Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Socnorb11]

I'll divulge a little personal info against my better judgement and tell you that based on that plan Obama will cost me more tax dollars than McCain.

It's ok, I can afford it. Really I can. Actually I can afford more than what is being proposed, and if it comes to that and makes sense I will pay it. See, taxes are ok. They aren't evil. If spent responsibly, I actually get quite a bit out of them and am glad to pay them.

Likewise.

I'm perfectly willing to pay more taxes under his plan.

Especially if that money is used to help my fellow citizens.

Admirable viewpoint, pop. And THIS is what Barrack is talking about:

Words of Barrack Obama, spoken this week as we, as a nation, watched Hurrican Gustav unfold his fury:

All across America there are quiet storms taking place. There are lives of quiet desperation. People who need just a little bit of help. Now, Americans are a self-reliant people, we’re an independent people. We don’t like asking somebody else to do what we can do ourselves but you know what we understand is that every once in a while somebody’s going to get knocked down. Every once in a while somebody’s going to go through some hard times. When we least expect it tragedy may strike. And what has always made this country great is the understanding that we rise and fall as one nation, that values and family, community and neighborhood, they have to express themselves in our government. Those are national values. Those are values that we all subscribe to. And so that the spirit that we extend today and in the days to come as we monitor what happens on the Gulf that’s the spirit that we’ve got to carry with us each and every day. That’s the spirit that we need in our own homes and it’s the spirit that we need in the White House. And that’s why I’m running for president of the United States of America.

Because if there’s a poor child out there, that’s my child. If there’s a senior that’s having trouble, that’s my grandparent. If there’s a guy who’s lost his job, that’s my brother. If there’s a woman out there without healthcare, that’s my sister. Those are the values that built this country. Those are the values we are fighting for."

[ghostrunner]

Wonder what's with the bump in Obama's plan there in the middle? You go from -1.8 to -2.1 to -1.9

I agree with Jim and Pop on taxes, up to a point. I can't advocate going back to 50% income taxation on anyone. But personally I don't mind paying them. I'd add the caveat that before I just say yes (assuming I had a say) to Obama's plan I'd want to know where the money was going.

[ghostrunner]

I don't, but I know that we weren't well-liked by a lot of people prior to Bush. So I'd flip it and say that anyone who thinks the perception is completely based on Bush (or Republicans) is misguided. He's part of it, but there's been a perception long before him that we're forcing our culture and products (and our military for that matter) on other people. Which is true in some cases.

This IS true, and the reason is globalization. The fatcats love
it...the rest of the world, not so much.

I liked Clinton for a lot of reasons, but him being a proponent of
globalization/NAFTA/CAFTA had me tearing my hair out.

Single biggest mistake of his presidency, and I knew it from day 1.

Hmm. Another can of worms. What's the problem with globalization? It's benefitted workers overseas, and in Mexico. I think that's a good thing. There might be specific flaws in NAFTA, but I'm fine the basic idea.

[heyzeus]

It's an odd thing that in the past 15 or so years, the Democrats have become the balanced budget party, and the Republicans have become the deficit spending party. If Obama could capture some of Clinton's ideas and policy towards that end, I'd be delighted.*



* Admittedly, Clinton's budget surplus was in large part a product of the booming late-90's economy, and presidents can only take credit for so much of any economic success. But a balanced budget is a balanced budget, and the Bush administration has been irresponsible on this end, resulting in inflation, currency devaluation, and now job loss.

[Popeye_Card]

What's the problem with globalization? It's benefitted workers overseas, and in Mexico. I think that's a good thing. There might be specific flaws in NAFTA, but I'm fine the basic idea.

You must not know many people who have lost jobs because of globalization.

And NAFTA must not be too great for Mexicans, otherwise we wouldn't have the illegal immigration problems that we do.

But I'll say that it's not the President's problem to solve, really. It's American philosophy of quantity and disposal over quality. It's the thought that we need to keep producing quantities, and keep buying quantities to keep the economy going. No we don't. It helps the three E's--economy, employment, and environment--if we really start focusing on quality.

