The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

[Primula Baggins]

Hal, it's great that you mention that people at the low end of the economic spectrum do need help from the government. And we need roads and bridges, definitely, all of us—you're absolutely right.

The problem is paying for it—paying for what we're already doing, I am not talking about pie in the sky here. We aren't. We're borrowing the money from our kids and grandkids.

Fiscal responsibility has two sides: spending responsibly, and being sure you have enough income to cover your expenses. The government is no different. Right now there is not enough money to pay for what the government is doing. And it isn't doing enough—just for an example, U.S. infrastructure:

The American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that $1.7 trillion is required merely to stabilize the condition of core infrastructure.

For roads and bridges alone:

The U.S. Department of Transportation currently estimates that there is a $461 billion backlog of needed road, highway, and bridge repair and improvements. The American Society of Civil Engineers, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials keep estimates on the loss to the economy from poor road conditions. For example, U.S. motorists spend at least $54 billion a year in repairs and operating costs because of poor road conditions.

Link

That's just one aspect of necessary government services that has been neglected for all these years. Where are we going to get the money to take care of it when we can't even pay for what we're doing now?

If I'm living off credit cards and my house is falling down around me, is that the time to decide I need less income? Would that be a responsible decision on my part?

[Ethel]

I am one who thinks a day is coming when arguments about whether it's fair to tax rich people at a higher rate than poor ones is going to seem pretty quaint. We are a nation deeply in debt: at the household level, but even more so at the national level. The day China decides to sit out a T-Bill auction will be the day we realize just how deeply in debt we are. Maybe that day will never come. I hope it won't, because I believe the consequences will be terrible, and not just in the US.

I am no economist, so I may be saying some stupid things here. I'm only talking about what I have observed with my own eyes. One of those things is: manufacturing creates wealth. Maybe there's something else that does, but I can't tell you what. It was working in Silicon Valley that taught me this, in a way I doubt an economics class ever could have. Manufacturing takes minerals and metals and plastic, and turns them into things that people really want, like iPods. Or fabric and latex and turns them into $100 running shoes.

Globalization has meant that there is much less manufacturing in the US than (say) thirty years ago. We sent manufacturing offshore for cheap labor. But it seems to me that's only the first step. The countries to which we subcontracted manufacturing grew wealthier as a result. China is now a very wealthy nation, although you wouldn't know it to look at how the people there live. The US owes China getting on for two trillion dollars. How long can this imbalance last?

The war in Iraq has cost about $800 billion so far. One estimate I've read is that it will ultimately cost about $3 trillion--and that's if we get out now. How will we pay for it? By continuing to borrow from the Chinese?

The aging of the Baby Boomers--and I am one--is a financial anvil hanging over our heads, and Medicare even more so. I just feel so strongly that we need to pull back a bit from foreign adventures and put our own fiscal house in order.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. The world is full of bad guys. If we're going to spend $3 trillion apiece getting rid of them, it will ruin us. I think that, sooner rather than later, it won't even be something to argue about. We simply won't be able to afford it.

So I support Obama, because I have hope that he will try to make some headway against the debt nightmare we face, and will try to avoid unnecessary foreign obligations. The idea of initiating yet another Middle East war with Iran horrifies me. I don't believe it would make us safer, and I know it would make us poorer.

I'd love to see universal health insurance, but I'm afraid the next president will have his (or her) hands full just trying to keep the economy from imploding. Today, the US is spending more on "defense" than every other nation in the world combined. We can do this because we are subsidized by China--a country where schoolrooms are not heated in winter, and much commerce is still conducted by donkey cart. How long can this continue?

[halplm]

That's just one aspect of necessary government services that has been neglected for all these years. Where are we going to get the money to take care of it when we can't even pay for what we're doing now?

If I'm living off credit cards and my house is falling down around me, is that the time to decide I need less income? Would that be a responsible decision on my part?

No, it would not. The problems we're discussing are not simple, obviously. Credit cards of course, have let lots of people live beyond their means, and they get used to it, and expect it to continue. People wanting that timeshare they never use, or boat they use once a year, to make them feel "more like" the wealthy people they envy, should probably use that money to fix their house, or reduce their debt.

