*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (4 Viewers)

[timschochet]

I believe with regards to Obama's plan, my concerns outweigh the positives you are predicting

I went back and looked, but I'm still not seeing anything but you stating repeatedly that you believe this. The question is why do you believe this? Not Ayn Rand fictional prose, what specific reasons, data, economic models, history, hypothesis support your beliefs? Without knowing this it's impossible to have the kind of discussion you want.

OK Gr00vus, my concerns are more general ones regarding any impetus on free trade. But I don't want to throw more free market rhetoric at you. I'm sure you've heard the more simplistic arguments a plenty- you want to know why specifically I believe that closing tax loopholes on companies that ship jobs overseas would be a bad thing. I'd have to research it to give you the detailed answer you're looking for, and I will. In the words of my least favorite vice-presidential candidate ever, "I'll get back to ya!"In the meantime, the short answer is that my fear is those companies will (a) pass the extra cost along to the consumer (b) slow down the growth of their business © simply decide to move overseas lock, stock, and barrell. The outcome you and Obama are apparently hoping for, that they will decide to keep jobs in the United States rather than elsewhere, is I believe less likely than the other three alternatives. The cost of doing business disparity between workers here and overseas is too wide, and no tax credit (or lack of one) can make up the difference. That is my assumption; if I have the time, I will look for evidence to back it up. In the meantime, if you have evidence that closing these loopholes will conclusively result in more jobs here on a permanent basis and will not hurt our economy, please present it and I willing to examine it. If it's decisive, I am always willing to change my mind.

 

[Neofight]

I believe with regards to Obama's plan, my concerns outweigh the positives you are predicting

I went back and looked, but I'm still not seeing anything but you stating repeatedly that you believe this. The question is why do you believe this? Not Ayn Rand fictional prose, what specific reasons, data, economic models, history, hypothesis support your beliefs? Without knowing this it's impossible to have the kind of discussion you want.

OK Gr00vus, my concerns are more general ones regarding any impetus on free trade. But I don't want to throw more free market rhetoric at you. I'm sure you've heard the more simplistic arguments a plenty- you want to know why specifically I believe that closing tax loopholes on companies that ship jobs overseas would be a bad thing. I'd have to research it to give you the detailed answer you're looking for, and I will. In the words of my least favorite vice-presidential candidate ever, "I'll get back to ya!"In the meantime, the short answer is that my fear is those companies will (a) pass the extra cost along to the consumer (b) slow down the growth of their business © simply decide to move overseas lock, stock, and barrell. The outcome you and Obama are apparently hoping for, that they will decide to keep jobs in the United States rather than elsewhere, is I believe less likely than the other three alternatives. The cost of doing business disparity between workers here and overseas is too wide, and no tax credit (or lack of one) can make up the difference. That is my assumption; if I have the time, I will look for evidence to back it up. In the meantime, if you have evidence that closing these loopholes will conclusively result in more jobs here on a permanent basis and will not hurt our economy, please present it and I willing to examine it. If it's decisive, I am always willing to change my mind.

Tim, let us know what you think about the Hedges article I linked to above. I'd be interested to hear your take.

 

[Sammy3469]

With regard to the estate tax argument, I pay special attention to these few lines from the speech I posted above:

Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

Sorry, but it's not class warfare to ask that people contribute to the country in proportion to how much they have benefitted from the opportunities it has created for them. It's not punishing success or unfarily burdening the wealthy, it is simply ensuring that those same opportunities will continue to exist for the children of the wealthy and poor alike.

1. Do you believe these people don't contribute? Productive people create all the wealth there is in this country. Without that wealth, there would be none of these opportunities you speak of. 2. When you say "in proportion": If a man earning $100,000 pays $20,000 in taxes, then why shouldn't a man earning one million dollars pay $200,000? Why should, according to progressive taxation, he be forced to pay $300,000 or $400,000? How is that "in proportion"? Answer: it's not. It's punishing the successful based on the amount of their success. It's class warfare.

I want to ensure these same opportunities to exist for my children as well. The best way to do that is to LEAVE THE RICH ALONE.

the big fallacy in all this is that we're somehow in a free market economy where the rich are punished for screwing-up. As the Wall Street ball-out just showed that just isn't the case. These guys just basically looted god knows how many billions from shareholders (and the American people) because basically they could since the system was rigged in their favor and now you're basically saying they should be able to hang onto that wealth forever because they were "productive" for a year. Really I'm

Speaking of free markets, a thought-provoking piece was posted by Chris Hedges yesterday @ Truthdig. A choice passage, which I would tend to agree with (but read the whole thing):

Our elites—the ones in Congress, the ones on Wall Street and the ones being produced at prestigious universities and business schools—do not have the capacity to fix our financial mess. Indeed, they will make it worse. They have no concept, thanks to the educations they have received, of the common good. They are stunted, timid and uncreative bureaucrats who are trained to carry out systems management. They see only piecemeal solutions which will satisfy the corporate structure. They are about numbers, profits and personal advancement. They are as able to deny gravely ill people medical coverage to increase company profits as they are able to use taxpayer dollars to peddle costly weapons systems to blood-soaked dictatorships. The human consequences never figure into their balance sheets. The democratic system, they think, is a secondary product of the free market. And they slavishly serve the market.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200810...o_rule_america/

Well I don't agree with most of that...needless to say though that I think one of the biggest problems facing America going forward is the fact that corporate goverance in all shape and manner has basically been non-existent as Board of Directors of corporations have basically been in bed with managements to basically to pay each group exhorbinant salaries. There's nothing capitalistic or "free market" about how these guys are choosen or paid.

 

[Orange Crush]

More encouraging anecdotes about the early vote, and McCain's apparent lack of a ground game. This does not bode well as his camp talks about pulling up stakes in NM, CO, IA & VA. The movement we've seen in the national polls is flattening out and the rest is money, momentum and GOTV. McCain doesn't have an advantage in any of these areas.

Nebraska early vote

Chuck Todd confirms McCain has no ground game

He can't pull out of both CO and VA can he? How does he get to 270 without CO and VA?

