FT.com | Clive Crook’s blog | The final presidential debate

The final presidential debate

October 16, 2008

It was the best of the three, and way better than the useless second debate, for sure. The format worked well–sitting at a table seemed to encourage them to engage with each other–and the moderator Bob Schieffer did a fine job, asking shrewd, pointed questions and then following up. Both men raised their game, especially McCain, who of the two had far more ground to recover. We got a fuller discussion than before of most of the issues that came up–tax policy, for instance, and health care. But I doubt it has changed anybody’s mind. Neither landed a heavy blow, and neither made a bad mistake–unless McCain’s increasingly tiresome references to Joe the Plumber fall into that category.

A critical moment came when Schieffer asked for their opinion of each other’s running-mate. Obama declined the invitation to attack, offering faint praise (”she’s a capable politician”) and saying that voters would make up their own minds. He will be criticised for that, but I think he was wise. Voters who think Palin a disaster don’t need to be reminded of it by Obama, and voters who think she’s a good choice wouldn’t have been swayed. The main thing was for Obama to stay cool and collected, to avoid seeming angry or rattled. Especially with the economy in such a bad way, those are the traits that commend him to independents, and where he compares so favourably with McCain. His restraint on Palin served to underline them.

McCain’s demeanour was much improved, I thought. He also scored a point or two in the tax discussion, criticising Obama’s penchant for “spreading the wealth around”. His seeming moderation on Supreme Court appointments–”no litmus test”–will have pleased some independents (at the cost of annoying many conservatives). His best single line of the night was probably when he said he was not George Bush, and that if Obama had wanted to run against Bush he should have run four years ago: “I will take the country in a new direction.”

I thought Obama had the better of the crucial exchange on health care. Both men got a bit bogged down in the technicalities. I wonder how many viewers followed what they were saying. But Obama emphasised that if you were happy with your existing insurance nothing would change, and that McCain’s scheme would undermine existing employer-provided cover (which indeed it would; it is intended to). For most voters, that wins the argument. McCain’s approach has virtues–employer-provided insurance is a bad idea–and Obama’s estimates of the cost of his scheme are not at all plausible, but McCain has made a hash of explaining his own proposal, and it is fatally flawed in any case, because it does so little to improve coverage.

We saw a better McCain than the McCain of recent weeks, but it almost certainly comes too late. With the economic ceiling falling in, Obama’s grace under pressure inspires more confidence than McCain’s agitation, attenuated as it was for tonight’s encounter. Obama has the momentum, and I saw nothing to change that.

October 16th, 2008 in US politics | Permalink

66 Responses to “The final presidential debate”

Comments

I thought Senator Obama did an awesome job, and stayed serene and dignified, which is what the great leaders do,they are able to remain calm in the midst of affronts. McCain was his normal irascible self, with a number of snide remarks and a few subtleties…The debate illustrated clearly the choices for the American people. May God Bless them.
Posted by: bani | October 16th, 2008 at 7:32 am | Report this comment
The difference is stark: one comes across as a Commander-in-Chief and the other as the Soldier. Both are needed. But for the US electorates, the real question is: who will make a good president? History tells us that a soldier rarely makes a good president.
Posted by: Sukhendu Pal | October 16th, 2008 at 9:14 am | Report this comment
A clear win for Mr Obama. He showed the composure and coolness required for the president of america. Mr Mcain on the other hand seemed angry, condescending and frankly quite reminiscent of Bush and Cheney. Mr Mcain got a quick punch with the “I am not bush” statement. Mr Obama’s comeback about “all your policies are identical to bush” said it all. In my opinion, Mcain needed to win clearly and cause Mr Obama to make a misstep, unfortunately for Mr Mcain it did not happen. Some clear points from Mr Obama that got tremendous response here were 1) The idea of focusing on developing alternate sources of energy with a ferocious and dedicated focus, 2) Engaging with people, whom he does not agree with, to search for solutions.
Posted by: Pradeep Fernandes, CA | October 16th, 2008 at 9:28 am | Report this comment
Something that sent shivers down most peoples spine was Mr Mcain’s statement “I will get out the hatchet and then after that I will get out the scalpel”. There is something very disturbing about bringing in violent and bloody euphesims to attacking a problem. This might be giving us insight into a dangerous pre-disposition of Mr Mcain to approach everything with a stick, something that Busheney and co have used with very poor results.
Posted by: Pradeep Fernandes, CA | October 16th, 2008 at 9:37 am | Report this comment
How can anyone think that saying “I am not Bush” was such a great retort for McCain when this is so obviously false, on issue after issue, whether deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, the Iraq war (except for some strategy differences), abortion, or whatever? This is an obvious case of a politician talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

