If Obama Wins Will Really Be Able To Change Anything?

[nutzbuster 7]

This is not a slam. It is worth bringing up since most of his changes and programs would involve tax increases during an economic firestorm.What are the realistic chances, in times like this, that Obama's programs get approved if he wins? Does he move forward anyway and enact tax increases to fund said promised programs? How will the country react to such a thing?Lets say he realizes this could be a disaster and decides to wait until the economy's clouds clear a little. How mad would his loyal and expecting change constituents become at this delay? And would he delay a bit, but then go forward after waiting until times start to look more favorable and raise taxes just when the country is barely getting back on it's financial feet, thus risking crippling the recovery?And what if the economic recovery takes 2 or 3 years? If that happens many of Obama's programs could be financially handcuffed for most of his first term, thus rendering him ineffective at any sort of change due to the world financial crisis, no?So the question then is, can Obama get ANYTHING done during times like these? His ideas need lots of money, and if no one is making any, how the heck can any of his programs take flight?or not?

[dapokerbum 0]

He is going to tax the rich and give to the poor ... basically Robin Hood or Socialism ... which incidentally is now my motivation not to vote for him.While I believe that the US is headed towards a socialist economy anyway, I believe Obama will get us there quicker than we imagined. McCain will be on the slow road and maybe someone new and revolutionary can come around in the next four years and take us back to the good ol days.

[gobears 0]

I think that he will have to cut back on some of the programs that he wants to implement. The money isn't there. He repeated the "Pay as you go" Budget Rules in last night's debate.He has to follow thru on his current tax plan of giving the middle class a tax cut. He will go forward with his plan of raising taxes on businesses/individuals over $250K. His first major decisions have to be on the economy to get things off on the right foot - it can't be on something like the Unions' card check plan or Clinton's gays in the military policies.We'll get to see that "scalpel" in action - hopefully the patient doesn't bleed to death!

[copernicus 0]

It depends a lot on the makeup of the House and Senate, but I have no doubt there will be a tax increase no later than 2010.

[vbnautilus 48]

It depends a lot on the makeup of the House and Senate, but I have no doubt there will be a tax increase no later than 2010.

Agreed. The way it looks now, democrats will take control of the senate and will be very close to the 60 votesneeded to get cloture votes on fillibuster attempts. (map here)Having both houses of congress and the presidency, things will happen.

[Balloon guy 158]

Having both houses of congress and the presidency, bad things will happen.

fyp

[GWCGWC 83]

I don't understand how people think we can sustain an incredible national debt, wage war and not see taxes go up.

fyp

This couldn't be any more true. Every time the executive and legislative branches have been from the same party, legislation seems to get rubber stamped and bad things happen. It undermines the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place that slows down what should be the bureaucracy of the Federal government.

[KONGOS 0]

I don't understand how people think we can sustain an incredible national debt, wage war and not see taxes go up.

Print baby print.

[copernicus 0]

I don't understand how people think we can sustain an incredible national debt, wage war and not see taxes go up.

I dont see how people can ignore history and not see that when you increase tax rates, tax revenues go down.

[Mercury69 3]

You guys are ****ed regardless of who gets in. McCain isn't going to do anyone any favours either, don't fool yourselves...

[Loismustdie 0]

I dont see how people can ignore history and not see that when you increase tax rates, tax revenues go down.

This, Good lord, this. How are people, some of them smart so ****ing blind?

[Loismustdie 0]

You guys are ****ed regardless of who gets in. McCain isn't going to do anyone any favours either, don't fool yourselves...

That's the thing. We don't want any favors. Obama can take his so called tax savings and shove it.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I dont see how people can ignore history and not see that when you increase tax rates, tax revenues go down.

That's if you assume that the point on the Laffer Curve that you are currently on is downward sloping, not even Laffer contends that all tax cuts will lead to an increase in total revenue. There is some point where lowering taxes will also lower revenue. There's no question that in the past when the highest marginal tax rate was stupid high that lowering it did increase tax revenue but that doesn't mean that lowering tax rates today will increase tax revenue or increasing tax rates will decrease tax revenue since the current tax rates are lower by far than the historic cases where lowering tax rates did increase revenue.Here's a good article by Laffer on the subject.http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfmI don't know at what point on the Laffer Curve the US is currently and anybody who posts in this forum that they know is most likely full of shit.

[copernicus 0]

That's if you assume that the point on the Laffer Curve that you are currently on is downward sloping, not even Laffer contends that all tax cuts will lead to an increase in total revenue. There is some point where lowering taxes will also lower revenue. There's no question that in the past when the highest marginal tax rate was stupid high that lowering it did increase tax revenue but that doesn't mean that lowering tax rates today will increase tax revenue or increasing tax rates will decrease tax revenue since the current tax rates are lower by far than the historic cases where lowering tax rates did increase revenue.Here's a good article by Laffer on the subject.http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfmI don't know at what point on the Laffer Curve the US is currently and anybody who posts in this forum that they know is most likely full of shit.

