Yes, we can.

[Alex]

I'll say it before and I'll say it again. What I am looking for in a political leader is not necessarily someone who will achieve unanimity.

I'll be happy to have one that is capable of pursuing their agenda without treating the opposition as a hated enemy. I currently support Obama for president and I fully expect that once elected I will disagree with the vast majority of his policy positions and proposals.

And he may not have shown an ability to transcend party differences in the Senate but he certainly has in the presidential race. I know a lot of Republicans who are for him and not in a cynical "drag out the race to the advantage of McCain" way, but they actually think he'll be a better president.

I've never understood the idea that bipartisanship is supposed to mean "even though you're on the other side of the aisle you'll support my point of view." I don't think transcending party requires that Obama ever endorse or support a single Republican issue, nor is the same required of McCain or whomever.

Now, whether Obama will actually achieve this change in tone and atmosphere I strongly doubt. I just don't think the other two will even try. And if he is elected I will politely and respectfully oppose his agenda where I disagree with it. And I'll ultimately be on the losing side of some and the winning side of others and if that can happen without being expected to hate the other side then I'll be happy.

[Kevy Baby]

I can't believe I just passed an argument about wearing a lapel pin. Is this really all we have to discuss?

I don't care what kind of spin someone tries to put on it from either side: it's a freakin' non-issue.

[Morrigoon]

Beautiful, wasn't it? I love a good absurd comedy.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I can't believe I just passed an argument about wearing a lapel pin. Is this really all we have to discuss?

I don't care what kind of spin someone tries to put on it from either side: it's a freakin' non-issue.

Thank you! That was my point!

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I can't believe I just passed an argument about wearing a lapel pin. Is this really all we have to discuss?

Tell it to Disney and their serious, traditional news division.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Tell it to Disney and their serious, traditional news division.

One interesting side effect is that it gives Obama rational to declare he will not participate in any more debates. Which, as the front runner, is good for him. All he needs to do now is not mess up and no more debates is a good step in that direction.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'll say it before and I'll say it again. What I am looking for in a political leader is not necessarily someone who will achieve unanimity.

I'll be happy to have one that is capable of pursuing their agenda without treating the opposition as a hated enemy. I currently support Obama for president and I fully expect that once elected I will disagree with the vast majority of his policy positions and proposals.

And he may not have shown an ability to transcend party differences in the Senate but he certainly has in the presidential race. I know a lot of Republicans who are for him and not in a cynical "drag out the race to the advantage of McCain" way, but they actually think he'll be a better president.

I've never understood the idea that bipartisanship is supposed to mean "even though you're on the other side of the aisle you'll support my point of view." I don't think transcending party requires that Obama ever endorse or support a single Republican issue, nor is the same required of McCain or whomever.

Now, whether Obama will actually achieve this change in tone and atmosphere I strongly doubt. I just don't think the other two will even try. And if he is elected I will politely and respectfully oppose his agenda where I disagree with it. And I'll ultimately be on the losing side of some and the winning side of others and if that can happen without being expected to hate the other side then I'll be happy.

Totally in the "wish I had said that" category! Thanks!

[sleepyjeff]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1208...w_and_outlooks

Time and again, the rookie Senator has said he would not raise taxes on middle-class earners,
But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising ..the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.

"Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20%," said Mr. Gibson. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

The most recent such episode was in the early 1990s, when Mr. Obama was old enough to be paying attention. That's one reason Jack Kennedy proposed cutting the capital gains rate. And it's one reason Bill Clinton went along with a rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.

Either the young Illinois Senator is ignorant of this revenue data, or he doesn't really care because he's a true income redistributionist who prefers high tax rates as a matter of ideological dogma regardless of the revenue consequences. Neither one is a recommendation for President.

By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

[Alex]

We should reduce the capital gains tax down to 0% so that we can get the maximum revenue. In fact, if the government started paying people to take capital gains just imagine how much revenue would come in.

I'll have to look at Obama's complete tax plan but there may appear to be an inconsistency. Though, of course, "I will cut your taxes" does not necessarily mean "I won't raise any of the individual taxes." But if he's talking out both sides of his mouth, then by all means let's point it out.

But this chart doesn't seem to quite show the correlation that is described. I don't see anything indicating that a rate reduction does anything to permanently increase revenues. Looks like if anything, all it does it create a couple year spike before it falls back to where it was. If the cut in 97 is solely responsible for the steep increase in 98 and 99 isn't it also responsible for the steep decline in 2000 and 2001? And do we have to ignore the fact that the increases were already going up in 1995 and 1996 before the rate was changed? It looks to me like the rate seems to get changed in the midst of already significant economic changes.



The capital gains tax increased hugely at the beginning of the chart without dramatically impacting gross revenues. So maybe all lowering does is increase uncertainty of revenue?

[Morrigoon]

I think 2001-2 could be explained by the bursting of the dot-com bubble and resultant hesitancy to participate in the stock market. Or by the losses that occurred (no gains, no tax). Otherwise, I see a pretty solid inverse relationship there.