*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[fightingduck]

Well in general have tax cuts increased revenues more times then not in the history of this country? I hope that isnt a meaningless question and it should be able to be answered by someone in the know.

Oh, OK. No, in general tax cuts have decreased revenue. I am only aware of one that mainstream economists agree resulted in increased revenue (the income tax cut reducing the 90% marginal rate at the top bracket).

Taxes have been raised a lot more often than they've been cut. So we'd get a bigger sample size by asking whether, in general, increasing tax rates has increased tax revenues. The obvious answer is yes. Both tax rates and tax revenues have increased somewhat steadily throughout our nation's history.If increasing tax rates generally increases tax revenues, a natural corollary is that decreasing tax rates would generally decrease tax revenues.

Actually, real supply-side cuts (as in the 20s, 60s, and 80s) increased revenues quite a bit. Supply side cuts are only those at the top end marginal rates and capital gains cuts. Laffer researchThe Bush tax cuts were only in part supply-side cuts. There was some pull down in revenue from the cuts at the lower end. Cutting the lowest income rate from 15% to 10% will result in a revenue decline - probably dollar for dollar. Same with the marraige penalty fix - a revenue loser. Behavior is affected only at the highest end of the range.

Another point about increasing revenues over history is that revenues will increase if nothing is done and the economy is growing. Revenues will decrease if nothing is done and the economy shrinks. I'll look for a link, but the major driver of tax revenues is the size of the economy. Rates have little direct effect (except the capital gains rate becuase people almost completely control the timing of gains), they have more indirect effect on economic activity.

You're right if we're talking about absolute revenues, but I meant tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. GDP going up won't, on its own, increase tax revenues as a percentage of GDP (except to the extent that it puts more people in the higher tax brackets -- but that effect is due to an effective increase in the marginal rates people are paying).Over the nation's history, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have increased quite a bit, as have tax rates. I don't think the correlation is coincidental. The Laffer curve is real, but for most of the nation's history we've apparently been below the revenue-maximizing tax rates; so increasing rates has tended to increase revenues.

I see the distinction and I mostly agree. There's an important distinction when looking at the history of US income tax revenues. From its introduction in 1913 up through the 1970s, more and more people have been subjected to it. You are correlating rate increases with rev as % of GDP. I think the better correlation is the number of people and thier income that have been subjected to those rates - this better explains why tax revenues have increased. Marginal rates have bounced all over the place over the past 70 years.One reason that more and more people are subjected to taxes at higher rates is that income taxes were not always adjusted for inflation. This has mostly been corrected for income taxes (not capital gains taxes). The result is tax revenues have gone up, but again that is not due to marginal tax rates being increased. It has to do with more and more people with lower incomes being subjected to higher tax rates.

The Laffer curve is only relavant at the top marginal tax rate (Laffer has written about this personally). You can always increase revenue by increasing the payroll tax or the lowest brackets. The rising tax revenue is a result of wage earners entering the lowest bracket and moving up through them.

 

[Sweet J]

"But I eventually came to realize that working biologists regard Gould much the same way that economists regard Robert Reich: talented writer, too bad he never gets anything right." -- Paul Krugman

I agree with Krugman on that one.

I can't stand Krugman. Quotes like this help my feelings. I think that Reich is quite good at what he does.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

"But I eventually came to realize that working biologists regard Gould much the same way that economists regard Robert Reich: talented writer, too bad he never gets anything right." -- Paul Krugman

I agree with Krugman on that one.

I can't stand Krugman. Quotes like this help my feelings. I think that Reich is quite good at what he does.

I'm not a member of Krugman's fan club, either, but I think the overwhelming majority of working economists from both sides of the aisle would say the same thing about Reich. (Reich himself is a lawyer by training -- not an economist.)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

"But I eventually came to realize that working biologists regard Gould much the same way that economists regard Robert Reich: talented writer, too bad he never gets anything right." -- Paul Krugman

I agree with Krugman on that one.

I can't stand Krugman. Quotes like this help my feelings. I think that Reich is quite good at what he does.

I'm not a member of Krugman's fan club, either, but I think the overwhelming majority of working economists from both sides of the aisle would say the same thing about Reich. (Reich himself is a lawyer by training -- not an economist.)

This is true. If you're a lefty and want a good top-tier economist to read, try Joseph Stiglitz. He's pretty much universally respected within the discipline, can communicate effectively to a general audience, and is very liberal. (Krugman is a also a top-notch economist, but he doesn't bring anything special to the table in his NYT columns).

Reich writes and speaks well, but he's mainly just an ideologue. That's not to say that he's automatically wrong about everything, just that Krugman's assessment, while unkind, isn't that far off.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Well in general have tax cuts increased revenues more times then not in the history of this country? I hope that isnt a meaningless question and it should be able to be answered by someone in the know.

Oh, OK. No, in general tax cuts have decreased revenue. I am only aware of one that mainstream economists agree resulted in increased revenue (the income tax cut reducing the 90% marginal rate at the top bracket).

Taxes have been raised a lot more often than they've been cut. So we'd get a bigger sample size by asking whether, in general, increasing tax rates has increased tax revenues. The obvious answer is yes. Both tax rates and tax revenues have increased somewhat steadily throughout our nation's history.If increasing tax rates generally increases tax revenues, a natural corollary is that decreasing tax rates would generally decrease tax revenues.

Actually, real supply-side cuts (as in the 20s, 60s, and 80s) increased revenues quite a bit. Supply side cuts are only those at the top end marginal rates and capital gains cuts. Laffer researchThe Bush tax cuts were only in part supply-side cuts. There was some pull down in revenue from the cuts at the lower end. Cutting the lowest income rate from 15% to 10% will result in a revenue decline - probably dollar for dollar. Same with the marraige penalty fix - a revenue loser. Behavior is affected only at the highest end of the range.

Another point about increasing revenues over history is that revenues will increase if nothing is done and the economy is growing. Revenues will decrease if nothing is done and the economy shrinks. I'll look for a link, but the major driver of tax revenues is the size of the economy. Rates have little direct effect (except the capital gains rate becuase people almost completely control the timing of gains), they have more indirect effect on economic activity.

You're right if we're talking about absolute revenues, but I meant tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. GDP going up won't, on its own, increase tax revenues as a percentage of GDP (except to the extent that it puts more people in the higher tax brackets -- but that effect is due to an effective increase in the marginal rates people are paying).Over the nation's history, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have increased quite a bit, as have tax rates. I don't think the correlation is coincidental. The Laffer curve is real, but for most of the nation's history we've apparently been below the revenue-maximizing tax rates; so increasing rates has tended to increase revenues.