With Pennsylvania and Nevada (and Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina).

 

[Neofight]

More encouraging anecdotes about the early vote, and McCain's apparent lack of a ground game. This does not bode well as his camp talks about pulling up stakes in NM, CO, IA & VA. The movement we've seen in the national polls is flattening out and the rest is money, momentum and GOTV. McCain doesn't have an advantage in any of these areas.

Nebraska early vote

Chuck Todd confirms McCain has no ground game

He can't pull out of both CO and VA can he? How does he get to 270 without CO and VA?

With Pennsylvania and Nevada (and Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina).

Unfortunately he's pretty much done in PA too, and briefly considered pulling out of that state. Not looking good on the map for John right now.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

More encouraging anecdotes about the early vote, and McCain's apparent lack of a ground game. This does not bode well as his camp talks about pulling up stakes in NM, CO, IA & VA. The movement we've seen in the national polls is flattening out and the rest is money, momentum and GOTV. McCain doesn't have an advantage in any of these areas.

Nebraska early vote

Chuck Todd confirms McCain has no ground game

He can't pull out of both CO and VA can he? How does he get to 270 without CO and VA?

With Pennsylvania and Nevada (and Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina).

Unfortunately he's pretty much done in PA too, and briefly considered pulling out of that state. Not looking good on the map for John right now.

The latest wisdom is he's actually going to go into a full court press in Pennsylvania as his lats stand state

Doesn't look great in PA polling though:

RCP Average	10/11 - 10/20	--	--	51.7	40.7	Obama +11.0Morning Call	10/16 - 10/20	600 LV	4.0	52	42	Obama +10Susquehanna	10/16 - 10/18	700 LV	3.7	48	40	Obama +8SurveyUSA	10/11 - 10/13	516 LV	4.4	55	40	Obama +15

 

[fluorescent walkway]

Some heartening national polls up at RCP now.

 

[Neofight]

More encouraging anecdotes about the early vote, and McCain's apparent lack of a ground game. This does not bode well as his camp talks about pulling up stakes in NM, CO, IA & VA. The movement we've seen in the national polls is flattening out and the rest is money, momentum and GOTV. McCain doesn't have an advantage in any of these areas.

Nebraska early vote

Chuck Todd confirms McCain has no ground game

He can't pull out of both CO and VA can he? How does he get to 270 without CO and VA?

With Pennsylvania and Nevada (and Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina).

Unfortunately he's pretty much done in PA too, and briefly considered pulling out of that state. Not looking good on the map for John right now.

The latest wisdom is he's actually going to go into a full court press in Pennsylvania as his lats stand state

Doesn't look great in PA polling though:

RCP Average	10/11 - 10/20	--	--	51.7	40.7	Obama +11.0Morning Call	10/16 - 10/20	600 LV	4.0	52	42	Obama +10Susquehanna	10/16 - 10/18	700 LV	3.7	48	40	Obama +8SurveyUSA	10/11 - 10/13	516 LV	4.4	55	40	Obama +15

Yes, I agree that this is the current plan; to hole up in PA, OH and FL and see where else they can win. But this just points to the disarray the campaign is in after having talked about pulling out of PA just last week. I think they see the writing on the wall and are making the last ditch efforts. Probably will take OH but lose FL is what Todd thinks. Can't see how the win in PA at this point. We'll see...

 

[timschochet]

As a followup to the above explanation, let me give the following scenario. Remember, I am no economist, and this comes off the top of my head, so if I'm wrong, let me know:

Let's say I own a shirt company. I make a good brand of shirts, and I sell them to clothing stores all throughout the country. I can't compete with the big boys in my industry, and i don't try, so long as I have my own niche. In the past, I've paid minimum wage for my laborers. But now all of my competitors are manufacturing their shirts overseas, and paying their employees $1.00 an hour. This allows them to keep their product way lower priced than mine, so I can't compete. The only way I can compete is to do the same as they're doing- otherwise, why would consumers buy my product? So I save my money and prepare for an investment of a new factory overseas. I'll have to let go some of my American employees for now, but perhaps the new factory will allow me to increase my output and market share, and I'll actually in the long run be able to hire more Americans at better salaries.

But whoops, along comes President Obama, and suddenly the tax loophole that everyone gets, and which I calculated in as part of my business plan is removed. I can no longer afford to build that factory overseas; if I do, the extra taxes won't be worth it for me to do so. My competitors are much larger than me; they simply absorb the new taxes, pass a few on to the consumer, and go on shipping jobs overseas. I can't afford to do that. I'm forced to keep paying American wages, and now my prices are just way too high to compete in the marketplace. Within six months, I'm closed up, out of business. But the big boys remain. Pretty soon the entire shirt industry is completely owned by 1 or 2 monolithic companies; small fry like me are gone forever. And Obama is chagrined: not only are the jobs not staying here, but with all the smaller companies closing down, the tax revenue is actually decreasing. He has no choice but to go back on his word and tax the middle class more.

 

[Sammy3469]

As a followup to the above explanation, let me give the following scenario. Remember, I am no economist, and this comes off the top of my head, so if I'm wrong, let me know:Let's say I own a shirt company. I make a good brand of shirts, and I sell them to clothing stores all throughout the country. I can't compete with the big boys in my industry, and i don't try, so long as I have my own niche. In the past, I've paid minimum wage for my laborers. But now all of my competitors are manufacturing their shirts overseas, and paying their employees $1.00 an hour. This allows them to keep their product way lower priced than mine, so I can't compete. The only way I can compete is to do the same as they're doing- otherwise, why would consumers buy my product? So I save my money and prepare for an investment of a new factory overseas. I'll have to let go some of my American employees for now, but perhaps the new factory will allow me to increase my output and market share, and I'll actually in the long run be able to hire more Americans at better salaries.But whoops, along comes President Obama, and suddenly the tax loophole that everyone gets, and which I calculated in as part of my business plan is removed. I can no longer afford to build that factory overseas; if I do, the extra taxes won't be worth it for me to do so. My competitors are much larger than me; they simply absorb the new taxes, pass a few on to the consumer, and go on shipping jobs overseas. I can't afford to do that. I'm forced to keep paying American wages, and now my prices are just way too high to compete in the marketplace. Within six months, I'm closed up, out of business. But the big boys remain. Pretty soon the entire shirt industry is completely owned by 1 or 2 monolithic companies; small fry like me are gone forever. And Obama is chagrined: not only are the jobs not staying here, but with all the smaller companies closing down, the tax revenue is actually decreasing. He has no choice but to go back on his word and tax the middle class more.

