Can we really afford "Hope" and "Change"?

[Parkbandit]

Campaign promises are a rite of passage for presidential hopefuls. If you can promise enough people you’ll give them what they want, you just might have a chance at getting elected. But how much do these promises cost and how would we pay for them?

Amid calls for an emergency economic stimulus package, presidential candidates called for cash handouts. But the network news shows by and large ignore many of the policy proposals put out by the campaigns aimed at securing votes and spending taxpayer money. And when they do mention such proposals, very few questions are asked about where the money will come from.

“Well, I think that it’s important for us to make sure that we get as much money as quickly as possible into the pockets of hard-working Americans, understanding that, you know, we have finite resources,” Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said on the CBS “Early Show” January 27.

Obama’s reference to “finite resources” seems ironic, considering he leads all presidential contenders in proposed new spending with a whopping $287 billion, according to a new report from the National Taxpayers’ Union Foundation.

Fellow Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) trails him with $218 billion in proposed new spending. Republican candidates come in much further behind. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has proposed new funding totaling $54 billion. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney proposed $19.5 billion and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has proposed nearly $7 billion.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080130134343.aspx

_______________________________________


Add to that the proposed tax increases, removal of the social security cap, increased corporate tax, removal of estate tax... and it's the 1970's again.

We seemed to learn our lesson then, when we ran Carter the fuck out of office... but our memory tends to be so short sighted.

[RichardCranium]

I was under the impression that most Republicans can afford whatever they want.

[Farquar]

Is it that time again?

You know, you would bolster your point if you cite an objective, reputable source rather than some conservative hack site.

But let me address your main point. How will Obama pay for $287 billion worth of programs? Simple. By not engaging in a farcical $470 billion dollar war to enrich his (non-existent) war profiteer cronies.

[Clove]

But let me address your main point. How will Obama pay for $287 billion worth of programs? Simple. By not engaging in a farcical $470 billion dollar war to enrich his (non-existent) war profiteer cronies.

Awesome. So if Obama gets elected we don't have to pay for the war.:tool:

[Farquar]

Awesome. So if Obama gets elected we don't have to pay for the war.:tool:

Obama's position is that should he win, troop withdrawals will commence immediately. Consider it a reallocation of cash flow.

[Some Rogue]

So we go from paying for a war we can't afford to paying for social programs we can't afford.

Brilliant!

[Clove]

Yeah... you don't really understand "cash-flow".

[Farquar]

So we go from paying for a war we can't afford to paying for social programs we can't afford.

Brilliant!

Well, afford is an ambiguous term. One who can "afford" $30,000 of college tuition may not be able to afford a $30,000 vacation.

The difference is the expected rate of return associated with each expenditure. Where money spent on a questionable war may yield questionable returns, expenditures on social programs, particularly education and health care, yield tangible social returns that offset the financial cost of those programs.

[Kefka]

So we go from paying for a war we can't afford to paying for social programs we can't afford.

Brilliant!

Considering Iraq hit the $500 billion mark in early 2006, I doubt the numbers given by the conservative leaning site about Obama/Clinton is beyond the reach of what we can afford.

[Sean of the Thread]

I was under the impression that most Republicans can afford whatever they want.

Retard post of the day.

[Sean of the Thread]

Well, afford is an ambiguous term. One who can "afford" $30,000 of college tuition may not be able to afford a $30,000 vacation.

The difference is the expected rate of return associated with each expenditure. Where money spent on a questionable war may yield questionable returns, expenditures on social programs, particularly education and health care, yield tangible social returns that offset the financial cost of those programs.

I'm happy with the rate of return vs the expenditure of the Iraq war.

[crazymage]

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=15g5iyv&s=3

[Clove]

Has the phrase "deficit spending" just dropped out of everyone's vocabulary? We still haven't PAID for Iraq. Heaping on another 400 billion in deficit spending isn't going to help.

[Farquar]

Yeah... you don't really understand "cash-flow".

Probably not. I didn't study accounting (I don't think my school even deigned to offer it). I did not mean to use it as the term of art that may be familiar to you in your existence which I gather includes cubicles, "bowling night", and days spent in linear thought.

By "cash flow" I simply meant the "flow of money currently spent on war mongering."

Let me rephrase: less money spent on X means more money that can be spent on Y.

[Clove]

The problem is, we've already been billed for the war and we're still paying it- while it is true that bringing the soldiers back sooner will mean less combat pay we are still deficit spending. Not really the time to inflate the budget.