I see the distinction and I mostly agree. There's an important distinction when looking at the history of US income tax revenues. From its introduction in 1913 up through the 1970s, more and more people have been subjected to it. You are correlating rate increases with rev as % of GDP. I think the better correlation is the number of people and thier income that have been subjected to those rates - this better explains why tax revenues have increased. Marginal rates have bounced all over the place over the past 70 years.

An increasing population would, again, explain an increase in total tax revenues, but it wouldn't explain an increase in tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. I think the only thing that explains the increase in tax revenues as a percentage of GDP is higher average tax rates (which are correlated with higher marginal rates).

One reason that more and more people are subjected to taxes at higher rates is that income taxes were not always adjusted for inflation. This has mostly been corrected for income taxes (not capital gains taxes). The result is tax revenues have gone up, but again that is not due to marginal tax rates being increased. It has to do with more and more people with lower incomes being subjected to higher tax rates.

Right. The effect is to increase real tax rates without increasing nominal tax rates.

The Laffer curve is only relavant at the top marginal tax rate (Laffer has written about this personally). You can always increase revenue by increasing the payroll tax or the lowest brackets. The rising tax revenue is a result of wage earners entering the lowest bracket and moving up through them.

I think that's a big part of it, but not the whole explanation. If we returned to the Civil War era tax code when people generally paid from 0% to 5% of their income as taxes, it's a mathematical near certainty that tax revenues would plummet -- even if everyone in the country moved into the very highest bracket.

 

[fightingduck]

Here's the quote I was looking for from Arthur Laffer:

"Some 99% of all taxpayers paid taxes at the 10% rate in 2005, for example. Yet only 25% of all taxpayers had 10% as their marginal tax rate. Thus a cut in the 10% tax rate would have a supply-side impact on a relatively small portion of all those who pay the 10% rate -- while for the rest who pay the 10% rate, a tax cut would result in a deadweight revenue loss."

It makes the distinction that tax cuts on the low brackets (as Bush did in 03) lose revenue. The Laffer curve speaks to the top marginal rate only. Here's a little more:

We have accurate data on both the total taxes paid by the top 1% of income earners, and on their comprehensive household income as measured by the Congressional Budget Office. From these two data series we can calculate the effective average tax rate for the top 1% of all income earners.

Surprise, surprise: The effective average tax rate for the top 1% of income earners barely wiggles as Congress changes tax codes after tax codes, and as the economy goes from boom to bust and back again (see chart).

The question is, how can that effective average tax rate be so stable? The answer is simply that the very highest income earners are and have always been able to vary their reported income and thus control the amount of taxes they pay. Whether through tax shelters, deferrals, gifts, write-offs, cross income mobility or any of a number of other measures, the effective average tax rate barely budges. But this group's total tax payments are incredibly volatile.

For the low- and middle-income earners, the effective average tax rate has tumbled over the past 25 years, and so have tax revenues no matter how they're measured.

And the part that is important for Obama to note:

Using recent data, in other words, it would appear on its face that the Democratic proposal to raise taxes on the upper-income earners, and lower taxes on the middle- and lower- income earners, will result in huge revenue losses on both accounts. But some academic advisers to Democratic candidates have a hard time understanding the obvious, devising outlandish theories as to why things are different now.

Link

 

[shining path]

How are the polls looking? I read somewhere that bittergate hasn't really hurt him that much, and that he seems to have a little teflon in him.

 

[shining path]

I saw this table at RCP:

General Election McCain-Obama McCain-Clinton National Tie McCain +2.4 Pennsylvania Obama +2.2 Clinton +6.2 Ohio McCain +5.2 Clinton +2.8 Florida McCain +11.7 McCain +0.3 Wisconsin Obama +2.0 McCain +4.7Now I'm not a Clinton supporter by any stretch, but it seems to me that her "swing state advantage" argument isn't at all bogus.Clinton is ahead of Obama in all three big swing states (not sure how big Wisconsin is), and erases a decisive 11 point McCain advantage relative to Obama. This is pretty important, no?

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

I saw this table at RCP:

General Election	  McCain-Obama				McCain-Clinton National		   Tie					 McCain +2.4 Pennsylvania		 Obama +2.2		   Clinton +6.2 Ohio			   McCain +5.2				Clinton +2.8 Florida			 McCain +11.7			  McCain +0.3 Wisconsin			Obama +2.0			McCain +4.7

Now I'm not a Clinton supporter by any stretch, but it seems to me that her "swing state advantage" argument isn't at all bogus.Clinton is ahead of Obama in all three big swing states (not sure how big Wisconsin is), and erases a decisive 11 point McCain advantage relative to Obama. This is pretty important, no?

Well, Dems take Ohio and that's pretty much all she wrote, I'm thinking.

 

[fightingduck]

Well in general have tax cuts increased revenues more times then not in the history of this country? I hope that isnt a meaningless question and it should be able to be answered by someone in the know.

Oh, OK. No, in general tax cuts have decreased revenue. I am only aware of one that mainstream economists agree resulted in increased revenue (the income tax cut reducing the 90% marginal rate at the top bracket).

Taxes have been raised a lot more often than they've been cut. So we'd get a bigger sample size by asking whether, in general, increasing tax rates has increased tax revenues. The obvious answer is yes. Both tax rates and tax revenues have increased somewhat steadily throughout our nation's history.If increasing tax rates generally increases tax revenues, a natural corollary is that decreasing tax rates would generally decrease tax revenues.

Actually, real supply-side cuts (as in the 20s, 60s, and 80s) increased revenues quite a bit. Supply side cuts are only those at the top end marginal rates and capital gains cuts. Laffer researchThe Bush tax cuts were only in part supply-side cuts. There was some pull down in revenue from the cuts at the lower end. Cutting the lowest income rate from 15% to 10% will result in a revenue decline - probably dollar for dollar. Same with the marraige penalty fix - a revenue loser. Behavior is affected only at the highest end of the range.

Another point about increasing revenues over history is that revenues will increase if nothing is done and the economy is growing. Revenues will decrease if nothing is done and the economy shrinks. I'll look for a link, but the major driver of tax revenues is the size of the economy. Rates have little direct effect (except the capital gains rate becuase people almost completely control the timing of gains), they have more indirect effect on economic activity.

