Dubious at best, and presented by a McCain advisor who injects pro-McCain commentary in the last paragraph. Even if the Fair model is generally accurate, it's still too early to tell. We don't even have a Democratic candidate yet, and McCain still has to sell his Hundred Years War to those who have grown tired of the Bush Administration's Fight-and-Spend policy.

Because socialized health care, massive bureaucracy, crushing regulations, exploding prison populations, and corporate bailouts are so good for the economy.

ScubaDude1960: Because socialized health care, massive bureaucracy, crushing regulations, exploding prison populations, and corporate bailouts are so good for the economy.

i'm not sure who you're attacking with that, because that was about a 50/50 split of the worst results of both parties.

The Dems should do well in the House races, but there's no way Obama will win unless McCain totally implodes somehow.

barneyfifesbullet: The Dems should do well in the House races, but there's no way Obama will win unless McCain totally implodes somehow.

ScubaDude1960: Because socialized health care, massive bureaucracy, crushing regulations, exploding prison populations, and corporate bailouts are so good for the economy.

Socialized health care? I don't think you know the meaning of the word.
Massive bureaucracy is a failing of both parties - DHS anyone?
Regulations cover anything and everything, so it's disingenuous to say that only one party is at fault.
Exploding prison populations are primarily a result of the Republican War on Drugs, and corporate bailouts are a product of Republican trickle-dick economics.

Frankly, your post is laughable.

For those interested in reading more deeply about Presidential election forecasts, this is the best article:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/bjps1993.pdf

Only problem is Obama is an economic regressive - in textbook terms.

A nice guy though.

TFA: First, the economic programs of both Democratic candidates include policies, such as tax increases and expansion of the welfare state, that are unlikely to help the economy.

Economy doing poorly? We can't raise taxes! That would hurt it!
Economy doing well? We can't raise taxes! That would stifle growth!

The only difference between the Republicans and the libertarians is that while they both want to cut the income of the government down to zero, the former refuse to cut any spending.

USP .45: Only problem is Obama is an economic regressive - in textbook terms.

A nice guy though.

So this isn't just an ad hominem, what's the problem within being an economic regressive?

We definitely need term limits on political advisers. Once someone rises to the assholishness of a Rove or a Carville, they should have to step down.

Washington would get a hell of a lot done if people weren't allowed to entrench themselves politically.

USP .45: Only problem is Obama is an economic regressive - in textbook terms.

Does that term even exist in real life? You need to be more clear, as that makes no sense on face value.

I think i'll vote for the first canidate that asks the Fed to take all their money back and not give us any more until we all learn to use it better.

Then we can just barter with shotguns.

/Discognitive Sunday

Back in 2004, this guy predicted that Bush would win with over 57% of the vote.

Whoops.

uselessgit: I think i'll vote for the first canidate that asks the Fed to take all their money back and not give us any more until we all learn to use it better.

Then we can just barter with shotguns.


Ah, that'd be Ron Paul and his gold standard.

Shaggy_C: Bill Clinton ran against a recession with tax cuts, rather than increases in 1992.

Clinton promised tax cuts for the middle class.
http://www.iht.com/articles/1993/01/15/cut1.php

Vacaboi: Clinton promised tax cuts for the middle class.

Ah, ok. That makes more sense. Sort of like exactly what Obama and Clinton are running on this year. Funny how the author doesn't bother to mention that.

RobbieFal: Back in 2004, this guy predicted that Bush would win with over 57% of the vote.

Whoops.

But he had a mandate.

Mandate!

Man-date?

Ed Finnerty: But he had a mandate.

Mandate!

Man-date?


Jeff Gannon wants to be your man-date for President.

Wait, did he claim the economy didn't suck dead donkey balls in 2004?

Theaetetus: Jeff Gannon wants to be your man-date for President.

*giggles*

Alphax: Wait, did he claim the economy didn't suck dead donkey balls in 2004?

The economy was looking great in 2004. Record highs on the Dow, record tax receipts, and decreasinng deficits.

Shaggy_C: The economy was looking great in 2004. Record highs on the Dow, record tax receipts, and decreasinng deficits.

Funny, I signed up to be an election official in 2004, partly because I couldn't find any other work.. I was 33, and half the age or less of everyone else there..

Shaggy_C: Alphax: Wait, did he claim the economy didn't suck dead donkey balls in 2004?

The economy was looking great in 2004. Record highs on the Dow, record tax receipts, and decreasinng deficits.