And actually we do volleyball, paint-ball... we play with balls alot.

[Some Rogue]

Oh, I see, all the whining about how the president was ruining the country by spending all this money we don't have wasn't really the problem. It's that it wasn't being handed out to the right people!

[Parkbandit]

Is it that time again?

You know, you would bolster your point if you cite an objective, reputable source rather than some conservative hack site.

But let me address your main point. How will Obama pay for $287 billion worth of programs? Simple. By not engaging in a farcical $470 billion dollar war to enrich his (non-existent) war profiteer cronies.

Show me a non-biased site that is actually talking about it then. Problem is.. only the conservatives are talking about it.

I guess we should just ignore it until the liberal press pick it up.

As much as I dislike McCain's liberal side... I'm starting to lean towards him in the general. I was going to vote for Obama.. so we can get him in, endure 4 years of his "New Deal" type give away programs.. 4 years of his increased taxes.. 4 years of his increased corporate taxes... then get him out.

But quite frankly.. I can't afford him. He will raise my taxes and force me to give FIFTY PERCENT.. half of what I make if he's in office.. to the Government.

[Keller]

Show me a non-biased site that is actually talking about it then. Problem is.. only the conservatives are talking about it.

I guess we should just ignore it until the liberal press pick it up.

As much as I dislike McCain's liberal side... I'm starting to lean towards him in the general. I was going to vote for Obama.. so we can get him in, endure 4 years of his "New Deal" type give away programs.. 4 years of his increased taxes.. 4 years of his increased corporate taxes... then get him out.

But quite frankly.. I can't afford him. He will raise my taxes and force me to give FIFTY PERCENT.. half of what I make if he's in office.. to the Government.

Where did FIFTY PERCENT come from?

[Some Rogue]

But quite frankly.. I can't afford him. He will raise my taxes and force me to give FIFTY PERCENT.. half of what I make if he's in office.. to the Government.

But think of the poor people you heartless bastard!!!!

[Clove]

Where did FIFTY PERCENT come from?

You if we allow your progressive income tax :D

[Keller]

You if we allow your progressive income tax :D

But I want regressive rates!

Also: I don't want to lose the point that I don't know where FIFTY PERCENT came from.

[Clove]

But I want regressive rates!

Also: I don't want to lose the point that I don't know where FIFTY PERCENT came from.

OOK. PB?

[Farquar]

Oh, I see, all the whining about how the president was ruining the country by spending all this money we don't have wasn't really the problem. It's that it wasn't being handed out to the right people!

In a manner of speaking, yes. If by the "right people" you mean the poor and middle class who can, with some assistance, drive innovation and create a greater fundamental demand for goods and services.

Hey, by the way, only in the Bizarro world is sarcasm an acceptable substitute for logic. Well, there and New York City.

[Parkbandit]

But think of the poor people you heartless bastard!!!!

I'm pretty sure I give to the poor enough as it is.

[Parkbandit]

OOK. PB?


Removal of Social Security cap + Tax hike + Loss of Bush Tax Cuts = almost 50% for my tax bracket.

No thanks.

[RichardCranium]

Retard post of the day.

Clearly that post was made in all seriousness. Sorry you couldn't see the playfulness of it. I generally stay out of the politics folder because I'm not informed enough to contribute to the threads.

[Parkbandit]

Clearly that post was made in all seriousness. Sorry you couldn't see the playfulness of it. I generally stay out of the politics folder because I'm not informed enough to contribute to the threads.

Yea.. you should stick with that general rule of thumb.

[RichardCranium]

I do, outside of a one liner here or there. I should have expected Xyelin to be a jackass about it sooner or later I guess.

[oldanforgotten]

Removal of Social Security cap + Tax hike + Loss of Bush Tax Cuts = almost 50% for my tax bracket.

No thanks.

Clearly your understanding of the tax system needs help. If you actually think anyone in their right mind would believe that utter bullshit about 50%, then you're only kidding yourself.