If we are truly a free market (which you're espousing) and capital flows to the most productive (ie those enterprises with the highest rate of return) then this small business owner would be able to obtain the capital needed to be competitive.

 

[Gr00vus]

The cost of doing business disparity between workers here and overseas is too wide, and no tax credit (or lack of one) can make up the difference.

You're right, tax policy has little to no bearing on why labor is cheaper in places other than the U.S. It's cheaper because those countries have little to no provisions supporting minimal working conditions, health care, salary, environmental impact and sometimes even human rights. An extra 3% tax either way isn't going to change that - the companies that operate in the U.S. will continue to do so, and prices will be set on what the market will bear, not on what their marginal tax rate is. What will be different under Obama is that those who benefit from all the rewards of operating in the U.S. will have to chip in a bit more if they want to move wealth generating jobs and facilities somewhere else. Otherwise they're skimming off the top of an environment in which their profits are being supported at the expense of all the other U.S. citizens' taxes with less opportunities for those same citizens to have jobs to pay those taxes.

 

[timschochet]

As a followup to the above explanation, let me give the following scenario. Remember, I am no economist, and this comes off the top of my head, so if I'm wrong, let me know:Let's say I own a shirt company. I make a good brand of shirts, and I sell them to clothing stores all throughout the country. I can't compete with the big boys in my industry, and i don't try, so long as I have my own niche. In the past, I've paid minimum wage for my laborers. But now all of my competitors are manufacturing their shirts overseas, and paying their employees $1.00 an hour. This allows them to keep their product way lower priced than mine, so I can't compete. The only way I can compete is to do the same as they're doing- otherwise, why would consumers buy my product? So I save my money and prepare for an investment of a new factory overseas. I'll have to let go some of my American employees for now, but perhaps the new factory will allow me to increase my output and market share, and I'll actually in the long run be able to hire more Americans at better salaries.But whoops, along comes President Obama, and suddenly the tax loophole that everyone gets, and which I calculated in as part of my business plan is removed. I can no longer afford to build that factory overseas; if I do, the extra taxes won't be worth it for me to do so. My competitors are much larger than me; they simply absorb the new taxes, pass a few on to the consumer, and go on shipping jobs overseas. I can't afford to do that. I'm forced to keep paying American wages, and now my prices are just way too high to compete in the marketplace. Within six months, I'm closed up, out of business. But the big boys remain. Pretty soon the entire shirt industry is completely owned by 1 or 2 monolithic companies; small fry like me are gone forever. And Obama is chagrined: not only are the jobs not staying here, but with all the smaller companies closing down, the tax revenue is actually decreasing. He has no choice but to go back on his word and tax the middle class more.

If we are truly a free market (which you're espousing) and capital flows to the most productive (ie those enterprises with the highest rate of return) then this small business owner would be able to obtain the capital needed to be competitive.

Not if closing of tax loopholes prevents him from new investment. Not if the new Obama tax plan for any company that makes $250k net (as this guy certainly does) makes it more difficult to compete with the really big boys who can absorb all of these extra charges. This guy will be out of business in no time.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

As a followup to the above explanation, let me give the following scenario. Remember, I am no economist, and this comes off the top of my head, so if I'm wrong, let me know:Let's say I own a shirt company. I make a good brand of shirts, and I sell them to clothing stores all throughout the country. I can't compete with the big boys in my industry, and i don't try, so long as I have my own niche. In the past, I've paid minimum wage for my laborers. But now all of my competitors are manufacturing their shirts overseas, and paying their employees $1.00 an hour. This allows them to keep their product way lower priced than mine, so I can't compete. The only way I can compete is to do the same as they're doing- otherwise, why would consumers buy my product? So I save my money and prepare for an investment of a new factory overseas. I'll have to let go some of my American employees for now, but perhaps the new factory will allow me to increase my output and market share, and I'll actually in the long run be able to hire more Americans at better salaries.But whoops, along comes President Obama, and suddenly the tax loophole that everyone gets, and which I calculated in as part of my business plan is removed. I can no longer afford to build that factory overseas; if I do, the extra taxes won't be worth it for me to do so. My competitors are much larger than me; they simply absorb the new taxes, pass a few on to the consumer, and go on shipping jobs overseas. I can't afford to do that. I'm forced to keep paying American wages, and now my prices are just way too high to compete in the marketplace. Within six months, I'm closed up, out of business. But the big boys remain. Pretty soon the entire shirt industry is completely owned by 1 or 2 monolithic companies; small fry like me are gone forever. And Obama is chagrined: not only are the jobs not staying here, but with all the smaller companies closing down, the tax revenue is actually decreasing. He has no choice but to go back on his word and tax the middle class more.

If we are truly a free market (which you're espousing) and capital flows to the most productive (ie those enterprises with the highest rate of return) then this small business owner would be able to obtain the capital needed to be competitive.

Not if closing of tax loopholes prevents him from new investment. Not if the new Obama tax plan for any company that makes $250k net (as this guy certainly does) makes it more difficult to compete with the really big boys who can absorb all of these extra charges. This guy will be out of business in no time.

I must have missed the part of free market economics that included tax loopholes

 

[timschochet]

The cost of doing business disparity between workers here and overseas is too wide, and no tax credit (or lack of one) can make up the difference.