You're right if we're talking about absolute revenues, but I meant tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. GDP going up won't, on its own, increase tax revenues as a percentage of GDP (except to the extent that it puts more people in the higher tax brackets -- but that effect is due to an effective increase in the marginal rates people are paying).Over the nation's history, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have increased quite a bit, as have tax rates. I don't think the correlation is coincidental. The Laffer curve is real, but for most of the nation's history we've apparently been below the revenue-maximizing tax rates; so increasing rates has tended to increase revenues.

I see the distinction and I mostly agree. There's an important distinction when looking at the history of US income tax revenues. From its introduction in 1913 up through the 1970s, more and more people have been subjected to it. You are correlating rate increases with rev as % of GDP. I think the better correlation is the number of people and thier income that have been subjected to those rates - this better explains why tax revenues have increased. Marginal rates have bounced all over the place over the past 70 years.

An increasing population would, again, explain an increase in total tax revenues, but it wouldn't explain an increase in tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. I think the only thing that explains the increase in tax revenues as a percentage of GDP is higher average tax rates (which are correlated with higher marginal rates).

(I agreed with your last two point, thus deleted them for clarity)I'm not talking about an increase in population in itself. I'm saying that there are more GDP-producing people that are paying taxes now - which would correlate to revenues as a % of GDP. If in the 20s there were 1 million people making middle income wages and they were not being taxed - then these people are a part of GDP, but not contributing to tax rev as % of GDP. Now, in real terms, there are 1 million people making middle income wages and are being taxed. This happened because more real income of the middle class is being taxed than it has ever been (since the 70s anyway. this tread reverse a bit in the 80s.).

I just posted something that shows higher marginal tax rates does not correlate with higher average tax rates (at least in the last 25 years). Andrew Mellon first proposed this in the 20s.

Ultimately, we may be saying the same thing in different ways. I wouldn't doubt if average tax rates have been going up, but I think that is an effect rather than a cause (i.e., direct legislation did not make this happen). The revenue as a % of GDP and the average tax rates have been going up, because more of people's income are being taxed. This happened mostly due to inflation and bracket creep. Not marginal tax rate increases. Those have bounced all over the place.

From Government's prospective, the trick would be to raise average tax rates. I think the point of the Laffer curve is that rising the top marginal tax rate would not increase average tax rates proportionately.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Speaking of economic principles: Robert Reich to endorse Obama

Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor. This is huge, to me. I've always loved Reich. A serious academic, and brilliant guy.

edit to add the text:

Some of these endorsers are super-delegates, and thus of no small consequence to the outcome of the race. Others are simply window-dressing, deployed to create a sense of ineluctable momentum in Obama's direction. But none have the particular resonance of the endorsement that's coming — unbeknownst to the campaign — a little later today.

The endorsement in question is that of Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's first Secretary of Labor and a friend of both the former president and his wife for four decades. Around 1:00pm EST, Reich informs me, he intends formally to declare his support for Obama on his blog.

 

[commisholio]

In 20 seconds of googling: link

No, they don't go up just because you cut taxes.

This should be intuitively obvious if you think about it for 30 seconds. Assume a capital gains tax rate of 1%. Cut it to 0% Will tax revenues go up? No. Cut it to .1% Will tax revenues go up? No. Therefore, there are some tax cuts that do not result in increased revenues. It stands to reason, therefore, that some tax hikes will not result in decreased revenues.

Look, I will admit that there are some tax rates that are so high that people will not engage in the economic activity because the tax rates discourage it. Income taxes in the 60's were like this. However, it is far from obvious that a capital gains tax hike from 20% to 25% implicates that range. If you think it does, how about providing some emperical evidence?

Interesting. Chart shows increasing revenues right after tax cuts twice and the author argues the opposite.

That's because capital gains revenue depend on a lot of factors other than the tax rate, particularly the business cycle. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you have to look at revenues at comparable points in the business cycle, which is what he does.

 

[Clayton Gray]

I liked how Obama stuck up his middle finger when he was talking about Hillary

with video via youtube...

OK Costanza.

 

[commisholio]

Well in general have tax cuts increased revenues more times then not in the history of this country? I hope that isnt a meaningless question and it should be able to be answered by someone in the know.

Oh, OK. No, in general tax cuts have decreased revenue. I am only aware of one that mainstream economists agree resulted in increased revenue (the income tax cut reducing the 90% marginal rate at the top bracket).

We have to be very specific here. I don't know how you classify "mainstream" but it is pretty much universally accepted that the capital gains tax rate has an inverse effect on revenues - just about every time it's moved. Link.It's even more dramatic if you adjust for inflation. The effetive cap rate in the 70s was over 100% becuase of inflation. Capital gains are not adjusted for inflation. Link

I understand that there are a decent number of professional economists in the service of tax cuts uber alles. I agree that it is universally accepted that once you are high up on the Laffer curve, a tax cut can result in increased economic activity and thus increased tax revenue. I also agree that the top marginal tax rate cut of the 60s is an example of such a cut. However, I have never seen any data to suggest that any subsequent tax cut has worked in the same way.

Do you agree that there are points on the Laffer curve where a tax cut does not increase revenue? Do you have any evidence to suggest that an increase in the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 28% is at a point likely to decrease revenue?

 

[fightingduck]

In 20 seconds of googling: link

No, they don't go up just because you cut taxes.

This should be intuitively obvious if you think about it for 30 seconds. Assume a capital gains tax rate of 1%. Cut it to 0% Will tax revenues go up? No. Cut it to .1% Will tax revenues go up? No. Therefore, there are some tax cuts that do not result in increased revenues. It stands to reason, therefore, that some tax hikes will not result in decreased revenues.

Look, I will admit that there are some tax rates that are so high that people will not engage in the economic activity because the tax rates discourage it. Income taxes in the 60's were like this. However, it is far from obvious that a capital gains tax hike from 20% to 25% implicates that range. If you think it does, how about providing some emperical evidence?

Interesting. Chart shows increasing revenues right after tax cuts twice and the author argues the opposite.

That's because capital gains revenue depend on a lot of factors other than the tax rate, particularly the business cycle. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you have to look at revenues at comparable points in the business cycle, which is what he does.

The WSJ editorial that is posted in here and elsewhere shows the data from 1962, not selectively, like your post. From '62 - '82 there was very little revenue from the capital gains tax rate. The rate was very high and not indexed for inflation (still isn't). No one was rushing to transfer capital in those years becuase of high rates.I agree that business cycles play a large point in capital tax revenues. No question. But you can't ignore the effect of the rates themselves. The evidence from over 50 years is pretty conclusive that not only will revenues fall after a rate increase, people will hoard capital.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I liked how Obama stuck up his middle finger when he was talking about Hillary

with video via youtube...

