Brilliant Thomas Sowell editorial on Obama

[Cheering472]

I doubt that he suddenly quit spinning facts just because they were no longer looking. Once a spinner, always a spinner.

 

[Linda]

I doubt that he suddenly quit spinning facts just because they were no longer looking. Once a spinner, always a spinner.

Spin is in the eye of the beholder. People should just do their own research and come up with their own conclusions. I am sure that we all won't agree. Have a great day - I'm going shopping while I still have some money left that hasn't gone to Uncle Sam.

 

[Cheering472]

Spin is in the eye of the beholder. People should just do their own research and come up with their own conclusions. I am sure that we all won't agree. Have a great day - I'm going shopping while I still have some money left that hasn't gone to Uncle Sam.

Good idea. I'll stay here and work to help generate more taxes. (But would rather be out helping the economy by spending.)

 

[Mango]

Mango - I looked at the website www.spinsanity.org and found that while their web site still exists, they have not updated it since November of 2004. I believe that Stephen Moore is very credible and that his article which was written in November 2007 is accurate.

Although the web site is old, the criticism is applicable as it relates to his current article particularly the part below because it shows clearly that he omitted pertinent time periods, especially during the Reagan era, in his analysis.

5. What has happened to tax rates in America over the last several decades?
They?ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what?s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent

What prompted me to look was I was have seen multiple analyses and some of Moore's figures stood out glaringly as opposed to others. Secondly, Moore jumps all around in his analysis, for ex. in comparing the US to other nations, which is irrevelant in my opinion, and sounds like he is reaching.

Then this part:
. But didn?t the Bush tax cuts favor the rich?
The New York Times reported recently that the average family in America with an income of $10 million or more received a half-million-dollar tax cut, while the middle class got crumbs (less than $100 shaved off their tax bill). If we examine the taxes paid in a static world?that is, if we assume that there was no change in behavior and economic performance as a result of the tax code?then these numbers are meaningful. Most of the tax cuts went to the super wealthy.

IMO, Moore is spinning because the analyses I have seen do not compare families with incomes of 10 million and up.

Shopping sounds like more funn. Good idea. I'll go spend my Bush stimulus check.

 

[6thGen]

6thgen - you are a healthy, angry white man. Thus, you're argument here carries no weight until you chop off your leg.

I recognize I'm about as welcome here as head lice, and I'm not going to win the internet message board Prom king at the next get together, but the fact that I've been called angry and foolish without anyone addressing any of my points, or addressing where I was angry or foolish, pretty much solidifies my argument. When cross examination consists of nothing more than emoticons, I'm confident with my case before judge and jury.

 

[rapunzel]

But what exactly does "getting out" or "ending the war" mean and how much money are we actually talking about saving.

Here's a bigger question. If all of the candidates have economic plans, why doesn't one of them sit down with an economist or two (or twenty) and do an assessment of the costs of their plans and where the money would come from to pay for those plans. It seems simple enough to me and if it is defensible then they should not have a problem with disclosure. The benefit is that candidate could then beat the other ones over the head with the fact that they are the only one that has a true plan for one of the most important issues facing us (IMO the most important).

I have serious problems with a plan without dollar amounts and implementation strategies being called an economic plan. That's not a plan. To me it is an idea, a Christmas wish, but not a plan. The downside could be that your plan just doesn't work, but since I am a voter I want to know that too.

Download the PDF, I think it has most of what you're looking for....

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

Obama does have a team of economists that he uses as advisors. The most prominent among them, Robert Reich, was the Secretary of Labor and one of the chief economic advisors to Bill Clinton. He has also was warning about the bubble and trying to call attention to the fact Greenspan had maybe become a little too lionized, and that maybe his policies were going a little too far toward deregulation...and he was the guy that was fit to be tied when Greenspan encouraged interest only mortgages in 2004. I have a secret crush on Robert Reich -- can you tell?

 

[sandybanks]

I'm voting for Obama because he is the lessor or three Evils!


http://www.infowars.com/index.html

 

[GoodWitch58]

http:www.alternet.org/audits/80623/?page=entire

Interesting article on Obama's foreign policy approach

 

[BeachSiO2]

Download the PDF, I think it has most of what you're looking for....

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

Obama does have a team of economists that he uses as advisors. The most prominent among them, Robert Reich, was the Secretary of Labor and one of the chief economic advisors to Bill Clinton. He has also was warning about the bubble and trying to call attention to the fact Greenspan had maybe become a little too lionized, and that maybe his policies were going a little too far toward deregulation...and he was the guy that was fit to be tied when Greenspan encouraged interest only mortgages in 2004. I have a secret crush on Robert Reich -- can you tell?

So I don't keep cross posting, I'm responding on the other link but thank you again... Candidates Economic Plans story - SoWal Beaches Forum

 

[sandybanks]

I thought the letter was a bit harsh.