While I was waiting for my now obsolete HDDVD player to warm up and play season 8 of Seinfeld, I caught the best part of ABC’s democratic debate - not an exchange between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but Charlie Gibson educating Obama on how capital gains taxes work (2:20-5:22):
Gibson outlines how every time the capital gains tax was raised, total revenue went down. The reason this works, by the way, is exampled in the Laffer Curve. Obama doesn’t even deal with the facts of this case, but responds to say (despite the fact that raising it will bring in less revenue), it should be raised “because of fairness.”
Obama indicates that he could care less about how well the government actually works, but is more interested in the ideals of socialism. It is more important that rich people be punished, rather than taxes be collected efficiently.
More on Obama
(From Jew) Obama’s recent comments imply a “functionalist view of religious conviction” that “is not concerned with the truthfulness of these beliefs, but only with the effects the beliefs have on the believer.”
A speech from 2006 reveals a similar pattern of thought in Obama’s beliefs about the functional importance of religion.
[Americans] want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They’re looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them – that they are not just destined to travel down a long highway towards nothingness.
Obama does mention the whole “forgiveness of sins” idea, although he fails to mention repentance. (And Mr. Obama, I think you should refer to Jesus Christ as a savior, not an ally.)
[Faith] doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts. You need to come to church precisely because you are of this world, not apart from it; you need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away – because you are human and need an ally in your difficult journey.
But he seems to get confused about the importance of the truth. (Here’s a tip, Obama: if you traveled the same path as a Muslim or a Jew, then you don’t understand the truth and you aren’t saved.)
I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.
The path I traveled has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans – evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at a turning point in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives them.
It seems that Obama’s faith is rooted in social justice, not in things above.
I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. … I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; it is an active, palpable agent in the world. It is a source of hope.
…
It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and affirm my Christian faith.
More Links This Week
New Statesman article on NT Wright
The Filipino rice shortage we mentioned a couple weeks ago isn’t just in the Philippines. It’s global. CNN reports food riots in Haiti, Bangladesh, Egypt, and Mozambique. Rice prices have shot up 75%, wheat 120%. Corn prices are up too.
Glenn Beck argues that the US should lower it’s corporate tax rates.
CEOs Pushing Ayn Rand Studies Use Money to Overcome Resistance
The Trillion Dollar War:
These runaway costs do not include a single dollar from the Pentagon’s annual operating budget, which in 2008 reached a whopping $481 billion. If the war were being accounted for based on a rational, transparent budget process instead of an opaque and politicized shell game, Americans would be painfully aware that we are now in the seventh year of what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has called a $1 trillion war.
How much money is $1 trillion? Enough to pay for the entire 1976 federal budget, adjusted for inflation. Enough to write a check for $37,500 to every Iraqi man, woman, and child. Enough to buy 169,492 Black Hawk helicopters, or 455 stealth bombers. Enough, in nominal terms, to pay for the entire federal government from 1789 to 1957. And it’s 10 times more than what specialists predict it would take to eradicate malaria once and for all.
Colin, that Obama link is a great example of how liberals care more about feeling good than doing good.
It probably stems from the rise of postmodernism, where truth doesn’t matter. What matters is that everyone feels good and comes to believe in their own truth. Liberals have largely embraced postmodernism, so it is no surprise that they ignore all the evidence to the contrary.
Corn prices are up because of the ethanol boondoggle. And as corn syrup, corn gets put in a amazingly large number of products.
People I disagree with are stupid, and do stupid things because they don’t think like I do. They probably even KNOW that what they are doing is stupid, but don’t care because they’re stupid. It really surprises me sometimes that people would chose to be stupid for no reason other than they don’t think like I do, but then it probably shouldn’t because the people who think that way are stupid.
Note: CNBC has been talking pretty constantly about Obama’s admission that he supports tax raises for the rich even if it reduces total collections. We have them on the TV in our break room most of the time, and most of the times I’ve walked in there the last few days someone’s been mentioning it. The main comment seems to be that Obama wants to take money from the rich even if he has to increase deficits and destroy the economy to do so. I have to assume he didn’t really mean his comments that way, as it seems indefensible to argue that the rich should have money taken away even at the expense of causing economic ruin for everyone…
Yes, because that’s what I said, Atanamis. I guess it’s just beyond you. {rolls eyes}
Perhaps Obama truly is an idiot?? After all, he did say that people turn to religion because they are bitter. He’s not the brightest bulb.
Jasen Tracy said: “Corn prices are up because of the ethanol boondoggle.”
That could explain the jump in corn prices, yes. It doesn’t explain the increased price of rice and wheat very well. That’s more likely tied to the rising cost of oil.
But to get back to the ethanol boondoggle: it has effects all throughout the economy. Higher corn prices mean it’s more expensive to feed cattle, which raises the price of beef and dairy. I really don’t see any positive results from the ethanol initiative.
Atanamis said: CNBC has been talking pretty constantly about Obama’s admission that he supports tax raises for the rich even if it reduces total collections.
