mpmcgraw wrote:What do you guys think of Obama's corporate tax plan? I only have a basic understanding of his plan, but it seems like to me that it is going to do more harm than good by pushing more jobs out of the country.

mpmcgraw wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:What do you guys think of Obama's corporate tax plan? I only have a basic understanding of his plan, but it seems like to me that it is going to do more harm than good by pushing more jobs out of the country.

Can anyone explain to me how more corporate taxes would be a good thing?

mpmcgraw wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:What do you guys think of Obama's corporate tax plan? I only have a basic understanding of his plan, but it seems like to me that it is going to do more harm than good by pushing more jobs out of the country.

Can anyone explain to me how more corporate taxes would be a good thing?

dajafi wrote:Isn't that Geezer Rock, destroyed by Homer Simpson?

FTN wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:What do you guys think of Obama's corporate tax plan? I only have a basic understanding of his plan, but it seems like to me that it is going to do more harm than good by pushing more jobs out of the country.

Can anyone explain to me how more corporate taxes would be a good thing?

If you want to read the Brookins/Urban take on it, the pdf is here

(ensue debate on Brookings' leanings)

dajafi wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:What do you guys think of Obama's corporate tax plan? I only have a basic understanding of his plan, but it seems like to me that it is going to do more harm than good by pushing more jobs out of the country.

Can anyone explain to me how more corporate taxes would be a good thing?

Do you think the corporate tax rate should be zero? Assuming you believe that taxes are necessary at all--and even the true anti-tax fanatics will acknowledge some use for them--the trick of tax policy is to spread the pain in a way that nobody is hurt to the point where they change their behavior in a manner that's harmful to the public interest. Maybe Obama's proposed rates are sufficiently high enough that they will chase capital out of the country; I don't know, and I'm pretty certain you don't know. But his top economic advisor, Austin Goolsbee, is a behavioral economist with clear "pro-business" tendencies; I'd be very surprised if he wasn't sensitive to the risk here.

The other point to keep in mind is that tax rates aren't the only factor that influences business location decisions. New York City has higher taxes than Mississippi, but firms stay here because NYC offers a bigger market, access to skilled labor, decent public infrastructure and quality of life, etc. All these things come into play (perhaps not as strongly) on a national level too: if Obama (or whoever) can convincingly make the case that a somewhat higher tax assessment represents investment in shoring up infrastructure, improving schools and public safety, and better training workers, that makes the steeper tax bill a little more palatable.

dajafi wrote:

FTN wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:What do you guys think of Obama's corporate tax plan? I only have a basic understanding of his plan, but it seems like to me that it is going to do more harm than good by pushing more jobs out of the country.

Can anyone explain to me how more corporate taxes would be a good thing?

If you want to read the Brookins/Urban take on it, the pdf is here

(ensue debate on Brookings' leanings)

Brookings is slightly left of center (though they certainly employ some prominent neocons and other non-libs), but the Tax Policy Center is pretty much universally respected as an honest broker.

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government.

The Institute was established as an independent organization in 1968 by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration to study the nation’s urban problems and evaluate the Great Society initiatives embodied in more than 400 laws passed in the prior four years. Gradually, its research and funding base broadened.

Today, federal government contracts provide about 72 % of the Institute’s operating funds, foundations another 26 %, and state and local governments and private individuals the rest. Some of the Institute’s more than 100 private sponsors and funders include The Atlantic Philanthropies, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

FTN wrote:Cato praised the disaster that was the Bush privatization of Social Security plan. That makes me question their sanity, to a degree.

The Red Tornado wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:

Laexile wrote:Barack Obama is the Democratic Presidential candidate I've liked the least in my lifetime.

I know you're Mr McCain, but seriously? How's he worse than Kerry?

I dunno, Dukakis was pretty bad as was Mondale.

jerseyhoya wrote:Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones suffered a massive aneurysm and might be taken off life support.

BuddyGroom wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:This is and always was an uphill battle for McCain. That said, I am about as confident as I have been in some time that he not only can win, but he will win. There are many twists and turns yet to come, but Obama is reeling. Not saying he cant or wont turn it around, but I am really beginning to believe he can win. IMO, that his major obstacle: getting Republicans and Republican leaning voters to actually think he can pull it out. He is close in national polls and state polls have been much better for him in the last week or so - gaining on Obama where he is down and expanding his leads where he is already ahead. But getting people to believe he can win is what he needs to do.

Prior to the Zogby poll, I would have said what are you talking about. Even in the aftermath of that poll, whatever it ends up meaning, I do not see Obama reeling at all.

If you're a McCain supporter, though, I'd remind you that the electoral college math for Republicans is very limited. I don't think there's any way the Republicans can win this election without Ohio - and right now that state is a toss-up. For the Democrats, winning without Ohio would be difficult, but not impossible.

Rococo4 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones suffered a massive aneurysm and might be taken off life support.

she died. not reported yet.

I'm Hearing...

...that Obama staff were told to prepare for a VP announcement tomorrow or today, but the same source that passed this along to me expressed skepticism.

My guess? Thursday -- tomorrow -- PM. The event scheduled with Tim Kaine on Thursday is apparently invitation-only, and would not be all that well suited to a VP unveil. If it's going to be Kaine, in other words, Obama would probably need to announce today.

The dead zone in the media cycle is Friday afternoon through Saturday evening ... Friday mornings are relatively normal. An announcement on Thursday evening would allow Obama to get some coverage while people were still at their desks, while also building up anticipation toward his Saturday event in Springfield, which sounds more designed to be a mass media spectacle than for any kind of spontaneity.

And Friday seems to be pretty unscheduled for both Obama and most of the leading VP contenders, creating plenty of opportunities for a joint appearance. For that matter, Hillary Clinton will be in Florida on Thursday and Kathleen Sebelius in Iowa, neither of which are impossibly far away from Virginia for some kind of PM rendezvouses.

With large grain of salt.