Obama and Clinton on the Issues

[Torie]

I could not help but notice a long thread about just whether or not Obama was the fairest liberal of them all in the Senate.  Most everyone seemed to enjoy the robust flame war from what I can tell. No doubt it is more boring but perhaps it might be more useful to set forth what Clinton and Obama disagree about on the issues, and who is to the left of whom where they do (choosing what is "left" of course can be highly subjective). The one most left on an issue gets a point. So let me get the ball rolling:

1. Health care: both the same except Obama does not want to make insurance mandatory for adults, just affordable, and Hillary wants both.  Advantage Clinton. H1

2. Iraq: Both want to get out, but Obama seems a bit more damn the torpedos full speed out than Hillary, who just says getting out fast isn't likely to cause a collapse, and well we aren't going to get out entirely anyway. Advantage Obama. O1

3. Other Foreign Policy:  Clinton seems to be more of an dominatrix (obliterate and no perp walks), where Obama at once embraces talk, but eschews tough talk. So Obama doves and loves out Clinton. O2

4. Taxes: Both want to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the "rich," Obama wants to strip the SS tax cap (maybe with a bubble in the middle to help out law associates while screwing law partners), and Obama has made recent noises that maybe the capital gains tax should be raised from 15% to just 20%, rather than all the way back to 25%. Clinton has not to my knowledge become more specific. So Obama gets a point for raising my social security taxes, but loses a point for not wanting to raise my capital gains taxes all the way back to 25%, so it is a wash. No point for either.

Score so far O2- C1.  Obama is in the lead!

Others may know about who wants to spend more, who wants to legalize more quickly and humanely illegals, who is more protectionist, who is more in favor of comparative worth pricing of wage amounts as opposed to supply and demand doing it, who wants to screw C02 with the most economic disruption possible, who wants to impose more regulations on Wall Street, who wants to make it easier for labor unions to divert workers pay into the Democrat party without their consent or over their objection, who wants to unionize workers without having those annoying election certifications that unions usually lose these days, who wants to give more money to public school teachers for acquiring more useless degrees (Obama by the way, made some vague noises about merit pay, so he loses half a point for that come to think of it), who wants to unleash the tort lawyers by removing barriers to  class action lawsuits, who wants to appoint judges with the most hyperkenetic view of the "living" Constitution, and well you get the idea. So many issues, so little time.

Have at it!

[Sbane]

FLAME WAR!!!!!!

HAHa just kidding but i think your post illustrates the lack in difference in policy between Obama and Clinton. Exactly the reason why we have had the worst discussions on this board in the last few months. Hopefully with the start of the general we can get back towards discussing more policy.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Obama said on the Foxnews Sunday interview that he wanted the capital gains taxes raised to 28% or 30%. He may have changed his rhetoric, but he said it was unfair for people in charge of these big funds to be paying less in taxes than someone working.

[Person Man]

Obama said on the Foxnews Sunday interview that he wanted the capital gains taxes raised to 28% or 30%. He may have changed his rhetoric, but he said it was unfair for people in charge of these big funds to be paying less in taxes than someone working.

That could be a good source of revenue. Who knows. Then again, I understand the idea of globalization and how that could make us less productive....but people need to get real. We need enough government revenues to cover society's marginal costs so businesses can be businesses and not day cares.

[Sbane]

Obama said on the Foxnews Sunday interview that he wanted the capital gains taxes raised to 28% or 30%. He may have changed his rhetoric, but he said it was unfair for people in charge of these big funds to be paying less in taxes than someone working.

I highly doubt he said that but you could easily find video for it so I will be grateful if you can show it to me. I think raising capital gains taxes and corporate taxes are dumb in their own ways. Raising Capital gains will just cause investors to invest somewhere else, which they have been doing anyways. There is no risk in investing in Asia in 2008 while there was risk in 1980. Thus we have to keep our economy and markets as competitive as possible. Corporate taxes are dumb because they will just pass the tax on to the consumers. Trust me they will. But where it hurts rich people the most is income taxes. Most rich people cant just up and move to India like they can move their investments. Thus hitting them on their income tax is the best way to go in my opinion. Also tax loopholes are also the best way and least controversial way of gaining revenue. We just need people in congress with some balls.

[JSojourner]

>>>>  Clinton seems to be more of an dominatrix (obliterate and no perp walks), where Obama at once embraces talk, but eschews tough talk. So Obama doves and loves out Clinton <<<<<

I might be tempted to call this a wash.  Obama's like about not fearing to negotiate is definitely out there and has been very poorly constructed...but it's sound.  All he needs to do is invoke images of Reagan sitting across the table from the Soviet beast or Nixon and Deng Xiao Ping having tea.  Of course, in a Democratic primary, praising Reagan isn't always a smart move -- remember Obama getting bashed early on?

