The sky is falling?
 

I'll start this thread based on a few assumptions:

1- Obama will be elected President
2- As President, Obama will not bring terrorists into his cabinet
3- The economy will recover to a noticeable degree within the next 1 to 3 years

Based on these assumptions (which I believe have and are currently being argued for/against in other threads) and based on the messaging of the right wing, do you believe the right wing is digging a deeper hole for themselves?

When Obama as President does not live up to the fears cast by the right wing in terms of his threat of Muslim Terrorist governing, it seems that would be the final nail in the coffin of the nearly 8 year talking point from the right wing.

When the economy recovers to some noticeable degree (not necessarily to the levels of the late 90's), it seems this indicates the "socialism" that was proclaimed as a threat to America could just as easily be evidenced as the cause or contributing factor of the rebound. This then provides incentive to not only continue with those policies but perhaps increase them.

If the sky doesn't fall, and indeed begins to look brighter, what is the impact to those who so loudly predicted the falling sky? Is the right wing currently aware of the striking potential for their tactics to backfire in the long run?

Does this last ditch effort (spanning a couple months now) to achieve a McCain Presidency have greater impact to the future of the right wing vs. just the future of John McCain?

if things get better in the next few years, the GOP will take credit for "building the foundation for a better tomorrow"

derwood, much like the clinton years were the result of reagan and bush.

Certainly that will be the message from some, but I don't think we've seen such a fundamental split in the right wing as we are witnessing today.

Nor were the late 80's and early 90's economic issues as significant as today's. When Joe Six Pack is faring better, does he buy into the concept that actions taken before the dramatic $800b bailout are responsible for his better fortune?

and the economic downturn under Bush2 was because of Clinton

Do you believe there is a normal business cycle? A cycle that is not controlled by the people in Washington? I believe there is a normal business cycle and I believe decisions made by many groups (not just Washington) can make the cycle have bigger peaks and valleys. For example I think OPEC can effect the normal business cycle. I think Presidents get too much credit and too much blame for the economy. I also think there are long tails on many government policies targeted to have an impact on the economy. For example education policies today may not affect our economy until our children going into school today, go into the workforce in 20 or so years. So, who gets the credit or blame for having the vision to sacrifice today for a benefit a generation away.

There are cycles and they are caused by Washington.

There are other cycles caused in London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo, Beijing, and so on. The problem is that each government ascribes far too much credence to the idea that its own actions can exclude its own people from world downturns.

The recent balls up in the world economy started with massive monopolies in the US being willing to lend money to people with no chance to pay it back, and relied on them selling the debt on quickly to the whole world.

The traders we incentivised not by government, but by the market.

In countries where there is strong regulation, the fall will bite less hard. In rich countries the fall will be parachuted.

In terms of the OP, I believe that by the next US election, the opposition will pretend that whatever is poling badly was always a problem, and will claim that they warned people.

You can see that now in the UK - the Conservative party are claiming that the economic problems of this country are the direct result of over 10 years of mismanagement by Gordon Brown as Chancellor then Prime Minister.

The fact that at the last election they committed to abide by Labour spending plans doesn't prevent them right now claiming that those plans were clearly dangerous and wrong.

To an extent, yes, if you want to interpret the 'crats early influence in congress as to what evolved into the Fannie/Freddie debacle.

i take some personal responsibility for the current financial crisis because on october 8, 1980 at approximately 3:15 pm i decided to walk instead of take the subway home. when i turned away from park street station in boston and started walking across the commons, everything changed. we are all still dealing with the implications of that moment.

another thing that contributed to the present financial crisis was the spanish-american war, which was among the first explicitly fake american wars and so began the accumulation of negative karma.

but if you think about it, the entire history of capitalism contributed to the present financial crisis as well. i blame the spinning jenny.

o and adam. well, maybe not so much him, but cain...definitely. he was a Problem.

I think consumers have a cycle too. I mean how many people are rushing out and buying new computers when the one they bought 3 years ago is just fine? My car works and I don't need another one, I'm not moving anytime soon, I have all the furniture that I need, and the list goes on and on. It's not like there have been major improvements to make consumers want the latest iPods when the one they bought a few years ago works just fine.

I think Obama will embrace the green revolution. Our economy will be revived because of it. People will go back to work in factories making the instruments of conservation and people will reap the benefits of less dependence of foreign oil. We'll have more pollution due to increased production capacity but smart implementing will mitigate that. People will upgrade their lifestyles by buying and they'll have the money because they'll be working.

With people working, we will generate tax revenues, even at a lower tax rate.

I can see a real opportunity for everything to improve.

I want this to happen, but I think a lot of people are concerned about this happening. Either they would lose their jobs producing current power, or once the switch has been made, even the green jobs will go away. There is only so much power that needs to be produced, and there are few or no on-going costs with wind, solar, geo-thermal and hydro generation.

I hadn't thought of that as a down side. I guess my response would be that once we've cut our energy consumption, it will simply take less money to live. Imagine how much money this country would save if we could cut our oil consumption by 10, 20, or more percent.

The dividend from those savings will mean renewed focus on engineering degrees, tool making technologies, and an updated infrastructure. I'm sure the benefits of moving our country from fossil fuels to renewable energy will be dynamic and far reaching.

It will take investments in science and technology, which is easy when you consider what will happen if we don't. I've always felt it's better to make change on my terms, our terms, than to wait until our choice is limited to one path. Maybe even no path.

people making wagons and carriages were pissed about the car, too, but if they can change, we can change :)

and i can see the point about green energies being easier to maintain so there may not be as many jobs, but you'll still have the peripheral jobs available, not just the 'directly related' ones. I'd say this changeover would be easier to make than the one from the manufacturing economy to the service economy. I'd be more than willing to suffer through this type of changeover.