You're right, tax policy has little to no bearing on why labor is cheaper in places other than the U.S. It's cheaper because those countries have little to no provisions supporting minimal working conditions, health care, salary, environmental impact and sometimes even human rights. An extra 3% tax either way isn't going to change that - the companies that operate in the U.S. will continue to do so, and prices will be set on what the market will bear, not on what their marginal tax rate is. What will be different under Obama is that those who benefit from all the rewards of operating in the U.S. will have to chip in a bit more if they want to move wealth generating jobs and facilities somewhere else. Otherwise they're skimming off the top of an environment in which their profits are being supported at the expense of all the other U.S. citizens' taxes with less opportunities for those same citizens to have jobs to pay those taxes.

But if they pass the price of doing business off to the consumers, who is going to really be "chipping in"? Us, that's who. And in the meantime, the smaller businesses like the one I described above will be destroyed.You cannot perform social engineering with taxation. It simply will not work; it has never worked. I urge Obama: leave the free market alone.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

The cost of doing business disparity between workers here and overseas is too wide, and no tax credit (or lack of one) can make up the difference.

You're right, tax policy has little to no bearing on why labor is cheaper in places other than the U.S. It's cheaper because those countries have little to no provisions supporting minimal working conditions, health care, salary, environmental impact and sometimes even human rights. An extra 3% tax either way isn't going to change that - the companies that operate in the U.S. will continue to do so, and prices will be set on what the market will bear, not on what their marginal tax rate is. What will be different under Obama is that those who benefit from all the rewards of operating in the U.S. will have to chip in a bit more if they want to move wealth generating jobs and facilities somewhere else. Otherwise they're skimming off the top of an environment in which their profits are being supported at the expense of all the other U.S. citizens' taxes with less opportunities for those same citizens to have jobs to pay those taxes.

But if they pass the price of doing business off to the consumers, who is going to really be "chipping in"? Us, that's who. And in the meantime, the smaller businesses like the one I described above will be destroyed.You cannot perform social engineering with taxation. It simply will not work; it has never worked. I urge Obama: leave the free market alone.

It's about as far from a free market as it's ever been

 

[timschochet]

I must have missed the part of free market economics that included tax loopholes

I must have missed the part of free market economics that included taxes.

 

[fluorescent walkway]

From Charlie Cook

In Endgame, Metrics Are Adding Up For Obama

It Ain't Over Till It's Over, But Several Key Factors Don't Look Good For McCain

by Charlie Cook

Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2008

One of the most unsettling aspects of this campaign is that for an election cycle so turbulent, with so many surprising twists and turns, over the last few days it suddenly has had the feel of concrete setting. Just seven or eight weeks ago, Sen. Barack Obama had a lead over Sen. John McCain, but it hardly seemed sure; we wondered, is this lead real, is it durable?

But today it seems very unlikely that the focal point of this election is going to shift away from the economy. And as long as the economy is the focal point, it's difficult to see how this gets any better for Republicans up or down the ballot. It's sobering to think of the magnitude an event would have to have to pull voters' minds off the economy, the credit markets that have seized up, the stock market that has been pummeled, the values of their 401(k) and other retirement plans that have plummeted. How can an election that was so volatile now suddenly seem to be so inevitable?

With Obama now outspending McCain routinely by margins of 3- and 4-to-1 in advertising in so many states, it's hard to see how the Arizonan's campaign can drive a message.

At this point it would be difficult to see Republican losses in the Senate and House to be fewer than seven and 20 respectively. A very challenging situation going into September turned into a meltdown last month, the most dire predictions for the GOP early on became the most likely outcome.

The metrics of this election argue strongly that this campaign is over, it's only the memory of many an election that seemed over but wasn't that is keeping us from closing the book mentally on this one. First, no candidate behind this far in the national polls, this late in the campaign has come back to win. Sure, we have seen come-from-behind victories, but they didn't come back this far this late.

Second, early voting has made comebacks harder and would tend to diminish the impact of the kind of late-breaking development that might save McCain's candidacy. With as many as one-third of voters likely to cast their ballot before Election Day, every day more are cast and the campaign is effectively over for them. The longer Obama has this kind of lead and the more votes are cast early, the more voters are out of the pool for McCain.

Third, considering that 89 percent of all voters who identified themselves as Democrats voted for John Kerry four years ago and 93 percent of Republicans cast their ballots for George W. Bush, the switch from parity between the parties to a 10-point Democratic advantage would seem to almost seal this outcome irrespective of the candidates fielded on each side. The unprecedented surges seen in Democratic party registrations in those states that require party affiliations confirm that.

Fourth, just look at the money and spending. With Obama now outspending McCain routinely by margins of 3- and 4-to-1 in advertising in so many states, it's hard to see how the Arizonan's campaign can drive a message. For a time, Obama was matching McCain one for one in negative advertising, then spending double or triple on top of that in positive advertising. Now Obama seems primarily doing positive ads, probably the right move given his lead going into this final stretch. Organizationally, it's hard to find any state where McCain is organized as well as President Bush was four years ago or Obama is today, a product of both money and enthusiasm.

Fifth, while many are talking about the so-called "Bradley effect," voters telling pollsters that they will vote for an African-American candidate when they won't, putting aside the question of whether it ever existed, it hasn't been seen in at least 15 years and the likely surge in turnout among African-American and young people seems sufficient to offset it anyway.

Finally there are the states. Obama is now leading in every state that Al Gore and John Kerry both won, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin, and he is ahead in Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico, the three states that went once but not twice for Democrats in 2000 and 2004. He is also ahead in Florida, Colorado and Virginia. If that weren't enough (and it is), he's running basically even in Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio, and even threatening in Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia.

As things are going now, this election would appear to be on a track to match Bill Clinton's 1992 5.6 percent margin over President George H.W. Bush, the question is whether it gets to Bush's 1988 7.7 percent win over Michael Dukakis or Clinton's 8.5 percent win over Robert Dole in 1996.

Maybe some cataclysmic event occurs in the next two weeks that changes the trajectory of this election, but to override these factors, it would have to be very, very big.

 

[timschochet]

The cost of doing business disparity between workers here and overseas is too wide, and no tax credit (or lack of one) can make up the difference.

