, to help them forget.

Too many course corrections, not enough course.

Mr Obama has had some travails - over his association with Jeremiah Wright, the ranting demagogue pastor, and most recently over condescending remarks about small-town Democratic politics.

In the first case, he responded with a masterly speech about race that may even have improved his standing. In the second, he was evasive and unconvincing - yet the public seems to have given him the benefit of the doubt.

The US has the urge to be inspired a little. Electing the country's first woman president ought to be very inspiring. But not this woman - with her dynastic baggage and knack for antagonising the undecided - running against this man.

The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.

It's a shame when you can never find a fly swatter when you need one.

All the evidence previously posted would say you are wrong, Engineer. If Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire my husband and I would take a significant hit and we are nowhere near the upper middle class or even the middle of the middle class. We have the means to weather that, but other small business owners and people nearing retirement might not be able to handle it as well. He simply cannot eliminate those tax cuts without hitting the very people he promises not to hurt.

If you would like to discuss the pros and cons of tax policy in general, however, a good place would be HERE

Foxfyre wrote:

All the evidence previously posted would say you are wrong, Engineer. If Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire my husband and I would take a significant hit and we are nowhere near the upper middle class or even the middle of the middle class. We have the means to weather that, but other small business owners and people nearing retirement might not be able to handle it as well. He simply cannot eliminate those tax cuts without hitting the very people he promises not to hurt.

If you would like to discuss the pros and cons of tax policy in general, however, a good place would be HERE

What do you define as middle class? Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would cost the 'traditional' middle class a few thousands per year. It is the Rich who will be primarily affected.

Cycloptichorn

McGentrix wrote:

At this point in time, how many middle class families can afford "a few thousands per year"?

That's the thing. Most can't without making some significant changes. My husband and I will likely let a couple of part time employees go and make some other changes that will help us offset the loss but will do nothing to stimulate the economy for the benefit of others.

And that's what we'll see across the board I think. There will be at least some job loss and general draw back in spending and investment as well as freezing of a lot of capital assets which will almost certainly cause an economic slow down.

Most of the rich will also be sheltering more income that will not then be available for the benefit of others.

But hey, at least a few rich folks will actually pay a bit more in taxes which will allow those who like higher taxes to feel righteous. And that's what is important isn't it.

Foxfyre wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

At this point in time, how many middle class families can afford "a few thousands per year"?

That's the thing. Most can't without making some significant changes. My husband and I will likely let a couple of part time employees go and make some other changes that will help us offset the loss but will do nothing to stimulate the economy for the benefit of others.

And that's what we'll see across the board I think. There will be at least some job loss and general draw back in spending and investment as well as freezing of a lot of capital assets which will almost certainly cause an economic slow down.

Most of the rich will also be sheltering more income that will not then be available for the benefit of others.

But hey, at least a few rich folks will actually pay a bit more in taxes which will allow those who like higher taxes to feel righteous. And that's what is important isn't it.

No, that's not what's important. What's important is maximizing the performance of the economy. That's the problem with the current administration, it focused on tax cuts as an ideology instead of looking at economic data to produce the maximum benefit for all. Believe me, the rich will become ever more richer in a growing economy. By failing to make the necessary economic investments now, we are selling future growth.

To your other points:

So why would you let employees go? Wouldn't that further hurt your bottom line? If you don't need them now, why are you employing them? The idea that you would let employees go because your personal income dropped doesn't make sense.

There will probably be drops in personal spending, but that is countered by increases in government spending on things like infrastructure. No net loss there. Best Buy and Circuit City may end up on the short end, but other businesses will benefit.

Why will capital assets freeze? There is so much capital floating around right now that businesses will continue to invest in legitimate opportunities, but they may stop more speculative ones. That's probably a benefit. I doubt that any real, solid opportunity with a reasonable IRR will go unfunded.

Pure, unmitigated bullshit. If you put as much effort into your business as you do posting drool here, you could pay triple the taxes and still make a good profit. Who are you trying to kid?

You can't hope to counter foxfyre intellectually

Rox's 'let them eat cake' attitude towards those who have to suffer thru Democratic tax increases reminds me of Hilly's remark when asked if her infamous health care proposal in the early Clinton years might bankrupt not a few small businesses who were unable to afford health coverage for their employees.

'I can't be held responsible for every undercapitalized business out there,' she smugly replied.

Perhaps that's the goal, Spendi. We'll meet that 66% reduction in CO2 emissions necessary to stop global warming by making it impossible for people to afford any energy at all.

(George W. Bush will be proud. It is his energy plan.)