Nati Ice Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?em"]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?em[/url] [quote][b][size=5]Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?[/size] [/b] [size=2]By ALAN S. BLINDER Published: August 30, 2008 [/size] CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics. Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson? Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,†by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November. [i]I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.[/i] The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats. [i]That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.[/i] Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. [i]But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.[/i] The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work. It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: [i]Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats[/i], thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980. The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution. The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.) The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income. The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent. The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy. Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions. [i]The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?[/i] [size=2]Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians[/size][/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bean Counter Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 "CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics." I stopped reading right there. The author certainly has a bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Tory Go! Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Bean Counter' post='695224' date='Sep 4 2008, 05:43 AM']"CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics." I stopped reading right there. The author certainly has a bias.[/quote] Really? Please elaborate. I was almost positive that Obama's plan will lower taxes primarily for the poor and middle class, and that McCain's will drastically cut taxes on the rich. I must be mistaken, though. Please show evidence to correct my foolish suggestion, Beanie Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='695295' date='Sep 4 2008, 10:58 AM']Really? Please elaborate. I was almost positive that Obama's plan will lower taxes primarily for the poor and middle class, and that McCain's will drastically cut taxes on the rich. I must be mistaken, though. Please show evidence to correct my foolish suggestion, Beanie Man.[/quote] Well, according to the following chart McCain is cutting taxes across the board. And, it is as a percentage of what they're paying now so those making more reflect a larger percentage reduction... McCain's net tax decrease across the board is at 2%, essentially $1195 less tax paid. Obama is cutting taxes from those making $225,000 or less with the largest (by far) go to those making less than $19,000. He's offsetting that with significant tax increases on those making approximately $600,000 and up. Obama's net tax decrease across the board is at .03%, essentially $195 less tax paid. So, one is increasing taxes on those financially more successful and reducing taxes on those that are not. The other is reducing taxes for all. [url="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hQFy9C-miC4/SJ748zAiMaI/AAAAAAAAEGc/rmBtaeREaaE/s1600-h/baracktax.gif"]McCain vs. Obama Tax Plan[/url] I kept the post impartial to this point... Look, Obama is Robin Hood... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='695303' date='Sep 4 2008, 10:11 AM']Well, according to the following chart McCain is cutting taxes across the board. And, it is as a percentage of what they're paying now so those making more reflect a larger percentage reduction... McCain's net tax decrease across the board is at 2%, essentially $1195 less tax paid. Obama is cutting taxes from those making $225,000 or less with the largest (by far) go to those making less than $19,000. He's offsetting that with significant tax increases on those making approximately $600,000 and up. Obama's net tax decrease across the board is at .03%, essentially $195 less tax paid. So, one is increasing taxes on those financially more successful and reducing taxes on those that are not. The other is reducing taxes for all. [url="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hQFy9C-miC4/SJ748zAiMaI/AAAAAAAAEGc/rmBtaeREaaE/s1600-h/baracktax.gif"]McCain vs. Obama Tax Plan[/url] I kept the post impartial to this point... Look, [color="#FF0000"]Obama is Robin Hood...[/color][/quote] Funny in the childrens books I read Robin hood was the hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='695335' date='Sep 4 2008, 12:55 PM']Funny in the childrens books I read Robin hood was the hero.[/quote] I used to watch Tom and Jerry too...but I have never tried to hit anyone with a cast iron frying pan.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='695338' date='Sep 4 2008, 11:58 AM']I used to watch Tom and Jerry too...but I have never tried to hit anyone with a cast iron frying pan.... [/quote] Well someone sure hit McCain upside the head with one, it's the only explination for some of his choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='695340' date='Sep 4 2008, 01:00 PM']Well someone sure hit McCain upside the head with one, it's the only explination for some of his choices. [/quote] touche' Maybe that explains the swollen gland.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='695346' date='Sep 4 2008, 12:09 PM'] touche' Maybe that explains the swollen gland....[/quote] Well played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bean Counter Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Gosh where have we heard the tax cuts for the rich mantra before? Couldn't be from the old anti-Reagan era playbook could it? If you want to appear to have some semblence of neutrality you might want to wait a few paragraphs before trotting out the old democrat playbook. Especially one that was trotted out repeatedley to defame the current president. [quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='695295' date='Sep 4 2008, 09:58 AM']Really? Please elaborate. I was almost positive that Obama's plan will lower taxes primarily for the poor and middle class, and that McCain's will drastically cut taxes on the rich. I must be mistaken, though. Please show evidence to correct my foolish suggestion, Beanie Man.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='695335' date='Sep 4 2008, 12:55 PM']Funny in the childrens books I read Robin hood was the hero.[/quote] So was Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny... guess what they all turned out to be fake. Hmmm... [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='695338' date='Sep 4 2008, 12:58 PM']I used to watch Tom and Jerry too...but I have never tried to hit anyone with a cast iron frying pan.... [/quote] That's pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='695385' date='Sep 4 2008, 01:56 PM']So was Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny... guess what they all turned out to be fake. Hmmm...