The unofficial Obama and Romney VP speculation thread

[oxcoug]

People need to disabuse themselves of the notion that there is still a pain-free window of time open where we can get ourselves out of the mess we are in. That ship sailed decades ago. The problem continues to grow exponentially, so the lack of serious solutions in the near future will make things even more painful very, very quickly.

No doubt. The alternative to coming to terms with that is opting to be Greece - except that when America goes Greek the whole world goes down with it.

[byu71]

No doubt. The alternative to coming to terms with that is opting to be Greece - except that when America goes Greek the whole world goes down with it.

I keep trying to figure out what people are thinking.

1) Is it they really believe the "rich" have so much money that they can pay for everything?

2) Is it they think they are so important to everyone else, that they will keep getting loaned money so they can live their lifestyle?

3) Do they believe in the Krugman deal that if government borrows and spends enough, eventually we grow our way out. Problem is when the economies start really growing, rates will climb sky high. Then debt service will become a major problem.

Continually kicking the can down the road is something the mindset of a teenager or college student would embrace, but mature adults??

[cowboy]

I keep trying to figure out what people are thinking.

1) Is it they really believe the "rich" have so much money that they can pay for everything?

2) Is it they think they are so important to everyone else, that they will keep getting loaned money so they can live their lifestyle?

3) Do they believe in the Krugman deal that if government borrows and spends enough, eventually we grow our way out. Problem is when the economies start really growing, rates will climb sky high. Then debt service will become a major problem.

Continually kicking the can down the road is something the mindset of a teenager or college student would embrace, but mature adults??

One of the big problems we have is that we are dealing with numbers so big that few people stop to realize the magnitude of the problems. This leads to buy-in of 'solutions' that won't even come close to solving our problems. Obama's "millionaires and billionaires" rhetoric is a perfect example. Lumping someone who is worth $1million with someone who is worth $1 billion is the same as classifying someone who is worth $100,000 with someone who is worth $100 million, yet Obama does just that when he touts the Buffet rule, and people buy into it because they are too lazy to do the math.

[byu71]

One of the big problems we have is that we are dealing with numbers so big that few people stop to realize the magnitude of the problems. This leads to buy-in of 'solutions' that won't even come close to solving our problems. Obama's "millionaires and billionaires" rhetoric is a perfect example. Lumping someone who is worth $1million with someone who is worth $1 billion is the same as classifying someone who is worth $100,000 with someone who is worth $100 million, yet Obama does just that when he touts the Buffet rule, and people buy into it because they are too lazy to do the math.

Also he is really going after capital gains. That is a good debate to have. Does capital gains actually creat entrpreneurship and capitalization or would it happen without a capital gains tax.

The argument about we were once taxed at 70% and did all right and the one about being taxed higher during the Clinton years and did all right, doesn't really address the issue of capital gains.

In both of those cases the capital gains rate was lower than the ordinary income rate. Also during the 70% marginal rate there were tons and tons of tax shelters. Real Estate, oil and gas, accelerated appreciation, etc.

The talk of higher marginal rates and the economy was fine is disingenuous, but it is hard to have people understand. I am sure the Obama supporters on the board don't understand what I just said.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I keep trying to figure out what people are thinking.

1) Is it they really believe the "rich" have so much money that they can pay for everything?

2) Is it they think they are so important to everyone else, that they will keep getting loaned money so they can live their lifestyle?

3) Do they believe in the Krugman deal that if government borrows and spends enough, eventually we grow our way out. Problem is when the economies start really growing, rates will climb sky high. Then debt service will become a major problem.

Continually kicking the can down the road is something the mindset of a teenager or college student would embrace, but mature adults??

Guys like Krugman look at the New Deal and WWII and think we can repeat that pattern. We can't repeat that pattern because unlike 1946, we're not the only industrial power in the world that doesn't lie in ruins.

Our country has swallowed bitter pills before and we've been just fine. The 2009 stimulus was designed to flood the economy with dollars, basically making up for the shortfall in demand due to the downturn in the economy. The problem in my mind is it's a poor liquidity stopgap where there's no accountability regarding where the money went. And from what we've seen so far the money was either thrown at hilariously bad investment ideas (Curt Schilling's video game company? lol!), or worse thrown at ideas that had connections with Obama fundraisers. Another large portion of the money was thrown at state governments that simply put off the belt-tightening (this is beginning to dawn on California) or the public union reform (which has happened in Wisconsin which is also now seeing the benefits).

We could have done without this liquidity stopgap from 2009. Curt Schilling shouldn't have gotten that money and the public union reforms (btw, it's not only getting public employees to pay a portion of their health insurance and pensions, but also not having to pay the outrageous costs of union owned health plans which the unions were forcing the states and cities to pay) and the tightening of state budgets should have been allowed to happen three years ago. Our economy needed to shake off the debt weight of too many realtors, mortgage officers and too much money going to inefficient uses (e.g. union owned health insurance plans) and our economy is better off when capital goes to efficient and wealth-promoting uses.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Also he is really going after capital gains. That is a good debate to have. Does capital gains actually creat entrpreneurship and capitalization or would it happen without a capital gains tax.

