7 ms·

That's pretty much the case against Barack Obama: Trade (BIG BIG BIG win for McCain), Taxes (small win for McCain), Subsidies (big win for McCain), Healthcare (

That's pretty much the case against Barack Obama: Trade (BIG BIG BIG win for McCain), Taxes (small win for McCain), Subsidies (big win for McCain), Healthcare (big win for McCain: got to address cost, not access), and Energy (slight win for McCain). Barack on the other hand is better on avoiding World War III, Big Brother, and Theocracy. It's a depressing choice.

mattmaroon 18y ago
Most economists disagree with your assertions.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  For proof of that btw: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index... http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=12342127 http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm... "Even among Republican [economist]s Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    It is my unsupported opinion that economists have Bush fatigue just like everybody else, and are eager to see the regime of permanent deficits and trillion dollar wars out on the streets. Obama does appear at times to be thoughtful, and his advisors are centrists. I think economists are hoping for a second Clinton, which would certainly be better than a third Bush. I hope they are right. It is my unsupported opinion given my anecdotal interactions with people that the following quote is the explaining factor of The Economist piece: 'Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good. The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.' On that, I whole-heartedly agree with them.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Right, and McCain, even without public health care, will lead to a bigger deficit than Obama. Economists really hate the Bush tax cuts (which McCain now supports making permanent) because they favor the non-working ultra-wealthy.
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
      - Prrometheus 18y ago
        >"Economists really hate the Bush tax cuts (which McCain now supports making permanent) because they favor the non-working ultra-wealthy." I haven't seen that argument made. Perhaps you could link to it? I have seen the tax cuts opposed on economic grounds because of the deficit. I have seen them opposed on philosophical grounds because the author believes the tax code should be even more "progressive". But I haven't seen that argument made based on economic reasoning.
        mattmaroon 18y ago
        Sure, here's a great summary by Krugman: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer/print http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_kru... Explains why capital gains is largely just a loophole in the tax code exploited by the uber-rich. Also, if you dig around through public data, you find that the top 10% of Americans make about 70% of the income and pay about 70% of the personal taxes. Sounds fair right? However, the top 1% make about 47% and pay only 39%, meaning the next 9% make about 23% but pay 31%. Is it just at all that the top 1% of America has a lower tax burden than the next 9%? Thank capital gains taxes for that. I can't find the data, but if you were to break this down even further by 10th of a percent, you'd probably find that even more exaggerated.
        DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        Seems like that assumes that the top one percent or so are some kind of trapped citizenry. Wouldn't they just move assets/gains/themselves offshore? Seems like if anybody had the ability to change their life parameters to avoid taxes, it would be the uber-wealthy. By taxing capital gains, you hit the millionaire store-keeper who sold his shop and is now retired living on investments, the startup guys just cashing out, the day-trader who made a mint. In short, the transitional folks. You keep slightly-rich people from becoming super-rich. The really rich don't seem to be encumbered by any one nation's tax laws. My opinion only. Sorry for butting in. I was hoping you guys would cover this point but I haven't seen it so far in your discussion.
  - MaysonL 18y ago
    Note also, that on the list "100 Economists for McCain" there are actually only 90 names...
    - gaius 18y ago
      VAT on lists is 10%.
netcan 18y ago
Question. As a non American, I wonder what brings US to a (relatively) extreme position on Health. Technicalities aside, most places consider health as part of the suite of public responsibilities. Does a significant portion of the opposition to the public assuming responsibility for health also oppose the public assuming responsibility for education? I ask because it seems a close parallel.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  The parallel is pretty weak. Publicly funded education is for children, while publicly funded health care would be delivered to adults. We also consider preventing sex with children to be a legitimate function of the government, while preventing sex with adults is a matter of personal privacy.
  - netcan 18y ago
    You think the reason that it's: healthcare no & education yes, is that education concerns children? There are many aspects of children's wellbeing that the public does not concern itself with including to an extent child health. BTW, the paedophilia laws are not really analogous. Sex with children is prohibited because it is considered rape. A child is considered unable to consent so it is non consensual. Non consensual sex is prohibited with adults too.
    - yummyfajitas 18y ago
      Childrens health is a major responsibility of government. If a parent fails to keep their child healthy, this is child neglect, and the government steps in (often removing the child from the care of his/her parents). If a parent cannot afford medical care for their children, the government will pay. There may be administrative differences between specific government programs in education and health care, but there is little public opposition to either one.
      - netcan 18y ago
        There is a big difference. Education is seen as a right in The States. Everyone gets to (has to) go to school.
lutorm 18y ago
Really? Trade: small win for Obama. Taxes: small win for Obama. Subsidies: small win for Obama. Healthcare: big win for Obama. Energy: insanely large win for Obama. Foreign policy: insanely large win for Obama. Civil rights: big win for Obama. In fact, I seriously doubt the mental state of any intelligent person thinking of voting for McCain.... but then again, that's just my opinion. Not fact.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  Most economists (~90%) think free trade is a huge net positive for the world. Paul Krugman, the most prominent living left-wing economist, is a unabashed supporter of trade. Obama demonizes it. Krugman is much closer to McCain than Obama on free trade. Obama wants to raise taxes because there is no place to cut a $3 trillion budget. In fact, he wants to add many new expenditures to that budget. Many smart people seem to have gotten caught up in his class-warrior socialist rhetoric, but the truth is we all lose when government punishes the productive sectors of society through taxation. Subsidies? Every economist I know and most environmentalists are against corn and ethanol subsidies. McCain had the balls to make a stand against them at a debate IN IOWA, a notorious corn state. Obama realizes that handouts win votes, and spinelessly sticks by them. Healthcare? The big healthcare problem in the United States is cost, not access. See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/getting_real_about_health_care.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/getting_re... . McCain wants to address the cost of healthcare. Obama is all about access. I think Obama is wrong on the issue. Energy: Obama promises to subsidize various technologies out the wazoo, but we have seen little return from previous billion-dollar efforts. Your last sentence illustrates the religion-like fervor that has developed around Obama and the intellectual bankruptcy of his movement. I won't be voting for McCain, but I have no illusions that Saunt Obama is going to save the world. I'm sorry I stated the case against your savior. I hadn't realized that Hacker News had turned into reddit, and that any comment against the one with the Kennedy smile was worthy of downvotes.
  - davidw 18y ago
    Ok, ok, I'm going to break down and talk politics for once: Here's the difference, for me, in a nutshell. Smart Democrats, like Krugman (and Bill Clinton for that matter), can be reasoned with and see the light about things like free trade, and can discuss economic freedoms with regards to their philosophical vision for society. You may not always agree with that vision, but generally if you find someone bright, you can argue with them and get them to consider your point of view, and maybe even change their position. On the other hand, the current Republican party is dominated by Sarah Palin types. They are convinced that God has told them a variety of things, such as evolution is wrong, that we were right to invade Iraq in her case, that torture is ok because we're the good guys, and so on. You can't argue with that kind of mentality - there is no room for it, because it is in no way connected to logic. It's that anti-reason, anti-science, anti-intellectual, "god told me so" approach to the world that I think is absolutely poisonous. Really though, can we just 'flag' these sorts of articles and avoid the subject entirely? We'd waste less time doing something unproductive.
colinplamondon 18y ago
Energy: "Drill baby drill"?

