McCain or Obama?

[blane]

Frankly, I am amazed.

I'm not American and thus are probably not as informed as most of the US people are. However, 64:45 ... thats pretty close to the polls.

I would have expected a stonger Obama tendency on these forums.

Oh, but please dont get me wrong -- I do not intend to actually discuss the why's and rights and wrongs... I'm just curious about different communities (such polls are common).

Usually I lurk in 70%+ Obama communities

 

[David]

loans are basically just services, just like insurances.

From Wikipedia:

The components of GDP
Each of the variables C, I, G and XM (where GDP = C + I + G + (X-M) as above)

















(Note: * GDP is sometimes also referred to as Y in reference to a GDP graph)

• C is private consumption in the economy. This includes most personal expenditures of households such as food, rent, medical expenses and so on but does not include new housing.
• I is defined as investments by business or households in capital. Examples of investment by a business include construction of a new mine, purchase of software, or purchase of machinery and equipment for a factory. Spending by households on new houses is also included in Investment. In contrast to its colloquial meaning, 'Investment' in GDP does not mean purchases of financial products. Buying financial products is classed as 'saving', as opposed to investment. The distinction is (in theory) clear: if money is converted into goods or services, it is investment; but, if you buy a bond or a share of stock, this transfer payment is excluded from the GDP sum. That is because the stocks and bonds affect the financial capital which in turn affects the production and sales which in turn affects the investments. So stocks and bonds indirectly affect the GDP. Although such purchases would be called investments in normal speech, from the total-economy point of view, this is simply swapping of deeds, and not part of real production or the GDP formula.
• G is the sum of government expenditures on final goods and services. It includes salaries of public servants, purchase of weapons for the military, and any investment expenditure by a government. It does not include any transfer payments, such as social security or unemployment benefits.
• X is gross exports. GDP captures the amount a country produces, including goods and services produced for other nations' consumption, therefore exports are added.
• M is gross imports. Imports are subtracted since imported goods will be included in the terms G, I, or C, and must be deducted to avoid counting foreign supply as domestic.

I'll leave it to you, to figure out. It seems to me that:

a) an original loan may affect the GDP
b) a later trading of that loan would probably be regarded as the trading of a "financial product," and thus excluded from the GDP
c) the GDP, as complex as its details may be, is intended to represent production, and not merely transactions
d) any method for evaluating "an economy" is likely to be complex and imperfect

Edit: Actually, it occurs to me that an initial loan would perhaps be regarded not as a "final product," but instead as kind of like a raw material that would result in the final product, which would be the item purchased by the loan. And if the loan were not repaid, then the purchased product would be repossessed by the lender, and the ultimate result on the GDP, would be the same as if it were still possessed by the person receiving the loan. So, it would still represent "production," to the same extent, no matter who ended up possessing it, ultimately.

Also, wrt your case of the stolen car, I surmise that only purchases of new items, would be counted as "consumption," for calculating GDP, although Wikipedia does not state this, explicitly. Whoever ended up with the car, after it was stolen, would then not have to buy a new car; the person from whom it was stolen, would buy a new car, and that would be the same as if the person receiving the stolen car, had instead bought a new car, and so there would be no direct effect upon the GDP, from the theft, and only the production of the new car, would be counted as part of the GDP (not including indirect effects from the theft, such as services involved in dealing with it; the insurance money would, perhaps, be treated like an initial loan or, in effect, as if the insurance company had spent that money to buy itself a new car, as discussed in the previous paragraph). I would guess that insurance premiums (including perhaps higher ones after a theft) would be counted as consumption - a service produced by the insurance company.

 

[Andy44]

Twenty years ago, I had a fairly one-dimensional view of the kind of material covered in that film – I saw a rising theocracy, and was ready to ally myself with just about anybody who would oppose it. That’s changed, for a number of reasons....

