Comments on: 3 Economic Plans

By: PatHMV

PatHMV — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:37:04 +0000

I’ve got to admit, though, that Duff’s proposal is not a new-fangled one. Looks like the Allies considered it back in 1919.

Oh, and there’s even a patent, issued in 1997, for a computerized system to settle transactions in gold or other commodities.

Oh, and let me say, too, that gold is both functional (in electronics goods, in particular) and, well, pretty. Why in the world should we tie it all up in deep bank vaults? I say FREE GOLD! Liberate gold from the shackles of imprisonment at Fort Knox. Let gold be gold. Gold is to be given to your girfriend, not hoarded in dank caves.

By: PatHMV

PatHMV — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:18:22 +0000

Cutting tax RATES does not imply cutting tax REVENUES. If cutting taxes increases the tax revenue generated, isn’t that a good thing for everybody? That’s what has happened after the Bush tax cuts in 2003. Tax revenue plunged as a result of economy-wide difficulties which hit just after the Clinton term ended and were exacerbated by 9/11. Shortly after the Bush tax cuts, revenue started to rise again, and quickly equalled the tax revenue which was coming in before the cuts. I haven’t looked at the numbers lately, but I suspect it’s still growing. That’s very conservative.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:57:31 +0000

Where’s Perot when we need him? It would be great if a candidate would show some charts to the public again to underline the need for spending to be reined in. It’s not that hard to understand, but few people seem to grasp the fact that our entitlement programs are on a collision course with reality since we can’t grow the economy nearly as fast as the growth in the mandatory spending that’s written into the federal budget.

By: Tully

Tully — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:51:23 +0000

I just wish they’d get the spending under control–but I know that the majority of federal spending is "program" spending, and as such tough to do much about.

Discretionary spending is not the biggest part of the budget.

By: Interested

Interested — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:36:10 +0000

And since when is it conservative to cut taxes, while letting the deficit grow? That has never been a conservative approach.

That is exactly where the problems lie in these assessments of what may happen in the future. McCain’s approach could very well end up being much more efficient and economically viable than either Dem’s approach if spending is held in check. With the Dem’s we know they will be spending; McCain we will have to find out although given the latest pork reports McCain has a dramatic lead there.

Although at this time I’d rather tax cuts perm than any additional tax cuts - at least on the Federal level. Many states could use some serious examination.

By: kreiz

kreiz — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:08:11 +0000

I’m skeptical of the uncritical acceptance of the Obama and Clinton health care numbers- especially in light of the notorious cost underestimation of other federal health programs (Medicare most blatantly). It’s a classic Trojan Horse approach- underestimate cost, get a program approved, deal with cost escalation later. Frankly, this happened in the Iraq War too- had anyone given accurate cost estimates, we would’ve been shocked.

By: Tully

Tully — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:39:11 +0000

just because a think tank describes itself as nonpartisan doesn’t make that so

Christine, almost ALL "think tanks" claim to be "non-partisan." A few even actually are. But that 501(c)3 thing pretty much requires that they make the non-partisanship claim if they want to stay tax-deductible for their "sponsors."

By: Michael Merritt

Michael Merritt — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:12:34 +0000

We’ve got one candidate who wants to continue the war, and two who want to end it but then use that money for something else.

I can’t wait for a candidate who says these two things:
1) End the war
2) Give at least some of the money being used for it back to the people. Not just redirect it.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:50:57 +0000

I agree with the general concept that independent analysts and experts can be given more benefit of the doubt for being impartial (though that isn’t always the case- just because a think tank describes itself as nonpartisan doesn’t make that so, and even nonpartisans can have a stake in pushing a particular agenda that they favor), it’s still important to examine rebuttals by the campaign to see if they can point out inaccuracies in the analysis.

In this case, here is the rebuttal by McCain’s economic advisor:
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/4/20/3650536.html

It seems he makes some good points- that the tax policy center scored McCain on a proposal that he hasn’t specifically endorsed (it was one of Thompson’s proposals and McCain agrees in principle with it but hasn’t made it part of his platform) and they score his repeal of the AMT at it’s full cost without acknowledging that the status quo is the patch which exempts people each year from paying the AMT. IOW, the status quo is what McCain’s proposal would make permanent, yet they score this as a new cost which would add to the deficit.