OK Costanza.

 

[commisholio]

In 20 seconds of googling: link

No, they don't go up just because you cut taxes.

This should be intuitively obvious if you think about it for 30 seconds. Assume a capital gains tax rate of 1%. Cut it to 0% Will tax revenues go up? No. Cut it to .1% Will tax revenues go up? No. Therefore, there are some tax cuts that do not result in increased revenues. It stands to reason, therefore, that some tax hikes will not result in decreased revenues.

Look, I will admit that there are some tax rates that are so high that people will not engage in the economic activity because the tax rates discourage it. Income taxes in the 60's were like this. However, it is far from obvious that a capital gains tax hike from 20% to 25% implicates that range. If you think it does, how about providing some emperical evidence?

Interesting. Chart shows increasing revenues right after tax cuts twice and the author argues the opposite.

That's because capital gains revenue depend on a lot of factors other than the tax rate, particularly the business cycle. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you have to look at revenues at comparable points in the business cycle, which is what he does.

The WSJ editorial that is posted in here and elsewhere shows the data from 1962, not selectively, like your post. From '62 - '82 there was very little revenue from the capital gains tax rate. The rate was very high and not indexed for inflation (still isn't). No one was rushing to transfer capital in those years becuase of high rates.I agree that business cycles play a large point in capital tax revenues. No question. But you can't ignore the effect of the rates themselves. The evidence from over 50 years is pretty conclusive that not only will revenues fall after a rate increase, people will hoard capital.

Can you please reply to my 2 questions in my other post?

 

[adonis]

I don't see clinton lasting much longer after PA unless she wins by double digits. The cards are almost all falling Obama's way now, and with even a fairly close outcome in PA, I think she's done. Endorsements are falling his way, even after a good debate performance, she's receiving little praise for it and mostly negative criticism for how much of an attack dog she was. She just can't seem to win here for losing.

 

[malice]

I don't see clinton lasting much longer after PA unless she wins by double digits. The cards are almost all falling Obama's way now, and with even a fairly close outcome in PA, I think she's done. Endorsements are falling his way, even after a good debate performance, she's receiving little praise for it and mostly negative criticism for how much of an attack dog she was. She just can't seem to win here for losing.

I think she really wants to stay until Indiana's primary. If she wins PA by less than double digits and gets trounced in NC, Indiana is her last shot at a decent popular vote boost. She's bought time with the "bad run" that Obama's had lately and as long as she wins PA (as expected), super's won't commit to Obama until she's had another loss if they haven't swung over by now.

 

[Josie Maran]

Link

Looks like the Springsteen endorsement is causing some issues.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Obama takes big national lead over Clinton in Newsweek poll

THE NUMBERS

Barack Obama, 54 percent

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 35 percent

 

[fightingduck]

In 20 seconds of googling: link

No, they don't go up just because you cut taxes.

This should be intuitively obvious if you think about it for 30 seconds. Assume a capital gains tax rate of 1%. Cut it to 0% Will tax revenues go up? No. Cut it to .1% Will tax revenues go up? No. Therefore, there are some tax cuts that do not result in increased revenues. It stands to reason, therefore, that some tax hikes will not result in decreased revenues.

Look, I will admit that there are some tax rates that are so high that people will not engage in the economic activity because the tax rates discourage it. Income taxes in the 60's were like this. However, it is far from obvious that a capital gains tax hike from 20% to 25% implicates that range. If you think it does, how about providing some emperical evidence?

Interesting. Chart shows increasing revenues right after tax cuts twice and the author argues the opposite.

That's because capital gains revenue depend on a lot of factors other than the tax rate, particularly the business cycle. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you have to look at revenues at comparable points in the business cycle, which is what he does.

The WSJ editorial that is posted in here and elsewhere shows the data from 1962, not selectively, like your post. From '62 - '82 there was very little revenue from the capital gains tax rate. The rate was very high and not indexed for inflation (still isn't). No one was rushing to transfer capital in those years becuase of high rates.I agree that business cycles play a large point in capital tax revenues. No question. But you can't ignore the effect of the rates themselves. The evidence from over 50 years is pretty conclusive that not only will revenues fall after a rate increase, people will hoard capital.

Can you please reply to my 2 questions in my other post?

I wasn't avoiding them at all. I agree that you will not get any capital gains tax revenue from a zero rate. Also, I agree that a few points here and there won't matter much. We've been in the fat of the laffer curve for a long time. My point is that there is clearly a curve as demonstrated by large capital gains tax cuts and large marginal tax cuts such as in the 20s, 60s, and 80s. To deny that these rates (cap gain and top marginal rate) effects behavior, thus revenue, is against the data going back years in this country and all over the world.For the record, I'm in favor of eliminating the capital gains tax rate completely. Obviously, that takes in less cap gains revenue. My argument is one on fairness, since the cap gains is a double tax hit.

We can talk about it Monday if you'd like. Have a good weekend.

 

[commisholio]

In 20 seconds of googling: link

No, they don't go up just because you cut taxes.

This should be intuitively obvious if you think about it for 30 seconds. Assume a capital gains tax rate of 1%. Cut it to 0% Will tax revenues go up? No. Cut it to .1% Will tax revenues go up? No. Therefore, there are some tax cuts that do not result in increased revenues. It stands to reason, therefore, that some tax hikes will not result in decreased revenues.

Look, I will admit that there are some tax rates that are so high that people will not engage in the economic activity because the tax rates discourage it. Income taxes in the 60's were like this. However, it is far from obvious that a capital gains tax hike from 20% to 25% implicates that range. If you think it does, how about providing some emperical evidence?

Interesting. Chart shows increasing revenues right after tax cuts twice and the author argues the opposite.

That's because capital gains revenue depend on a lot of factors other than the tax rate, particularly the business cycle. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you have to look at revenues at comparable points in the business cycle, which is what he does.

The WSJ editorial that is posted in here and elsewhere shows the data from 1962, not selectively, like your post. From '62 - '82 there was very little revenue from the capital gains tax rate. The rate was very high and not indexed for inflation (still isn't). No one was rushing to transfer capital in those years becuase of high rates.I agree that business cycles play a large point in capital tax revenues. No question. But you can't ignore the effect of the rates themselves. The evidence from over 50 years is pretty conclusive that not only will revenues fall after a rate increase, people will hoard capital.

Can you please reply to my 2 questions in my other post?