First of all, there is no tax hike, just the removal of the Bush tax cuts. That with the removal of Social Security, FICA, etc., means in addition to the base 7.3%, 45% is the top bracket (52.3% total). You don't pay that marginal rate until you get to 350,000+ a year or more in disposable, taxable income. Even if you were single, had ABSOLUTELY NO DEDUCTABLES:

Single

Taxable income is over But not over The tax is Plus Of the amount over
$0 8,025 $0.00 10% $0
8,025 32,550 802.50 15% 8,025
32,550 78,850 4,481.25 25% 32,550
78,850 164,550 16,056.25 28% 78,850
164,550 357,700 40,052.25 33% 164,550
357,700 103,791.75 45% 357,700

Just some basic algebra on this one, considering the total tax you'd pay on 357,700 under both systems is 103,791.75 (and 52.3% of every dollar from there on up), you'd need to be making around 500k every year with absolutely no deductions whatsoever to even get to the point where 40% of your salary is being taxed. Those amounts go up significantly if you have such basic things as a mortgage, wife, kids, other and other lower taxed short term and long term capital gain shelters.

Sorry, bullshit.
________
Ex (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_EX)

[Keller]

Removal of Social Security cap + Tax hike + Loss of Bush Tax Cuts = almost 50% for my tax bracket.

No thanks.

How will the lapse of the 2001 tax cuts affect you? The increased capital gains rates?

How much are these tax hikes?

[Keller]

Yea.. you should stick with that general rule of thumb.

Oh the fucking irony.

[Some Rogue]

Hey, by the way, only in the Bizarro world is sarcasm an acceptable substitute for logic. Well, there and New York City.

:rofl:

Please let me know when you've started being logical so I can respond in kind. Until then, keep spewing the liberal bullshit and I can keep laughing at you.

[TheEschaton]

Ah, the Republican attack machine is gearing up. Did you see McCain's speech last night? It made me shudder.

I'm starting to look for jobs in France, for the inevitable Democrat defeat.

-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Ah, the Republican attack machine is gearing up. Did you see McCain's speech last night? It made me shudder.

I'm starting to look for jobs in France, for the inevitable Democrat defeat.

-TheE-

ZOMG, you are a proponent of outsourcing overseas. Will you live in the poor part of France, distributing your stock portfolio to your lower income fellow man?

[TheEschaton]

Nah, I'll just take the foreign Civil Servant's exam, get put in a post overseas. Probably not France, cause I imagine you need experience to pull that post.

Either that or I'll go work for the UN in Geneva.

-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Nah, I'll just take the foreign Civil Servant's exam, get put in a post overseas. Probably not France, cause I imagine you need experience to pull that post.

Either that or I'll go work for the UN in Geneva.

-TheE-

All jokes aside, Geneva (or anywhere overseas as a US Ex-Pat) would be a cool job if you ask me. I always liked living abroad.

[TheEschaton]

Did you know if you work for an international organization like the UN, the jobs are tax free?

So, some of the P3 jobs (equal to about a GS5 or so) pay you 110k a year...but it's completely tax free. And, if you're posted somewhere foreign (IE, not the NYC HQ), you'll get an adjustment and moving expenses. Sounds like a good deal to me.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Did you know if you work for an international organization like the UN, the jobs are tax free?

So, some of the P3 jobs (equal to about a GS5 or so) pay you 110k a year...but it's completely tax free. And, if you're posted somewhere foreign (IE, not the NYC HQ), you'll get an adjustment and moving expenses. Sounds like a good deal to me.

-TheE-

Except you can't make more than 50k a year and CERTAINLY not tax free!

[TheEschaton]

Funny, I was at a job fair the other day with the UN, and all their jobs were 70k+, even at P1/P2 (entry level). Maybe they were lying to me.

Typical job description for the UN:
ASSOC INFO TECHNOLOGY OFCR; Int’l Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTFY); (08-IST-ICTFY-417148-R-THE HAGUE); NL
(Deg: Telecomm&InfoTechSys; 5+ yrs exp; Fr/Dutch); P-2; $77K Closing date: 04/04/08

77k tax free in The Hague, entry level, mmmm. Granted, "entry level" at the UN requires 5 years experience, but still.

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/iva/100744.htm

Edit: At the very top of the webpage: "Salaries shown are NET of taxes and include a cost-of-living adjustment. Additional allowances & benefits apply." I guess I was wrong, from what I can glean, they are still charged tax, but the Dept of State reimburses them for their tax burden.

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

I believe his point was that YOU said you wouldn't EVER make more than 50k because that's FAR more than what you need.

And that you, Mr. Contributor, would try to go somewhere to skip out on taxes... shame shame.

[TheEschaton]

Oh, lol, point taken. ;) I can't help it if they won't pay me less. ;)

[oldanforgotten]

I believe his point was that YOU said you wouldn't EVER make more than 50k because that's FAR more than what you need.

