The end is near!

[sweetheart-mine]

Do you really think our system is working? I don't. We need whole scale election reform. Yes, the president is irrelevant to that goal. The party in power never wants reform because they have the upper hand in that regard.

 

no. i don't think our system is working. that will, realistically, be addressed not by revolution but by evolution, beginning with election of presidents and congresspeople who get it drummed into their skulls by the people who elected them that reform is a must -- or they're out on their butts. if you have a better start in mind, have at it. if the president isn't involved either hands-on or by example, at least for starters, who do you see as leaders in this reform movement? let me know, because i'd like to have a word with them.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Honest question:

 

My father's main stated reason for not voting for Obama is capital gains tax. He says that higher capital gains taxes result in less investment and therefore less market growth. Now, if I'm not mistaken, capital gains taxes have been higher historically during Democratic Presidential administrations. So how can one reconcile that with the pronounced difference in S&P gains as illustrated here*?

 

 

 

Now I realize that the markets are complex and one factor isn't going to equal causation, but doesn't the historical evidence kind of fly in the face of higher capital gains taxes necessarily equating to slowing market growth?

 

*previously posted content

[sweetheart-mine]

Not if you don't omit the "did not vote because lynched" category in the polling then.

 

exactly.

[Lammycat]

What makes Palin more historic than Geraldine Ferraro?

Oh nothing, but Geraldine no longer has the opportunity (currently) to make history by taking so high of an office.

 

Either way, history will be made by whomever of the Big Two Parties is elected.

[sweetheart-mine]

. . . I think the country would be in equally bad shape, perhaps somewhat different but still bad, had we dealt with Gore or Bush.

 

never to be proven otherwise, of course, but i think that is rash-generalization b.s.

 

edit: p.s. would the world be in equally bad shape in terms of our effects on it? no way.

[Spawn's dad]

no. i don't think our system is working. that will, realistically, be addressed not by revolution but by evolution, beginning with election of presidents and congresspeople who get it drummed into their skulls by the people who elected them that reform is a must -- or they're out on their butts. if you have a better start in mind, have at it. if the president isn't involved either hands-on or by example, at least for starters, who do you see as leaders in this reform movement? let me know, because i'd like to have a word with them.

 

I don't think our present system can address the kind of social change I think necessary for the long term survival and safety of the majority of the earth's people and resources. I certainly don't think it can address political reform, as to get to that level these folks need to sell their souls (sorry Maker). So yeah, I'm of the revolution ilk. I'd get going on but I'm not prepared to get arrested until my kid is emancipated.

[Spawn's dad]

never to be proven otherwise, of course, but i think that is rash-generalization b.s.

 

edit: p.s. would the world be in equally bad shape in terms of our effects on it? no way.

 

I don't buy it, sorry. We're fucking the world up by such leaps and bounds that we need a far

larger emergency brake than provided by a change in president. It's a good start but not

nearly enough.

[sweetheart-mine]

I don't think our present system can address the kind of social change I think necessary for the long term survival and safety of the majority of the earth's people and resources. I certainly don't think it can address political reform, as to get to that level these folks need to sell their souls (sorry Maker). So yeah, I'm of the revolution ilk. I'd get going on but I'm not prepared to get arrested until my kid is emancipated.

 

no one is ever prepared for one reason or another (probably most of them valid). that is why, though i'd love to see a revolutionary overhaul of our political & governmental systems and consider myself pretty far left of democrat or liberal -- as you sound, at least in this post -- i've learned that, at least for myself, my first responsibility is to vote in the candidate most likely to do the most good, nationwide but especially worldwide.

[JUDE]

I don't think our present system can address the kind of social change I think necessary for the long term survival and safety of the majority of the earth's people and resources. I certainly don't think it can address political reform, as to get to that level these folks need to sell their souls (sorry Maker). So yeah, I'm of the revolution ilk. I'd get going on but I'm not prepared to get arrested until my kid is emancipated.

 

 

I used to have this discussion with my ex and her people quite often, they being idealists and working hard for the DFL, were all about how they were making a difference and that their candidate of choice (Kerry in 2004) was going to be the tool for evolutionary change in government. I being a bit more on the cynical side (and conservative to boot) argued that we will keep replaying the current cycle of Democrat-Republican-Up-Down until things get so bad there would be a very real revolution, until then comfort zones and complacency will win every time.

[MattZ]

Now I realize that the markets are complex and one factor isn't going to equal causation, but doesn't the historical evidence kind of fly in the face of higher capital gains taxes necessarily equating to slowing market growth?

 

Yes, the historical evidence that you present directly contradicts your father's position. I think most republicans would argue that the economy's growth under Clinton resulted from the Reagan/Bush policies, and so Clinton caught a windfall. But either way, your argument would still hold that higher capital gains rates do not hurt a growing economy. Hard to tie up the causation though, since no one knows how long the seeds have to be planted before the plant grows.

[sweetheart-mine]

I don't buy it, sorry. We're fucking the world up by such leaps and bounds that we need a far

larger emergency brake than provided by a change in president. It's a good start but not

nearly enough.

 

we actually agree on quite a lot. what is the alternative to a good start? i think a good start is better than nothing -- or, worse, a deeper dive into the morasses of neocon territory.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Yes, the historical evidence that you present directly contradicts your father's position. I think most republicans would argue that the economy's growth under Clinton resulted from the Reagan/Bush policies, and so Clinton caught a windfall. But either way, your argument would still hold that higher capital gains rates do not hurt a growing economy. Hard to tie up the causation though, since no one knows how long the seeds have to be planted before the plant grows.

