McCain is done

[Crowlogic]

Then I hope you love high taxes, high unemployment, a sluggish economy, terrorism, socialism and lies. Because that's what Obama will bring.

Let's hope Obama does bring on some higher taxes, we might get our roads fixed. Let's hope he gives America the chance to re-civilize itself. Socialism? hmmm you need to get out of the country more. Why not visit Sweeden and give a disertation on the evils of socialism to the Sweeds. They'll think you a bit of a strange bird.

But we don't need Obama to have a sluggish economy, we have that right now. We don't need Obama to furnish us or the world with terrorism as the world is awash in terrorism. We don't need Obama to introduce us to the art of lying. We've had 8 solid years of negative credibility and a half century from both parties leading up to the present masters of the craft. Then there's the unemployment issue its one of the great success stories of the Bush administration. Bush has managed to mismanage the economy and the country so well that the unemployment figures are stampeeding upwards faster than the Katrina storm surge.

Let's face it the 20th Century is over and Mr. McCain is about a dozen years too late to peddle his vision of America.

 

[Tricky]

Well this can't be good for McCain. Electoral-Vote.com now shows Obama with enough electors to win, even without counting the "barely Democrat" states.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Oct09.html

Strong Dem (218)

Weak Dem (59)

Barely Dem (72)

Exactly tied (15)

Barely GOP (11)

Weak GOP (63)

Strong GOP (100)

270 Electoral votes needed to win

 

[BeAChooser]

Only if their income from these investments puts them in the top 5% of incomes.

Well, a little history. In September 2007, Obama proposed doubling the capital gains tax up to 28 percent on the grounds of "fairness"and a need to raise revenue. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/04/17/obamas-truly-radical-capital-gains-tax-agenda/ Currently, his platform calls for the top rate to increase to 20 percent. A 33 percent increase over the current 15 percent. But is 20% really "fairer" that 28% and will it raise the needed revenue that he claimed his 28 percent proposal would have?

And you and Obama seem to forget who creates most of the jobs in America? It's not the government. It's those 5% percent ... most of them being small business owners. Are you so naive as to think raising the capital gains rate on that group will be good for everyone else? Are you naive enough to actually think that won't impact their business decisions. That they won't pass on those taxes to the rest of us in higher prices? That it won't mean fewer jobs? That it won't mean lower overall revenues for the government in the end? Because history shows that's what happens when you raise capital gains tax rates.

 

[Pookster]

And you and Obama seem to forget who creates most of the jobs in America? It's not the government. It's those 5% percent ... most of them being small business owners. Are you so naive as to think raising the capital gains rate on that group will be good for everyone else? Are you naive enough to actually think that won't impact their business decisions. That they won't pass on those taxes to the rest of us in higher prices? That it won't mean fewer jobs? That it won't mean lower overall revenues for the government in the end? Because history shows that's what happens when you raise capital gains tax rates.

What percent of small business owners are in the top 5% of incomes?

 

[maxpower1227]

Well this can't be good for McCain. Electoral-Vote.com now shows Obama with enough electors to win, even without counting the "barely Democrat" states.
[qimg]http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Oct09.png[/qimg]
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Oct09.html

[qimg]http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Icons/darkblue.gif[/qimg] Strong Dem (218)
[qimg]http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Icons/lightblue.gif[/qimg] Weak Dem (59)
[qimg]http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Icons/whiteblue.gif[/qimg] Barely Dem (72)
[qimg]http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Icons/white.gif[/qimg] Exactly tied (15)
[qimg]http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Icons/whitered.gif[/qimg] Barely GOP (11)
[qimg]http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Icons/lightred.gif[/qimg] Weak GOP (63)
[qimg]http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Icons/darkred.gif[/qimg] Strong GOP (100)

270 Electoral votes needed to win

This is exactly the same as the map I posted back on page 2, two days ago, except that Florida has moved from "Weak Democrat" to "Barely Democrat"

 

[BeAChooser]

So Obama's lying about his tax plans, but telling the truth about his other plans?

Oh I fully expect Obama to try accomplishing most everything he's claimed and a lot more he hasn't emphasized in his speeches. Now surely you aren't claiming that Obama is lying about his other plans? Are you going to vote for him, Cleon, on the basis of not believing he will do those other things?

 

[BenBurch]

This is exactly the same as the map I posted back on page 2, two days ago, except that Florida has moved from "Weak Democrat" to "Barely Democrat"

As it stands, though, we can lose FL and OH and win. I suspect we will win one or the other, but you know both states have a documented history of Repub election fraud, so I expect that the ARMY of lawyers Senator Obama has recruited will have to fight it out in both.

 

[maxpower1227]

As it stands, though, we can lost FL and OH and win. I suspect we will win one or the other, but you know both states have a documented history of Repub election fraud, so I expect that the ARMY of lawyers Senator Obama has recruited will have to fight it out in both.

