Now, I’m as left as the day is long. Hell man, I’ve been called a fenfen before which gives me about as much Red credentials as you can get in the modern day. And I’ve got a personal beef with post-2004 McCain. During the 2000 election, I was actually conflicted (since I anticipated him taking the Repub nomination) between him and Gore. At that time, he still catered to the better angels of the American nature, even if he was a little too conservative for my tastes. I’ve moved leftward since then, and McCain, after flirting with the Kerry Veep position and getting put in his place, has gone sharply rightward. He is a hollow shell of his former self, a self he forged after the whole K5 nastiness. His selling out disappointed me deeply.
Having said that, I don’t think that his “that one” or his “you may never have heard of Fannie and Freddy” were that bad. The first was a very standard political “got’cha” moment. The whole idea of it was to emphasis the otherness of Obama as well as highlighting that his talk may not line up with his walk (leaving aside McCain’s problems in this area for the moment). I really don’t think it was anything special. Likewise, I think McCain was trying to channel Republican folksiness when he talked about Freddy and Fannie. Most voters, especially voters who are still undecided (and thus, incredibly apolitical) have no idea what Fannie is. Period, full stop. Still as in to this day! Heck, McCain’s veep choice doesn’t know what they are! So he was trying to give a good opening to a homespun story. I don’t think either are indicative of some deeper racism. For his age, I think he is not racist at all. Heck, for America I think he is ahead of the curve. All he was doing it trying to frame his discussion to score points. The people he was trying to score them on happened to be black, that is all. I really do not see a deeper meaning.
As for nuclear power, I think it is a fantastic idea. Especially if we can rock breeder reactors, which America has been very reluctant to embrace. But I think Obama’s energy plan is more encompassing and therefore better. That doesn’t mean nuclear = bad or that Obama is opposed to it . . .
Clearly not if he thinks the British have got it sorted. 10 years of research and public consultation on radwaste and we’ve still got no idea what to do with it.
In Monday night’s debate Senator McCain said : “So we’re going to have to tell the American people that spending is going to have to be cut in America. And I recommend a spending freeze that – except for defense, Veterans Affairs, and some other vital programs, we’ll just have to have across-the-board freeze.”
That strikes me as a wrong headed, Herbert Hoover-like approach to the problem. All economic indicators are now pointing toward a deepening recession. Unemployment is already high, and likely to go higher. Factory orders are down. Worried middle-class Americans are limiting spending to necessities.
Without greater public investment, the vast majority of Americans will be relegated to a lower standard of living for themselves and their children. The top 1 percent now takes home about 20 percent of total national income. The last time that happened was immediately before the Great Depression.
The middle class’s share of the wealth has shrunk. This limits the capacity of most Americans to buy the goods and services we produce without going deeper into debt.
Public investment has lagged behind for years. U.S. highways, bridges, levees and transit systems are crumbling. 50 million Americans have no health insurance and many more are underinsured. Children in the U.S. are in classrooms too crowded to learn in. Public schools are shutting down preschool and after-school programs for lack of funds.
Merely propping up broken financial institutions is not going to do the job. The government will probably have to run deficits to keep the economy going anywhere near capacity. Deficit spending that finances investments in the nation’s infrastructure may be the best way to dig the country out of this mess.
Let me just add that I think it would be worth it for the U.S. to elect Obama solely on the way he would improve relations with the rest of the world.
Not only is he already liked by the rest of the world, but he wouldn’t be following the same tired rules of having preconditions. I think believing meeting with other world leaders without preconditions somehow “validates” them is a flawed political philosophy.
Tonight’s was by far the liveliest of the three debates. McCain was petulant and sniping. He is better at agitating than he is at leading. Still he failed to rattle Obama. Obama’s answers were coherent and comprehensive and responsible. He seemed to be looking past the debate to the task ahead. Obama demonstrated that he is ready to lead. As far as winning debates goes, Obama is three for three.
I’d agree three for three. McCain came off as sputtering at times. When he said, “Congratulations Joe! You’re rich!” I’m not sure what his point was and I’m pretty sure McCain wasn’t either. A lot of it, of course, is that McCain was trying to get a rise out of Obama and when that didn’t work he was absolutely lost and had to fall back on right-wing talking points. Which played right into Obama’s hands, because he could address those boldfaced slanders.
One subject that I believe merits discussion is the taxation of big businesses. What is the incentive for big business to migrate to America when the corporate taxes is so high? Is it a good idea to raise taxes on large corporations? Wouldn’t the impact be that no large corporations would want to headquarter business in America? If so, isn’t that a bad thing?
d0rkyd00d:One subject that I believe merits discussion is the taxation of big businesses. What is the incentive for big business to migrate to America when the corporate taxes is so high? Is it a good idea to raise taxes on large corporations? Wouldn’t the impact be that no large corporations would want to headquarter business in America? If so, isn’t that a bad thing?
K: Just as people receive the benefits of living in America, business receives the benefits
and the benefits cost money. It is a fact that over 200 corporations who have over 1 billion in PROFITS
who paid no taxes. McCain claimed that the U.S corporations have the second highest rate 35% or something like that
however with the goodies given by congress the real rate is closer to 6 or 7%. They need to pay their fair share just as
americans do.
Well, the U.S. has the second highest tax rate among OECD countries, but the fourth lowest tax revenue relative to GDP. So the level of the corporate tax rate as a measurement of the tax reality (or the effective tax rate based on the amount of taxes corporations actually paid) is pretty misleading, since about 2/3 of companies doing business in this country pay no federal income taxes according to the GAO. This includes the large, established corps, of which about one-quarter paid nothing. And domestic companies that are foreign controlled pay even less. If you look at the largest companies’ creative use of legal tax loopholes, their actual tax rate has declined, even in periods when corporate profits were soaring. And during periods when they’re losing money, they don’t owe taxes.
Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is not. Yet the IRS reviews something like 1% of the corporate returns, so who knows where that line is drawn? But it seems reasonable that if we were going to decrease the rate, we’d also have to simplify the system and remove the loopholes and have better enforcement. I don’t see all that happening.
I raised this question before. Xunxian pointed out that one thing in addition to low taxes that businesses look for is infrastructure. If a country has no taxes but also no roads, no schools, no health care, and no electricity, it might not be worth it to move your business there.
Another factor is the wealth of the consumer. If the people of Lower Slobovia can’t afford your mouse-trap, why open a mouse-trap outlet there to sell to them?
A third factor is that there many deductions, exemptions and tax credits for business in the US tax system. Anti-tax critics seldom mention these tax mitigators when they complain about the high US tax on business.