Or we can keep opting for cheap products that are going to be made cheaper overseas than we can make them here.

[Popeye_Card]

It's an odd thing that in the past 15 or so years, the Democrats have become the balanced budget party, and the Republicans have become the deficit spending party. If Obama could capture some of Clinton's ideas and policy towards that end, I'd be delighted.*



* Admittedly, Clinton's budget surplus was in large part a product of the booming late-90's economy, and presidents can only take credit for so much of any economic success. But a balanced budget is a balanced budget, and the Bush administration has been irresponsible on this end, resulting in inflation, currency devaluation, and now job loss.

Well we can't give all of the credit to Clinton. Remember that Newt's Republican congress was really gung-ho on the whole balanced budget thing.

But I know the point you're getting at. I'd like to see a graph of the last 30 years or so charting the federal budget, federal revenues, and number of federal employees. All adjusted for inflation, of course. Then on that chart, note which years have a Dem/Rep President, and which years have Dem/Rep controlled House and/or Senate. Somebody brought it up in this thread that spending is usually at it's worst when one party controls everything. I'd like to see the numbers on that.

[ghostrunner]

What's the problem with globalization? It's benefitted workers overseas, and in Mexico. I think that's a good thing. There might be specific flaws in NAFTA, but I'm fine the basic idea.

You must not know many people who have lost jobs because of globalization.

And NAFTA must not be too great for Mexicans, otherwise we wouldn't have the illegal immigration problems that we do.

But I'll say that it's not the President's problem to solve, really. It's American philosophy of quantity and disposal over quality. It's the thought that we need to keep producing quantities, and keep buying quantities to keep the economy going. No we don't. It helps the three E's--economy, employment, and environment--if we really start focusing on quality.

Or we can keep opting for cheap products that are going to be made cheaper overseas than we can make them here.

I don't understand why Americans are "supposed" to have the jobs, and why foreign workers aren't. I think there's a lot of benefit to raising the standard of living around the world. We're not paying those workers American wages, but in many cases it's more than they were getting paid before. Mexico's employment issues weren't going to be immediately solved by NAFTA alone, and what help it does bring isn't going to outweigh the benefits of those people working here.

This article suggests things may be turning around in Mexico:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/opini ... ref=slogin

So what is the significance of all this? The aging of the population in Mexico coupled with Mexico's economic expansion mean that jobs in Mexico will be more plentiful, thereby prompting fewer young people to come to the United States in search of work. Studies have shown that as the population growth rate in countries worldwide slows, migration drops. This is especially true for an expanding economy like Mexico - in one telling statistic, youth unemployment there dropped to 4.1 percent in 2001 from 9.6 percent in 1995.

A recent Pew Hispanic Center study highlights some of the change in immigration to the United States from the south. Pew predicts that the share of first-generation immigrants in the total Hispanic population in the United States will drop from about 40 percent in 2000 to closer to a third by 2020. Thus first-generation immigrants will decline by almost 20 percent as a share of the total Hispanic population in the United States.

[ghostrunner]

It's an odd thing that in the past 15 or so years, the Democrats have become the balanced budget party, and the Republicans have become the deficit spending party. If Obama could capture some of Clinton's ideas and policy towards that end, I'd be delighted.*



* Admittedly, Clinton's budget surplus was in large part a product of the booming late-90's economy, and presidents can only take credit for so much of any economic success. But a balanced budget is a balanced budget, and the Bush administration has been irresponsible on this end, resulting in inflation, currency devaluation, and now job loss.

Well we can't give all of the credit to Clinton. Remember that Newt's Republican congress was really gung-ho on the whole balanced budget thing.

But I know the point you're getting at. I'd like to see a graph of the last 30 years or so charting the federal budget, federal revenues, and number of federal employees. All adjusted for inflation, of course. Then on that chart, note which years have a Dem/Rep President, and which years have Dem/Rep controlled House and/or Senate. Somebody brought it up in this thread that spending is usually at it's worst when one party controls everything. I'd like to see the numbers on that.

Clinton was actually the first President to even propose a balanced budget since LBJ.

