Well. This thread ought to be good.

Gleened from TFA: Blah, blah, blah.... blah, blah blah...

Policy papers like this are so politically nuanced and laden with stipulations that there is really nothing to hold the candidate to. And certainly nothing bold that one could really disagree with.

This is going to be easier. That is going to be more affordable. I'm pro-small business.

What ever happened to bold statements? From either side, I don't care. Free universal healthcare, 15% tax, eliminate income taxes, etc.

Lowest common denominator, groupthink policies for the win.

/end rant

11. Obama will give everyone a kitten.

/GObama!

12. You won't have to buy toilet paper anymore since we will all crap gumdrops.

Wow, after reading that I didn't know Obama had solved everything already.

2. Fair Trade:

why do we need "fair trade" we're the biggest consumers and the most powerful economy on the planet, can't we have "unfair trade" that solely benefits us?

What good is all that if there's a 911 every other week and gay guys are going at it on your front lawn.

MCBush/Cheney '08

Nestea Plunge: Bush never gave a shiat about the American people, only his rich pals and his stupid, pointless, war.

Redundant. Why do you think we're at war?

Nestea Plunge: Sounds better than the "do nothing say nothing" policies of Bush or the Oligarchic Collectivism of Hillary..

What? Better than the corporate socialism of the Bush era? Taxpayerl bailout for the mewling pussies of Bear Stearns? Sure thing! Huge government contracts for Haliburon and other beneficiaries of "outsourcing"? No problem! Personal enrichment by manipulating local tax codes to build arenas for privately held sports teams? It's all good!

Well, maybe so, but it ain't conservative and it ain't capitalist.

Eat a bag of dicks, author of TFA.

/the whirring sound is Milton Friedman spinning in his grave about the "conservatives" in power.
// Current Republicans are Corporate Socialists.

Headso: 2. Fair Trade:

why do we need "fair trade" we're the biggest consumers and the most powerful economy on the planet, can't we have "unfair trade" that solely benefits us?

we already do with our deals with Canada regarding oil and power. However most NAFTA detractors don't realize that.

FTA: If this theory is applied to the US, a shrunken trade deficit achieved by an Obama presidency should stem the multi-year decline in the Dollar.


So we are getting started early?

13. President Obama will prevent you from getting stuck behind those slow people on the sidewalk.

Hmm, skimmed over it so this is a somewhat incomplete analysis, but the piece told us nothing. I wonder how many hands this guy had. The whole piece was a big "If this, then that, otherwise..."

A couple points were just flat out dumb. How the hell do you favor jobs over economic growth? The two go hand in hand. Add to the fact that the unemployment rate has been pretty steadily under what the economists say is "Full Employment." You are never going to get 0%. Never. 4% is great. As long as it stays under 6%, especially given the current economic trends, we should be fine.

Seriously, I wish that people would stop softballing St. Obama. I really do want to know what his policy positions are, but they are hard to glean from all the fawning praise that people are giving him. I wish he'd be put under the same microscope that the other candidates have been subject to. And don't try to deny that he hasn't, either. I could care less about preachers, personal lives and Rezko. I want to know what the man plans to change, not just hear about it.

I'm not sure what article everybody else is reading -- I thought TFA was pretty reasonable. It seems optimistic but I'm not aware of any leftist slant to "Currencytrading.net" so I'll take it at face value.

Doublespeak: we already do with our deals with Canada regarding oil and power. However most NAFTA detractors don't realize that.

we have a 60 billion dollar a year trade deficit with Canada, they shouldnt get to pissy about it.

Doublespeak:

we already do with our deals with Canada regarding oil and power. However most NAFTA detractors don't realize that.

I was just thinking that -- how does his "fair trade" jive with NAFTA-hate?

And I don't think Obama will shrink the deficit, either. He's got a big spending plan . If there is an Obama peace dividend, it shouldn't last very long.

HOWTO Increase Home Ownership:

Either abolish interest, or allow first time buyers to get 0% interest loans. Hell, it could be a loan that has the first 100K$ as 0%, then you can get the rest on a normal loan. If your parents never owned, you can get 200K$ at 0%. That way it wouldn't have to be some BS racist policy, it would be about helping the poor escape the cycle.

Homeownership creates stability, prosperity and general happiness. It wouldn't kill us to make it easier. i bet it would reduce crime drastically to have such a program.

Headso: 2. Fair Trade:

why do we need "fair trade" we're the biggest consumers and the most powerful economy on the planet, can't we have "unfair trade" that solely benefits us?