{good stuff}
{more good stuff}

Thus, whenever I see something like this film, I feel that those who are so frightened of the religious right have no one to blame but themselves. They rushed ahead of themselves and behaved as if they had the whole thing won, when in fact they didn’t. They began their victory dance way too soon, and have been paying the price ever since.

I think you hit it on the head, Greg. A few years back I was browsing a book by David Horowitz (I think?) and the author stated that the reason there is such a large "Religious Right" political movement in the US is because the leftists of the 1960s took it too far. Had they stopped at, say, economic policy and killing Jom Crow, it would've been one thing, but they pushed on all fronts and attacked the traditional values of the western world, including faith, family, and the culture in general, which scares the daylights out of those who don't share that view, and this spawned the Sarah Palin fan club we see out there today.

 

[replicant]

Either that, or because they have more money with which to start or expand business enterprises.

Again, what good does that do when the people lower down have no money to spend because their tax burden is too high? Rich people only spend money for two reasons, for pleasure, or to make more money. Apparantly even the Bush administration recognized the importance of the demand side by trying to artificially inflate it with that stimulus check nonsense.

Simply, money is more likely to be beneficial to the economy, in its various manifestations, when the money is in the hands of free persons pursuing their various goals, than when the money is in the hands of government.

I couldn't agree more, I never wanted the money in the hands of the government. A certain amount of taxes are required, but the question is whose tax burden to lower. Obviously you subscribe to the Ronnie the messiah supply side theory that the wealthy will let it trickle down if you reduce their burden. I tend to think that economics is like every other engine that works grassroots. Give the break to the bottom and the money will flow upward. Before you reply, I have never heard any economist on either the supply or demand side say that either side was anything more than a theory. Therefore it comes down to what you believe, and what most others believe come November.

I would suppose that if they do exist, then they have likely been implemented for some purpose that I would prefer to understand, rather than simply to trust in Obama's rhetoric.

Whatever purpose a tax cut for someone who sends a job overseas is, it certainly does not benefit anyone who draws a paycheck and pays taxes, including me. Therefore, I couldn't care less whomever else it benefits.

 

[David]

Again, what good does that do when the people lower down have no money to spend because their tax burden is too high?

Starting or expanding business enterprises is, of course, likely to result in increased employment. This could provide additional money to:

1) persons who are unemployed (and thus, probably are not lacking money because of their tax burden)
2) persons who are employed (and have a tax burden) by the specified enterprise, by means of a raise in salary
3) persons who were employed elsewhere, by means of a better employment opportunity, now at the specified enterprise

Furthermore, all three situations could be produced indirectly, such that the new or expanded enterprise, generates a product or service that beneficially affects, or causes the creation of, other enterprises generating related products or services.

Also the new or expanded enterprise may produce innovations that result in lower prices (this would, of course, have no effect upon persons with no money to spend, but it could affect persons who did not have sufficient money, before the lower prices occurred).

Rich people only spend money for two reasons, for pleasure, or to make more money.

I suppose that would depend upon what is defined as "rich." I tend to think that people, generally, have similar reasons to spend money; the extent to which they spend particular amounts of money, for particular things, depends upon their circumstances, which can be complex and changeable.

the question is whose tax burden to lower. Obviously you subscribe to the Ronnie the messiah supply side theory that the wealthy will let it trickle down if you reduce their burden.

I don't suppose that "the wealthy let it trickle down." I do recognize that a greater ability to produce economic activity, by those who are in a position to produce economic activity, will tend to produce a greater amount of economic activity, and that a greater amount of economic activity tends to be widely beneficial, resulting in more employment, more innovation, and more opportunities of various kinds.

Whatever purpose a tax cut for someone who sends a job overseas is, it certainly does not benefit anyone who draws a paycheck and pays taxes, including me.

That is not a reliable supposition, since economic activities that occur abroad, can have domestic effects. Note, for one example, the Wright Brothers' enterprise; its beneficial effects are worldwide.