The argument about we were once taxed at 70% and did all right and the one about being taxed higher during the Clinton years and did all right, doesn't really address the issue of capital gains.

In both of those cases the capital gains rate was lower than the ordinary income rate. Also during the 70% marginal rate there were tons and tons of tax shelters. Real Estate, oil and gas, accelerated appreciation, etc.

The talk of higher marginal rates and the economy was fine is disingenuous, but it is hard to have people understand. I am sure the Obama supporters on the board don't understand what I just said.

When it was pointed out that raising capital gains rates beyond a certain point actually ends up yielding less tax revenue in the end, Obama essentially says that concerns about the tax revenue is secondary to concerns about fairness of the tax system.

[YOUTUBE]c4iy2OfScQE[/YOUTUBE]

[PaloAltoCougar]

When it was pointed out that raising capital gains rates beyond a certain point actually ends up yielding less tax revenue in the end, Obama essentially says that concerns about the tax revenue is secondary to concerns about fairness of the tax system.

I've been wondering about the cap gains rate and its efficacy. Could you pass along the study that demonstrates what that certain point is? I don't care about fairness if the result helps raise the economy as a whole, and truly benefits those who were presumed to have been treated unfairly.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I've been wondering about the cap gains rate and its efficacy. Could you pass along the study that demonstrates what that certain point is? I don't care about fairness if the result helps raise the economy as a whole, and truly benefits those who were presumed to have been treated unfairly.

Charlie Gibson in the debate video I posted pointed out that capital gains tax revenue increased when Clinton lowered the rate in 1990s and increased again when the rates were lowered again by Bush in the 2000s. He also pointed when the rate was increased in the 1980s, the revenues from the capital gains tax went down.

In the face of this question Obama essentially said he didn't care about the tax revenue side of it, he just cared about fairness and knocking the rich down a peg.

I've heard this before and I'm sure Charlie Gibson wasn't talking out of his ass. But I would have to look for a scholarly article on the point.

[wuapinmon]

1. Gut Social Security with a strict means test. But, we all keep paying FICA until 2035. Pay off part of the debt with the overage.

2. End Medicare completely for anyone 50 and younger. We all keep paying FICA on this until 2050. Then, it's gone.

3. Universal coverage for all citizens under age 18, and then up to 25 for those enrolled in college, vocational school, or other qualifying program. Pay for it with a tax on wages, however much that needs to be. We're throwing healthcare dollars the wrong way.

4. Tax & penalty holiday, without limits, on all overseas earnings by US based companies. Let's bring those billions home and get them in our banks, stimulating our economy, and promoting capital improvements here rather than abroad.

5. End the War on Drugs, completely. All habit-forming substances can be purchased from state-owned dispensaries. Use the savings and taxes (high taxes) to promote agriculture, addiction services, and attorneys general/public defenders programs. Non habit-forming drugs will still need an Rx, so that normal people don't hurt themselves unwittingly.

6. All cellphone contracts get a $1 a month tax to support Veterans Services. End free medical coverage for veterans for illnesses/injuries not related to their service.

7. Bring the troops home from several locations around the world, especially Afghanistan. It's interesting on the MW3 map of users, places like Diego Garcia, Djibouti, and Kuwait are all glowing green with nothing around them at all. I'm guessing that our troops spend their free time gaming. I wonder how many of those little green glimmers represent billions spent annually to maintain posts.

8. 25¢ a gallon tax on all fuels. Use this to fund infrastructure federal highway projects.

That's my start.

[calicoug]

What a tragedy. Seniors paying for their own healthcare. OMG! The other option are what? Borrow money to pay for it or get the money from the middle class. You can raise taxes to 100% on the rich and you still won't have enough money to pay for Medicare or SS so the money was to come from somewhere other than Buffett and Gates.

Maybe when people are paying their own health care costs they start thinking twice about the cost/benefit and make better decisions. But that will never happen because it creates too many negative sound bites to actually gain any steam.

Like I said- this is precisely why I want Ryan on your ticket. If this is the argument you are going with...

I love it when people project things like this out to 2050. What a joke. While I'm not a big fan of limiting Fed spending to a % of GDP, I'm a huge fan of a balanced budget.

Well this puts you in a quandary, given that Ryan has projected out to 2075.

I get the hypocrisy here, but how is this idea a "joke"? Seems like a rational approach to modifying SS. Why aren't the Dems the ones pushing this?

It's truly surprising to see people still pushing this idea after what Wall Street has managed to do to investments in the past 5 years.

Can you imagine how much worse off we would be as a country if, in addition to all the money already lost, we also saw up to 10% of social security wiped out?

[Flystripper]

Didn't you know that every senior is $100 from eating cat food? Get with the times Moliere!

I doubt they would eat cat food. It is too expensive.