Oh absolutely, but we're also not simply talking about Clinton or recent history, but 4 decades of history for each party. If those historic numbers were to hold true, wouldn't cap gains tax have to be >80% under the Dems vs. 0% under the GOP for an investor to take home less under a Dem administration? Granted the biggest gains by far came under Clinton and if you eliminate W and Nixon, the GOP has fared better.

[Spawn's dad]

Like Jude said, when we get stuck battling for nothing but the middle ground we end up in a freeze/thaw cycle. Back and forth just a little bit. Rarely awful, but rarely great. Impossible to fix health care or social security or schools or....

 

we actually agree on quite a lot. what is the alternative to a good start? i think a good start is better than nothing -- or, worse, a deeper dive into the morasses of neocon territory.

 

You know, sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. If the economy really rock bottoms, or an ice cap disappears you'll see some

real impetus for change.

[Analogman]

Or a lot of surprised people if it does? The new deal revisited is a good first step. Energy, infrastructure, jobs in the US.

 

I like that idea.

 

"Check this out. This is a documentary project featuring Republicans and Conservatives who are voting for Obama. These are real people, speaking in their own words."

[bobbob1313]

Or a lot of surprised people if it does? The new deal revisited is a good first step. Energy, infrastructure, jobs in the US.

 

Did the new deal really do much of anything to get us out of the depression?

[bjorn_skurj]

Did the new deal really do much of anything to get us out of the depression?

It took the war for total economic recovery. The New Deal a.) kept a lot of people from starving, b.) may well have headed off a revolution and 3.) primed the pump with infrastructure projects.

[Spawn's dad]

It built some kick ass parks also!

[JUDE]

It took the war for total economic recovery. The New Deal a.) kept a lot of people from starving, b.) may well have headed off a revolution and 3.) primed the pump with infrastructure projects.

 

 

The school property across from my house has some nice granite block walls that were built during that era by the works programs, they are looking a bit ratty now so maybe they can get those fixed up a bit in the next couple of years.

[bobbob1313]

It took the war for total economic recovery. The New Deal a.) kept a lot of people from starving, b.) may well have headed off a revolution and 3.) primed the pump with infrastructure projects.

 

So rather than trumpeting it as the answer to our economic woes, shouldn't we look to it as an example of an emergency safety net? Are things bad enough where we need it yet? I don't think so. It should be kept in the back of our minds if things get so bad that we are dealing with double digit unemployment and massive food shortages, but I wouldn't be very optimistic if Obama tried to revisit the New Deal it as a way to stimulate the economy, as FHF suggests.

 

I'm not very confident in either's abilities to get the economy going again in their term. But I also don't think either will have much of an impact. It's going to do what it is going to do.

[Spawn's dad]

M. Chris just said "black people."

[austrya]

Did the new deal really do much of anything to get us out of the depression?

 

I do know that it built much of the Toledo Zoo.

[MattZ]

Oh absolutely, but we're also not simply talking about Clinton or recent history, but 4 decades of history for each party. If those historic numbers were to hold true, wouldn't cap gains tax have to be >80% under the Dems vs. 0% under the GOP for an investor to take home less under a Dem administration?

 

Sure, but what I am saying is that market growth can't be easily tied to an administration. So anecdotally, if you believe that economy of the mid90s was a result of Reagan's policies in the 80s, then you'd say that the market grew in spite of the capital gains under Clinton. And that capital gains is a lagging indicator. Same would hold true for any boom/bust cycle over those 4 decades of history. So, I think Republicans would say that the reason you take home more in a Dem administration as you say is because they follow Republican administrations that put the economy on the proper course. It becomes circular.

 

EDIT: Again, your initial premise holds true, though. Higher capital gains taxes do not slow a growing economy. Now, whether a Dem is responsible for that growing economy? We can argue til the cows come home.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Sure, but what I am saying is that market growth can't be easily tied to an administration. So anecdotally, if you believe that economy of the mid90s was a result of Reagan's policies in the 80s, then you'd say that the market grew in spite of the capital gains under Clinton. And that capital gains is a lagging indicator. Same would hold true for any boom/bust cycle over those 4 decades of history. So, I think Republicans would say that the reason you take home more in a Dem administration as you say is because they follow Republican administrations that put the economy on the proper course. It becomes circular.

 

EDIT: Again, your initial premise holds true, though. Higher capital gains do not slow a growing economy. Now, whether a Dem is responsible for that growing economy? We can argue til the cows come home.

Ahh I see what you;re saying and agree wholeheartedly.

[bjorn_skurj]

So rather than trumpeting it as the answer to our economic woes, shouldn't we look to it as an example of an emergency safety net? Are things bad enough where we need it yet? I don't think so. It should be kept in the back of our minds if things get so bad that we are dealing with double digit unemployment and massive food shortages, but I wouldn't be very optimistic if Obama tried to revisit the New Deal it as a way to stimulate the economy, as FHF suggests.

 

I'm not very confident in either's abilities to get the economy going again in their term. But I also don't think either will have much of an impact. It's going to do what it is going to do.

We don't really need something on the scale of the New Deal, as long as the bottom does not totally fall out. We need a solution to health care, for sure, and infrastructure repair, which would add jobs. Some help for people caught up in the subprime mortgage mess would be good, too, but I am not completely in favor of saving people from their own stupidity. Lord knows I have had to pay for mine, and others should too.

[sweetheart-mine]

You know, sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. If the economy really rock bottoms, or an ice cap disappears you'll see some

real impetus for change.

 

this is true, and i agree likely to foster bigger and faster change than anything else -- though "faster" is always relative. it's why i've never posted laments about gas prices or the economy. hard as those things are on lots of people (including my middle-class-at-best household), in the big picture they or related issues will make daily-life changes necessary and in the process straighten out some really screwed-up materialistic priorities.