O rly?

An increase in the deficit from $375 billion last year to about $420 billion this year, in the face of a recovering economy, should not be considered an improvement. A $420 billion deficit for 2004 would mark four straight years of fiscal deterioration, following eight straight years of fiscal improvement. - from the CBPP.

Shaggy_C: You need to be more clear, as that makes no sense on face value.

Doubling the capital gains tax, not to pay for the things we already need to pay for, but for more spending.

BARTIROMO: "How do you plan to change the tax code when it comes to capital gains? How high will that 15 percent rate go?"

Sen. OBAMA: "Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would--and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. If it--and if it, you know--when I talk to people like Warren Buffet or others and I ask them, you know, what's--how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it's within that range then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making. On the other hand, what it will also do is first of all help out the federal treasury, which is running a credit card up with the bank of China and other countries. What it will also do, I think, is allow us to make investments in basic scientific research, in infrastructure, in broadband lines, in green energy and will allow us to give us--give some relief to middle class and working class families who have been driving this economy as consumers but have been doing it through credit cards and home equity loans. They're not going to be able to do that. And if we want the economy to continue to go strong, then we've got to make sure that they're getting a little relief as well."

So in Obama's own words, doubling the capital gains tax will both pay off debt with China and fund various government projects. He's either ignorant, or lying. Not to mention the fact that any elderly or middle income person with a portfolio is going to be subject to these taxes - incentivizing investment for only the very wealthiest and further locking people into their socioeconomic niche, not freeing people from it.

Oh, and Shaggy, according to Google Finance, the Dow did not have record highs in 2004, and was below both 2000 and 2001 levels. It regained much of what it lost in 2002-2003, but 2004 was essentially flat:, only up .61% on November 8th.

So people who earn lots of money without working will pay more taxes. And this is a problem.. how?

USP .45: So in Obama's own words, doubling the capital gains tax will both pay off debt with China and fund various government projects. He's either ignorant, or lying.

Why? Numbers or citation, please.

Theaetetus: Why? Numbers or citation, please

Read his quote and use a brain.

Theaetetus: Oh, and Shaggy, according to Google Finance, the Dow did not have record highs in 2004, and was below both 2000 and 2001 levels. It regained much of what it lost in 2002-2003, but 2004 was essentially flat:, only up .61% on November 8th.

Ah...well maybe I was giving too much credit to the recovery in 2003. I didn't realize that it had slowed to such a crawl by the end of 2004; granted, I wasn't exactly paying the closest attention.

USP .45: So in Obama's own words, doubling the capital gains tax will both pay off debt with China and fund various government projects. He's either ignorant, or lying.

third option is you are oversimplifying his stance into one that can only be ignorant, or lying.

i'm not going to tell you what the answer is, but i'd just like to point out that third possibility.

Shaggy_C: Theaetetus: Oh, and Shaggy, according to Google Finance, the Dow did not have record highs in 2004, and was below both 2000 and 2001 levels. It regained much of what it lost in 2002-2003, but 2004 was essentially flat:, only up .61% on November 8th.

Ah...well maybe I was giving too much credit to the recovery in 2003. I didn't realize that it had slowed to such a crawl by the end of 2004; granted, I wasn't exactly paying the closest attention.

nah, you were just repeating the bushco math that you heard.

step 1: make things really bad
step 2: make them marginally better, yet still much worse than before you started
step 3: declare victory

USP .45: So in Obama's own words, doubling the capital gains tax will both pay off debt with China and fund various government projects. He's either ignorant, or lying. Not to mention the fact that any elderly or middle income person with a portfolio is going to be subject to these taxes - incentivizing investment for only the very wealthiest and further locking people into their socioeconomic niche, not freeing people from it.

Anyone who has to deal with a capital gains tax is probably rich. The rich are still rich, even after they scream they're being taxed to death.

I don't see a problem with this. And no, I don't picture some blue-haired old lady having to sell the farm, sorry. And "middle income" is still around 100K. If I made that much money, I would be hiring people to make sure I got something back. Enough money that most Americans probably don't "get back."

burndtdan: third option is you are oversimplifying his stance into one that can only be ignorant, or lying

No, it's much easier to simply quote him and read the words on the page.

USP .45: So in Obama's own words, doubling the capital gains tax will both pay off debt with China and fund various government projects. He's either ignorant, or lying.