On the one hand, McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush, while on the other, he has Sarah Palin running around the country trying to out-Bush Bush in her sleazy attacks on the Democrats’ patriotism and her adherence to radical far right “conservative” ideology in order to appeal to the Bush/Rove strategy of “energizing the base”.

If McCain does have any major difference with Bush, it is in the fact that if McCain/Palin were elected, they would most probably make Bush/Cheney look like left wing liberals by comparison.

It is true, as Obama himself pointed out, that McCain has, or did have, a commendable record of independence on issues such as torture, but on the main question facing the country, namely the economy, McCain is just one more Reagan/Bush/Cheney trickle down Republican.

On foreign policy, as Patrick Buchanan (not normally someone I agree with very often) put it recently, McCain would make Cheney look like Gandhi.

For those of us who can remember Watergate, McCain’s saying “I am not Bush” sounded very much like Nixon’s unforgettable lie: “I am not a crook”.
Posted by: algasema | October 16th, 2008 at 10:03 am | Report this comment
Re Clive Crook’s article “Back in business” it seems that there are two kinds of capitalism. One is the capitalism for the rich that we have had over the past eight years and that is now unraveling, and the other is the capitalism for ordinary people that is closer to the New Deal, as Clive appears to suggest if I have understood his article correctly.

Of course, neither the Bush/Cheney version of capitalism nor the New Deal variety may deserve to be called pure capitalism, but what difference does that make anyway? Labels such as “capitalism” or “socialism” do not by themselves put food on anyone’s table.
Posted by: algasema | October 16th, 2008 at 10:20 am | Report this comment
We’ve got Sen. Obama described as having “grace”, being “serene”, “dignified” and showing “coolness” all of which are completely irrelevant to his economic policies.

I do not care if a President Obama raises my taxes and tears up NAFTA with grace and serenity or in a awkward rage; I only care that as president, Obama promises to penalize legitimate commerce to score political points.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 16th, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Report this comment
algasema - That “I am not Bush” reference is a good one. When McCain reacts with spontaneous, scarcastic, off the cuff remarks during debates with Obama he reveals his true persona. The ascerbic George Will on last Sunday’s This Week round table discussion about McCain: “Its too late for John McCain to develop a new persona.” And on his contradictory campaign themes: “His dissonance is paralyzing.”

Obama’s lucidity is made salient in juxtaposition with McCain’s irascibility. Irascibility may work for him in the Senate chambers but doesn’t play well on TV. Obama’s temperament serves him well in debates. It will serve him well in the Oval Office.
Posted by: claudia | October 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pm | Report this comment
I am listening to BBC reporting at the moment on the use of “Joe the plumber” during the so-called debate.

Taxes play no significant role in decision-making regarding starting or acquiring a small business. Far more important are the basics of the business starting with customers and clients (who they are and how the businessperson acquires and satisfies them rather than a competitor), where competent employees can be found and how they can be kept on the job, where financing at a reasonable cost (e.g. reasonable interest rate) can be found and so on. In reagrd to financing, paying 12% say rather than 5% on business loans is relatively immaterial when compared to access to funds, a long enough payback period and adequacy of collateral.

Taxes pay some role at some point, but are a minor issue after other these other issues are dealt with.

Typical mistaken comments by Senator McCain on tax policy whose policy in fact in only aimed at permitting the richest of the rich pay as little in taxes as possible. He has no understanding or interest in small business people like “Joe the plumber”.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 16th, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Report this comment
“Taxes play no significant role in decision-making regarding starting or acquiring a small business”??