Yeah, but I think the reality is that Obama doesn’t believe it would really reduce total tax revenue. It’s a counter-intuitive and Obama’s not an economist so we shouldn’t expect him to understand a strange idea that is in stark contrast to his worldview.
Darius T said: [Obama is] not the brightest bulb.
Yeah. He’s smart enough in some areas. But he seems to have some pretty big blind spots. E.g., a genuine understanding of religion. Sure he’s religious, but as he said himself, it’s all about the social gospel. Genuine belief in spiritual things seems to be foreign to him, at least from what I can tell from his public statements.
Obama is a really conflicted and confused man… he doesn’t understand religion and he doesn’t understand race. It didn’t help that his father was a loser and didn’t raise him well.
“…he doesn’t understand race.”
My somewhat off-topic comment is not about race, really, it is about culture. This is an area that I think some people are confused. Obama’s mother was white, his father was African–not African-American. Obama grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, with lots of Asian influence. He did not grow up in a culture even remotely like what we think of typical for American blacks. So when people talk about “Oh, wow, we’re going to have our first black president” that doesn’t mean we’re having a president who shares a cultural heritage with those whose forebears were slaves. It just means people are making a comment STRICTLY about the color of his skin. Big deal what color your skin is.
Jew Wrote:
True, I wasn’t addressing that. It’s bound to have an effect in the future though as the U.S. has less food to send to poorer countries (because it’s being turned into ethanol). It’s also worth pointing out that U.S. tariffs prevent the importing of Brazilian sugar-based ethanol that is much more cost effective that corn based ethanol.
sigh. the poor abused laffer curve. the laffer curve states that SOMEWHERE between a tax rate of 0 and 100% there is an ideal tax rate. it says that increasing taxes beyond a certain point may actually decrease the total tax collections. this is somehow grossly distorted by supply siders to mean that reductions in taxes will always increase total collections. they always seem to ignore the converse, which is that decreasing taxes beyond a certain point may decrease total tax collections.
the capital gains tax always seems to be the whipping boy for this valid but deliberately mistated theory to be played out. the trick is in what mark twain described as the three kinds of lies “lies, damn lies, and statistics”. establish your statistical basepoints in the correct place and you can prove the moon is made of green cheese.
the only true way to calculate the effects of a capital gains rate increase or decrease is to track the collections vs rate vs economic activity (you must eliminate extra collections due to big changes in all collections ie the dot com bubble). some economists also believe that you must factor the stimulus of large deficit spending amounts, like after the reagan and bush tax cuts, into this. studies taken over a period long enough to ameliorate the one time bounce of people taking long term capital gains immediately after a cut or immediately in front of an increase make the supply siders arguments a LOT less clear cut.
the treasury department has done some pretty comprehensive studies on this that are interesting but universally ignored, since simple facts don’t fit into anyones preconceived ideological arguments. the truly onerous thing about capital gains taxes, which no one is discussing fixing since it is not a sexy sound bite issue, is that they are not indexed for inflation. you pay tax on true total capital gains plus the inflation.
disclaimer before darius calls me an idiot again, i am not advocating an increase in the capital gains tax. i am just pointing out that everyone in this interview is talking out their respective anal orifices. gibson, while technically correct that capital gains collections do jump right after a tax cut, is just another talking head not an economic brain surgeon. although i would never vote for obama i have bothered to read his (somewhat tedious) book. although he is much weaker on economics than i would like (as is mccain), he does understand this issue. so i am mystified how he gave such a poor response instead of calling gibson to the table on it. i fail to find in obamas writing, speeches, voting record, or even this interview where he could care less about how government works and is more interested in the ideals of socialism. obama is the strongest candidate the democraps have had in decades. people who lightly dismiss him as an idiot run a real risk of having him as president.
here’s a 2002 cbo paper that gives a pretty good analysis. note that is was prepared during the reign of king george the first and regent lord cheney, so claims of democratic hatchet job are not valid.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0
To follow up on bob’s position, the laffer curve has been recognized historically for a very long time. The disagreement is regarding where the “maximal profit point” is for forcible income collection. Historically countries would strip the people of large portions of their profits, which clearly reduced the productivity of those laborers. In modern economies, most economists tend to believe that the maximal profit point is actually a far higher taxation rate than is common in most western nations, but that we shouldn’t seek to reach it due to moral reasons (the governments “job” isn’t to maximize collections). I am unsure which side of the debate is correct, but as the link bob provided demonstrates it is far harder to determine than simple looking at short term results (due to the high volatility of those results).
This is an honest area for economic debate. This doesn’t mean that government should raise taxes if doing so will increase total revenue. Just because they COULD raise more money by raising tax rates wouldn’t mean they SHOULD. This is really nothing more than a supply/demand curve though. At some point, business owners will be taxed so highly that they will no longer be willing to provide the service of their business to the economy. Government/Organized Crime have always had to walk this balance when selling protection. You want to get money from your clients, not drive away business.