The underlying truth is, that people do not trust those with more income/money than themselves. People are envious of the "rich" people, and would rather the government have the money than them. Since the VAST majority of people that vote, fall into this category, they would rather the government have the money, even if it's wasted. And since the government constantly claims to be helping more low income people rather than rich people, they perpetuate that mentality (I think we all would agree, government benefits rich people in almost all areas).

The problem with all of this, is that the "middle" or "upper-middle" class, pays a HUGE price for this. They make enough money to get into high tax brackets, but don't make enough money to benefit from all the tax breaks and government connections that the "truly rich" people benefit from.

So while lower taxes for the "rich" seems to benefit people that "hoard" money... it really benefits a MUCH larger group that simply live on what they earn, and deserve to keep as much as they earn just as much as anyone else.

I would, of course, argue for lower taxes for everyone across the board. I will never argue for more taxes on anyone.

[halplm]

Ethel, I think you are very correct. On one level, I find most all of the discussions about politics these days to be kind of silly, because the US is in serious financial trouble, no matter WHAT philosophy you go by.

One of the reasons I don't like Obama (or Clinton, or McCain), is that he promises everything, and the only way to pay for it all, is to tax everyone more, not just the "rich." Taxes, just like manufacturing, only provide more revenue on volume, and there just aren't enough "rich" people to provide it... unless you define "rich" as everyone over the poverty line...

[Ethel]

I would, of course, argue for lower taxes for everyone across the board. I will never argue for more taxes on anyone.

How do you think the Iraq war should be paid for then?

[halplm]

I think it should have been done much more efficiently, obviously, and Bush and company should have spent several fortunes less on everything else.

One reason I no longer associate myself with the Republican party is that I think they've completely abandoned the fiscal responsability that they were elected to have (I imagine this to be a common problem when you control the house, the senate, and the executive branch).

I think all the goals we should have had in Iraq, and even what we have now, could be paid for with fewer taxes, and more responsible spending.

[Ethel]

I think it should have been done much more efficiently, obviously, and Bush and company should have spent several fortunes less on everything else.

One reason I no longer associate myself with the Republican party is that I think they've completely abandoned the fiscal responsability that they were elected to have (I imagine this to be a common problem when you control the house, the senate, and the executive branch).

I think all the goals we should have had in Iraq, and even what we have now, could be paid for with fewer taxes, and more responsible spending.

That is no answer. You can't just say, "the world should be different." I mean, yeah, I'd like that too. Who wouldn't? But we are where we are. So, given where we are today, how should the Iraq war be paid for?

[halplm]

fewer taxes, more responsible spending... I thought I said that...

[Ethel]

fewer taxes, more responsible spending... I thought I said that...

And this would get rid of the Iraq war debt... how?

[halplm]

I'm not sure exactly what you want to hear. How are we going to pay for Social security? How are we going to pay for all the programs we're paying for now? How are we going to pay for all the programs the candidates want to impliment?

More... responsible... spending...

The lower taxes just helps the economy and ultimately results in more revenue for the government... as odd as that seems.

[Inanna]

hal, I think the issue is this - IF responsible spending had been done, if there had been no war (which is NOT responsible spending, IMO, but lets leave that aside), if baby boomers were not aging..... IF all these conditions did not exist and had been handled better BEFORE, then maybe less taxes, responsible spending would work.

Given the condition today, given the huge debt, I don't see how US is going to get out of the red without an increase in taxes.

I am one who thinks a day is coming when arguments about whether it's fair to tax rich people at a higher rate than poor ones is going to seem pretty quaint.

Interesting - I never knew about these arguments. In India we almost always take for granted that the rich have to be taxed higher than the poor. I think the difference is in the history of the two countries.