For the same reason we do other things to be fair. A problem THERE can become a problem HERE, even it it isn't right. You could say that a married couple should pay less in property taxes if they don't have kids. After all, they aren't burdening the system as much as the mormons and catholics next door. But if the school gets more funding, the kids at that school get better educations (we hope), and will be less likely to take up crime and state dependency as careers. Helping someone else helps you in the long run. Usually.

Employment Versus Growth

This is the only point I want to hit on. The author says that increased government expenditures combined with 'fair trade' would hurt GDP growth. One thing people often miss is how GDP is actually derived.

It is a combination of factors:

GPD = C + I + G + (Ex-Im)

C = Consumer spending
I = Gross investment
G = Government spending
Ex = Exports
Im = Imports

I hold that GDP would continue to grow no matter where you put the money unless you put it directly into imports. Which is exactly what happens when you have unfair trade - we dump a ton of money into overseas governments and suck it out of our own growth. Also, government expenditures grow GDP as well, as long as it is within the country. That's the true 'trickle down' - we're in a closed system. If the government spends money on social programs, it ends up in the hands of people. Who then spend it as consumers. Meaning it ends up in the hands of the investors, who then invest in business. It's a roundabout way to accomplish the exact same thing that Bush's policies puported to do (get money to investors) but it helps us all along the way. But that's just my take...

But, but.....he knows a bad black preacher!

Edsel: I'm not sure what article everybody else is reading -- I thought TFA was pretty reasonable. It seems optimistic but I'm not aware of any leftist slant to "Currencytrading.net" so I'll take it at face value.

HEY LOOK! SOMETHING SHINY!

thank god you came back, we were running out of people with brains on this site...

Speculation.

Headso: Doublespeak: we already do with our deals with Canada regarding oil and power. However most NAFTA detractors don't realize that.

we have a 60 billion dollar a year trade deficit with Canada, they shouldnt get to pissy about it.

They have the oil and power, if we want to break NAFTA they will be redoing the current deal on both oil and power and it won't be nearly as favorable to us as it currently is.

This bit was actually funny:

"Whether he would pay for this 'relief' through a tax increase on the upper class or through budget cuts is uncertain."

A Democratic President, with (probably) a Democrat-controlled House and Senate? Let's just say that the "budget cuts" part is fairly low probability...

apeiron242: Helping someone else helps you in the long run. Usually.

not in a world with limited resources, americans are being squeezed with high energy prices partly because of demand from others in the world, the more wealth and resources we can amass in the country the better for the citizenry of this country.

FTFA:To paraphrase:Democrats are generally viewed with skepticism when it comes to the economy.

What he means is that people who are liberal in their policies are viewed as unlikely to be able to curtail their spending. Thats fine, but nowadays the republicans are the most 'liberal' of all when it comes to spending.

Republicans: borrow and spend
Democrats: tax and spend

I'd rather pay the taxes now than pay much more for poor planning later.

cirby: Let's just say that the "budget cuts" part is fairly low probability...

Iraq is a pretty big part of the budget.

trying to pin down economic implications on platforms that are currently not in use in the US economy would be extremely difficult given todays global marketplace. They can make predictions, but the accurazy of those predictions are usually pretty low. Usually its best to take this information with a grain of salt. Anyone with even a basic understanding of Macro and Micro economics understands that while predictions can be made relatively well using actual data in real world situations, its hard to make good assumtions based on models.

/just sayin

Doublespeak: They have the oil and power, if we want to break NAFTA they will be redoing the current deal on both oil and power and it won't be nearly as favorable to us as it currently is.

who knows, if they don't sell it to us they would have to disperse it to a bunch of other nations, as consumers we have alot of leverage.

lol.... accurazy.. i should be flaming myself for that.

OH NOES!!! TAX CUTS!!!

My mommy told me if you just buy things on credit, it's like free money. Hasn't this worked well so far for America?

In other news, what's with the massive pinko commie military sucking at the welfare tit of the state?

bacUncanadian: lol.... accurazy.. i should be flaming myself for that.

Don't worry, in my equation above I wrote 'GPD'. I think we should just quit trying to be serious and stick to cat pictures or something.

LikeTheSearchEngine: FTFA:To paraphrase:Democrats are generally viewed with skepticism when it comes to the economy.

What he means is that people who are liberal in their policies are viewed as unlikely to be able to curtail their spending. Thats fine, but nowadays the republicans are the most 'liberal' of all when it comes to spending.