You're right, tax policy has little to no bearing on why labor is cheaper in places other than the U.S. It's cheaper because those countries have little to no provisions supporting minimal working conditions, health care, salary, environmental impact and sometimes even human rights. An extra 3% tax either way isn't going to change that - the companies that operate in the U.S. will continue to do so, and prices will be set on what the market will bear, not on what their marginal tax rate is. What will be different under Obama is that those who benefit from all the rewards of operating in the U.S. will have to chip in a bit more if they want to move wealth generating jobs and facilities somewhere else. Otherwise they're skimming off the top of an environment in which their profits are being supported at the expense of all the other U.S. citizens' taxes with less opportunities for those same citizens to have jobs to pay those taxes.

But if they pass the price of doing business off to the consumers, who is going to really be "chipping in"? Us, that's who. And in the meantime, the smaller businesses like the one I described above will be destroyed.You cannot perform social engineering with taxation. It simply will not work; it has never worked. I urge Obama: leave the free market alone.

It's about as far from a free market as it's ever been

Unfortunately, this is true. But Obama wants to make it even less a free market, and I want to make it more so.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

I must have missed the part of free market economics that included tax loopholes

I must have missed the part of free market economics that included taxes.

So then why pretend that what we have is anything close to a free market?You're desperate pleadings to leave the free market alone would seem to be predicated on the free market existing in the 1st place, which it doesn't

 

[timschochet]

I must have missed the part of free market economics that included tax loopholes

I must have missed the part of free market economics that included taxes.

So then why pretend that what we have is anything close to a free market?You're desperate pleadings to leave the free market alone would seem to be predicated on the free market existing in the 1st place, which it doesn't

So long as we have free trade, we have the underpinnings of a free market economy. No amount of taxation will ever seriously derail the system, IMO, so long as the free flow of goods continues in and out of this country.BUT- if you start restricting free trade, imposing tarriffs, setting restrictive conditions, then you run the risk of really doing damage. What I'm hoping for is that Obama's rhetoric is just that, and when he becomes president, he'll think twice about doing this stuff. I like the man and I get the feeling he is the sort that reflects seriously upon the consequences before he takes an action. I hope so.

Anyhow, it's been a fun discussion, but I gotta go. I'll check in later.

 

[ren hoek]

Obama wants an African-American appointed if his Senate seat is vacated

JUST IMAGINE the furor if John McCain said he wanted a white person to fill his vacated Senate seat.

Seriously?That's a gossip column, the author refers to herself in the 3rd person, and provides no evidence for that claim, stating only that "Sneed hears"

This is pretty pathetic Stat

I'm not making the news, I'm just reporting it.

LIL' SMOKIES PIGS IN THE BLANKET one package Hillshire Farms Little Beef Smokies

cheese whiz

potato hot dog rolls (or regular hot dog buns)

little vegetable oil

Heat up small amount of vegetable oil and add package of the smokies. Fry sausages until they are dark.

On potato rolls add Cheese Whiz and microwave for 20 seconds.

Add 8-10 little smokies onto hot dog bun and cut in half or more.

Fast and delicious! Chase it with some RC Cola!

 

[Gr00vus]

The cost of doing business disparity between workers here and overseas is too wide, and no tax credit (or lack of one) can make up the difference.

You're right, tax policy has little to no bearing on why labor is cheaper in places other than the U.S. It's cheaper because those countries have little to no provisions supporting minimal working conditions, health care, salary, environmental impact and sometimes even human rights. An extra 3% tax either way isn't going to change that - the companies that operate in the U.S. will continue to do so, and prices will be set on what the market will bear, not on what their marginal tax rate is. What will be different under Obama is that those who benefit from all the rewards of operating in the U.S. will have to chip in a bit more if they want to move wealth generating jobs and facilities somewhere else. Otherwise they're skimming off the top of an environment in which their profits are being supported at the expense of all the other U.S. citizens' taxes with less opportunities for those same citizens to have jobs to pay those taxes.

But if they pass the price of doing business off to the consumers, who is going to really be "chipping in"? Us, that's who. And in the meantime, the smaller businesses like the one I described above will be destroyed.You cannot perform social engineering with taxation. It simply will not work; it has never worked. I urge Obama: leave the free market alone.

No-one's performing social engineering - they're simply trying to pay for the infrastructure business in the U.S. has benefited from, infrastructure we all pay for whether we buy products or not. Every job shipped overseas is wealth generation lost in the U.S. unless it's replaced by an equal or higher paying job in the U.S. That hasn't been happening the last 8 years. We've been replacing lost jobs with service sector jobs - generally lower paying jobs than the jobs lost. Additionally this policy of offshoring has killed small businesses all over the country who can't compete on cost with the corporate giants who benefit most from outsourcing, and replaced those lost jobs and businesses with positions at places like Wallmart. Plants are being located overseas - that's a huge loss of wealth generation potential in the U.S. On top of that we're shipping out jobs in technology that will result in an expertise and knowledge deficit in this country. It's been shown many, many times already in this thread and several others that Obama's policies are extremely friendly towards small businesses. I suggest you go back and read those again. Against all this you try to raise the unproven specter that the price of doing business will increase as a result of closing loopholes for abusers of offshoring and will be passed off to the customer, without admitting that if the price is too high for a population with fewer and lesser paying jobs there will be less demand to support higher prices in the first place.There's got to be some balance between the risk and reward experienced by workers and by corporations. The last eight years corporations have received almost all the reward with hardly any risk, and it's been the common middle class taxpayers who've had to bear the cost (risk), with little to no reward - especially now. That's not free market capitalism, it's corporate socialism, and it's time we got the pendulum to swing back a bit closer to even. That's what Obama is trying to do here, and not in any punitive way either, simply by adjusting tax incentives.