Tell it to the hundreds of small businessmen out there, and see what their reaction is. Taxation is a prime driver of small business (and large business for that matter). The more that is spent on taxes is less that goes for customers and growth.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 16th, 2008 at 3:05 pm | Report this comment
JBP: That is ideological fantasy. Talk to anyone who has started or run a small business. Tax liabilities and tax reporting or meeting regulatory requirements are a hassle - no question about that - but are secondary to the basic issues I cite.

Aside from the most crucial need of knowing one’s customers or clients (and one’s competition) in order to generate sufficient revenue to sustain the business, a close second is finding and retaining diligent workers at any level of skill or competence. Those two issues along with securing financing far outweigh any concern about taxes or most other issues in small business management.

As usual, you write based on mythology and ideology, not reality.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 16th, 2008 at 3:26 pm | Report this comment
WM,

As an owner of several small businesses, and a member of many trade associations and chambers, I can assure you that your are 100% wrong.

You can have all the skills, contacts, employees you like, but if you are not going to make any money, you will not start a business, grow a business, or continue to run a business. Business needs profit to survive..Obama and the Democrats want to take that profit to fund his pipe dreams and political schemes.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 16th, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Report this comment
JBP:

Will you close your small business if Obama is elected and raises your taxes, even if you have a solid client base, suitable workers and access to credit?

Well, if you had no clients, no workers or no credit you would be closing your business.

Quod erat demonstratum

Tax takes a portion of your profit, but certainly not all, and because it is a portion of your profit, it can never be more than your profit (i.e. it cannot cause a loss - the losses must be created elsewhere). As long as you are profitable you will continue to trade, and grow.

No-one likes to pay tax, but lets not overstate the case.
Posted by: Banker | October 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm | Report this comment
Banker,

Not close, but expand less, hire less, move capital overseas, reduce new business development…do sensible things to avoid wasting money on vote-buying schemes, just like everyone else in the world does. Profit seeking business seek profit, not taxes.

Obama’s record speaks for itself, two blocks out his neighborhood is a hellhole, taxes are the highest in the country, schools are wretched, and now the country, or at least the media, wants him to take his magic nationwide.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm | Report this comment
JBP

If you are seeking profit and those methods improve your profit, wouldn’t you do them anyway?

None of them reduce the tax take as a % of profit.
Posted by: Banker | October 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm | Report this comment
I’ve lobbied for health coverage for many years and always thought the Democrats had the answer. But, having worked in temporary and contract jobs for several years now with no health coverage I’ve grown tired of waiting for the Democrats to deliver on whatever plan makes it through the Congress. I think it sounds good when Obama says if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it.

Unfortunately, every year the number of uninsured grows and I see no help in sight. Threatening that health insurance will be taxed just doesn’t carry the same threat to the millions of us who don’t have coverage. Maybe that is a tax break that should be used to “spread the wealth” among more people.

I would take a tax credit that would help me pay for my coverage over no help at all, as the status quo or Obama’s plan offers to me and others like me who don’t have health coverage benefits. McCain at least offers us some help.
Posted by: annetta | October 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm | Report this comment
Banker,

If I make 12% margin with a business in Rotterdam and 0% capital gains, my net is 12%. If I make 12% margin and 25% capital gains in the US, I net 9%…I move to the business to Rotterdam.

I can’t hire as much as I want if I am forced to turn to over money to fund federal spending programs. I need the money to hire, expand, develop…but it will be distributed to the those favored by DC rather than using my own good judgment.

I don’t want to fund ACORN and the Bridge to Nowhere like Sen. Obama and the Democrats (Republicans too) have; I want to fund my own priorities.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this comment
I noticed that both candidates smiled quite a lot, but in a very different way.

Obama smiled broadly when McCain attacked him. That can be irritating. So I was pleased when towards the end, Obama looked genuinely disappointed by some of McCain’s attacks.

On the other hand, McCain grinned throughout, even when Obama was presenting facts or making an argument. It looked at best rude, and at worst like a condescending sneer.

At one point, when Obama was explaining his concern about the continuing assassination of trade unionists in Colombia, McCain not only grinned by raised his eyebrows in disbelief or, worse, indifference.

So, contrary to Clive Crook, I found McCain’s demeanour troubling and threatening.

Obama sometimes gives McCain credit for his positions on specific issues and tries to find areas of agreement. McCain never or hardly ever does that for Obama.