Republicans: borrow and spend
Democrats: tax and spend

I'd rather pay the taxes now than pay much more for poor planning later.

I'm still waiting for a party that will lower spending and aren't war mongers and big business backers. Unfortunately it will never happen in this two party system.

LikeTheSearchEngine: FTFA:To paraphrase:Democrats are generally viewed with skepticism when it comes to the economy.

What he means is that people who are liberal in their policies are viewed as unlikely to be able to curtail their spending. Thats fine, but nowadays the republicans are the most 'liberal' of all when it comes to spending.

Republicans: borrow and spend
Democrats: tax and spend

I'd rather pay the taxes now than pay much more for poor planning later.


a good point, interest on borrowed money is a biatch.

14. The "10 Items Or Less" registers will really be "10 Items Or Less". Except for you, who can slide by with 12 or 13, because the Obamessiah loves you just that much.

Subsidy on Black and White cookies?

atomsmoosher: Doublespeak:

we already do with our deals with Canada regarding oil and power. However most NAFTA detractors don't realize that.

I was just thinking that -- how does his "fair trade" jive with NAFTA-hate?

And I don't think Obama will shrink the deficit, either. He's got a big spending plan . If there is an Obama peace dividend, it shouldn't last very long.

Erm, why are you linking an editorial to claim that someone has a big spending plan? One that seems to be, at best, disingenous?

Doublespeak: Headso: Doublespeak: we already do with our deals with Canada regarding oil and power. However most NAFTA detractors don't realize that.

we have a 60 billion dollar a year trade deficit with Canada, they shouldnt get to pissy about it.

They have the oil and power, if we want to break NAFTA they will be redoing the current deal on both oil and power and it won't be nearly as favorable to us as it currently is.

canadian oil is, by global standards, ALOT cheaper than what the US pays for overseas product, piping it into the US underground saves you guys BILLIONS in shipping overhead,evironmental dangers like spills and the energy used to move it thousands of kilometers (miles for you silly imperial people), and having to pay taxes and whatnot that dont come into play when you take into account the NAFTA agreements.

bacUncanadian: Doublespeak: Headso: Doublespeak: we already do with our deals with Canada regarding oil and power. However most NAFTA detractors don't realize that.

we have a 60 billion dollar a year trade deficit with Canada, they shouldnt get to pissy about it.

They have the oil and power, if we want to break NAFTA they will be redoing the current deal on both oil and power and it won't be nearly as favorable to us as it currently is.

canadian oil is, by global standards, ALOT cheaper than what the US pays for overseas product, piping it into the US underground saves you guys BILLIONS in shipping overhead,evironmental dangers like spills and the energy used to move it thousands of kilometers (miles for you silly imperial people), and having to pay taxes and whatnot that dont come into play when you take into account the NAFTA agreements.

And there's also the part that Canada can't cut down the amount of oil they ship to the US without making the same cuts to Canada. I would imagine that Canada would want to change that.....

Doublespeak: bacUncanadian: Doublespeak: Headso: Doublespeak: we already do with our deals with Canada regarding oil and power. However most NAFTA detractors don't realize that.

we have a 60 billion dollar a year trade deficit with Canada, they shouldnt get to pissy about it.

They have the oil and power, if we want to break NAFTA they will be redoing the current deal on both oil and power and it won't be nearly as favorable to us as it currently is.

canadian oil is, by global standards, ALOT cheaper than what the US pays for overseas product, piping it into the US underground saves you guys BILLIONS in shipping overhead,evironmental dangers like spills and the energy used to move it thousands of kilometers (miles for you silly imperial people), and having to pay taxes and whatnot that dont come into play when you take into account the NAFTA agreements.

And there's also the part that Canada can't cut down the amount of oil they ship to the US without making the same cuts to Canada. I would imagine that Canada would want to change that.....

I really dont think it affects us all that much, seeing as how the State of California has like 600,000 less people than we do in our entire country.

I stopped reading after this "brilliant" insight by the author:

Subscribers to the infamous "Laffer Curve" would argue that a fall in middle-class tax rates would theoretically increase unemployment and hence, increase government tax revenues.

Increase unemployment? FAIL.

LikeTheSearchEngine:

I'd rather pay the taxes now than pay much more for poor planning later
Don't forget universal health care for all children of illegals born here, aka US citizens,- you'll be paying those taxes now and later.

Headso
why do we need "fair trade" we're the biggest consumers and the most powerful economy on the planet, can't we have "unfair trade" that solely benefits us?