Anyway, I don't know that anybody actually gets a tax cut for sending jobs overseas. However, it does seem likely that low business taxes would tend to minimize the likelihood of jobs' being sent overseas.

 

[replicant]

However, it does seem likely that low business taxes would tend to minimize the likelihood of jobs' being sent overseas.

That is hardly a reliable supposition. Companies send jobs overseas based upon a cost benefit analysis of how much the profit margin can be widened by the cheap labor. If they paid zero taxes they would still go for the cheapest labor. The only way to stop jobs from going overseas is to penalize to the point that the CBA shows it is unprofitable to do so.

 

[Urwumpe]

Of course, the religious right did not exist in the USA before 1968. Sure. And the leftists are to blame, that they suddenly arrived.

It has nothing to do with the fact, that the initial European settlers of the USA had already been the Taliban Englands.

 

[David]

Companies send jobs overseas based upon a cost benefit analysis of how much the profit margin can be widened by the cheap labor. If they paid zero taxes they would still go for the cheapest labor. The only way to stop jobs from going overseas is to penalize to the point that the CBA shows it is unprofitable to do so.

What about transportation costs? The availability of skills? The cost of overseas facilities? As you say, it is likely to be a cost/benefit analysis, with a variety of costs and benefits. I could suggest to you, also, a question of ethics and freedom, but I can guess that you've already thought of that.

 

[Urwumpe]

What about transportation costs? The availability of skills? The cost of overseas facilities? As you say, it is likely to be a cost/benefit analysis, with a variety of costs and benefits. I could suggest to you, also, a question of ethics and freedom, but I can guess that you've already thought of that.

In some cases, it can also be considered tax evasion...

 

[fort]

I have a true pleasure to see America laughing nevertheless and despite all the difficulties which are announced and i wishes good luck to it.

Joe the taxed ( continuation )

( the intervention of Barack Obama in this meeting is also on Youtube )

 

[GregBurch]

Of course, the religious right did not exist in the USA before 1968. Sure. And the leftists are to blame, that they suddenly arrived.

It has nothing to do with the fact, that the initial European settlers of the USA had already been the Taliban Englands.

My, my. I thought it might have been clear that I'm talking about the current phenomenon of religiously-charged politics in the U.S. You can either read about it or you can take my word for it from living memory -- for many decades before 1980, U.S. politics absolutely did not have the religious element it has had since then. Seriously, can you picture Calvin Coolidge or Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon pandering to a highly organized religious political movement? If you can't it's because they didn't, because they didn't have to, because it didn't exist.

Anyway, as for the "English Taliban," you're talking about, that was only one part of a patchwork of immigration from England that made up the population of the original U.S. The mid-Atlantic and Southern states were certainly not settled by the kind of people to whom you refer. And also consider that it was those "English Taliban" who created the moral foundation of fervent opposition to slavery in the U.S. They were also the ones who founded the industrial base of the U.S. and created its first unique urban culture, a culture that gave rise to figures like John Adams and that distinctly irreligious character, Benjamin Franklin.

Finally, since becoming a little more open-minded on the subject, I've actually talked with some of the people involved in the religious political movement in the U.S. ALL of them, when talking about the history of their movement, say that it would never have happened but for the overwhelming sentiment of being under cultural siege that overcame many people in the 1970s. That doesn't make what they say true, but it does make sense in terms of historical fact in that it fits and isn't contradicted by the facts.

I have a true pleasure to see America laughing nevertheless and despite all the difficulties which are announced and i wishes good luck to it.

Joe the taxed ( continuation )


( the intervention of Barack Obama in this meeting is also on Youtube )

Thanks for posting that -- I hadn't seen it. One of the things I've heard from people who know McCain personally is that the flip side of his ability to sometimes lose his temper in anger is a sense of humor that, before this campaign, was legendary among the press corp. Based on what I've been told, it wouldn't surprise me if he'd personally written some of that speech.