Well, he said between 5-10% increase, which is NOT 'doubling' the rate. He said he wanted it to be small enough not to disincentivize investment but enough to increase revenues to get us back towards a balanced budget. I don't see how you can call that 'regressive'. Unless you're going to somehow posit that no matter what the present is the 'future' and that just because it is what we are doing today means that it is correct. But, like most Bush policies, I don't think that's a plank you really want to align yourself with.

USP .45

How does increasing the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 28% (Obama's highest number) incentivize investment for only the very wealthiest? That's like saying if you double income taxes across the board, only the very richest people will have any motivation to hold a job.

whidbey: Anyone who has to deal with a capital gains tax is probably rich.

Lie.

Only problem is Obama is an economic regressive - in textbook terms

Obama is an economic realist compared to Hillary, who's a corporately pre-approved whore, who's rhetoric cannot be trusted on this or any issue, and John McCain who is an admitted economic moron, who's pro-war policy alone is unsustainable from an economic perspective.

Obama will win this election when he makes the average American understand the link between the tanking economy and the Iraq War's True Costs (Including the Profiteering) and all the other corporate corruption countenenced by BushCo which McAncient (as Bush's third term) will only further perpetuate and exaserbate.

As long as morons like this AEI dirtbag don't muddy the waters with their corporate propaganda too much.

Why is anyone responding to Obama's Gonna Take My Guns! seriously?

USP .45: Theaetetus: Why? Numbers or citation, please

Read his quote and use a brain.

I did, and I see nothing in there about him being lying, and only your barefaced assertion that he's ignorant. Why is your perspective the correct one? You claim to be smart, show us.

whidbey: Anyone who has to deal with a capital gains tax is probably rich.

I'm not.

Shaggy_C: Ah...well maybe I was giving too much credit to the recovery in 2003. I didn't realize that it had slowed to such a crawl by the end of 2004; granted, I wasn't exactly paying the closest attention.

Sure, Shaggy, fortunately there's my link or any search you want to do to help you pay the "closest attention".
Frankly, while 2003 was a partial recovery from the crash of 2002, you didn't specify "recovery", you specified "record highs"...
So, no, you don't get the benefit of claiming you simply meant the wrong year, or a two year span instead of one year. There were no record highs. Sorry, you fail.

bheilig: How does increasing the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 28% (Obama's highest number) incentivize investment for only the very wealthiest?

lol, do you read?

He himself said that raising it high enough would be a disincentive to some.

The more it is raised, the more low-end investors are being hurt.

farking basic.

USP .45: Lie.

No, I'm not lying thank you very much, and what I said is generally true.

You are probably pretty damn well off if you concern yourself with capital gains taxes.

Theaetetus: according to Google Finance, the Dow did not have record highs in 2004, and was below both 2000 and 2001 levels. It regained much of what it lost in 2002-2003, but 2004 was essentially flat:, only up .61% on November 8th.

And that's not even taking the plummeting dollar into account.

USP .45: He himself said that raising it high enough would be a disincentive to some.

... and he said he wouldn't raise it that high.

lol, do you read?

USP .45: burndtdan: third option is you are oversimplifying his stance into one that can only be ignorant, or lying

No, it's much easier to simply quote him and read the words on the page.

so with no numbers given whatsoever, you are saying the argument that it is not true, and could not be true, is of sufficient depth to not entertain the possibility that you haven't looked at it as anything more than a quote that on it's face doesn't agree with what you feel should be right?

like i said, i don't know and i don't really care enough to go through the math myself, but it seems like you would need some sort of math to go with an assertion that something is mathematically impossible.

whidbey: You are probably pretty damn well off if you concern yourself with capital gains taxes.

Much more accurate. Specifically, what USP took exception to was your calling him rich, while he's believes that with his house, two cars, timeshare vacation home, and six figure income, he's merely "well-off".
And frankly, "rich" is so vague a term that he's not entirely wrong in taking exception. Much better to say what you said the second time.

Theaetetus: I did, and I see nothing in there about him being lying, and only your barefaced assertion that he's ignorant.

You can't claim to want to pay off Chinese debt and fund more government spending at the same time. There simply isn't that much to be had from raising the rate, yet he claims otherwise.

what [capital gains taxes] will also do is first of all help out the federal treasury, which is running a credit card up with the bank of China and other countries. What it will also do, I think, is allow us to make investments in basic scientific research, in infrastructure, in broadband lines, in green energy and will allow us to give us--give some relief to middle class and working class families

And that's just assuming we're talking about tax relief for middle class families that don't supplement their income with capital gains.