[Primula Baggins]

Please don't hear this through the filter of "she's a liberal," Hal, but the fact is that there are serious limits to how much more can be cut from government spending, especially when so much has been let slide for so long—the infrastructure, veterans' benefits. . . . Some can be cut, but not anywhere near what's needed. Look at how McCain backed away from his claim that he could find $100 billion in cuts by canceling earmarks. He was stymied by the fact that, first, earmarks don't add up to that amount, and, second, a lot of earmarks are not new spending but allocations of existing spending—in other words, if the earmark is eliminated, the money will still be spent, just elsewhere.

I, and probably you, and probably a lot of people here have been in the position of just not being able to squeeze out any more reductions in expenditures—no more blood from the stone. If we are locked into the costs of the Iraq war, as I think we are until it can be brought to a reasonable end, then there just isn't much more blood in that stone.

Extending the tax cuts, at this point, would be fiscal irresponsibility. The bill comes due. Someone has to pay it, and the only ones here are us.

[halplm]

There is a fundamental disagreement about how taxes actually affect government revenue.

The concept that more taxes = more revenue is intuitive, but that doesn't make it true. I don't have any links to provide, but the equally valid theory that fewer taxes, improving the economy, leads to improved revenue... is the more reasonable theory to me.

The moment you take money from people, and put it in government hands, the sooner it loses value due to waste. If money stays in the hands of people, and circulates in the economy, it increases in value, and thus, the government has higher revenues, even though it taxes at a reduced rate.

I've heard statistical data supporting both sides of such an argument. Given the extreme state of debt our government is in... I'd rather they reduce waste and spending to an extreme degree... lower taxes would force this to happen.

[Primula Baggins]

But we're already on a disastrous road with that, Hal.

And the tax cuts have significantly reduced government revenue.

Link

I have no doubt there is some waste to be found (aside from the war, which I think is all waste). But not nearly enough.

[halplm]

Please don't hear this through the filter of "she's a liberal," Hal, but the fact is that there are serious limits to how much more can be cut from government spending, especially when so much has been let slide for so long—the infrastructure, veterans' benefits. . . . Some can be cut, but not anywhere near what's needed. Look at how McCain backed away from his claim that he could find $100 billion in cuts by canceling earmarks. He was stymied by the fact that, first, earmarks don't add up to that amount, and, second, a lot of earmarks are not new spending but allocations of existing spending—in other words, if the earmark is eliminated, the money will still be spent, just elsewhere.

I, and probably you, and probably a lot of people here have been in the position of just not being able to squeeze out any more reductions in expenditures—no more blood from the stone. If we are locked into the costs of the Iraq war, as I think we are until it can be brought to a reasonable end, then there just isn't much more blood in that stone.

Extending the tax cuts, at this point, would be fiscal irresponsibility. The bill comes due. Someone has to pay it, and the only ones here are us.

respectfully, I would disagree. I think the Bush administration has been the least financially responsible admin since long before I was alive. I think spending could be cut in many many more ways than just earmarks.

sol quoted someone the other day about how democracies only last until the people realize they can vote themselves money out of the treasury ( or something like that)... I had never thought about it that way, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Until we get leaders that want to not only cut spending, but really rewrite government priorities entirely, we're going to be in serious trouble.

The Iraq war is costing too much, because we are taking on burdons we should not (for the Iraqi infrastructure, for example). However, the potential benefits for this, are unexplored... and they take time. In such a situation, the potential benefits, outweigh the cost at the moment.

For a very long time, I thought Bush was a fool for how Iraq was handled. I have no problem admiting this may still be the case. I would rather all US money was spent inside the US. However, of the options we have at this moment, it seems having Iraq stable and an ally, is worth the cost to make that happen.

That's really a separate issue than the overall budget. Other issues such as retiring baby boomers, and social security are a much bigger concern to me financially.

There's a bigger issue underlying those issues as well. There's a HUGE gap in the US between the class of workers that is managing everythin right now (baby boomers), and the class of workers that must take over everything when those boomers retire. We could be facing an economic collapse from sheer inabilty to manage our existing industry that isn't represented in ANY statistic or metric that is currently measured.

[halplm]

But we're already on a disastrous road with that, Hal.

And the tax cuts have significantly reduced government revenue.