You're right that having an opposing Congress helped keep things balanced. I'm curious to see what Obama does, knowing he's got a Democratic House and Senate.

[Popeye_Card]

What's the problem with globalization? It's benefitted workers overseas, and in Mexico. I think that's a good thing. There might be specific flaws in NAFTA, but I'm fine the basic idea.

You must not know many people who have lost jobs because of globalization.

And NAFTA must not be too great for Mexicans, otherwise we wouldn't have the illegal immigration problems that we do.

But I'll say that it's not the President's problem to solve, really. It's American philosophy of quantity and disposal over quality. It's the thought that we need to keep producing quantities, and keep buying quantities to keep the economy going. No we don't. It helps the three E's--economy, employment, and environment--if we really start focusing on quality.

Or we can keep opting for cheap products that are going to be made cheaper overseas than we can make them here.

I don't understand why Americans are "supposed" to have the jobs, and why foreign workers aren't. I think there's a lot of benefit to raising the standard of living around the world. We're not paying those workers American wages, but in many cases it's more than they were getting paid before. Mexico's employment issues weren't going to be immediately solved by NAFTA alone, and what help it does bring isn't going to outweigh the benefits of those people working here.

This article suggests things may be turning around in Mexico:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/opini ... ref=slogin

So what is the significance of all this? The aging of the population in Mexico coupled with Mexico's economic expansion mean that jobs in Mexico will be more plentiful, thereby prompting fewer young people to come to the United States in search of work. Studies have shown that as the population growth rate in countries worldwide slows, migration drops. This is especially true for an expanding economy like Mexico - in one telling statistic, youth unemployment there dropped to 4.1 percent in 2001 from 9.6 percent in 1995.

A recent Pew Hispanic Center study highlights some of the change in immigration to the United States from the south. Pew predicts that the share of first-generation immigrants in the total Hispanic population in the United States will drop from about 40 percent in 2000 to closer to a third by 2020. Thus first-generation immigrants will decline by almost 20 percent as a share of the total Hispanic population in the United States.

I get your point, but I think it's misguided. Yes, there's jobs being created overseas, but they're moving there because they can pay people less there to do the same thing. That's just taking advantage of people, and further exploiting them.

As for the Mexican unemployment, I'm not sure what that really tells us. There's a few factors at play. One is that there's a mass exodus of people leaving the system to the US. Take people away, and you're going to drop your unemployment percentages. Another is that unemployment by itself doesn't really say much. They could be employed, but earning a 20 cents an hour. What good does that do?

I'd equate the whole thing to equalizing the pressure across a border. I don't think it's a symbol of the problem going away.

[Fat Strat]

Well we can't give all of the credit to Clinton. Remember that Newt's Republican congress was really gung-ho on the whole balanced budget thing.

But I know the point you're getting at. I'd like to see a graph of the last 30 years or so charting the federal budget, federal revenues, and number of federal employees. All adjusted for inflation, of course. Then on that chart, note which years have a Dem/Rep President, and which years have Dem/Rep controlled House and/or Senate. Somebody brought it up in this thread that spending is usually at it's worst when one party controls everything. I'd like to see the numbers on that.

I don't have that chart, but the size of government (and I'm not really sure how they're measuring this) climbed during Clinton's years and then escalated more during Bush's tenure. If I remember correctly, Clinton wasn't really as bad with expanding beauracracy as republicans made him out to be. Bush has been a big disappointment to me in that area, but in some ways it's understandable, considering the increase in the size of the military and the addition of the Homeland Security Department, two large changes that I agreed with. (I don't know if military is included in those numbers, though, but I'm assuming they are, at least to some degree.)

That said, I put most of the blame for the fiscal irresponsibility on Congress. Earmarks, riders, and federally funded local projects... I'm a Republican and I liked the idea of Clinton's line-item veto.

It's Congress' job to represent their states/regions. I don't mind local officials getting federal funds at all - Palin's work as a mayor, is a good example. That's one of their responsibilities considering how our gov. is set up, but there should be some sort of oversight or control over it. I hate that they can force a big spending project through Congress by attaching it to legislation that's actually important.