I wasn't avoiding them at all. I agree that you will not get any capital gains tax revenue from a zero rate. Also, I agree that a few points here and there won't matter much. We've been in the fat of the laffer curve for a long time. My point is that there is clearly a curve as demonstrated by large capital gains tax cuts and large marginal tax cuts such as in the 20s, 60s, and 80s. To deny that these rates (cap gain and top marginal rate) effects behavior, thus revenue, is against the data going back years in this country and all over the world.For the record, I'm in favor of eliminating the capital gains tax rate completely. Obviously, that takes in less cap gains revenue. My argument is one on fairness, since the cap gains is a double tax hit.

We can talk about it Monday if you'd like. Have a good weekend.

You too. I'd welcome a discussion of the relative fairness of taxing money earned from labor versus returned from capital investments.

 

[cobalt_27]

Can we just call this primary over and done with and move on to kicking McCain's ###? It's been known for over a month now that the delegate math is too steep for Hill to overcome, she is losing the most recent, previously-unpledged superdelegates by a 3:1 margin now...

It's over.

Let's turn the page, already, and start focusing on the Arizona senator.

 

[Gopher State]

McCain camp calls Obama 'recklessly dishonest'

Posted: 04:20 PM ET

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.

(CNN) — John McCain's campaign is crying foul over what it characterizes as repeated distortions from Barack Obama, saying on Friday the Illinois senator is "recklessly dishonest."

The most recent dustup comes after Obama criticized McCain earlier Friday for comments the Arizona senator made in an interview on Bloomberg Television.

"John McCain went on television and said that there has been quote "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years," Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. "John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, say we've made great progress?”

The McCain campaign immediately took issue with the comment, noting the Arizona senator also said he knows families are facing "tremendous economic challenges."

“American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday."

The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."

The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."

Obama has since dialed back from that characterization, saying Friday that McCain is "willing to potentially maintain the troop presence there for as long as 100 years."

From: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Filed under: Barack Obama • John McCain

Obama must be taking lessons from HILLARY

 

[Josie Maran]

McCain camp calls Obama 'recklessly dishonest'Posted: 04:20 PM ET Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.(CNN) — John McCain's campaign is crying foul over what it characterizes as repeated distortions from Barack Obama, saying on Friday the Illinois senator is "recklessly dishonest."The most recent dustup comes after Obama criticized McCain earlier Friday for comments the Arizona senator made in an interview on Bloomberg Television."John McCain went on television and said that there has been quote "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years," Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. "John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, say we've made great progress?”The McCain campaign immediately took issue with the comment, noting the Arizona senator also said he knows families are facing "tremendous economic challenges."“American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday."The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."Obama has since dialed back from that characterization, saying Friday that McCain is "willing to potentially maintain the troop presence there for as long as 100 years."From: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander MooneyFiled under: Barack Obama • John McCainObama must be taking lessons from HILLARY

So he said what Obama said he said, but then said Obama is being recklessly dishonest for what he said about what McCain said?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Obama takes big national lead over Clinton in Newsweek poll

THE NUMBERS

Barack Obama, 54 percent

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 35 percent

Ouch.

 

[Alan Smithee]

McCain camp calls Obama 'recklessly dishonest'

Posted: 04:20 PM ET

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.

(CNN) — John McCain's campaign is crying foul over what it characterizes as repeated distortions from Barack Obama, saying on Friday the Illinois senator is "recklessly dishonest."

The most recent dustup comes after Obama criticized McCain earlier Friday for comments the Arizona senator made in an interview on Bloomberg Television.

"John McCain went on television and said that there has been quote "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years," Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. "John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, say we've made great progress?”

The McCain campaign immediately took issue with the comment, noting the Arizona senator also said he knows families are facing "tremendous economic challenges."

“American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday."

The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."

The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."

Obama has since dialed back from that characterization, saying Friday that McCain is "willing to potentially maintain the troop presence there for as long as 100 years."

From: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Filed under: Barack Obama • John McCain

Obama must be taking lessons from HILLARY

So he said what Obama said he said, but then said Obama is being recklessly dishonest for what he said about what McCain said?

Here's the exact McCain quote: "You could make the argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time, but that's no comfort, that's no comfort to families now who are facing these tremendous economic challenges."Obama's truncating of the sentence is pretty much textbook distorting the quote, no?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

McCain camp calls Obama 'recklessly dishonest'

Posted: 04:20 PM ET

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.

(CNN) — John McCain's campaign is crying foul over what it characterizes as repeated distortions from Barack Obama, saying on Friday the Illinois senator is "recklessly dishonest."

The most recent dustup comes after Obama criticized McCain earlier Friday for comments the Arizona senator made in an interview on Bloomberg Television.

"John McCain went on television and said that there has been quote "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years," Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. "John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, say we've made great progress?”

The McCain campaign immediately took issue with the comment, noting the Arizona senator also said he knows families are facing "tremendous economic challenges."

“American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday."

The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."

The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."

Obama has since dialed back from that characterization, saying Friday that McCain is "willing to potentially maintain the troop presence there for as long as 100 years."

From: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Filed under: Barack Obama • John McCain

Obama must be taking lessons from HILLARY

So he said what Obama said he said, but then said Obama is being recklessly dishonest for what he said about what McCain said?

Here's the exact McCain quote: "You could make the argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time, but that's no comfort, that's no comfort to families now who are facing these tremendous economic challenges."Obama's truncating of the sentence is pretty much textbook distorting the quote, no?

Just for the record, I wish Obama would stop doing this. There are plenty of things to hammer McCain on without resorting to putting words into his mouth. Tactics like this are politics as usual, and he needs to stay away from it.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

McCain puts it out there himself. "You could make the argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time".

He does so with a purpose of influencing people, to that very ideal, that he is speaking to.

Next time he shouldn't espouse the ideal on one hand - and then try and make nice with the voters who know its bullpucky on the other hand.

 

[Josie Maran]

McCain camp calls Obama 'recklessly dishonest'

Posted: 04:20 PM ET

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.

(CNN) — John McCain's campaign is crying foul over what it characterizes as repeated distortions from Barack Obama, saying on Friday the Illinois senator is "recklessly dishonest."

The most recent dustup comes after Obama criticized McCain earlier Friday for comments the Arizona senator made in an interview on Bloomberg Television.

"John McCain went on television and said that there has been quote "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years," Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. "John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, say we've made great progress?”

The McCain campaign immediately took issue with the comment, noting the Arizona senator also said he knows families are facing "tremendous economic challenges."

