McCain/Obama Economic Summit

[smockers83]

There will be an economic summit during the RNC involving the top economic adviser for each candidate along with a few others. Sounds like they will be talking mainly about tax policy.

It's scheduled for Sept. 4 at 12:15 pm and there will be a live Internet feed and I'm sure there will be video of it afterwards.

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs...=6698

*edit* I'm assuming the given time is Eastern, not Central, just in case there could be confusion.
Modified by smockers83 at 11:40 AM 9/2/2008

[HashiriyaS14]

This is a good thing.

Obama needs to get the message out that he's serious about putting the economy back together.

It's the battle of the "trickle" ideologies, honestly.

GOP: Lower taxes to wealthy will trickle down to the middle class in the form of more jobs and higher salaries.

Democrats: Middle-class relief will create a broad-based economic recovery that will lift up housing and securities markets and in the long term, the wealthy will make back their tax increase several times over via securities and RE appreciation.

Both are good ideologies. I happen to subscribe to the latter, but it's a matter of opinion.

I love how our country has just completely abandoned the "tax less, spend less" idea. No one's even proposing this, lol, at least not seriously. Sad day for fiscal conservatives.

I mean, I'm voting for ODrama, but ultimately neither one of them brings a fiscal policy I can really get excited about. I had to pick the lesser of two evils in regards to the social issues (again, in MY opinion).

[AZhitman]

Sad day for fiscal conservatives.

Indeed.

[rn79870]

Many of us in the middle class are not looking for another job, so trickle down doesn't effect us as much as a tax cut will. I believe the economy will benefit more from a tax cut to 95% of the taxpayers than to the upper bracket persons.

[smockers83]

Given today's economy, I would also subscribe to the Democratic ideology of taxes. Not so much in that they have to increase taxes on the rich, but just decrease taxes on the not-rich.

No one except for the rich have truly benefited in a meaningful way from the growth that has been experienced as of late. Yes, all economic data says we're better off than 2001, but. The best way, IMO, to have another sweeping economic stimulus package is not to give out rebates, but just lower taxes on something like 85% of America. Instead of having inflated growth numbers for a quarter like we do for the 2nd quarter due to the stimulus checks, tax cuts will provide even and gradual growth, which is better for the economy and for those who own stocks. If we have inflated growth in the 2nd quarter, most likely analysts are going to be disappointed at the end of the 3rd, and stocks are going to fall.

Sorry, I keep coming back to add to this. Much of the growth experienced has been due to the rise in exports, so that could explain some of the reasons why the rich have mainly benefited.

[HashiriyaS14]

Given today's economy, I would also subscribe to the Democratic ideology of taxes. Not so much in that they have to increase taxes on the rich, but just decrease taxes on the not-rich.

No one except for the rich have truly benefited in a meaningful way from the growth that has been experienced as of late. Yes, all economic data says we're better off than 2001, but. The best way, IMO, to have another sweeping economic stimulus package is not to give out rebates, but just lower taxes on something like 85% of America. Instead of having inflated growth numbers for a quarter like we do for the 2nd quarter due to the stimulus checks, tax cuts will provide even and gradual growth, which is better for the economy and for those who own stocks. If we have inflated growth in the 2nd quarter, most likely analysts are going to be disappointed at the end of the 3rd, and stocks are going to fall.

Sorry, I keep coming back to add to this. Much of the growth experienced has been due to the rise in exports, so that could explain some of the reasons why the rich have mainly benefited.

Ok, but one of the problems is that the rich have NOT benefited as much as you might believe.

The rich derive a lot of their wealth from high-dollar real estate and securities portfolios, both of which have been hit hard by the housing crisis and economic slowdown. The expensive real estate in particular, as demand for this is much more elastic than for more moderately priced properties.

This economic slowdown is largely due to a lack of real income growth for the lower and middle classes. They have faltered and they're hitting the rich on their way down.

A broad-based economic recovery will restore the securities and real estate markets and the rich will make back the cost of their tax increase many times over with securities and real estate appreciation.

Ultimately, from a purely economic perspective, a huge gap between rich and poor is bad for everyone. Like it or not, a disaster for the poor can't be avoided by the rich, everyone is too inteconnected. When the poor default on their mortgages, the rich guy's stock in Bear Stearns is going to get hit as a result. You need to bring EVERYONE up to see a real recovery.

[smockers83]

Comparatively, they have benefited much more than anyone else though due to growth. Not just because they have more money to invest, but in terms of percentages of income. I'm also not looking at just the past couple of months either, but within the past year or so.

All the other stuff I completely agree with.

[HashiriyaS14]

Comparatively, they have benefited much more than anyone else though due to growth. Not just because they have more money to invest, but in terms of percentages of income. I'm also not looking at just the past couple of months either, but within the past year or so.

All the other stuff I completely agree with.

Yeah, they have, but I guess my point is that while they experience outsize benefits from economic phenomena, they also experience outsize consequences.

[OriginalWheelman]

How much does Obama plan on cutting your taxes? If you make a taxable $52k a year and single, you pay $9,430 a year in taxes. Each 1% is then $94.30. So you get 1 nice dinner with the girlfriend for each 1%. Now how many people are in that bracket? If we take $94 each away from the government, that is going to add up to a LOT of money. I'd like to see exactly what Obama's tax plan is, and the numbers for exactly how much it is going to take away from the federal government. I don't believe in short changing the people that protect me.

[smockers83]

Well, both candidates have claimed to want to go through the budget line by line and eliminate all unnecessary and wasteful spending and eliminating unnecessary and/or failed programs.

Hash, agreed on that as well and I see your point.

Lets see what their advisers have to say Thursday.

[OriginalWheelman]

Well, both candidates have claimed to want to go through the budget line by line and eliminate all unnecessary and wasteful spending and eliminating unnecessary and/or failed programs.

So has every candidate I've seen. I've been watching since GHWB. I bet even before that.

[S13_love]

i have never understood the logic in decreasing taxes for the rich, i truly don't, i would agree with raising the taxes on them...cause they have money of course, as for the middle class and lower, lower the taxes for them... but don't eliminate them

[rn79870]

Welcome to Nico, glad you found us. You are supporting Obama's tax plan by the way whith what you've said above.

[audtatious]

i have never understood the logic in decreasing taxes for the rich, i truly don't, i would agree with raising the taxes on them...cause they have money of course, as for the middle class and lower, lower the taxes for them... but don't eliminate them

The sure way to do that is to end capitalism and simply let the Gov decide what companies should exist here and who runs them. Once you take monetary return out of investments then there is no point in trying to have a successful business.

[OriginalWheelman]

Welcome to Nico, glad you found us. You are supporting Obama's tax plan by the way whith what you've said above.

Yes he is. As are most people who don't understand economics.