And that you, Mr. Contributor, would try to go somewhere to skip out on taxes... shame shame.

And here I was thinking I was the only one who noticed that beautiful irony.
________
HONDA CD100 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_CD100)

[Clove]

Why is it, you have to have boobs to get through to the -E-?

[TheEschaton]

Cause I heart boobies?

[CrystalTears]

Why is it, you have to have boobs to get through to the -E-?
Because they're fanfuckintastic! Goddamn.

[Latrinsorm]

Can we really afford not to Hope? Not to Change?

You're welcome.

[TheEschaton]

I loved how McCain called "trusting in your government" a failed philosophy last night.

[Warriorbird]

I dunno if we can "afford hope and change" but we sure as fuck couldn't afford a single one of Bush's budgets.

This is a sort of an economic tough sell from what has become the spendthrift party.

[Gan]

Well, afford is an ambiguous term. One who can "afford" $30,000 of college tuition may not be able to afford a $30,000 vacation.

The difference is the expected rate of return associated with each expenditure. Where money spent on a questionable war may yield questionable returns, expenditures on social programs, particularly education and health care, yield tangible social returns that offset the financial cost of those programs.

Assuming that said programs are managed efficiently and appropriately and not just another pork handout wrapped in the guise of a much needed social program.

Thats a big if.


(Nice to see you still lurk around here, Hillary give you guys some time off from the campaign?) :whistle:

[Daniel]

Did you know if you work for an international organization like the UN, the jobs are tax free?

So, some of the P3 jobs (equal to about a GS5 or so) pay you 110k a year...but it's completely tax free. And, if you're posted somewhere foreign (IE, not the NYC HQ), you'll get an adjustment and moving expenses. Sounds like a good deal to me.

-TheE-


GS 5 is like intern.

Also, it's the Foreign Service. The Civil service is something different. If you wanted to get posted in France, there isn't really experience you need. Just have to distinguish yourself in A-100 because alot of people want to go there (obviously)

[Farquar]

Assuming that said programs are managed efficiently and appropriately and not just another pork handout wrapped in the guise of a much needed social program.

Thats a big if.


(Nice to see you still lurk around here, Hillary give you guys some time off from the campaign?) :whistle:

I identify myself an Obama stumper in this particular contest. I have a deep personal respect for McCain, however. His crusade against pork-the very mechanism that can ensure continued re-election in his district-engenders nothing but admiration from me. A choice between Obama or McCain would not be an easy one.

Obama may claim a monopoly on "change" in this election. But both Obama and McCain represent sizable departures from the status quo, both in terms of their respective philosophies on governance and their plans to mold the system to reflect those philosophies. The only difference is the ideology that drives each of them.

[Gan]

I identify myself an Obama stumper in this particular contest. I have a deep personal respect for McCain, however. His crusade against pork-the very mechanism that can ensure continued re-election in his district-engenders nothing but admiration from me. A choice between Obama or McCain would not be an easy one.

Obama may claim a monopoly on "change" in this election. But both Obama and McCain represent sizable departures from the status quo, both in terms of their respective philosophies on governance and their plans to mold the system to reflect those philosophies. The only difference is the ideology that drives each of them.

Heh, you're actually middle left so far in the electoral process and I'm leaning middle right. I like Obama, his desire for change, the way he's handled his campaign against Hillary (maturity), and the charisma he brings to the table - which is very necessary if he's to work in a bi-partisan manner. Obama's desire for healthcare restructure is a little too extreme to worry about it happening overnight, but I do think he'll focus on being fiscally responsible. I dont agree with his immediate withdrawal of the troops from Iraq. I do think he'll add more pressure on the Iraq government to quit farting around and make more of an effort to step up to the plate.

I'm leaning towards McCain though. I have not been a longtime supporter of McCain but he's demonstrated some effort to change his control of his quick temper and speaking with foot in mouth syndrome (being a general idiot in public). I really like McCain's history of standing up to the establishment, his fiscal conservatism and the fact that he's somewhat liberal on social issues (which takes second place to me behind economic/foreign policy issues). His age concerns me which leads to the importance of who he chooses for his running mate. If its Huckabee then McCain might have lost my vote. If its Pawlenty or someone like that then I would fee more confident that the strings of the religious right were not attached so steadfastly.