mattmaroon 18y ago

Most economists disagree with your assertions.

mattmaroon 18y ago
For proof of that btw: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index... http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=12342127 http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm... "Even among Republican [economist]s Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  It is my unsupported opinion that economists have Bush fatigue just like everybody else, and are eager to see the regime of permanent deficits and trillion dollar wars out on the streets. Obama does appear at times to be thoughtful, and his advisors are centrists. I think economists are hoping for a second Clinton, which would certainly be better than a third Bush. I hope they are right. It is my unsupported opinion given my anecdotal interactions with people that the following quote is the explaining factor of The Economist piece: 'Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good. The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.' On that, I whole-heartedly agree with them.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Right, and McCain, even without public health care, will lead to a bigger deficit than Obama. Economists really hate the Bush tax cuts (which McCain now supports making permanent) because they favor the non-working ultra-wealthy.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - Prrometheus 18y ago
      >"Economists really hate the Bush tax cuts (which McCain now supports making permanent) because they favor the non-working ultra-wealthy." I haven't seen that argument made. Perhaps you could link to it? I have seen the tax cuts opposed on economic grounds because of the deficit. I have seen them opposed on philosophical grounds because the author believes the tax code should be even more "progressive". But I haven't seen that argument made based on economic reasoning.
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        Sure, here's a great summary by Krugman: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer/print http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_kru... Explains why capital gains is largely just a loophole in the tax code exploited by the uber-rich. Also, if you dig around through public data, you find that the top 10% of Americans make about 70% of the income and pay about 70% of the personal taxes. Sounds fair right? However, the top 1% make about 47% and pay only 39%, meaning the next 9% make about 23% but pay 31%. Is it just at all that the top 1% of America has a lower tax burden than the next 9%? Thank capital gains taxes for that. I can't find the data, but if you were to break this down even further by 10th of a percent, you'd probably find that even more exaggerated.
        DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        Seems like that assumes that the top one percent or so are some kind of trapped citizenry. Wouldn't they just move assets/gains/themselves offshore? Seems like if anybody had the ability to change their life parameters to avoid taxes, it would be the uber-wealthy. By taxing capital gains, you hit the millionaire store-keeper who sold his shop and is now retired living on investments, the startup guys just cashing out, the day-trader who made a mint. In short, the transitional folks. You keep slightly-rich people from becoming super-rich. The really rich don't seem to be encumbered by any one nation's tax laws. My opinion only. Sorry for butting in. I was hoping you guys would cover this point but I haven't seen it so far in your discussion.
- MaysonL 18y ago
  Note also, that on the list "100 Economists for McCain" there are actually only 90 names...
  - gaius 18y ago
    VAT on lists is 10%.

