Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Richie Allen]

From what I heard, a lot of Obama supporters felt he didn't do that well. I thought it was a toss-up. McCain came off condescending and annoyed at times, but overall I thought he did pretty well. He also looked sharper than I've seen him in a while.

I think it's the economy, then Palin, then maybe the debate but I don't think it had much effect at all.

The polls responded favorably for him immediately after the debate (more so than when the financial crisis first came to the forefront) despite the consensus among most pundits that it was a draw. We can all speculate but nobody knows for sure. I certainly didn't see a draw, however.

[Fat Strat]

I don't know how or why, but the banking crisis is helping Obama right now.

The fundamentals of the economy are strong.

-John McCain

It's helping because Obama seems to be saying the right things.

I don't know. To assume that answer is correct you have to assume that enough people are paying that much attention to where entire national polls are being swayed by sound bites. I just don't think a high number of people, especially undecided voters, are paying that much attention to what each candidate is saying on the stump.

I do think that big events, like the crisis, push people one way or another based on how they think it will affect them, who they think caused it, how each candidate responded to the crisis, or whatever criteria they feel is important.

And that's a largely personal thing. I, for example, am stronger in McCain's corner because of the financial crisis, but only because I think that his tax policy will better help us overcome the crisis quicker. I also think that Obama's social programs are lost causes in a downward economy. That's just my opinion, and someone else with a different perspective, a different outlook, etc. can look at the situation and form a completely different opinion.

[docellis]

i was driving thru Ladue this morning and saw 3 Obama yard signs and 1 McCain yard sign.

oddly enough, i was driving thru north county yesterday and saw 1 McCain yard sign and no Obama signs.

[Freed Roger]

And that's a largely personal thing. I, for example, am stronger in McCain's corner because of the financial crisis, but only because I think that his tax policy will better help us overcome the crisis quicker. I also think that Obama's social programs are lost causes in a downward economy. That's just my opinion, and someone else with a different perspective, a different outlook, etc. can look at the situation and form a completely different opinion.

I agree about the lost causes at this point. Both won't be able to live up to social program and tax cut pledges. I wish they would knock it off. They both ducked the question in the first debate.

I'm not sure where you are coming from on McCain's tax policy helping us. Tax on investments, capital gains and upper income levels are at historically low levels. what good have these tax cuts (which are skewed in favor of the wealthy) done? So lowering them even more will help? Typical GOP response to all fiscal problems is lower taxes and less regulation - its been far from successful.

Then there is the war which costs us a fortune. McCain says the war is worth it, but then its not worth it enough to have taxes that pay for it.

[Richie Allen]

I'm not sure where you are coming from on McCain's tax policy helping us. Tax on investments, capital gains and upper income levels are at historically low levels. what good have these tax cuts (which are skewed in favor of the wealthy) done? So lowering them even more will help? Typical GOP response to all fiscal problems is lower taxes and less regulation - its been far from successful.

Trickle-down economic theory. Rich people will use their extra wealth to create jobs. It worked for Reagan in the early 80s but I'm not certain it's always the correct answer.

[Fat Strat]

what good have these tax cuts (which are skewed in favor of the wealthy) done. So lowering them even more will help. Typical GOP response to all fiscal problems is lower taxes and less regulation. Thus far its been far from successful.

Thus far? We're talking about taxation and policy debates that have been raging for over a century with no clear right or wrong answer, and imo there's no correlation between the banking crisis and the collapse of the mortgage industry and the tax cuts of the Bush administration.

Again, this is all personal opinion, but in a world where I want to see less dependence on foreign oil, a quick transition toward alternative feul sources, and less government involvement in both industry and our personal lives, I see taxing the investing class of america (the rich) as little more than a great way to kill entrepenuership.

We need people--rich people--to have available income so they are willing to take risky ventures, such as financing an affordable solar panel, investing in wind farms, building a car that gets 100 mpg and fronting the capital to mass produce it and make it available at a competitve cost. I could go on.

The wealthiest people of the population employ the rest of us. Raising taxes on those people, while it might be "patriotic", is, imo, a great way to encourage them to downsize, cut jobs, stop investing, and insulate themselves. Instead of getting that money dumped into the economy and into jobs, it gets dumped into the federal government, which is exactly where I don't want it.