“American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday."

The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."

The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."

Obama has since dialed back from that characterization, saying Friday that McCain is "willing to potentially maintain the troop presence there for as long as 100 years."

From: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Filed under: Barack Obama • John McCain

Obama must be taking lessons from HILLARY

So he said what Obama said he said, but then said Obama is being recklessly dishonest for what he said about what McCain said?

Here's the exact McCain quote: "You could make the argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time, but that's no comfort, that's no comfort to families now who are facing these tremendous economic challenges."Obama's truncating of the sentence is pretty much textbook distorting the quote, no?

I agree.But my question was still damn fun to write, dammit.

 

[Orange Crush]

Apparently, Obama had a good night, tonight. From Marc Ambinder's blog at The Atlantic (though it reads as though he texted it in):

Philly Ignites For Obama

18 Apr 2008 09:36 pm

PHILADELPHIA -- It wasn't so much that Barack Obama had real fight in him tonight, or that more people attended his rally in front of Independence Hall than any other event since he announced his candidacy. It was the spontaneous demonstration of support that happened when it ended.

5,000 people (at least) had nowhere to go but up Market Street. Obama's charge of the night: "Declare independence!" was with them. They started with the familiar "O-Bam-A." By 7th and Market, they had graduated to "Yes we can!" By 10th and Market, with hundreds streaming in between cars on the road, they were just cheering. At first, a few Philly cops, killjoys, tried to rough the crowd to the sidewalks. It didn't work. The cops retreated to the sidewalks. By the time I ducked into my hotel, a full mile away from Independence Park, the Obama crowd was still marching.

s%20075.jpg

The headlines Obama intended to generate were as follows: first, the secondary point, so reporters can write that Obama looked forward to the general election: John McCain is man who deserves respect. "But the change this country needs will not come from a third George W. Bush term. And what is exactly what his campaign is offering. John McCain is offering four more years of a war with no exit strategy, a war with no end in sight, a war that is sending our troops on their thid, fourth and fifth tours of duty." Four good measure, Obama repeated the disputable claim that McCain saw "great progress" from seven and a half years of George W. Bush's" economic program.

The main headline was -- is -- a series of non-wimpy, crisply delivered, very direct digs at Hillary Clinton. Obama started this riff, but aware that the crowd was still thinking about McCain, paused, then said,"Listen up you guys."

Quiet.

Hillary Clinton "is a tenacious campaigner and is a committed public servant," he began. (Boos. I mean, Obama could have said the same thing about Brownie.) But her message, he said, is "that we can't really change the say anything, do anything special interest game of so we might as well choose a candidate who knows how to play the game." He mocked her "kitchen sink strategy." Then he said, "I'm not running to be the president who plays the same old game. I'm running to end the game."

"This year we can’t afford the same old politics. This year we can declare our independence from this kind of politics."

The metaphor was labored, but, I mean -- how could you not use it? (To those of us who're watching John Adams on HBO, we can envision George Washington giving his second inaugural address on on the second floor balcony of Independence Hall -- all of this visible to Obama and to the press, it was -- sorry VandeHarris, a little eerie.)

An Obama aide sized the crowd at about 40,000. It was probably was a little bit less, but a senior campaign official said it was the biggest the campaign had ever seen.

As usual, about 3,000 guests directly in front of Obama were sent through magnetometers and enclosed by metal barriers. Another 25,000 crowded Independence Park; some even listened from a good three thousand feet away, well behind Independence Hall.

I counted at least a hundred Philadelphia police officers. There were state troops. TSA personnel magging the crowd. A helicopter hovered over the square. The fire department set up a command post with extra medical supplies. It was some way to start Obama's final Pennsylvania push.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

:neckpunch:

Just because I'm back, baby.

 

[bigbottom]

McCain camp calls Obama 'recklessly dishonest'

Posted: 04:20 PM ET

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.

(CNN) — John McCain's campaign is crying foul over what it characterizes as repeated distortions from Barack Obama, saying on Friday the Illinois senator is "recklessly dishonest."

The most recent dustup comes after Obama criticized McCain earlier Friday for comments the Arizona senator made in an interview on Bloomberg Television.

"John McCain went on television and said that there has been quote "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years," Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. "John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, say we've made great progress?”

The McCain campaign immediately took issue with the comment, noting the Arizona senator also said he knows families are facing "tremendous economic challenges."

“American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday."

The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."

The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."

Obama has since dialed back from that characterization, saying Friday that McCain is "willing to potentially maintain the troop presence there for as long as 100 years."

From: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Filed under: Barack Obama • John McCain

Obama must be taking lessons from HILLARY

So he said what Obama said he said, but then said Obama is being recklessly dishonest for what he said about what McCain said?

Here's the exact McCain quote: "You could make the argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time, but that's no comfort, that's no comfort to families now who are facing these tremendous economic challenges."Obama's truncating of the sentence is pretty much textbook distorting the quote, no?

Yes, he certainly distorted the meaning of the quote. BS tactic by Obama in my opinion.

 

[Orange Crush]

McCain's Campaign sent out an email this morning tying Obama to Hamas:

McCain's deputy campaign manager, Christian Ferry, sent an email to donors today with the subject line: "Hamas Weighs In On U.S. Presidential Election." The email, which attacks Obama over his foreign policy stances, includes these paragraphs:

Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas

I'd just like to point out that Obama has condemned Hamas, said he would not have talks with any terrorist organization which included Hamas, and sharply criticized former President Carter for talking to Hamas.But that doesn't matter to the McCain camp. This isn't even "recklessly distorting" something Obama said. This is just a ridiculous and dishonest political attack. But it's ok because McCain is going to run a clean campaign built on respect for his opponent. Yeah, right.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

McCain's Campaign sent out an email this morning tying Obama to Hamas:

McCain's deputy campaign manager, Christian Ferry, sent an email to donors today with the subject line: "Hamas Weighs In On U.S. Presidential Election." The email, which attacks Obama over his foreign policy stances, includes these paragraphs:

Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas

I'd just like to point out that Obama has condemned Hamas, said he would not have talks with any terrorist organization which included Hamas, and sharply criticized former President Carter for talking to Hamas.But that doesn't matter to the McCain camp. This isn't even "recklessly distorting" something Obama said. This is just a ridiculous and dishonest political attack. But it's ok because McCain is going to run a clean campaign built on respect for his opponent. Yeah, right.

Assuming that quote is accurate, then I don't see what's dishonest about this particular attack. Hamas likes Obama. Some voters might find that interesting, so McCain is pointing it out. I fail to see the problem here.

