Talk Elections

()

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153887/Americans-Favor-Buffett-Rule.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All+Gallup+Headlines

:)

Mittens will read my thread on the subject, and repackage the debate, and the poll results will be reversed. Thank you.

Kay.

I believe 60% supported the Public Option in HC at one point.

37% will scream loud enough to make it not so.

Dirty, dirty socialists!

Well, we're the 60%.

[quote authohttp://r=Antonio V link=topic=152125.msg3262445#msg3262445 date=1334354752]
Well, we're the 60%.
[/quote]

And some of us are the 43%.

And some of us are the 43%.
[/quote]

wut

:(

---

wut
[/quote]

43% of Republicans favour it.

Americans always strongly favor taxing the rich more heavily. And it never happens. All those campaign contributions are apparantly worth something.

Nobody agrees with me that jacking up the tax rate on capital gains, is just about the worst place to raise revenue? (The Buffet Rule doesn't raise jack sh*t in revenue in any event; 6 billion a year is next to nothing, and that may assume a static rather than dynamic analysis, while portending an increase economic inefficiency.)  Cut the deductions first, and then  ...  well I am repeating myself. I mean I dump on Romney when he is wrong. Do you guys just think all of Obama's ideas are the cat's meow? And I am one Pub who agrees that we need to raise more revenue, and we still can't agree on much, including trying to raise revenue in a way that will minimize economic distortions, and increase economic inefficiency.

It is going to be a long campaign.  :(

You'll get no disagreement from me, but you keep presuming that the vast majority of Americans have any understanding of taxes or tax rates or economics, especially involving taxes they don't pay.  I also don't see why you think this site will be any different, being populated by liberal arts major types who couldn't balance a checkbook if their life depended on it.  I've lived too long with those types, and now I deal with lawyers, who are just the same, except that they can argue consistently.

One thing is almost certain - Buffett will end up making more money through this plan.  His involvement with government on anything is always towards this end.  I think I know how, but will not say that much at this time.

aren't you a music major?

There's a surprise ::)

Have a couple of degrees in music composition, which is probably as mathematical as you can get within the artistic community outside of architect.  And I also have a law degree.  I don't deny that I would fall within the liberal arts major world, but my critique is based on strong observation.  I saw with my own two eyes how scared law students would get in law courses that had anything to do with mathematics.  :P

I also will admit my knowledge in economics is based on a lot of reading and study, as opposed to serious college coursework.  I took a statistics course, a sociology course and an economics course, but I simply never had the time to do both music and seriously engage in college courses in other disciplines - that was part of the degree.  I never went to business school, but I have also operated the finances of a couple of businesses (albeit small business), and know accounting.

Anyway, this is a little off-topic, but hey...

Most of the 37% are not looking out for their self interests, but whatever. It's pretty obvious to anyone sane that people like Mitt Romney need to pay more taxes.

What, Badger's a real Republican now? I thought the avatar was just a joke or something.

Good; Obama has a popular issue to campaign on.

Our public tax debate is so screwed that the best we can hope for is Obama using it to score political points. Of course the buffett rule is PR only. Given Republican control of the house, there is no serious policy Obama could pursue, so why not demagogue away. No Republican in elected office can vote to raise revenue anywhere, any how, except through cuts to spending on the poor. That's the bed the Republicans made and we all have to lie in it, so no, I'm not feeling guilty about Obama somehow debasing the debate and alienating Republicans who have zero influence with how their party actually behaves.

Sam's post was an unexpected bonus of the debate, really.

It's nonsensical to believe both that Republicans are a lock to hold the House and that the Buffett rule
is a dangerous and irresponsible policy initiative to be taken seriously.

Y'all are going to vote for a guy who promises to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget.

I don't have any problem with the way Obama and some Democrats want to frame the debate either, saying things like "The Republicans would rather abolish Medicare than allow for any tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans" is a hell of a lot more accurate than "death panels" or anything we've heard from the Tea Party. The Republicans for the past three years have been favoring nothing but policies that the public does find abhorrent but for some reason some have a problem with holding them accountable for that.

People need to learn to hate the rich with an all consuming passion - one which will not be sated by a mere return of 30% of their privilege.

It would be nice if the polling could delve deeper and find out what lies behind this opinion - is it a bitter resentment or mere 'practicality'.

Anyone else agree opebo would make a great Bolshevik propaganda writer in 1918? His stuff is great.

He is a fellow traveller, at best. And far too sincere to survive. He'd, probably, have been shot by 1921.

I think I know how seriously to take this, but will not say that much at this time.

A talent for mathematics and musical composition are quite significantly correlated actually. Apparently both disciplines work the same part of the brain. Never having done musical composition, I have no anecdotal opinion. But that is what the literature suggests.

Sure.  Indirectness, correlation or otherwise, can be Sam's specialty sometimes :P

Good.

37% of people are either misguided or are the 1%.

[sees a poll saying that Americans favor repealing Obama's health care law by 56% to 37%]

[re-reads post]

[is amused]

Response to Torie regarding the capital gains rate:

An important effect of lowering the capital gains rate has been that people now prefer to have stocks in companies which don't pay dividends.  The result is that companies pay less in dividends and have more money.  Some companies can find things to do with the extra money like invest in R & D.  Other companies (Proctor & Gamble, as an example) get lesser returns out of R & D, and so it's advantageous to sit on the money and lower dividend payments.

My point being: a lower capital gains rate (relative to the income tax rate) decreases the velocity of money by discouraging dividend payments.  Right now, we need to increase velocity of money.

Yes, I do understand the argument that higher capital gains rates lead to less investment.  It makes sense and is probably true.  However, I believe the above to be an important factor as well in the opposite direction.  I took a look at the historical record of capital gains tax rates, and found a somewhat spotty record of correlation with recessions and booms.

In short, it's not at all obvious that raising the capital gains rate is the worst thing we can do.