Because "we" should mean "humanity".

Rev_Bayes: I stopped reading after this "brilliant" insight by the author:

Subscribers to the infamous "Laffer Curve" would argue that a fall in middle-class tax rates would theoretically increase unemployment and hence, increase government tax revenues.

Increase unemployment? FAIL.

I caught that too. Am I mistaken or did he mean to say "decrease?" It seems more sensible, given that he follows up by pointing out increases to govt. revenues...

I'm a finance/microeconomics guy, so I won't pretend to have any expertise about the Laffer curve.

Nothing... absolutely nothing would help small businesses more than proper single-payer healthcare. Employers spend thousands of dollars on unnecessary insurance paperwork overhead (less of a burden for a big employer than a small one). Small businesses' plans get raped if a single employee gets sick, so they can't afford to hire someone "risky" (read that as old). Tens of thousands of good workers goldbrick in government jobs for the health coverage (because they or their children have a medical condition) rather than start innovative companies.

Unfortunately, neither Obama or Clinton have been great universal health care supporters. But, Obama seems more willing to compromise, and is not deeply beholden to interests (insurance companies and the America's largest employers) who are dead set against it.

Zafler:

Erm, why are you linking an editorial to claim that someone has a big spending plan? One that seems to be, at best, disingenous?

I've seen it elsewhere and it was an easy Google, so I held my nose and linked to the Washington Times. Hell, I'll even admit that it is likely a Republican talking point...I just have a genuine concern that Obama is over-promising to "fix" the economy and that the way he'll do it is through gov't jobs and social programs. It would be OK...somewhat...if he were planning to pay for things simply by ending gov't subsidies for business and ending the war. But he plans on increasing personal taxes, as well, which I believe is harmful to the economy.

apeiron242: HOWTO Increase Home Ownership:

Either abolish interest, or allow first time buyers to get 0% interest loans. Hell, it could be a loan that has the first 100K$ as 0%, then you can get the rest on a normal loan. If your parents never owned, you can get 200K$ at 0%. That way it wouldn't have to be some BS racist policy, it would be about helping the poor escape the cycle.

Homeownership creates stability, prosperity and general happiness. It wouldn't kill us to make it easier. i bet it would reduce crime drastically to have such a program.

Awful idea. Need interest at least at inflation rates or you are essentially having the government give a subsidy to every first time home buyer. On top of that this takes independent companies out of the play on first time home buyers. Just get rid of unusual loans such as the 50 year, reverse ammort, etc.

Poopspasm: Rev_Bayes: I stopped reading after this "brilliant" insight by the author:

Subscribers to the infamous "Laffer Curve" would argue that a fall in middle-class tax rates would theoretically increase unemployment and hence, increase government tax revenues.

Increase unemployment? FAIL.

I caught that too. Am I mistaken or did he mean to say "decrease?" It seems more sensible, given that he follows up by pointing out increases to govt. revenues...

I'm a finance/microeconomics guy, so I won't pretend to have any expertise about the Laffer curve.


The Laffer curve essentially predicts how in some circumstances, falling tax rates will increase tax revenues. It's a cornerstone of supply-side economics.

However, I think this is merely a typo and he meant "decrease unemployment".

atomsmoosher: Zafler:

Erm, why are you linking an editorial to claim that someone has a big spending plan? One that seems to be, at best, disingenous?

I've seen it elsewhere and it was an easy Google, so I held my nose and linked to the Washington Times. Hell, I'll even admit that it is likely a Republican talking point...I just have a genuine concern that Obama is over-promising to "fix" the economy and that the way he'll do it is through gov't jobs and social programs. It would be OK...somewhat...if he were planning to pay for things simply by ending gov't subsidies for business and ending the war. But he plans on increasing personal taxes, as well, which I believe is harmful to the economy.

Fair enough, but the increase in personal taxes is only over 34k as I recall, and works out to less than 1% increase if you're just over that margin on the tax bracket. There was a whole thread about it, and a tax guru parsed out in thread.

i really do not understand the USA's stigma with universal healthcare. Every other first world nation in the world has it, and it has not proved to be a crippling drain on those nations economies in any way.

i know the whole "whats mine is mine and get your hands off it" capitalist additude is a big deal down south, but it cuts down medical costs huge and adds alot of expendable income to the middle class working majority. Not only that but it makes it easier on upstart business as they dont have massive health insurance overheads looming over them.

.. i guess your surgeons and phamaceutical companies make crazy dough though.