But in terms of knuckle dragging and chest beating, Obama's the one whose promised more unilateral and aggressive retaliation if Pakistan continues to thumb its nose at us regarding Al Qaeda.  And it was Clinton who tried scolding him for being too militaristic about that.

Basically, she's for tough talk with certain powers and he's for tough talk with others.  I'm just glad McCain hasn't offered a "kill them all and let God sort 'em out" proposal.  He worries me, but not nearly as much as Giuliani, Huckabee or even Romney.

[Sam Spade]

Obama said on the Foxnews Sunday interview that he wanted the capital gains taxes raised to 28% or 30%. He may have changed his rhetoric, but he said it was unfair for people in charge of these big funds to be paying less in taxes than someone working.

I highly doubt he said that but you could easily find video for it so I will be grateful if you can show it to me. I think raising capital gains taxes and corporate taxes are dumb in their own ways. Raising Capital gains will just cause investors to invest somewhere else, which they have been doing anyways. There is no risk in investing in Asia in 2008 while there was risk in 1980. Thus we have to keep our economy and markets as competitive as possible. Corporate taxes are dumb because they will just pass the tax on to the consumers. Trust me they will. But where it hurts rich people the most is income taxes. Most rich people cant just up and move to India like they can move their investments. Thus hitting them on their income tax is the best way to go in my opinion. Also tax loopholes are also the best way and least controversial way of gaining revenue. We just need people in congress with some balls.

The key question as a Democrat is how high do you have to raise tax rates among the "rich" (which is realistically translated as "upper middle class" or above) before the yield curve starts to invert and the "rich" start flowing back to the Republican party. 

Right now, the "rich" tax presently stands at 40%, 50% in places like NY of course.

I suspect that during economic downtimes the tipping point may be slightly lower, but my gut has always told me that 50% is the tipping point (which means 60% in NY).

Closing "tax loopholes" is, quite frankly, a useless endeavor with our present tax system.  Much like campaign finance or the Hydra, for every loophole you close up, two loopholes appear in its place.  God created tax lawyers/CPAs for a reason. (and pays them well too)

We do agree on one thing, however.  Raising the capital gains tax rate is a foolish idea.  A slight raise in income taxes would do much less damage (or maybe no damage at all) than raising capital gains rates, which does great damage.  Of course, there's plenty of risk investing anyplace, including Asia, so I don't agree with that.

And that's that...

[Sbane]

Obama said on the Foxnews Sunday interview that he wanted the capital gains taxes raised to 28% or 30%. He may have changed his rhetoric, but he said it was unfair for people in charge of these big funds to be paying less in taxes than someone working.

I highly doubt he said that but you could easily find video for it so I will be grateful if you can show it to me. I think raising capital gains taxes and corporate taxes are dumb in their own ways. Raising Capital gains will just cause investors to invest somewhere else, which they have been doing anyways. There is no risk in investing in Asia in 2008 while there was risk in 1980. Thus we have to keep our economy and markets as competitive as possible. Corporate taxes are dumb because they will just pass the tax on to the consumers. Trust me they will. But where it hurts rich people the most is income taxes. Most rich people cant just up and move to India like they can move their investments. Thus hitting them on their income tax is the best way to go in my opinion. Also tax loopholes are also the best way and least controversial way of gaining revenue. We just need people in congress with some balls.

The key question as a Democrat is how high do you have to raise tax rates among the "rich" (which is realistically translated as "upper middle class" or above) before the yield curve starts to invert and the "rich" start flowing back to the Republican party. 

Right now, the "rich" tax presently stands at 40%, 50% in places like NY of course.

I suspect that during economic downtimes the tipping point may be slightly lower, but my gut has always told me that 50% is the tipping point (which means 60% in NY).

Closing "tax loopholes" is, quite frankly, a useless endeavor with our present tax system.  Much like campaign finance or the Hydra, for every loophole you close up, two loopholes appear in its place.  God created tax lawyers/CPAs for a reason. (and pays them well too)

We do agree on one thing, however.  Raising the capital gains tax rate is a foolish idea.  A slight raise in income taxes would do much less damage (or maybe no damage at all) than raising capital gains rates, which does great damage.  Of course, there's plenty of risk investing anyplace, including Asia, so I don't agree with that.

And that's that...

My basic point about capital gains is that people have more options than just America and Europe to invest their money today. Those conditions did not exist 20 years ago and is another reason why our markets need to be competitive. As for taxing the rich, a good demographic to hit is the $200,000+ income people. It may hurt some people in Manhattan or San Francisco but i would think most of them would do just fine. Also they do not vote democrat( even here in the bay area) so it would not hurt the dems too much. Also passing a lower middle class tax cut with this plan would be a good idea too. It makes you seem in touch with the working class while it does not affect the economy as much because the lower middle class does not contribute much in taxes.