netcan 18y ago

Question. As a non American, I wonder what brings US to a (relatively) extreme position on Health. Technicalities aside, most places consider health as part of the suite of public responsibilities. Does a significant portion of the opposition to the public assuming responsibility for health also oppose the public assuming responsibility for education? I ask because it seems a close parallel.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
The parallel is pretty weak. Publicly funded education is for children, while publicly funded health care would be delivered to adults. We also consider preventing sex with children to be a legitimate function of the government, while preventing sex with adults is a matter of personal privacy.
- netcan 18y ago
  You think the reason that it's: healthcare no & education yes, is that education concerns children? There are many aspects of children's wellbeing that the public does not concern itself with including to an extent child health. BTW, the paedophilia laws are not really analogous. Sex with children is prohibited because it is considered rape. A child is considered unable to consent so it is non consensual. Non consensual sex is prohibited with adults too.
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    Childrens health is a major responsibility of government. If a parent fails to keep their child healthy, this is child neglect, and the government steps in (often removing the child from the care of his/her parents). If a parent cannot afford medical care for their children, the government will pay. There may be administrative differences between specific government programs in education and health care, but there is little public opposition to either one.
    - netcan 18y ago
      There is a big difference. Education is seen as a right in The States. Everyone gets to (has to) go to school.

lutorm 18y ago

Really? Trade: small win for Obama. Taxes: small win for Obama. Subsidies: small win for Obama. Healthcare: big win for Obama. Energy: insanely large win for Obama. Foreign policy: insanely large win for Obama. Civil rights: big win for Obama. In fact, I seriously doubt the mental state of any intelligent person thinking of voting for McCain.... but then again, that's just my opinion. Not fact.

Prrometheus 18y ago
Most economists (~90%) think free trade is a huge net positive for the world. Paul Krugman, the most prominent living left-wing economist, is a unabashed supporter of trade. Obama demonizes it. Krugman is much closer to McCain than Obama on free trade. Obama wants to raise taxes because there is no place to cut a $3 trillion budget. In fact, he wants to add many new expenditures to that budget. Many smart people seem to have gotten caught up in his class-warrior socialist rhetoric, but the truth is we all lose when government punishes the productive sectors of society through taxation. Subsidies? Every economist I know and most environmentalists are against corn and ethanol subsidies. McCain had the balls to make a stand against them at a debate IN IOWA, a notorious corn state. Obama realizes that handouts win votes, and spinelessly sticks by them. Healthcare? The big healthcare problem in the United States is cost, not access. See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/getting_real_about_health_care.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/getting_re... . McCain wants to address the cost of healthcare. Obama is all about access. I think Obama is wrong on the issue. Energy: Obama promises to subsidize various technologies out the wazoo, but we have seen little return from previous billion-dollar efforts. Your last sentence illustrates the religion-like fervor that has developed around Obama and the intellectual bankruptcy of his movement. I won't be voting for McCain, but I have no illusions that Saunt Obama is going to save the world. I'm sorry I stated the case against your savior. I hadn't realized that Hacker News had turned into reddit, and that any comment against the one with the Kennedy smile was worthy of downvotes.
- davidw 18y ago
  Ok, ok, I'm going to break down and talk politics for once: Here's the difference, for me, in a nutshell. Smart Democrats, like Krugman (and Bill Clinton for that matter), can be reasoned with and see the light about things like free trade, and can discuss economic freedoms with regards to their philosophical vision for society. You may not always agree with that vision, but generally if you find someone bright, you can argue with them and get them to consider your point of view, and maybe even change their position. On the other hand, the current Republican party is dominated by Sarah Palin types. They are convinced that God has told them a variety of things, such as evolution is wrong, that we were right to invade Iraq in her case, that torture is ok because we're the good guys, and so on. You can't argue with that kind of mentality - there is no room for it, because it is in no way connected to logic. It's that anti-reason, anti-science, anti-intellectual, "god told me so" approach to the world that I think is absolutely poisonous. Really though, can we just 'flag' these sorts of articles and avoid the subject entirely? We'd waste less time doing something unproductive.

colinplamondon 18y ago

Energy: "Drill baby drill"?