[Fat Strat]

I'm not sure where you are coming from on McCain's tax policy helping us. Tax on investments, capital gains and upper income levels are at historically low levels. what good have these tax cuts (which are skewed in favor of the wealthy) done? So lowering them even more will help? Typical GOP response to all fiscal problems is lower taxes and less regulation - its been far from successful.

Trickle-down economic theory. Rich people will use their extra wealth to create jobs. It worked for Reagan in the early 80s but I'm not certain it's always the correct answer.

I've also tried to note in all our discussions on this topic that trickle down vs. bubble up is kind of 6 of one 1/2 dozen of another debate. And that is why in my original post I used the word "quicker" fix to the economy.

As far as applying that classic economic debate to the two main candidates, it's not as cut and dried as it sometimes is. Both candidates want to cut taxes for the middle class. I'm dead in the center of the middle class and I think that I would see something like $100 less in taxes with Obama than I would with McCain. That's not enough to encourage me to go out and buy more, or I would be giving Obama a lot more credit than I do. The lower classes will see significantly more under Obama, but they're not really significant consumers so it's hard for me to see that helping the economy as quickly or as much as tax cuts to the investors.

It's a debate that could go on and on, and as you say, it's hard to know which answer is the right one. It's a personal decision, and in the end, probably either or both do about the same for the economy.

[Radbird]

I don't know how or why, but the banking crisis is helping Obama right now.

The fundamentals of the economy are strong.

-John McCain

It's helping because Obama seems to be saying the right things.

This quote isn't helping either.

McCain said, “The issue of economics is something that I’ve really never understood as well as I should.” (Boston Globe, 12/18/07)

[indyredbird]

The lower classes will see significantly more under Obama, but they're not really significant consumers so it's hard for me to see that helping the economy as quickly or as much as tax cuts to the investors.

I have heard that the lower 35-40% already pay nothing, so it is more like income redistribution to me. It's a whole other topic, but I think a flat tax is more fair. If I make twice as much money as someone, I should pay twice the taxes.

[Freed Roger]

what good have these tax cuts (which are skewed in favor of the wealthy) done. So lowering them even more will help. Typical GOP response to all fiscal problems is lower taxes and less regulation. Thus far its been far from successful.

Thus far? We're talking about taxation and policy debates that have been raging for over a century with no clear right or wrong answer, and imo there's no correlation between the banking crisis and the collapse of the mortgage industry and the tax cuts of the Bush administration.

Again, this is all personal opinion, but in a world where I want to see less dependence on foreign oil, a quick transition toward alternative feul sources, and less government involvement in both industry and our personal lives, I see taxing the investing class of america (the rich) as little more than a great way to kill entrepenuership.

We need people--rich people--to have available income so they are willing to take risky ventures, such as financing an affordable solar panel, investing in wind farms, building a car that gets 100 mpg and fronting the capital to mass produce it and make it available at a competitve cost. I could go on.

The wealthiest people of the population employ the rest of us. Raising taxes on those people, while it might be "patriotic", is, imo, a great way to encourage them to downsize, cut jobs, stop investing, and insulate themselves. Instead of getting that money dumped into the economy and into jobs, it gets dumped into the federal government, which is exactly where I don't want it.

I agree with some of what your saying Strat. Its a topic complicated beyond the scope of even a GRB forum. Terms like the marginal utility of the dollar - we can't go there.

That said -I don't always see the magic in a wealthy person having more money lieing around producing the best results - just bigger houses more toys for them. Why is investment income more sacred when it comes to taxation than wages? investment income IS favored under Bush's tax cuts and have been for 8 years. So shouldn't we be already reaping some of the rewards - jobs, energy independence, tech booms balanced budget etc.

Upper income people have always been subject to way more progressive taxation than they see now. But even back when tax rates were higher, they a) still managed to invest and b) stayed wealthy.

Bush' s tax cuts may have had an indirect role in this financial crisis. Just added fuel to a Wall St. based on pure speculation (instead of real profitable productive busn). What's more, at a time like now, when the economy could use a spark from something like a tax cut, we can't afford one. They blew it.