That's interesting, because the right-wingnuts at www.RightNation.us have been accusing ACORN/Obama of widespread voter fraud for quite some time now. Personally, I figure both parties are up to some shenanigans.

 

[BenBurch]

ACORN is not Obama.

And OF COURSE the Repubs will accuse ANY successful registration of the young and minorities of fraud. And no doubt they will go though the 87,000 registrations in Nevada and find a couple hundred that are dicey - I don't think you could have that may people doing registrations of that many thousands and NOT have some badly completed applications or some canvasser or prospective voter lying. Just not possible. But that is not a number likely to change the course of an election! But they desperately need to get some court to throw out ALL of the registrations by that group because 87,000 absolutely could change things.

EDIT: Here is what ACORN has to say; http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=1...368&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12387&cHash=b73691350d

 

[maxpower1227]

I admit I haven't looked into the issue too far either way, but I did read that my hometown (Indianapolis) currently has something like 105% voter registration.

 

[maxpower1227]

Of course, now that I look into it, it looks like people are using the estimated 2007 population. *Sigh*

 

[Tricky]

And you and Obama seem to forget who creates most of the jobs in America? It's not the government. It's those 5% percent ... most of them being small business owners. Are you so naive as to think raising the capital gains rate on that group will be good for everyone else? Are you naive enough to actually think that won't impact their business decisions. That they won't pass on those taxes to the rest of us in higher prices? That it won't mean fewer jobs? That it won't mean lower overall revenues for the government in the end? Because history shows that's what happens when you raise capital gains tax rates.

Gosh, BaC, what happened to your faith in the free market? You think that a business owner can just charge whatever he wants for his product/services until he achieves his desired level of income? That nobody with a lower profit margin will undercut him? That is, at best, naive.

A small business owner making and income of less than about $250,000 a year will not be affected by the tax restoration that Obama has proposed. If an SBO is making more than a quarter-mill per year, then I'm not particularly worried about their welfare. If an SBO is making over $250,000 in income, but his business is failing, then there is a fundamental problem with the way he distributes the funds in his business, wouldn't you say?

 

[Pookster]

I admit I haven't looked into the issue too far either way, but I did read that my hometown (Indianapolis) currently has something like 105% voter registration.

I suspect they haven't purged their voter rolls recently.

 

[Pookster]

Of course, now that I look into it, it looks like people are using the estimated 2007 population. *Sigh*

I suspect they haven't purged their voter rolls recently.

Or they're not using correct numbers for figuring the percentage.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well this can't be good for McCain. Electoral-Vote.com now shows Obama with enough electors to win, even without counting the "barely Democrat" states.

That's good news, because I don't think those "barely" designations have anything to substantiate them.

Missouri really can't be called even "barely" ahead for Obama. It's been within the margin of error for a while (and shows McCain ahead about as often as it shows Obama ahead).

 

[Pookster]

Gosh, BaC, what happened to your faith in the free market? You think that a business owner can just charge whatever he wants for his product/services until he achieves his desired level of income? That nobody with a lower profit margin will undercut him? That is, at best, naive.

A small business owner making and income of less than about $250,000 a year will not be affected by the tax restoration that Obama has proposed. If an SBO is making more than a quarter-mill per year, then I'm not particularly worried about their welfare. If an SBO is making over $250,000 in income, but his business is failing, then there is a fundamental problem with the way he distributes the funds in his business, wouldn't you say?

In looking at how a tax increase might affect jobs created by SBOs, you have to also look at how many SBOs are also employers. Many aren't.

From factcheck ...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

Obama's plan, according to his economic policy director Jason Furman, would return the top two federal income-tax rates to what they were before Bush lowered them. In addition, Obama would adjust the income-tax brackets to ensure that no married couple making under $250,000 or single filer making under $200,000 would pay the top rates.

The actual number of business owners who would be affected turns out to be well under a million, and the number of employers would be even less. Based on the number of taxpayers who now report any sort of business income on their returns, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that 663,608 taxpayers with business income, or business losses, will fall into the top two tax brackets in 2009, when any Obama tax changes would first take effect. Not all of those can properly be called "small-business owners," however. Some are farmers. Many are lawyers, accountants or other professionals who get some of their income in the form of partnership distributions. Others may be passive investors in real-estate partnerships or similar investment arrangements and not really persons who own and manage a business.

It is also not clear how many who report business income actually employ any workers. In 2004, the Tax Policy Center found that hundreds of thousands of individual taxpayers who had business income from partnerships or subchapter-S corporations (whose owners pay taxes as individuals) did not claim any tax deductions for employee expenses. For all these reasons we judge that the actual number of small-business employers who would face higher tax rates under Obama is probably far below 663,608, and certainly a far cry from McCain's ridiculously inflated 23 million figure.

 

[leonAzul]

Well this can't be good for McCain.

Having resided in New York, New Jersey, and now Florida, I am a bit skeptical of these results.