McCain again came across as a bitter man. He legitimately mentions the wounds that he has suffered in the service of his country. But one feels that the psychological scars left by those wounds are too deep to entrust him with the presidency.

Where I agree with McCain is in his criticism of the Bush administration’s subsidies for domestic ethanol producers and the high US tariffs on imports of Brazilian ethanol. There is every indication that Brazilian ethanol puts far less upward pressure on food prices.

Obama is now running a very different campaign from the one he ran against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Gone is the inspirational “yes we can” discourse.

But it still would have been possible for him to underline the difference in their two philosophies. Bill Clinton did in a recent speech, contrasting Obama’s from-the-ground-up approach with McCain’s trickle-down policies.
Posted by: Edward S | October 16th, 2008 at 5:04 pm | Report this comment
JBP

Sure, go to Rotterdam if you don’t mind paying 1.2% pa on your capital base whether or not you make a gain (and even whether or not you undertake a transaction) + 25% on profit of any transaction constituting more than 5% of your capital base…

But why Rotterdam- why not Dubai or the Cayman’s and get everything tax-free?

There are only a limited number of small businesses that can off-shore like this and there is no reason why they wouldn’t already move to a zero-tax jurisdiction…
Posted by: Banker | October 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm | Report this comment
JBP: I sorry to write this, but obsession by any small-business person with “taxes” means the manager or owner of the business is not paying attention to issues within his/her control (as opposed to taxation which is outside of one’s direct control) that simply are much more important.

I do not know the nature of your businesses or the associations you belong to, but aside from right-wing business owners who rail about taxes for personal ideological or political reasons, all small businessmen I know or have known constantly worry about the issues I cited first and foremost and never mention taxes in regard to running their businesses.

Yes: ideally business people prefer lower taxation of various types depending upon the State in the USA or less regulation, but those are residual, not primary, issues.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 16th, 2008 at 5:56 pm | Report this comment
Banker,

There is a complexity to offshore incorporations that keeps people locally incorporated. Sensible businesses will find ways to get capital out of the USA under a Democrat promised increase in taxes.

WM,

There is a lever of control on how much tax one pays. It’s in the voting booth. Don’t elect politicians who promise to tax us more to pay for their hapless schemes.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 16th, 2008 at 7:58 pm | Report this comment
I have watched all the debates; watch the news daily; and read information on the candidates on the Internet. For the past 20+ years, I have voted Republican. Not this time. In my opinion, Sen. Barack Obama has all the qualities, education, experience, needed to bring about the “Change” our Nation so desparately needs. Thank you, Senator Obama, for running a decent, informational campaign and for your demeanor and respect shown not only during the debates, but for all the other times as well. Will look forward to seeing you in the White House in ‘09.
Posted by: Sandra Sprinkle | October 16th, 2008 at 8:14 pm | Report this comment
JBP: My comment originated in the use of the exemplar of “Joe the plumber” by Senator McCain and the presumption that for a plumber (or more likely a plumbing contractor) taxes of whatever sort are paramount in his/her decision-making. We wandered off the topic, but enough on this.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 16th, 2008 at 8:34 pm | Report this comment
JBP: FYI from Banker commentary:

“If you are seeking profit and those methods improve your profit, wouldn’t you do them anyway?”
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 16th, 2008 at 8:42 pm | Report this comment
WM,

A business will still try to make a profit under any circumstance, but there will be less profits avaiable to do completely sensible things like pay employees, buy new equipment, do R&D, marketing etc.. because we will be paying for the Federal Government schemes that Obama/Pelosi imagine are good for us.

The last job Obama had of any substance or responsibility was managing a screwed-up education program with Bill Ayers. I do not want his assistance (nor Bill Ayers’) running my business.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 16th, 2008 at 9:11 pm | Report this comment
Last night Obama didn’t really need to make a big play in the debate. He just had to make sure he didn’t let something slip like, “The fundamentals of the economy are fine.” That said, he did a fine job of interacting with McCain, being aggressive when he needed, but mostly calm. With a double digit lead, he’s on cruise-control.
Posted by: Nick | October 17th, 2008 at 12:11 am | Report this comment
Yeah, Obama was great, selling out the poor on vouchers and the middle class on taxes was really impressive…that must be why he has a double digit lead….what? He has a single digit lead? Only 3% and within the margin of error?