Link

I have no doubt there is some waste to be found (aside from the war, which I think is all waste). But not nearly enough.

should I have time, I may try to absorb that document, but I'll take your word for it. I would hedge that concession with the fact that the economy is not JUST driven by tax levels. I'm not an economist, so I can't figure it all out... but then, most economists can't figure it all out either, so who knows.

Personally, I want the government to have less revenue... and spend only within its means. As I said, I've heard arguments for the effect taxes have on revenue on both sides.

[vison]

vison:

I would still like to know what your bizarre response to my post was all about. From my perspective, I made an entirely reasonable post ( which you are free to disagree with ) and in response you talk down to me, act like I don't know Obama isn't president yet, and imply I'm being hysterical.

If people want to ignore a post that is fine. But I really insist on having clarification if a remark is addressed to me, especially if it's insulting.

Oh, I'm sorry, Faramond, my thoughts and typing fingers were wandering and I lost track of where I was and who I was responding to. I guess my point was that everyone is freaking out about what the man MIGHT do and he's not even the official candidate yet. That's all.

I didn't mean to ignore you, and I certainly didn't mean to "talk down to you". You, of all people!!! Jeez. I wouldn't. I might be mean and sarcastic, but there's no one here on this forum I would ever talk down to and NEVER you. Well, to be honest, I hope I don't talk down to anyone anywhere but I know tone is hard to judge. I apologize, at any rate.

Back on topic: I just think it's bizarre how some people seem to think if Mr. Obama is elected he'll hand the keys to Hamas or the Iranians. I belong to the "jaw jaw is better than war war" school, myself.

In the real world, anyone who gets to talk to the American president is elevated to a position of importance, merely by being allowed to talk to him. Does this confer "legitimacy" on that person? I suppose it does, in one way. But, as others have pointed out, Hamas is "legitimate" by some measures (it's at least as legitimate as, say, Mugabe's government, or the North Koreans') and the Iranian government is as legitimate as most governments. Sometimes that recognition is enough to start the ball rolling and, after all, what's more important? The possibility of some real dialogue beginning, or the fear that some nasty might get bragging rights? The Chinese are certainly not the only culture that values "face" more than life itself.

[WampusCat]

I simply can't see any harm in talking -- in attempting to understand the "other" rather than demonizing him, in using diplomacy first and force only if absolutely necessary.

But I'm weird, I guess. I have never, ever resented paying taxes. I feel that it is only right to contribute to the common good.

Gary made about $17,000 in his job working with developmentally disabled adults, a job that most of us would find horribly difficult. A job that someone has to do. We were able to get by because we also had my salary (the combination still didn't put us near that $100,000 mark). But many of his co-workers had only that income -- and some are raising children as well. They are compassionate, hard-working, decent human beings, and it's appalling to me that anyone would suggest that those of us who have more should not shoulder more of the tax burden.

We are in this together. Or should be.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One thing that has become clear in the past couple of days is that Obama is not going to run the kind of passive campaign that Kerry ran four years ago. Compare is forceful response to Bush and McCain's appeasement attack to Kerry's (lack of) response to the Swift Boat attacks. I think there is a real tendency to underestimate Obama, not because he is black, but because of his appearance of stoic equiniminity. I think that is a big part of the mistake that Clinton made, and I wouldn't be surprised if McCain makes the same mistake. But whether you agree with his policies or not, it can not be denied that this is a force to be reckoned with.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to get my brain around Huckabee's "joke" about someone pointing a gun at Obama. Can anyone tell me what was behind that? I can not recall any similar incident in all the time I have followed politics.

[Primula Baggins]

That was appalling. In his apology Huckabee said it was an off-the-cuff remark, but it doesn't show great judgment to joke about assassination attempts—particularly with Obama, who's had so many threats against him that he got Secret Service protection much earlier in the campaign than he would have otherwise.

I worry about his safety. It comes up with other people, too. I've even seen it proposed in a blog or two that an advantage of picking Clinton as VP would be that she'd serve as a "poison pill"—anyone who hated Obama enough to kill him would probably hate her just as much or more, and killing Obama would make her President.

I really dislike having to worry about this.