 

[Orange Crush]

As a followup to the above explanation, let me give the following scenario. Remember, I am no economist, and this comes off the top of my head, so if I'm wrong, let me know:Let's say I own a shirt company. I make a good brand of shirts, and I sell them to clothing stores all throughout the country. I can't compete with the big boys in my industry, and i don't try, so long as I have my own niche. In the past, I've paid minimum wage for my laborers. But now all of my competitors are manufacturing their shirts overseas, and paying their employees $1.00 an hour. This allows them to keep their product way lower priced than mine, so I can't compete. The only way I can compete is to do the same as they're doing- otherwise, why would consumers buy my product? So I save my money and prepare for an investment of a new factory overseas. I'll have to let go some of my American employees for now, but perhaps the new factory will allow me to increase my output and market share, and I'll actually in the long run be able to hire more Americans at better salaries.But whoops, along comes President Obama, and suddenly the tax loophole that everyone gets, and which I calculated in as part of my business plan is removed. I can no longer afford to build that factory overseas; if I do, the extra taxes won't be worth it for me to do so. My competitors are much larger than me; they simply absorb the new taxes, pass a few on to the consumer, and go on shipping jobs overseas. I can't afford to do that. I'm forced to keep paying American wages, and now my prices are just way too high to compete in the marketplace. Within six months, I'm closed up, out of business. But the big boys remain. Pretty soon the entire shirt industry is completely owned by 1 or 2 monolithic companies; small fry like me are gone forever. And Obama is chagrined: not only are the jobs not staying here, but with all the smaller companies closing down, the tax revenue is actually decreasing. He has no choice but to go back on his word and tax the middle class more.

First off, you chose a bad example as the textiles industry is long gone. The only "niche" that remains for small businesses that still do domestic production are high end designer items and rush to market specialty items that have a very short market (think Giants Super Bowl Champ t-shirts). Also, the outsourcing loopholes only apply to corporations, so this isn't a "Joe the Plumber" situation where an individual owns his own business and claims the profits of it as personal income. This is a separate corporate tax return.So let's say that since we're sports fans that your shirt company is of the second type, and you have decided that making the shirts overseas and then rushing them overnight to market via federal express is cost effective. Then Obama gets rid of the tax loopholes. That isn't going to help your company, because the tax loophole required you not to repatriate money earned overseas. You don't have any money earned overseas as your market is entirely in the U.S. So again let's change the scenario where it would impact a "U.S. small business" - let's say that you sell your shirts not just in the U.S. but also in some country with a lower corporate tax rate than the U.S., say Mexico. And you decide to set up your shirt factory in Mexico as well. The lower costs of setting up the factory in Mexico allows you to cut prices of your goods in the U.S. and still earn higher profits (or cut prices in order to remain competitive in your market), but as I said that's the same scenario as above. The profits you earn from the Mexico market needs to be kept in Mexico in order to avoid US tax rates, which is easy to do since it can be used to pay your employees and make improvements in your factory. Any profits left over sit there unproductively until you decide to expand your factory (if you ever do). This is done in order to avoid paying the US corporate tax rate, which is 8% higher than the Mexican corporate tax rate. Under the closing of the loophole, it doesn't matter where the profits are, since you are a US company you are taxed on those profits regardless. Therefore, you are free to bring them back into the US if that is the best place to put that money to use (say you want to pay out a dividend to your stockholders - and since you are a "small business", it's probably a closely held corporation, meaning you are its primary shareholder and rely on the paying of that dividend for your income).In the first scenario, that money was sitting offshore waiting for some use. You were probably planning on retiring one day to Mexico in order to never have to bring that money back into the U.S. In the second scenario, with Obama closing the tax loophole, you pay a slightly higher tax rate on that money, but get to use it now for your personal consumption.That's the extent of the effects on business decisions for closing that loophole. Now it's certainly possible that you might relocate your business entirely to Mexico in order to take entire advantage of the lower tax rate. But you'd also be giving up the advantages of being in the U.S. such as keeping your family here, your American employees here, their high skillset, access to a highly educated workforce for your home office jobs, etc.

 

[NCCommish]

Jesus christ I'm not reading all that.

It's Ayn Rand. If you have ever read anything by her you already know what it says. Never got the love she gets. Well from anyone who is out of high school anyway.

 

[Pooch]

Jesus christ I'm not reading all that.

It's Ayn Rand. If you have ever read anything by her you already know what it says. Never got the love she gets. Well from anyone who is out of high school anyway.

Atlas Shrugged was one of the most disappointing books I've ever read.

 

[NCCommish]

World's Most Popular Evangelist Dr. K.A. Paul Endorses Barack Obama For President

HOUSTON, Oct 22, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Dr. K.A. Paul, the man the New Republic magazine called the world's most popular Christian evangelist, today endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President of the U.S. Paul, born in India, is an American permanent resident living in Houston.

Dr. Paul, a long time spiritual advisor to many Republicans leaders and the world of big business, said there were three main reasons for his endorsement of Democrat Senator Obama.

"Number one, speaking from an evangelical perspective, the current administration, I believe, has delayed the second coming of Jesus. Since the Iraq war, missionaries have been forced out of many countries, their work unfinished. As it says in Matthew 24:14, "the gospel will be preached in the whole world." The Bush administration's Iraq war policy has been in direct contradiction to Matthew.

"Secondly, as I travel around the globe, it is apparent that America's image is at historic lows. Senator Obama can change this trend and help restore our country to where we are once again respected around the world.

"And my third reason is that four more years of Bush-like economics, which I believe Senator McCain represents, will turn our current crisis into a full blown economic disaster. Senator Obama can restore confidence and vibrancy to our economy." Dr. Paul's Global Peace Initiative is dedicated to saving orphans and widows around the world and in brokering peace, as he was credited with doing in Liberia among other countries.

ArticleI guess this is good. Although his first reason puts me off a bit. Well a whole lot and makes me question his reasoning in general but what the heck? Who doesn't enjoy a little Armageddon with their cereal?

This does set up quite the quandary for God though. He's in a no win situation here.

 

[Chaos Commish]

From a lefty blog. I thought it was funny.

THE MAN, BARACK

All right — where is the Al-Qaeda endorsement? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and the people vote, and we find out who is right and who is dead.

