Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You define it as $18Bn. I define it as most of the spending/tax cuts currently in the budget.

Tax breaks for wooden arrows people?

Edit: My bad. You're right Sebster. The national debt is ~$10Trillion now. Strangely, this fact does not help my dosposition
http://www.federalbudget.com/

That's because you seem to believe that corporate America is somehow less capable of doing you injury than a small government. The private sector is just as dangerous as the public. After all, how do you think governments formed but through the actions of powerful private citizens.

1. That blindingly has nothing to do with anything we've been talking about.
2. Its blindingly in error as to how much harm I think corporate America can do. See: $700Bn bailout.
3. Please point out a time since Kennedy when Democrats have pushed thorugh a significant tax break for the middle class?

On the contrary, it is fully relevant, and became so as soon as you chose to bring up pork-barrel spending, and then define it as all government expenditure. Moreover, I recall you arguing for the primacy of the government in the bailout package, not the private sector. If that wasn't your intent, then my mistake.

In any case, your last question is irrelevant. Judging any candidate purely by the past actions of his party, especially when that period of action was dominated by the opposing party. is simply ludicrous.

Thats what doing analytical work is all about. You have to draw inferences from what data is available, about an event that may happen. In this instance we would look at a candidate’s previous record.
Now I’ll drop back from the Republican arguments that he’s a tax increaser, and will agree to the note that his record is minimal in this regard. Absent good data the Republican statement smells of the statistic, the worst of lies.

So you have to rely on other factors:
*His statements. Ok, but I tend to disbelieve what a politician says. Talk is cheap. But I’ll give you that.
*Contradictory statements in statements. I’m still trying to wrap my head around tax reductions when massive spending has been proposed by the candidate, and massive spending has been imposed on the candidate. In his defense I’ll say initially he was talking tax cuts before the gazillions went down the tube. But he hasn’t changed his position on new spending programs. I don’t see where the money is coming from. Frankly the McCain camp is guilty of the same thing.
*Party. He’s a member of the Democratic Party. He is not viewed as a maverick within that party, and has a strong voting record following party line. That’s ok. If you like the Democratic Party platform you should be in support of that. But the problem is the Democratic party has no history of cutting taxes at the federal level.
*Precedent. Again, what Democratic President has meaningfully lowered taxes for the middle class since Kennedy (who’d likely be viewed as a conservative now: strong defense, reduced taxes ah the good old days).

So, based on party, and precedent, the cynic will say that’s two to one that Obama will not lower taxes for the middle class (even if he wants to – remember he has Congress to consider). Reposte?

Crap

Here is how Congress (as they are the budget people - not the President) works.

They promise what is required to get the votes. They keep what promises benefit them, break which ones don't but won't be rememebered in two years, and shunt off ones they can't break and have forgotten.

This is not about trusting Obama. I trust Obama. This is about the realities of the legislative branch.

1) Taxing the rich is great politispeak, but the rich provide most of the campaign funding for the House and Senate.
1a) You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
1b) So they will pass some legislative contortion that makes it look good, while minimizing the increase of taxes to their primary money men.

2) Taxing the poor is bad for image, and pointless to boot. They can't afford it, and there isn't much money there anyway.
2a) So they won't do it.
2b) The poverty line in the US is a complete joke.

3) So the middle class, as seen by Washington, is a bit bigger than the actual middle class (in terms of who can live on what).

4) So who to tax, who to tax? Who has a little extra, but doesn't have the ability to fire employees if we pinch them a bit more? Who can afford a few more bucks, and it'll make some difference in the deficit? Best of all, it will NOT impact our campaign contributions. Got an election in two years. After that, we'll look at this problem again Trust us.

The default taxee will always be the middle class. It engenders the least risk to the politician with the most reward.

That's independent of party affiliation.

Your analysis is painfully accurate, and again depressing.