 

[Urwumpe]

Joe the untrained plumber who has tax debts and does not yet own a company?


-----Posted Added-----


Greg: So, you think that this self-declaration of the religious right is something that you can accept as truth without questioning it? How far does your interest into the religious history of the USA go? Do you know that the religious groups inside the USA had been under pressure by the age of enlightenment for the whole history of the USA, with radical reactions in all times? The 1968 stuff did not change this or pushed it further. It questioned traditional religious morals. That is true and it sure removed some moral absolutism. But, what was before the (tiny) "rebellion"?

You think the religious right abolished slavery? It had been thinkers of the age of enlightenment, who pushed this forward, people who considered their religion a person freedom. It had been more conservative people, who defended slavery as their right.

Religious people defended unequal rights for woman - traditional roles had to be preserved. Do you think, the prohibition was a liberal invention?

Drunkenness was condemned and punished, but only as an abuse of a God-given gift. Drink itself was not looked upon as culpable, any more than food deserved blame for the sin of gluttony. Excess was a personal indiscretion.

Do you really think, things like the religious right had been suddenly appearing? Let me tell you my theory: The USA had always been deeply religious with a high number of radicals. But it took the events of 1968 to step out of the traditional religious-formed point of view and see, how powerful the religious habits of the USA fought against the freedoms granted by the more liberal constitution.

PS: From the wikipedia stuff about the prohibition, there is a cute treasure... A US anti-prohibition poster made by German immigrants. Likely immigrants from the revolution of 1849, when reading the tag line.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/WeinWeibUGesang.jpg

Pretty interesting link to the pretty unknown second stanca of the nationalist German National Anthem.

 

[GregBurch]

Joe the untrained plumber who has tax debts and does not yet own a company?


-----Posted Added-----


Greg: So, you think that this self-declaration of the religious right is something that you can accept as truth without questioning it? How far does your interest into the religious history of the USA go? Do you know that the religious groups inside the USA had been under pressure by the age of enlightenment for the whole history of the USA, with radical reactions in all times? The 1968 stuff did not change this or pushed it further. It questioned traditional religious morals. That is true and it sure removed some moral absolutism. But, what was before the (tiny) "rebellion"?

You think the religious right abolished slavery? It had been thinkers of the age of enlightenment, who pushed this forward, people who considered their religion a person freedom. It had been more conservative people, who defended slavery as their right.

Religious people defended unequal rights for woman - traditional roles had to be preserved. Do you think, the prohibition was a liberal invention?

Drunkenness was condemned and punished, but only as an abuse of a God-given gift. Drink itself was not looked upon as culpable, any more than food deserved blame for the sin of gluttony. Excess was a personal indiscretion.

Do you really think, things like the religious right had been suddenly appearing? Let me tell you my theory: The USA had always been deeply religious with a high number of radicals. But it took the events of 1968 to step out of the traditional religious-formed point of view and see, how powerful the religious habits of the USA fought against the freedoms granted by the more liberal constitution.

It's pretty clear that you're not reading what I'm writing very closely. I'm VERY well aware of the history of religious zealotry in the US. The current religious political movement in the US is something different than those that went before, but does share some things in common with them and certainly has roots in the religious political movements of the past.

And I urge you to look into the history of abolitionism both in England and the US. Secular actors like me who trace their values to the 17th century Enlightenment did usually oppose slavery in principle (but not always). But the actual political movement of abolitionism was a RELIGIOUS phenomenon. To say otherwise is simply, factually wrong. After all, that saint of the Enlightenment in the US, Thomas Jefferson, while he felt slavery was wrong and did work to abolish it, didn't emancipate his slaves until his own death.

Finally, again, please read what I wrote -- I don't take what the RR says about their own history at its face value. I listed it as the last element of what I wrote (the usual place for the least important part of a proposition). What they say fits with other facts. And, are we not to take what the left says of their history as at least one factor in learning about them? Are we to completely discount their own internal story that they formed in opposition to abuse by the rich and powerful?