 

[gocolts]

McCain camp calls Obama 'recklessly dishonest'Posted: 04:20 PM ET Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.(CNN) — John McCain's campaign is crying foul over what it characterizes as repeated distortions from Barack Obama, saying on Friday the Illinois senator is "recklessly dishonest."The most recent dustup comes after Obama criticized McCain earlier Friday for comments the Arizona senator made in an interview on Bloomberg Television."John McCain went on television and said that there has been quote "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years," Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. "John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, say we've made great progress?”The McCain campaign immediately took issue with the comment, noting the Arizona senator also said he knows families are facing "tremendous economic challenges."“American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday."The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."Obama has since dialed back from that characterization, saying Friday that McCain is "willing to potentially maintain the troop presence there for as long as 100 years."From: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander MooneyFiled under: Barack Obama • John McCainObama must be taking lessons from HILLARY

HOPECHANGELOL

 

[gocolts]

McCain camp calls Obama 'recklessly dishonest'Posted: 04:20 PM ET Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.(CNN) — John McCain's campaign is crying foul over what it characterizes as repeated distortions from Barack Obama, saying on Friday the Illinois senator is "recklessly dishonest."The most recent dustup comes after Obama criticized McCain earlier Friday for comments the Arizona senator made in an interview on Bloomberg Television."John McCain went on television and said that there has been quote "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years," Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. "John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, say we've made great progress?”The McCain campaign immediately took issue with the comment, noting the Arizona senator also said he knows families are facing "tremendous economic challenges."“American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday."The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."Obama has since dialed back from that characterization, saying Friday that McCain is "willing to potentially maintain the troop presence there for as long as 100 years."From: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander MooneyFiled under: Barack Obama • John McCainObama must be taking lessons from HILLARY

So he said what Obama said he said, but then said Obama is being recklessly dishonest for what he said about what McCain said?

Obama did just what he complains about on a daily basis. Obama's campaign is laughable at this point. Keep on crying Obama. Keep on blaming everybody else for your problems Obama. Keep on pretending to apologize for something and justifying in the same paragraph Obama. And please, keep on letting your radical, hateful, racist and bitter wife keep on talking. She can not speak without sticking her foot in her mouth.

 

[gocolts]

McCain puts it out there himself. "You could make the argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time".

He does so with a purpose of influencing people, to that very ideal, that he is speaking to.

Next time he shouldn't espouse the ideal on one hand - and then try and make nice with the voters who know its bullpucky on the other hand.

This could be fun. Let me try it."I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ..." -- Barack Obama

"...I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- Barack Obama

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..." -- Barack Obama

 

[gocolts]

McCain's Campaign sent out an email this morning tying Obama to Hamas:

McCain's deputy campaign manager, Christian Ferry, sent an email to donors today with the subject line: "Hamas Weighs In On U.S. Presidential Election." The email, which attacks Obama over his foreign policy stances, includes these paragraphs:

Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas

I'd just like to point out that Obama has condemned Hamas, said he would not have talks with any terrorist organization which included Hamas, and sharply criticized former President Carter for talking to Hamas.But that doesn't matter to the McCain camp. This isn't even "recklessly distorting" something Obama said. This is just a ridiculous and dishonest political attack. But it's ok because McCain is going to run a clean campaign built on respect for his opponent. Yeah, right.

That is one thing Obama did right. To bad he won't use his own criteria for himself when it comes to meeting with terrorists.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

McCain camp calls Obama 'recklessly dishonest'Posted: 04:20 PM ET Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.(CNN) — John McCain's campaign is crying foul over what it characterizes as repeated distortions from Barack Obama, saying on Friday the Illinois senator is "recklessly dishonest."The most recent dustup comes after Obama criticized McCain earlier Friday for comments the Arizona senator made in an interview on Bloomberg Television."John McCain went on television and said that there has been quote "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years," Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. "John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, say we've made great progress?”The McCain campaign immediately took issue with the comment, noting the Arizona senator also said he knows families are facing "tremendous economic challenges."“American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday."The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."Obama has since dialed back from that characterization, saying Friday that McCain is "willing to potentially maintain the troop presence there for as long as 100 years."From: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander MooneyFiled under: Barack Obama • John McCainObama must be taking lessons from HILLARY

I don't want to pile on Obama over this, but does anybody else think it's weird that CNN didn't think to print McCain's full, in-context quote so that readers could judge for themselves whether Obama's characterization was accurate? That seems like a very basic journalism mistake.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

McCain camp calls Obama 'recklessly dishonest'Posted: 04:20 PM ET Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.(CNN) — John McCain's campaign is crying foul over what it characterizes as repeated distortions from Barack Obama, saying on Friday the Illinois senator is "recklessly dishonest."The most recent dustup comes after Obama criticized McCain earlier Friday for comments the Arizona senator made in an interview on Bloomberg Television."John McCain went on television and said that there has been quote "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years," Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. "John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, say we've made great progress?”The McCain campaign immediately took issue with the comment, noting the Arizona senator also said he knows families are facing "tremendous economic challenges."“American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday."The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."Obama has since dialed back from that characterization, saying Friday that McCain is "willing to potentially maintain the troop presence there for as long as 100 years."From: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander MooneyFiled under: Barack Obama • John McCainObama must be taking lessons from HILLARY

I don't want to pile on Obama over this, but does anybody else think it's weird that CNN didn't think to print McCain's full, in-context quote so that readers could judge for themselves whether Obama's characterization was accurate? That seems like a very basic journalism mistake.

But where's the sensationalism in that? One can't when you give all the pertinent information.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

McCain's Campaign sent out an email this morning tying Obama to Hamas:

McCain's deputy campaign manager, Christian Ferry, sent an email to donors today with the subject line: "Hamas Weighs In On U.S. Presidential Election." The email, which attacks Obama over his foreign policy stances, includes these paragraphs:

Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas

I'd just like to point out that Obama has condemned Hamas, said he would not have talks with any terrorist organization which included Hamas, and sharply criticized former President Carter for talking to Hamas.But that doesn't matter to the McCain camp. This isn't even "recklessly distorting" something Obama said. This is just a ridiculous and dishonest political attack. But it's ok because McCain is going to run a clean campaign built on respect for his opponent. Yeah, right.

That is one thing Obama did right. To bad he won't use his own criteria for himself when it comes to meeting with terrorists.

The FFToday shortbus is calling... dont forget your helmet.

 

[Poppa]

McCain puts it out there himself. "You could make the argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time".