[calicoug]

Cali you generally impress me with the thoughtfulness of your responses even when I disagree with you - but here you're revealing a bit of a partisan, Strangelovian arm reflex - calling Ryan's plan a "joke" because it asks people to pay for a thing that we are currently forcing the children of this generation and the next to pay for is.... errr....a joke.

Someone has to pay for it because we can't keep borrowing for it - but in your fantasyland we can continue to borrow money to maintain our unsustainable trajectory and then just pin the consequences on the backs of the next generation.

Start with this: There is not enough money to go around and a whole bunch of people are going to have a hard time once our budgetary outlays begin to grapple with that reality.

Ox- as anyone who knows anything about or medical system will attest, the one group of people who absolutely cannot afford to pay for their medical costs in this country is the elderly. First, they don't generally have income. Second, their medical costs are outlandishly expensive. Any plan that advocates shifting responsibility for those costs to the group that can least afford them isn't, in my opinion, serious.

I have to pause and reflect on the absurdity of Republicans decrying "death panels" while supporting the Ryan plan. Let's recall what the "death panels" were- it was borne of a requirement in the health care bill that would have paid for people to get advance directives in place (thereby saving huge amounts of money for all those who say they want the plug pulled rather than keeping them alive indefinitely because their wish about how to proceed wasn't documented anywhere).

Later, the "death panel" fear somehow morphed into some futuristic Medicare board that would presumably just kill off old people so we wouldn't have to pay for their expenses (that idea was never in any legislation- obviously- it would be stupid).

And yet, the same group that instilled those fears in the hearts of seniors everywhere (Republicans, in case I'm not being obvious enough), now thinks it is a good policy decision and humane to tell people they can get care as long as they can pay for it???

Let me repeat: it is a joke. Albeit not a funny one.

[calicoug]

You said you'd like to shine a light on the roadmap's deficiencies. Please shine away. I'm a luke-warm supporter, because I think the plan is too modest. But I am a supporter.

Your first argument concludes that Ryan's plan is "effectively gutting Medicare and leaving seniors with nothing." That is clearly false, as you admitted just prior to making the absurd statement. In fact, you appear to have no idea what Ryan's plan is. Here's a summary of the benefit to people currently under 55:


$11,000 per year pegged to medical inflation (not inflation as you cliamed). Yet to you, $11,000 per year is "nothing."

Your second argument is that he can't collect enough revenue to pay for 19% spending. And that "nobody thinks we would keep getting 19% in taxes [i.e. revenues]" after if his tax plan were implemented. First of all, your claim that "nobody thinks" that is obviously false. Ryan believes it, for one, as do many economists. Secondly, you attack Ryan for proposing spending at 19% of GDP, yet the other proposal is currently to continue to spend well over 20% of GDP. And the current revenues at current tax rates are well below 19%.

Your final claim is your worst, though I'm not sure we can really rate one as much worse than the other as none of them actually qualify as valid arguments. Here's what you say:



1st off, Ryan's plan give people the option of moving a portion to a private account. Secondly, your legal reasoning has failed you as an unconstitutional ruling re: obamacare mandate is largely irrelevant to the constitutionality of social security. I don't know where you are getting your talking points, but the source is not good. Here's what Ryan actually proposes:

You ought to learn that nothing you just argued is from his Roadmap, which is what we are discussing. It is from his second modified budget (his latest effort after his Roadmap has garnered such little support). But preach on.

By the way, it looks like there have been about 20 total years since 1934 where the nation had tax revenue of at least 19% of GDP. I don't know who the economists you are citing that think this is likely to be the norm from here on out.

[Jacob]

You ought to learn that nothing you just argued is from his Roadmap, which is what we are discussing. It is from his second modified budget (his latest effort after his Roadmap has garnered such little support). But preach on.

By the way, it looks like there have been about 20 total years since 1934 where the nation had tax revenue of at least 19% of GDP. I don't know who the economists you are citing that think this is likely to be the norm from here on out.

You can't defend anything you've said. I took the quotes directly from his webpage on his roadmap. Maybe it is roadmap 2.0. What's your point? That you are arguing about an old roadmap and not the one that is currently under discussion?

[Pelado]

You ought to learn that nothing you just argued is from his Roadmap, which is what we are discussing. It is from his second modified budget (his latest effort after his Roadmap has garnered such little support). But preach on.

By the way, it looks like there have been about 20 total years since 1934 where the nation had tax revenue of at least 19% of GDP. I don't know who the economists you are citing that think this is likely to be the norm from here on out.

So I just pulled the quote below from the Republican Budget Committee Members' website, apparently titled "A Roadmap for America's Future."

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budge.../?IssueID=8521

So what is the distinction between the "Roadmap" as you define it and the "Roadmap" as defined by the Republican Budget Committee Members' website?

The proposal strengthens this important retirement program and makes it sustainable for the long term.

- Preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.
- Offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal employees. Includes a property right so they can pass on these assets to their heirs, and a guarantee that individuals will not lose a dollar they contribute to their accounts, even after inflation.
- Makes the program permanently solvent – according to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] – by combining a more realistic measure of growth in Social Security’s initial benefits, with an eventual modernization of the retirement age.