In full discosure I'm all for the imaginary middle class tax break, even if it breaks the budget 20 years down the road. It'll be Dogma's problem then, not mine heh heh, oh wait that means I'll be... I think MidLife Crisis just socked me in the face!

dienekes96 wrote:1) Taxing the rich is great politispeak, but the rich provide most of the campaign funding for the House and Senate.

But you get round this by capping the amount that can be spent on campaigns etc.. say at $75 million, and you stick to it even if you raise over and above that ..oh... wait a minute...

...damn.

Frazzled wrote:Thats what doing analytical work is all about. You have to draw inferences from what data is available, about an event that may happen. In this instance we would look at a candidate’s previous record.
Now I’ll drop back from the Republican arguments that he’s a tax increaser, and will agree to the note that his record is minimal in this regard. Absent good data the Republican statement smells of the statistic, the worst of lies.

Of course you also have to allow for the actual relevance of your data when making such a consideration. Circumstantial evidence should never lead to anything beyond an opined conclusion, not the kind disingenuous certainty which you like to use as a frame for your opinion. The fact that you consider statistics to be outright lies says volumes about your real inclinations of data analysis. Can stats be distorted? Certainly, but to presume that they must be lies is simply small-minded foolishness.

Frazzled wrote:
So you have to rely on other factors:
*His statements. Ok, but I tend to disbelieve what a politician says. Talk is cheap. But I’ll give you that.

Regardless of what you'll 'give me', I believe you mistake cynicism for prudence. This is a theme which I will return to.

Frazzled wrote:*Contradictory statements in statements. I’m still trying to wrap my head around tax reductions when massive spending has been proposed by the candidate, and massive spending has been imposed on the candidate. In his defense I’ll say initially he was talking tax cuts before the gazillions went down the tube. But he hasn’t changed his position on new spending programs. I don’t see where the money is coming from. Frankly the McCain camp is guilty of the same thing.

Contradictory statements? Read the proposed tax policies, neither candidate is talking about a net tax cut. In any case, spending doesn't have to be accounted for through taxation. Funds can be shuffled, and the unpopularity of anything instituted by Bush allows for that. Cynicism clouds.

Frazzled wrote:
*Party. He’s a member of the Democratic Party. He is not viewed as a maverick within that party, and has a strong voting record following party line. That’s ok. If you like the Democratic Party platform you should be in support of that. But the problem is the Democratic party has no history of cutting taxes at the federal level.

Again, the period you are considering as one of Democratic history is widely known as the era of the GOP. You talk about analyzing data, yet refuse to do so when considering your own assumptions. No Democratic President has been the beneficiary of a Democratic Congress in over 30 years. And Obama may not, though I suspect the wave of anti-GOP sentiment will carry through the House. Again, your cynic lens lets you see what you wish.

Frazzled wrote:
*Precedent. Again, what Democratic President has meaningfully lowered taxes for the middle class since Kennedy (who’d likely be viewed as a conservative now: strong defense, reduced taxes ah the good old days).

See above.

Frazzled wrote:
So, based on party, and precedent, the cynic will say that’s two to one that Obama will not lower taxes for the middle class (even if he wants to – remember he has Congress to consider). Reposte?

The cynic might say that, but only because he refuses to look beyond his own assumptions.

dienekes96 wrote:Here is how Congress (as they are the budget people - not the President) works.

They promise what is required to get the votes. They keep what promises benefit them, break which ones don't but won't be rememebered in two years, and shunt off ones they can't break and have forgotten.

Too true, but the equation determining what will benefit a politician his shifting.

dienekes96 wrote:
This is not about trusting Obama. I trust Obama. This is about the realities of the legislative branch.

1) Taxing the rich is great politispeak, but the rich provide most of the campaign funding for the House and Senate.
1a) You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
1b) So they will pass some legislative contortion that makes it look good, while minimizing the increase of taxes to their primary money men.