[/quote] you kind of made my point here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='695386' date='Sep 4 2008, 02:57 PM']you kind of made my point here. [/quote] I equate Obama to Robin Hood (A)... your point is he's a hero from children's books... I point out that Santa Claus (, Tooth Fairy ©, and Easter Bunny (D) are all childhood heros to kids as well, and they're all fake... by transitive property if A = childhood hero and B, C, and D = childhood hero then A must equal B, C, and D... which means that if B, C, and D are also fake then so must be A... So, color me stupid Jamie. For the past 2 months, or better, I've been under the impression you were an Obama fan. Why are you attempting to make the point that he's a fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='695396' date='Sep 4 2008, 02:34 PM']I equate Obama to Robin Hood (A)... your point is he's a hero from children's books... I point out that Santa Claus (, Tooth Fairy ©, and Easter Bunny (D) are all childhood heros to kids as well, and they're all fake... by transitive property if A = childhood hero and B, C, and D = childhood hero then A must equal B, C, and D... which means that if B, C, and D are also fake then so must be A... So, color me stupid Jamie. For the past 2 months, or better, I've been under the impression you were an Obama fan. Why are you attempting to make the point that he's a fake? [/quote] I wasnt I was saying this robin hood stuff is a falicy, as in "robin hood ecnomics" and Im not an as big of an Obama fan as you think, I prefered my governer Mark Warner (shame he didnt run, however he is running for senate so...) and only will vote for Obama because of how seriously wrong McCain is on some of the issues that are facing us right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='695399' date='Sep 4 2008, 03:44 PM']I wasnt I was saying this [b]robin hood stuff is a falicy[/b], as in "robin hood ecnomics" and Im not an as big of an Obama fan as you think, I prefered my governer Mark Warner (shame he didnt run, however he is running for senate so...) and only will vote for Obama because of how seriously wrong McCain is on some of the issues that are facing us right now.[/quote] As in, you don't think Obama's tax plan is taxing the rich significantly more to offset the give back to the poorer? Surely that isn't what you mean? If you see it differently than that, please explain. It is what it is. Some will agree with it, others won't but to argue this very basic premise seems silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='695402' date='Sep 4 2008, 02:49 PM']As in, you don't think Obama's tax plan is taxing the rich significantly more to offset the give back to the poorer? Surely that isn't what you mean? If you see it differently than that, please explain. It is what it is. Some will agree with it, others won't but to argue this very basic premise seems silly.[/quote] I suppose those driving around in maybachs will have to make due. Its going to be a tough life they are going to have to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='695406' date='Sep 4 2008, 04:00 PM']I suppose those driving around in maybachs will have to make due. Its going to be a tough life they are going to have to live.[/quote] Like said, some will agree with it, others won't. That is a philosophical discussion. But to dispute the actual facts of his plan is quite difficult to do. He's taxing the rich at a higher rate than current so he can give the poorer more money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='695408' date='Sep 4 2008, 03:05 PM']Like said, some will agree with it, others won't. That is a philosophical discussion. But to dispute the actual facts of his plan is quite difficult to do. He's taxing the rich at a higher rate than current so he can give the poorer more money back.[/quote] good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='695408' date='Sep 4 2008, 09:05 PM']Like said, some will agree with it, others won't. That is a philosophical discussion. But to dispute the actual facts of his plan is quite difficult to do. He's taxing the rich at a higher rate than current so he can give the poorer more money back.[/quote] [quote name='Jamie_B' post='695409' date='Sep 4 2008, 09:06 PM']good[/quote] Yes, It's called a progressive tax structure. And if any gb.com junkies ever make 5 mil+ a year, I'll feel bad for them. OK, not that bad. But still, you get my point, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Can the President make changes to the tax code? What does this really matter? These are just suggestions to the public from the loudest possible voice, right? Can a President simply say "tax the rich 50%" and it happens? No ninjas here, I really don't know. Thanks yall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Tory Go! Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Bean Counter' post='695360' date='Sep 4 2008, 12:49 PM']Gosh where have we heard the tax cuts for the rich mantra before? Couldn't be from the old anti-Reagan era playbook could it? If you want to appear to have some semblence of neutrality you might want to wait a few paragraphs before trotting out the old democrat playbook. [b]Especially one that was trotted out repeatedley to defame the current president.[/b][/quote] Interesting...your response seems to imply that criticism for McCain's economic policy is absurd, because the same things were said about Bush, who then disproved his critics by being a resounding success, right? I wanted to make sure, because this is just unfathomable. Maybe you subscribe to the Phil Gramm school of thought - this economic downturn is just in my head; we are a nation of whiners, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='sois' post='695460' date='Sep 4 2008, 04:50 PM']Can the President make changes to the tax code? What does this really matter? These are just suggestions to the public from the loudest possible voice, right? Can a President simply say "tax the rich 50%" and it happens? No ninjas here, I really don't know. Thanks yall.[/quote] I believe that Congress would have to draw up a bill that represents the President's "plan", and then ratify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalsfansince68 Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='695396' date='Sep 4 2008, 02:34 PM'][color="#0000FF"]So, color me stupid.[/color][/quote] Consider it done! If Obama takes some money from the filthy rich that the republicans have created and gives it to the poor I will consider it completely justified. Phuck John McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 [quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='695466' date='Sep 4 2008, 05:11 PM']Interesting...your response seems to imply that [color="#FF0000"]criticism for McCain's economic policy is absurd[/color], because the same things were said about Bush, who then disproved his critics by being a resounding success, right? I wanted to make sure, because this is just unfathomable. Maybe you subscribe to the Phil Gramm school of thought - this economic downturn is just in my head; we are a nation of whiners, after all.[/quote] Not only is it not absurd, it is absoulutly needed otherwised were all fucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Football starts tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.