I am aware of pockets of partisanship that are almost reflexibly either Democratic or Republican; that is to say that none of these states can be considered to be monolithically one way or the other. New York, in particular, is sharply divided between "upstate" and "downstate". OTOH, if Ms Palin wished to score serious points, she might want to show her face in Dade County! What a poor choice of venues, since Gainesville is far more pivotal/influential than Clearwater or Jacksonville.

 

[Tricky]

Having resided in New York, New Jersey, and now Florida, I am a bit skeptical of these results.

I am aware of pockets of partisanship that are almost reflexibly either Democratic or Republican; that is to say that none of these states can be considered to be monolithically one way or the other. New York, in particular, is sharply divided between "upstate" and "downstate". OTOH, if Ms Palin wished to score serious points, she might want to show her face in Dade County! What a poor choice of venues, since Gainesville is far more pivotal/influential than Clearwater or Jacksonville.

Well, the poll is a snapshot in time, not a general trend. I've been watching it for a couple of weeks now, back from when neither candidate had 270 even with "barely" states. This is the first time I've seen it go to over 270 even discounting "barely" states.

No, it's not particularly scientific, but as trends go, it is bad news for McCain. Of course, virtually all trends these days are bad news for McCain, so this one is probably no more noteworty than any others. I just thought is was an interesting way of presentation.

 

[Cleon]

Oh I fully expect Obama to try accomplishing most everything he's claimed and a lot more he hasn't emphasized in his speeches.

According to you, the goals are mutually exclusive...So he's either lying about one, or lying about the other. Which is it?

Now surely you aren't claiming that Obama is lying about his other plans? Are you going to vote for him, Cleon, on the basis of not believing he will do those other things?

Are you ever going to acknowledge, BAC, that not everybody who thinks you're full of it is an Obama supporter?

I'm not voting for him. I've explained this to you before. Repeatedly. I'm sorry that reality doesn't match up to your preconceived assumptions, but you're going to have to cope.

 

[BeAChooser]

Most of us hold stocks only in 401k, IRA, or something similar. Conservatives love to talk about how so many people are stockholders, so capital gains taxes hit everyone, except...they don't. ... snip ... I have not and never will pay one red cent of capital gains or dividend tax. Sooner or later, I will withdraw it and it will be taxed as ordinary income.

Unless I'm mistaken, you are in for a shock if you think you will definitely save money on items earning long term capital gains when taxed at ordinary income rates in 401k or traditional IRAs.

If it's a Roth, then it is true you will avoid paying taxes on capital gains because you won't have to pay tax on anything earned in a Roth. Is that what you have? If so, good for you! But most people have traditional IRAs which are very similar to 401ks in the way they are taxed. In which case, they will indeed be taxed on capital gains earnings ... just at withdrawal ... and (like 401ks) using ordinary income tax rates rather than at capital gains tax rates.

But you are wrong if think that's a good thing for most people. You seem to have missed the fact that most people want things to be taxed at capital gains rates precisely because those rates are generally much lower than ordinary income tax rates.

Ordinary income tax brackets are currently 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%. If you earn enough to put you in the 25% or above bracket ... just more than $65100 (married, filing jointly) or $32550 (single) in 2008 ... then you lose by investing in items that earn capital gains inside a 401k or traditional Roth account. You see, the capital gains tax rate for people in that bracket is only 15% now and was only 20% prior to 2003 (which is what it will revert to in 2011 under current law). Either way, you will actually pay more taxes on items earning capital gains if you treat it as ordinary income. And at the income level where Obama now says he'll increase the capital gains tax rate to 20% ... i.e., $250,000 (married) or $200,000 (single) ... the ordinary income tax rate is 33%. So again, it would very unwise to put anything earning long term capital gains in a 401k or a traditional IRA. I certainly hope you haven't done that, MM.

But what about lower income levels (where admittedly it's less likely that one has invested in anything related to capital gains, unless one is a retiree who did and is now only living off the output from that 401k or IRA)? The bottom income range of the 15% ordinary income tax bracket will be $16050 (married) and $8025 (single) in 2008. The capital gains tax rate in this category is currently 5 percent. Under current law, the capital gains tax rate will revert to the pre-2003 rate of 10% in 2011. So again, it's a bad idea to put items earning long term capital gains (more than a year) in a 401k or a traditional IRA ... even in this lower tax bracket.

It's not clear to me whether Obama is suggesting he will increase the capital gain tax rate for folks in this lower income level to 15%. If so, that would definitely hurt those who were smart and did not put capital gains earning assets in a 401k or traditional IRA.

And all of the above, of course, assumes the ordinary income tax rates are not increased by Obama. But the reality is that in a socialist system ... which is what Obama is essentially proposing ... ordinary income tax rates go up. Dramatically. Just look around the world. Making your plan to save money by putting capital gains earning items in 401k and traditional IRA's even more unlikely, Meadmaker.