[Parkbandit]

I actually had a dream last night about meeting McCain (it came from my neighbor who is a lobbyist who drove McCain around a few months back and loves the guy) and he was concerned I didn't support him.

I woke up actually liking him a little more. I think Hillary somehow planted that into my subconscious so Obama loses. Hillary '12!

[oldanforgotten]

Heh, you're actually middle left so far in the electoral process and I'm leaning middle right. I like Obama, his desire for change, the way he's handled his campaign against Hillary (maturity), and the charisma he brings to the table - which is very necessary if he's to work in a bi-partisan manner. Obama's desire for healthcare restructure is a little too extreme to worry about it happening overnight, but I do think he'll focus on being fiscally responsible. I dont agree with his immediate withdrawal of the troops from Iraq. I do think he'll add more pressure on the Iraq government to quit farting around and make more of an effort to step up to the plate.

I'm leaning towards McCain though. I have not been a longtime supporter of McCain but he's demonstrated some effort to change his control of his quick temper and speaking with foot in mouth syndrome (being a general idiot in public). I really like McCain's history of standing up to the establishment, his fiscal conservatism and the fact that he's somewhat liberal on social issues (which takes second place to me behind economic/foreign policy issues). His age concerns me which leads to the importance of who he chooses for his running mate. If its Huckabee then McCain might have lost my vote. If its Pawlenty or someone like that then I would fee more confident that the strings of the religious right were not attached so steadfastly.

I feel much the same way as you, except a bit more left, and the fact that I despise Hillary. A choice between Obama and McCain in my mind, would be the first time in recent memory that it would not be a choice between the lesser of two evils, but rather a choice between 2 good leaders.
________
WILLOW RUN (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Willow_Run)

[Latrinsorm]

Speaking of looking ahead to November, what if Obama picks Sen. Clinton as his running mate? I seriously almost vomited when I typed that, but would most people be like me and promptly switch over to McCain?

[CrystalTears]

Obama wouldn't dare!

No seriously, he wouldn't dare after all the mud-slinging. I'd RUN to McCain.

[oldanforgotten]

count me in that bucket too. As much as I'd prefer Obama to McCain, I'd be ok with either, and the prospect of even the chance of Hillary being in charge is more than enough to warrant jumping ship. Unless McCain went off and picked someone batshit crazy like Huckabee or Condy Rice, if Obama picks Hillary, I'm off the ship.
________
Mercury cyclone history (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mercury_Cyclone)

[TheEschaton]

Hillary would never accept the VP.

[Alfster]

Hillary would never accept the VP.

That makes me so happy to hear!

[Sean of the Thread]

I can afford Hope and Change... $10 a lap dance ain't that bad.

[Latrinsorm]

VP could stand for Vagina-ed President though. BET YOU DIDN'T THINK OF THAT, MR. LAWYER SMARTY-PANTS.

[Parkbandit]

Speaking of looking ahead to November, what if Obama picks Sen. Clinton as his running mate? I seriously almost vomited when I typed that, but would most people be like me and promptly switch over to McCain?

No way will he pick Clinton. She brings more negatives to his ticket than positives.

[Gan]

Exactly

Not that her pride would let her even if she was invited...

[Farquar]

Look for Mr. Obama to address his apparent foreign and military policy deficiencies through his veep. The two candidates I have heard being proposed are: 1) Colin Powell and 2) Wes Clark.

Now, Powell is a notable choice because he appeals to moderates and he has a vast amount of military and foreign policy experience. Powell's obvious contrition for his missteps during Bush's first term only makes him a more attractive candidate. The downside is that he is so disillusioned with politics after that first term that he probably doesn't want to set foot anywhere near DC.

Wes Clark has a similar advantage as Powell in that he commands a fair amount of respect in the international community from his NATO days. Add in his trophy military career and his -ahem- whiteness, and you have a near-perfect complement to Obama. His negative is that, rightly or wrongly, many people see him as an egomaniacal, pretty-boy "ladder-climber."

[Daniel]

If he picks either two then its about over.

[Gan]

I cant see Powell stepping back in the ring, but I could see Clark doing it. An Obama/Clark combination would be quite the challenge for the GOP to overcome.

[Clove]

If he picks either two then its about over.


I cant see Powell stepping back in the ring, but I could see Clark doing it. An Obama/Clark combination would be quite the challenge for the GOP to overcome.

Agreed on both points. I hadn't considered Obama/Powell or Obama/Clark but either would be very strong tickets and I think Obama/Clark would be especially tough.