From my understanding Obama wants to provide funding to retrain displaced workers.

I think this gets to the root of my OP:

When are liberals going to start investing in the market again? With all the optimism I would think the money on the sidelines would be invested soon.

Jan 20.....when there are no more possibilities of a Bush fuck up :)

I don't have any money to invest :(

What are you talking about exactly? Liberal government?

Isn't Warren Buffett a liberal?

i went outside last night during mc-cain's concession speech to listen for cheering around this ludicrous little town. while i was out there, i looked at the sky. it seemed where it normally is, though the stars were shining a bit brighter than i remember them shining earlier in the evening. go figure.

One of the striking results of the CNN exit poll:

Voters of $200,000 income and more:
Obama - 52%, McCain - 46%

No recent Democrat has ever won the upper income voters

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Exit polls arent the best predictors..but if its evrn close to being right on the money, they certaintly werent scared away by Obama's plan to end Bush's tax holiday for the top income group.

BTW, his 43% showing among white voters was also the highest for a Democrat in more than 30 years.

I have hope that Obama will do things differently but I can't drink the proverbial kool-aid. I think many people have placed their hopes and future on Obama's shoulders... and much of their expectations are unrealistic.

What I am hoping for is a pragmatic middle ground. If Obama can reconstruct some of the hollowed out government and military, I will be happy. If he can change the general cynicism of a nation (heck the world) and give people something different from the "you are either with us or you are against us" attitude of the previous administration... I will be happy.

I just worry that Obama will not be able to live up to the massive expectations... I worry that there are some power brokers who are just waiting to spin any perceived fault to render Obama into a Carter (and all that that implies).

that was two days before my disasterous first marriage...

however, at that time i only take personal responsibility for my own ensuing crisis...

now, life is very, very good...

I don't like the fact that Obama chose Rahm Emanuel to be Chief of Staff (At least, that's what a report I saw said). That's not new. It's more of the same (Corporate rule). Plus I don't like the fact that the guy voted against a proposition to ban partial birth abortions, but that's another topic for another day.

Currently people are sitting on a lot of cash in low interest instruments. When the cash starts to be put in the stock market, some expect stock prices it to rise. Currently, there is also a trend for large "hedge fund type" investments taking cash out of the market due to liquidity needs- once this stabilizes the market should also have this in its favor as well. I think many are sitting in "cash" is because of pessimism. I would like to see an Obama bounce, but we need optimistic people to start believing in the strength of the economy.

Some believe the assumptions that support my view are invalid, so do your own homework before following any "tips". The information below is a few years old, but may be relevant to those interested in the issue.

http://www.speculative-investor.com/...ket_150302.gif

Speculative-Investor.com
-----Added 6/11/2008 at 11 : 48 : 03-----
First Obama won the election. Second the $200,000 plus category can be segmented in many ways, one being those who earn income from assets and those who earn income from employment. To give meaning to the number we have to take a more detailed look. Also, further down the page on the link you provided showed a 49% tie between Obama and McCain in the $100,000 and up income category. What does that tell you relative to the data you highlighted.

ace...Obama's numbers exceed every Democratic in the last 20-30 years...

the highest percentage of white voters
the highest percentage of college educated voters
highest percentage of high income (over 100k and over 200k)

There are problably many reasons...enthusiastic support for Obama's policies, repudiation of Bush policies...or a general drifting away from the Republican party because it has become too conservative in many non-fiscal areas.

I acknowledge that Obama won decisively and that he got a broad coalition of people excited about his candidacy including groups that were generally apathetic in the past. However, I don't conclude that the majority of people facing increased taxes under his plan believe that raising taxes during a recession is the right thing to do for the nation. I also doubt that the majority will pay increased taxes without doing things to minimize the increase.

FYI

ESPN - Major League Baseball agents ponder beating likely tax increase

I don't draw any broad conclusions from this, but it is just interesting.

so you think tax evasion is copasetic, ace?

umm, no matter what taxes become, people will always try to find the best way to pay or avoid paying. It's only when it's illegal do i have issues..ie, funneling money into caiman island businesses that aren't really there...

Taxes are at 36%? OMG! Let's put all our money in a bank in Iberia! Taxes are down to 24%? Hey, let's put all our money into a bank account in town!

Don't see that happening. Smart money managers will always try their darndest to create tax-free income, even if the tax rate was 1%.

I do not think breaking the law is o.k., but we both know that is not the issue.

Why ask a distorting question?

I recall being criticized for stating the obvious, here I assumed an understanding of the obvious and your question is what results. I love this in ways you probably won't understand, but it is interesting how some avoid directly addressing real issues. The level of creativity is amazing. On this issue as I have done before, I will keep hammering the point in my own various ways and I will see what happens. You guys keep my brain juices flowing, much more fun than a Sudoko puzzle.

While I do feel Clinton laid some of the ground work, Bush's business history pretty much shows that he would have trashed the economy any way. He has bankrupted every business he has run. Did anyone really think this would have turned out different? The man is a walking money pit. The farther away from running things he is, the better for all of us.

First you have to look at real marginal tax rates, which for some will be pretty close to 50% on a federal level and possibly another 10% or more on a state level. Then understand that the amount of effort put into legally avoiding taxes or earning additional income that makes the net (after taxes) not worth the extra effort or risk, will rise as the real marginal rates rise. So, if the real marginal rate is 90% you will get a very different amount of effort than you would if the rate is 1%.

Second, look at the marginal tax rates the "poor" will face as they lose credits and deductions as their income rises. In some cases those marginal rates will be higher than the top rates on the "rich", I think that is wrong.