MCCAINZINI

But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of Al-Qaeda. Are they the sort of terrorists who would give a poison endorsement to their own preferred candidate, or their enemy’s?

[He studies THE MAN, BARACK now.]

MCCAINZINI

Now, a clever terrorist would give the endorsement to his own candidate, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I’m not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the endorsement in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the endorsement in front of me.

THE MAN, BARACK [with a trace of nervousness]

You’ve made your decision then?

MCCAINZINI

Not remotely. Because endorsements come from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the endorsement in front of you.

THE MAN, BARACK

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

MCCAINZINI

Wait till I get going! Where was I?

THE MAN, BARACK

Australia.

MCCAINZINI

Yes — Australia, and you must have suspected I would have known the endorsement’s origin, so I can clearly not choose the endorsement in front of me.

THE MAN, BARACK [very nervous]

You’re just stalling now.

MCCAINZINI [cackling]

You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you?

[stares at THE MAN, BARACK]

You’ve beaten my Plumber, which means you’re exceptionally un-######ed. So, al-Qaeda could have given the poison endorsement to your candidacy, trusting on your lack of ######ation to save you. So I can clearly not choose the endorsement in front of you. But you’ve also bested my Alaskan, which means you must have studied past the third grade. And in studying, you must have learned that man is mortal, so al-Qaeda would have put the poison endorsement as far from your candidacy as possible, so I can clearly not choose the endorsement in front of me.

[As MCCAINZINI's pleasure has been growing throughout, THE MAN, BARACK's has been fast disappearing.]

THE MAN, BARACK

You’re trying to trick me into giving away something — it won’t work –

MCCAINZINI [triumphant]

It has worked — you’ve given everything away — I know where the endorsement is!

THE MAN, BARACK [with fool's courage]

Then make your choice.

MCCAINZINI

I will. And I choose –

[And suddenly he stops, points at something behind THE MAN, BARACK.]

MCCAINZINI

What in the world can that be?

CUT TO:

[THE MAN, BARACK, turning around, looking.]

THE MAN, BARACK

What? Where? I don’t see anything.

CUT TO:

[MCCAINZINI, busily switching the endorsements while THE MAN, BARACK has his head turned.]

MCCAINZINI

Oh, well, I-I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.

[THE MAN, BARACK turns to face him again. MCCAINZINI starts to laugh.]

THE MAN, BARACK

What’s so funny?

MCCAINZINI

I’ll tell you in a minute. First, let’s read — me from my endorsement, and you from yours.

[He picks up his endorsement. THE MAN, BARACK picks up the one in front of him. As they both start to read, MCCAINZINI hesitates a moment. Then, allowing THE MAN, BARACK to go first, he reads his endorsement.]

THE MAN, BARACK

You guessed wrong.

MCCAINZINI [roaring with laughter]

You only think I guessed wrong –

[laughing louder now]

– that’s what’s so funny! I switched endorsements when your back was turned. You fool!

CUT TO:

[THE MAN, BARACK has nothing he can say. He just sits there.]

CUT TO:

[MCCAINZINI, watching him.]

MCCAINZINI

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is, ‘Never get involved in a land war in Iraq.’ But only slightly less well known is this: ‘Never go in against a Republican when power is on the line!’

[He laughs and roars and cackles and whoops and is in all ways quite cheery until his campaign falls over dead.]

[THE MAN, BARACK, steps past the corpse, taking the blindfold and bindings off AMERICUP, who notices MCCAINZINI lying dead. THE MAN, BARACK pulls her to her feet.]

AMERICUP

Who are you?

THE MAN, BARACK

I am no one to be trifled with, that is all you ever need know.

[He starts to lead her off the mountain path into untraveled terrain.]

AMERICUP [a final glance back toward MCCAINZINI]

To think — all that time it was your endorsement that was poisoned.

THE MAN, BARACK

They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to Republican .

But then I love that movie.

 

[Slappy White]

Why Barack Obama is Winning

Joe Klein's Time article.

 

[fluorescent walkway]

Very strong day of polling for Obama

 

[Fennis]

Very strong day of polling for Obama

 

[NCCommish]

Very strong day of polling for Obama

John McCain's chances of winning the election have dwindled to 3.7%, down from 6.5% yesterday

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Very strong day of polling for Obama

John McCain's chances of winning the election have dwindled to 3.7%, down from 6.5% yesterday

Right where we want em my friends!

 

[Slappy White]

Very strong day of polling for Obama

Those Big Ten polls are so far out of whack, though. I'm not trusting those.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Why Barack Obama is Winning

Joe Klein's Time article.

interesting article, particularly about his personal growth over the course of the campaign.You just get the feeling that he is a true leader. Someone who senses moments and how they need to be reacted to.

 

[Statorama]

Why Barak Obama is REALLY winning...Obamas official site facilitates donation fraud

update:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) today filed a supplement to its complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the Obama for America campaign addressing its acceptance of foreign national and excessive contributions, donations from unknown sources, and demonstrated lack of oversight or concern for compliance with the law. The complaint demonstrates that the Obama campaign has failed to comply with federal campaign finance law in its fundraising. RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross released the following statement today concerning the supplement to the complaint:

“Based on numerous press accounts that have come to light since our initial filing in early October, it is clear that the Obama for America campaign is operating outside of the law. The complete and total lack of any control mechanisms within the Obama campaign’s fundraising operation has undermined any confidence in their ability to curtail excessive, foreign, and fraudulent contributions and demands immediate attention from the Federal Election Commission (FEC).”

 

[FavreCo]

Former Bush stooge endorses Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081024/ap_en_tv/mcclellan_obama

I guess that's what happens when you are paraded out weekly and have to make a fool of yourself.

