The October Surprise

[Roadtrip]

You're either kidding us or admitting that you have only listened to, watched (on TV), viewed (on the net), or read (print media) right wing leaning media. Being an independent/moderate, I have tried to view both sides close to equally. It is difficult most times as there is so much spin on things with some, that it is unbearable at times -- for any length of time.

 

Go to Obama's site and compare it to McCain's site - which one has a great deal more information (depth) on the candidate's policy positions? Does McCain have a personal income tax calculator on his site that demonstrates what his tax policy is? No. Obama wins hands down - on all counts. He has been much more forthcoming in identifying his policies than McCain IMO.

 

Is information from a political campaign's Web site more accurate or reliable than information gleaned from a variety of other sources? It's rhetorical question. Political campaigns - by their nature - are in the business of disseminating propaganda. Granted, digesting traditional news sources requires the use of a critical-thinking filter to identify biases and self interests - and thinking is synomymous with work. However, eschewing traditional news sources in favor of reaching voting decisions based on campaign propaganda is downright dangerous.

 

As for Obama's income tax calculator, it's merely a marketing tool whose purpose is to engage people, to get them to believe Obama is serious about his tax-cut promises, and to get them to embrace the idea that Obama is more mainstream (offering tax cuts) than his opponent would have the public believe. It's a brilliant strategy, in that it has effectively outflanked the traditional Republican strategy of cutting taxes.

 

It's also a lie, just as Clinton promised to reduce taxes in his 1992 campaign, and then once elected, he raised them. (Caveat: Clinton got smart and lowered capital-gains taxes and introduced welfare reform after the Republicans swept into office in the 1994 mid-term elections.) Anyone who is paying attention to the American economy knows that there is no way - in the near- or intermediate-term future - that Obama can reconcile cutting taxes for "95 percent of Americans" and implement his new spending bills at the same time.

 

Well he could attempt this, but it would be dangerous to his long-term political health (as well as his presidential legacy) - and it would be devastating to the long-term health of the American economy. He knows this. The likelihood of Obama cutting income taxes for 95 percent of Americans (if he is sane) are roughly the same as the Detroit Lions winning the Super Bowl.

 

However, if Obama is the populist he seems to be, he could implement his health-care plan and spend on infrastructure and cut taxes by floating more government debt. The government of Argentina did this in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Then in late 2001 - early 2002, Argentina defaulted on its government bonds. The result? The Argentine peso (which had been pegged to the dollar) lost two thirds of its value overnight. Wealthy people in Buenos Aires were suddenly middle class. Middle class people were suddenly poor. (It's interesting to note that early in the first half of the 20th century, Argentina had the world's fourth largest economy because of its abundant natural resources. But because of populist polititicians - namely Juan Peron and the subsequent "Peronistas" - Argentina has been relegated to "developing economy" status.) Argentina is a beautiful country and it has a wonderful infrastructure, but its people are very poor, and have very little opportunity to succeed (in spite of the opportunity for "free" education and "free" health care).

 

Considering Obama's populist positions, combined with his propensity to reverse his positions to attain popular support, I like to think of politics in these terms: If an election is an an auction for desireable outcomes, Democrats will always outbid Republicans. Democrats promise things they can't possibly deliver. So do Republicans. So it comes down to the possiblilty of the deliverables.

 

Income tax cuts, "health care for everyone," "free"' college education, infrastructure investment, and so on and so forth. This sounds great! Is this achievable in this economy? Nope.

 

The single best proposal in this entire campaign is McCain's proposal to reduce corporate income taxes. The biggest failure of the McCain campaign was not to emphasize this idea, and educate the public on how reducing corporate income tax rates can create jobs (as well as how the corporate income tax is the most insidious tax of all).

 

And this is economic fact, not political propoganda.

[RangerM]

Is information from a political campaign's Web site more accurate or reliable than information gleaned from a variety of other sources? It's rhetorical question. Political campaigns - by their nature - are in the business of disseminating propaganda. Granted, digesting traditional news sources requires the use of a critical-thinking filter to identify biases and self interests - and thinking is synomymous with work. However, eschewing traditional news sources in favor of reaching voting decisions based on campaign propaganda is downright dangerous.

 

As for Obama's income tax calculator, it's merely a marketing tool whose purpose is to engage people, to get them to believe Obama is serious about his tax-cut promises, and to get them to embrace the idea that Obama is more mainstream (offering tax cuts) than his opponent would have the public believe. It's a brilliant strategy, in that it has effectively outflanked the traditional Republican strategy of cutting taxes.

 

It's also a lie, just as Clinton promised to reduce taxes in his 1992 campaign, and then once elected, he raised them. (Caveat: Clinton got smart and lowered capital-gains taxes and introduced welfare reform after the Republicans swept into office in the 1994 mid-term elections.) Anyone who is paying attention to the American economy knows that there is no way - in the near- or intermediate-term future - that Obama can reconcile cutting taxes for "95 percent of Americans" and implement his new spending bills at the same time.

 

Well he could attempt this, but it would be dangerous to his long-term political health (as well as his presidential legacy) - and it would be devastating to the long-term health of the American economy. He knows this. The likelihood of Obama cutting income taxes for 95 percent of Americans (if he is sane) are roughly the same as the Detroit Lions winning the Super Bowl.

 

However, if Obama is the populist he seems to be, he could implement his health-care plan and spend on infrastructure and cut taxes by floating more government debt. The government of Argentina did this in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Then in late 2001 - early 2002, Argentina defaulted on its government bonds. The result? The Argentine peso (which had been pegged to the dollar) lost two thirds of its value overnight. Wealthy people in Buenos Aires were suddenly middle class. Middle class people were suddenly poor. (It's interesting to note that early in the first half of the 20th century, Argentina had the world's fourth largest economy because of its abundant natural resources. But because of populist polititicians - namely Juan Peron and the subsequent "Peronistas" - Argentina has been relegated to "developing economy" status.) Argentina is a beautiful country and it has a wonderful infrastructure, but its people are very poor, and have very little opportunity to succeed (in spite of the opportunity for "free" education and "free" health care).

 

Considering Obama's populist positions, combined with his propensity to reverse his positions to attain popular support, I like to think of politics in these terms: If an election is an an auction for desireable outcomes, Democrats will always outbid Republicans. Democrats promise things they can't possibly deliver. So do Republicans. So it comes down to the possiblilty of the deliverables.

 

Income tax cuts, "health care for everyone," "free"' college education, infrastructure investment, and so on and so forth. This sounds great! Is this achievable in this economy? Nope.

 

The single best proposal in this entire campaign is McCain's proposal to reduce corporate income taxes. The biggest failure of the McCain campaign was not to emphasize this idea, and educate the public on how reducing corporate income tax rates can create jobs (as well as how the corporate income tax is the most insidious tax of all).

 

And this is economic fact, not political propoganda.

 

+1

 

Thanks for making the response that I failed to make earlier in the thread.

[Bored of Pisteon]

Let's try a December surprise instead!

 

Hell! Maybe the National Enquirer knows something and can find out! They broke the John Edwards scandal initially right?

 

 

 

Wouldn't doubt it!

Edited November 7, 2008 by Bored of Pisteon

[RaZor]

Oh, so you would believe what the National Enquirer publishes?