 

[David]

Joe the untrained plumber who has tax debts and does not yet own a company?

I think that he was referring to the "Joe the Plumber," to whom Barack Obama recently explained his tax plan as being intended to confiscate money that had been earned by some people, and instead give it to other people. "Spreading the wealth," is what Obama called it.

It's a bit surprising that Joe would have been investigated, after his conversation with Obama, and the details of Joe's life, publicized. They don't seem to be the source of Obama's philosophy, and they don't seem likely to affect it, either. But I suppose that investigating Joe, and establishing public criticism of him, has a purpose of some kind.

 

[Urwumpe]

It's a bit surprising that Joe would have been investigated, after his conversation with Obama, and the details of Joe's life, publicized. They don't seem to be the source of Obama's philosophy, and they don't seem likely to affect it, either. But I suppose that investigating Joe, and establishing public criticism of him, has a purpose of some kind.

Well, he did not do something wrong - but McCain mentioned him more often in his last speeches than his own VP. Of course, this makes journalists curios.

And as "Joe" was pretty prominent with attacking Obama's tax plans in front of a camera, it is sure easy to imagine a republican link in the story... but finally, there was no link, but a very strange background, as far as I can tell.

 

[GregBurch]

Well, he did not do something wrong - but McCain mentioned him more often in his last speeches than his own VP. Of course, this makes journalists curios.

And as "Joe" was pretty prominent with attacking Obama's tax plans in front of a camera, it is sure easy to imagine a republican link in the story... but finally, there was no link, but a very strange background, as far as I can tell.

Yesterday, the Tanning Bed Media discovered unpaid tax liens against Joe Wurzelbacher. Two days ago, we would have said, “Who?” He’s better known this week as Joe the Plumber after his impromptu dialogue with Barack Obama produced a blatantly redistributionist answer from the Democratic presidential candidate.
In their haste to pillory Joe for the audacity of asking a tough question of Obama, the Tanning Bed Media missed a couple of other interesting tax liens. Patterico does the work of the TBM:

Oh — I almost forgot to mention: Martin Nesbitt, the treasurer of Obama’s campaign, has tax liens. So do his companies.
You’d think that matters more than the tax liens of Joe the Plumber, wouldn’t you? But good luck finding a Big Media story about Nesbitt’s liens.
​

If tax liens are such an indicator of character and trustworthiness, wouldn’t it have more significance for the treasurer of a presidential campaign than for a man who just asked a question of the candidate? If the national media has such an interest in investigating a plumber who made a couple of national appearances, why wouldn’t they have at least the same interest in the people running a major party presidential campaign? Of course not. The same people who instruct us that Barack Obama’s 20-year membership in Jeremiah Wright’s church while Wright called 9/11 “chickens coming home to roost” now interrogate Joe the Plumber on national TV about his brief flirtation with the Natural Law Party.
Because, you know, associations matter when choosing a plumber, but apparently not when choosing a President.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/17/guess-who-else-has-tax-liens/

Please ignore this item, as it comes from one of those horrible right-wing blogs. (Like mine.)

 

[Urwumpe]

Actually, that it is a blog is already bad enough.

And from searching for better primary sources, I found out that 90% of blog entries are identical. Many people again just took a good blog article and copied it, without further research, additions or fact checks. Thats the kind of behavior, I would hate my newspaper for...

 

[GregBurch]

Actually, that it is a blog is already bad enough.

And from searching for better primary sources, I found out that 90% of blog entries are identical. Many people again just took a good blog article and copied it, without further research, additions or fact checks. Thats the kind of behavior, I would hate my newspaper for...

Whatever you do, please don't reply to the substance of what I post, OK?

 

[Urwumpe]

Whatever you do, please don't reply to the substance of what I post, OK?

I can arrange this.

 

[dougkeenan]

LOL