 

[dancingbones]

Why Barak Obama is REALLY winning...Obamas official site facilitates donation fraud

update:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) today filed a supplement to its complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the Obama for America campaign addressing its acceptance of foreign national and excessive contributions, donations from unknown sources, and demonstrated lack of oversight or concern for compliance with the law. The complaint demonstrates that the Obama campaign has failed to comply with federal campaign finance law in its fundraising. RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross released the following statement today concerning the supplement to the complaint:

“Based on numerous press accounts that have come to light since our initial filing in early October, it is clear that the Obama for America campaign is operating outside of the law. The complete and total lack of any control mechanisms within the Obama campaign’s fundraising operation has undermined any confidence in their ability to curtail excessive, foreign, and fraudulent contributions and demands immediate attention from the Federal Election Commission (FEC).”

Because the GOP keeps throwing out one accusation, personal attack, or whiny complaint after another instead of presenting voters with a coherent and compelling vision for our country's future?

 

[Statorama]

New York Times story about Obama's facilitation of donation fraud

Donor Patrol: Obama’s Online Site Accepts More Fakes

By Michael Luo

Erika Franzi, a 36-year-old mother of four, had been following recent news reports examining how people using obviously fake names had made thousands of dollars in contributions to Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign without being detected.

So this afternoon, sitting in her family room at her home in Weaverville, N.C., while her two-year-old was watching “Sesame Street,” Ms. Franzi got on her laptop to conduct an experiment. She used her debit card to make a $15 donation to Mr. Obama’s campaign.

Ms. Franzi, who described herself as conservative and preferring Senator John McCain over Mr. Obama, used the name “Della Ware” and entered an address of 12345 No Way in Far Far Away, DE 78954. Under employer, she listed: Americans Against Obama; for occupation, she typed in: Founder.

To her surprise, she said, her contribution went through in “fewer than three seconds.” Then, in order to be fair, she repeated the experiment on Mr. McCain’s Web site, entering the exact same information. Three times, she said, she received the message: “We have found errors in the information that you submitted. Please review the information below and try again.”

Ms. Franzi’s experiment would not necessarily be notable, except it appears that many others are doing the same thing. Power Line, a conservative political blog, reported a reader had successfully made donations under the names Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers. While those experiences could not be immediately verified, Ms. Franzi sent The Caucus a screenshot from her bank account that showed a contribution to Obama for America going through at 1:02 p.m.

 

[Statorama]

Investors Business Daily's take on Biden's comments

But there's another angle to this, based on what Biden the senator knows -- that Obama's defense policies, once it's obvious how they'll undermine us, are likely to be very, very unpopular. In this case, Biden may be calling on his party's hard, pacifist core -- Moveon.org, Code Pink and the like -- to stand by their man.

He'll need their support. Like Jimmy Carter in the 1970s, Obama's policies often sound good on the surface, but will in fact materially weaken America's ability to defend herself. That's not just our opinion, mind you; it's straight from the horse's mouth. [Watch Video]

"I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," Obama told the pacifist Caucus for Priorities last year. "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems."

 

[ElGatoLoco]

I must have missed the part of free market economics that included tax loopholes

I must have missed the part of free market economics that included taxes.

The free market is an idealized abstraction. In real markets we have taxes.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Jesus christ I'm not reading all that.

It's Ayn Rand. If you have ever read anything by her you already know what it says. Never got the love she gets. Well from anyone who is out of high school anyway.

 

[JZilla]

Former Bush stooge endorses Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081024/ap_en_tv/mcclellan_obama

I guess that's what happens when you are paraded out weekly and have to make a fool of yourself.

Guy's got zero credibility, Obama should say no thanks

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Very strong day of polling for Obama

Those Big Ten polls are so far out of whack, though. I'm not trusting those.

538 only puts a weight of 0.88 on those Big Ten polls from the looks of it.

 

[Orange Crush]

Obama May Win Montana

Two reasons why:

1) Obama is still targeting the state. He has a ground organization in place and continues to make ad buys.

2) Ron Paul is on the ballot in Montana.

A Montana State-Billings poll that came out yesterday put Ron Paul as an option in the questions and he got 4.2% of the vote. Obama beat McCain in the poll by 4.2%.

Montana!!!

 

[Smeagol]

If he wins Indiana (apparently he is now way up in that state) and Montana, Obama will pull in 375+ electoral votes.

Silly question, but how well are the 18-24 crowd represented in these poll numbers?

 

[adonis]

If he wins Indiana (apparently he is now way up in that state) and Montana, Obama will pull in 375+ electoral votes. Silly question, but how well are the 18-24 crowd represented in these poll numbers?

Too early to tell how well they're being polled. Many only have cell phones and have never voted before, which is a tough segment for pollsters to target. This election will likely change models for the pollsters based on the young people turnout.

 

[Statorama]

If he wins Indiana (apparently he is now way up in that state) and Montana, Obama will pull in 375+ electoral votes. Silly question, but how well are the 18-24 crowd represented in these poll numbers?

The actual voters, or the millions that were "registered" by ACORN?

 

[adonis]

If he wins Indiana (apparently he is now way up in that state) and Montana, Obama will pull in 375+ electoral votes. Silly question, but how well are the 18-24 crowd represented in these poll numbers?

The actual voters, or the millions that were "registered" by ACORN?

How many instances of actual fraudulent votes have taken place in the past few elections? I forget.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

If he wins Indiana (apparently he is now way up in that state) and Montana, Obama will pull in 375+ electoral votes. Silly question, but how well are the 18-24 crowd represented in these poll numbers?

Too early to tell how well they're being polled. Many only have cell phones and have never voted before, which is a tough segment for pollsters to target. This election will likely change models for the pollsters based on the young people turnout.

Plus in some likely voter models the 18-24 voters aren't considered that very much because of not having a past voting record.

 

[Smeagol]

If he wins Indiana (apparently he is now way up in that state) and Montana, Obama will pull in 375+ electoral votes. Silly question, but how well are the 18-24 crowd represented in these poll numbers?

Too early to tell how well they're being polled. Many only have cell phones and have never voted before, which is a tough segment for pollsters to target. This election will likely change models for the pollsters based on the young people turnout.

Plus in some likely voter models the 18-24 voters aren't considered that very much because of not having a past voting record.

If this is the case, then Obama will win the popular vote by a large margin.