Heres what we do know about where we are on the tax cutting/increase curve (and its not all Laffer, which like most economic theories is way to simplistic for reality): the Bush personal income tax cuts had positive economic results, so rolling them back is definitely going the wrong way. Further reductions we don't know.Capital gains tax? We know from the Clinton cuts that the last round raised revenues. Raising them is defintiely going the wrong way. Further reductions also have some evidence from other countries that have lowered rates that further reductions are likely to be positive to the economy. But due to complexities lets say we dont know if down will be positive.Corporate tax rates? Clear evidence from other countries that they have a long way to go downward.McCain has been clear that he wont raise personal or CG taxes, but hasnt been a major proponent of reducing anything but corporate taxes. So he clearly isnt wrong on any of them, is clearly right on 1, and if anything conservative on the other 2.Obama wants to raise all 3 which is demonstrably wrong on all 3.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

the Bush personal income tax cuts had positive economic results, so rolling them back is definitely going the wrong way. Further reductions we don't know.

I think an argument can be made that the positive economic results that happened at the same time as the Bush tax cuts were a result of the over stimulation of the US economy by the low interest rate policies and the housing and credit bubbles along with the large amount of fiscal stimulus provided by the tax cut and the large deficits being run.Did the Bush tax cuts increase Federal Tax Revenue ? I have my doubts since they have coincided with a large increase in the Federal Deficit.Running deficits will increase current consumption and make things appear to be better until the bills have to be paid in the future.

[hblask 1]

The notion that a bad economy will slow the spending of people like Obama is wrong. Socialists thing that government spending is *good* for the economy.

[strategy 4]

I think an argument can be made that the positive economic results that happened at the same time as the Bush tax cuts were a result of the over stimulation of the US economy by the low interest rate policies and the housing and credit bubbles along with the large amount of fiscal stimulus provided by the tax cut and the large deficits being run.Did the Bush tax cuts increase Federal Tax Revenue ? I have my doubts since they have coincided with a large increase in the Federal Deficit.Running deficits will increase current consumption and make things appear to be better until the bills have to be paid in the future.

see, this is why I kinda chuckle when I see people making sweeping statements about the impact of certain policies on such an incredibly complex economy. bob brings up just one of many of alternate explanations for why the economy performed the way it did. you know better than to pretend it's that simple, clear, and unquestionably true, copper.

[copernicus 0]

I think an argument can be made that the positive economic results that happened at the same time as the Bush tax cuts were a result of the over stimulation of the US economy by the low interest rate policies and the housing and credit bubbles along with the large amount of fiscal stimulus provided by the tax cut and the large deficits being run.Did the Bush tax cuts increase Federal Tax Revenue ? I have my doubts since they have coincided with a large increase in the Federal Deficit.Running deficits will increase current consumption and make things appear to be better until the bills have to be paid in the future.

Yes, they increased revenue. Spending increased more than revenues primarily because of the need to rebuild the military after Clintons 30% cuts in spending and staffing, and two wars. Non-defense discretionary spending increased more slowly than in prior administrations.

[akoff 0]

I dont see how people can ignore history and not see that when you increase tax rates, tax revenues go down.

because people are basically stupid and prefer to believe what they are told instead of using thought and taking responciblity for themselves....leaving for golf now.

[akoff 0]

Yes, they increased revenue. Spending increased more than revenues primarily because of the need to rebuild the military after Clintons 30% cuts in spending and staffing, and two wars. Non-defense discretionary spending increased more slowly than in prior administrations.

hey don't let the facts get in theway...

[Balloon guy 158]

It's very simple CopThe economy is on shaky ground. The government therefore chose to pump $700,000,000,000 into the economy in order to help it get back on it's feet and grow.If we let 'people' have more money, they will not be as responsible with the money as the banks are/have been. They might save it, or buy something, or hire someone, or start something like a small business. These things will not help the economy, they only help the rich.

[copernicus 0]

It's very simple CopThe economy is on shaky ground. The government therefore chose to pump $700,000,000,000 into the economy in order to help it get back on it's feet and grow.If we let 'people' have more money, they will not be as responsible with the money as the banks are/have been. They might save it, or buy something, or hire someone, or start something like a small business. These things will not help the economy, they only help the rich.

I dont think anyone knows whether and who it will help. I do know that letting a house I wanted to buy but couldnt afford drop $400,000, putting the house I did buy underwater based on that one comp, when multiplied by 10,000,0000 would tank the economy for a decade or more.Gotta win that Sunday Million and swap houses!