But the Rich don't provide votes, and the relatively low cost of alternative media (which certain studies have postulated as being more effective than mass advertising) reduces the role of funding.

dienekes96 wrote:
2) Taxing the poor is bad for image, and pointless to boot. They can't afford it, and there isn't much money there anyway.
2a) So they won't do it.
2b) The poverty line in the US is a complete joke.

Agreed.

dienekes96 wrote:
3) So the middle class, as seen by Washington, is a bit bigger than the actual middle class (in terms of who can live on what).

I tend to agree, though I'm fairly confident this perception is changing.

dienekes96 wrote:
4) So who to tax, who to tax? Who has a little extra, but doesn't have the ability to fire employees if we pinch them a bit more? Who can afford a few more bucks, and it'll make some difference in the deficit? Best of all, it will NOT impact our campaign contributions. Got an election in two years. After that, we'll look at this problem again Trust us.

But it may well impact the votes they can generate. Especially as individual awareness increases. It's becoming harder and harder to distract large segments of the population through wedge-issues.

dienekes96 wrote:
The default taxee will always be the middle class. It engenders the least risk to the politician with the most reward.

That's independent of party affiliation.

That presumes the middle class will always remain ignorant of the issues which affect it.

dogma wrote:Again, the period you are considering as one of Democratic history is widely known as the era of the GOP. You talk about analyzing data, yet refuse to do so when considering your own assumptions. No Democratic President has been the beneficiary of a Democratic Congress in over 30 years. And Obama may not, though I suspect the wave of anti-GOP sentiment will carry through the House. Again, your cynic lens lets you see what you wish.

Except for Clinton. Johnson also controlled Congress quite effectively. I'd posit Carter never had a chance...

Clinton only had Congressional control for his first term, not to mention a far different agenda in light of public opinion regarding Johnson's great society and the light it cast on the Democratic party. Speaking of the Great Society, comparing the additional spending that went on during that time period to the one in which we currently find ourselves is misguided. Are you really going to compare the 00's to the 60's?

About Carter, you're right, he was screwed from the outset.

Double post.

dogma,
The money in their PAC magically becomes THEIRS when they are no longer in office. So it's not JUST campaign funding. And that grass roots stuff hasn't been proven yet. If Obama is elected, it STILL won't have proven anything, because he got tons of campaign funding from large groups and companies.

I agree that the middle class might be educating itself, but counting on the laziness of the people has rarely led a politician astray. Like you, I'd like to believe the equation is shifting. Even if it is, it's merely a cycle.

"Ignorance is bliss" is NOT a recent proverb, unfortunately. The trick of inclusive government (like ours) is to make what is in the politician's best interest inours, and to remove as many barriers between those things as possible.

dogma wrote:Clinton only had Congressional control for his first term, not to mention a far different agenda in light of public opinion regarding Johnson's great society and the light it cast on the Democratic party. Speaking of the Great Society, comparing the additional spending that went on during that time period to the one in which we currently find ourselves is misguided. Are you really going to compare the 00's to the 60's?

About Carter, you're right, he was screwed from the outset.

Nope.

dienekes96 wrote:dogma,
The money in their PAC magically becomes THEIRS when they are no longer in office. So it's not JUST campaign funding. And that grass roots stuff hasn't been proven yet. If Obama is elected, it STILL won't have proven anything, because he got tons of campaign funding from large groups and companies.

I agree that the middle class might be educating itself, but counting on the laziness of the people has rarely led a politician astray. Like you, I'd like to believe the equation is shifting. Even if it is, it's merely a cycle.

"Ignorance is bliss" is NOT a recent proverb, unfortunately. The trick of inclusive government (like ours) is to make what is in the politician's best interest inours, and to remove as many barriers between those things as possible.

I don't disagree with any particular point. I'm more optimistic about the effects of grass-roots campaigning, but most of that optimism comes from my studies of the fall in return on mass-market advertising; admittedly there is no direct correlation.

Certainly the education of the middle class is part of a cycle, but that doesn't allow its rejection as unimportant. After all, everything becomes irrelevant when considered from far enough away. In any case, your last point is spot on.