He does so with a purpose of influencing people, to that very ideal, that he is speaking to.

Next time he shouldn't espouse the ideal on one hand - and then try and make nice with the voters who know its bullpucky on the other hand.

This could be fun. Let me try it."I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ..." -- Barack Obama

"...I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- Barack Obama

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..." -- Barack Obama

I don't get it. Anything wrong with any of these statements...? Blow, maybe...but Dubya already blew through that barrier.

 

[skol asylum]

McCain's Campaign sent out an email this morning tying Obama to Hamas:

McCain's deputy campaign manager, Christian Ferry, sent an email to donors today with the subject line: "Hamas Weighs In On U.S. Presidential Election." The email, which attacks Obama over his foreign policy stances, includes these paragraphs:

Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas

I'd just like to point out that Obama has condemned Hamas, said he would not have talks with any terrorist organization which included Hamas, and sharply criticized former President Carter for talking to Hamas.But that doesn't matter to the McCain camp. This isn't even "recklessly distorting" something Obama said. This is just a ridiculous and dishonest political attack. But it's ok because McCain is going to run a clean campaign built on respect for his opponent. Yeah, right.

Assuming that quote is accurate, then I don't see what's dishonest about this particular attack. Hamas likes Obama. Some voters might find that interesting, so McCain is pointing it out. I fail to see the problem here.

OK, so the Obama campaign should run ads of Reverend Hagee (who likes John McCain) spouting off about the Catholic Church being a whore religion or whatever. That's fair as well right?

 

[remote controller]

McCain's Campaign sent out an email this morning tying Obama to Hamas:

McCain's deputy campaign manager, Christian Ferry, sent an email to donors today with the subject line: "Hamas Weighs In On U.S. Presidential Election." The email, which attacks Obama over his foreign policy stances, includes these paragraphs:

Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas

I'd just like to point out that Obama has condemned Hamas, said he would not have talks with any terrorist organization which included Hamas, and sharply criticized former President Carter for talking to Hamas.But that doesn't matter to the McCain camp. This isn't even "recklessly distorting" something Obama said. This is just a ridiculous and dishonest political attack. But it's ok because McCain is going to run a clean campaign built on respect for his opponent. Yeah, right.

Assuming that quote is accurate, then I don't see what's dishonest about this particular attack. Hamas likes Obama. Some voters might find that interesting, so McCain is pointing it out. I fail to see the problem here.

OK, so the Obama campaign should run ads of Reverend Hagee (who likes John McCain) spouting off about the Catholic Church being a whore religion or whatever. That's fair as well right?

It would be extremely fair to play anything Hagee said in his Church, IF McCain had attended it for 20 years. This shouldn't be this hard to figure out.

 

[Orange Crush]

Assuming that quote is accurate, then I don't see what's dishonest about this particular attack. Hamas likes Obama. Some voters might find that interesting, so McCain is pointing it out. I fail to see the problem here.

OK, so the Obama campaign should run ads of Reverend Hagee (who likes John McCain) spouting off about the Catholic Church being a whore religion or whatever. That's fair as well right?

It would be extremely fair to play anything Hagee said in his Church, IF McCain had attended it for 20 years. This shouldn't be this hard to figure out.

So McCain actively seeking out Hagee's endorsement does not meet your standard because McCain wasn't an attendee in Hagee's church for 20 years. But a quote by a guy who Obama doesn't know, doesn't want to talk to, and will actively work against, can be used against Obama.I think that reasoning is flaVVed.

 

[gocolts]

Assuming that quote is accurate, then I don't see what's dishonest about this particular attack. Hamas likes Obama. Some voters might find that interesting, so McCain is pointing it out. I fail to see the problem here.

OK, so the Obama campaign should run ads of Reverend Hagee (who likes John McCain) spouting off about the Catholic Church being a whore religion or whatever. That's fair as well right?

It would be extremely fair to play anything Hagee said in his Church, IF McCain had attended it for 20 years. This shouldn't be this hard to figure out.

So McCain actively seeking out Hagee's endorsement does not meet your standard because McCain wasn't an attendee in Hagee's church for 20 years. But a quote by a guy who Obama doesn't know, doesn't want to talk to, and will actively work against, can be used against Obama.I think that reasoning is flaVVed.

Well, that's the problem right there. Your reasoning could use some help if you can not see the difference. Of coarse you can see the difference, you are just trying to justify Obama's obvious major character issues.

 

[gocolts]

McCain puts it out there himself. "You could make the argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time".

He does so with a purpose of influencing people, to that very ideal, that he is speaking to.

Next time he shouldn't espouse the ideal on one hand - and then try and make nice with the voters who know its bullpucky on the other hand.

This could be fun. Let me try it."I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ..." -- Barack Obama

"...I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- Barack Obama

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..." -- Barack Obama

I don't get it. Anything wrong with any of these statements...? Blow, maybe...but Dubya already blew through that barrier.

Oh I don't know, maybe the fact that he considers a baby punishment. Or the fact that the only time he brings up the white side of his family is so he can throw them under the bus for political gain. Apparently Obama will do anything to win this, including throwing his own grandma under the bus in an attempt to get some votes. It has backfired on him though. I am sure he lost more than he gained with these ridiculous comments.

 

[Orange Crush]

Assuming that quote is accurate, then I don't see what's dishonest about this particular attack. Hamas likes Obama. Some voters might find that interesting, so McCain is pointing it out. I fail to see the problem here.

OK, so the Obama campaign should run ads of Reverend Hagee (who likes John McCain) spouting off about the Catholic Church being a whore religion or whatever. That's fair as well right?

It would be extremely fair to play anything Hagee said in his Church, IF McCain had attended it for 20 years. This shouldn't be this hard to figure out.

So McCain actively seeking out Hagee's endorsement does not meet your standard because McCain wasn't an attendee in Hagee's church for 20 years. But a quote by a guy who Obama doesn't know, doesn't want to talk to, and will actively work against, can be used against Obama.I think that reasoning is flaVVed.

Well, that's the problem right there. Your reasoning could use some help if you can not see the difference. Of coarse you can see the difference, you are just trying to justify Obama's obvious major character issues.

Of course I can see the difference. It just works the opposite way that you think it should work.Some idiot nutjob says he likes Obama. You say "Scream it from the heavens! This obviously shows Obama's character problem!"

McCain actively pursues some idiot nutjob, stands up on the same stage with him and thankfully accepts the idiot nutjob's support. You say "Move along. Nothing to see here."