Somebody should try to shut down Real Clear Politics aggregate polls before the public finds out that Senator Obama is not the shoo-in that the media has been rigging for.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 17th, 2008 at 2:16 am | Report this comment
Wonderful that “Joe the plumber” has now turned out to be an unlicensed assistant to another plumber who apparently has a license.

I somehow doubt that he has ever come remotely close to netting $250,000 per year from working as a plumber’s assistant or that he is in the process of acquiring the goodwill of his boss’s business however that might be valued as a going business. Would not be of much value to him given that he is unlicensed.

But then again, according to JBP, business acquisition and management depend primarily on paying attention to “taxes”, so minor issues such as qualifying professionally to do the work or having a client base or perhaps even knowing his trade are unimportant relative to “taxes”.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 17th, 2008 at 2:35 am | Report this comment
“McCain has made a hash of explaining his own [healthcare] proposal, and it is fatally flawed in any case, because it does so little to improve coverage.”

No one can explain it - least of all Senator McCain - because it is pure nonsense.

Improve coverage? Who knows how many more tens of millions of citizens would not have coverage under his “plan”.

Please reread Healthcare, Guaranteed. Better yet read two classics Strained Mercy by Prof. Robert Evans and The Social Transformation of American Medicine by Prof. Paul Starr and/or more recent books by Dr. Arnold Relman, Maggie Mahar or Dr. Thomas Bodenheimer/Prof. Kevin Grumbach.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 17th, 2008 at 2:57 am | Report this comment
WM,

What an awful, awful man that Joe the Plumber must be! How dare he approach a serene man of such grace without showing the proper dignity to get his licenses in order.

Joe should immediately resign from the plumbing profession and think about the proper credentials he could get from Columbia and Harvard where he would be so qualified to make $250,000 a year and enjoy the bounty of Sen. Obama’s tax and wealth distribution.

The shame of not have proper credentials must be very damaging to anyone wanting to improve his lot in life. We should all work on our credentials so that our “dignified” and “cool” leaders will not be disappointed with us.

A nationwide campaign of apology to Sen Obama should begin at once for the insolence of a plumber WITHOUT LICENSE who dares to challenge the one whose audacity gives us such hope. Shame!

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 17th, 2008 at 3:09 am | Report this comment
At the risk of my being rude, some of the above comments about JTP strike me as having little more value or relevance than the type of substances that the above industrious worthy seeks to dispose of while he is plying his trade, licensed or otherwise.
Posted by: algasema | October 17th, 2008 at 12:25 pm | Report this comment
I am seriously wonder about one thing that why both candidate subsequently used name “Joe” or “Joe the plumber”, despite of taking about the real issues.

David Williams

Social Bookmarking Service
Posted by: David Williams | October 17th, 2008 at 4:39 pm | Report this comment
DW,

Perhaps because taxes are a real issue. Outside of Washington DC most people do not want to send more money to Washington DC to be frittered away by Politicians.

Adding a human face to $250,000 seems to have resonated. The last time I looked at Sen. Obama tax hikes, they also hit all individuals making more than $105,000, which is even more human faces, and most capital gains, and a windfall tax on oil, and a death tax, which one way or another gets around to effecting all Americans.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 17th, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Report this comment
John Powers, now we know who you (and John McCain) think “all Americans” are. The estate tax, as I understand, currently applies only to people who die leaving assets over $2,000,000.
Posted by: algasema | October 17th, 2008 at 6:53 pm | Report this comment
You are figuring it out Roger,

Many people with assets of $2Million + are business owners, farmers, investors etc. They can use their wealth to create jobs, products, opportunities for all Americans, or they can give 55% of it to Uncle Barack, so he can spread their wealth to reward his political supporters.

Didn’t Sen. Obama’s chief fundraiser have an issue with inheritance tax, taking the IRS all the way to the supreme court to shield her family’s estate from government confiscation?

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 17th, 2008 at 8:03 pm | Report this comment
Then I have a great idea, John. Why not make everyone with an estate of under $20 million pay estate tax, and exempt everyone with assets over than that? After all, don’t the richest people use even more of their wealth to “create jobs”. etc. (even if the jobs are all in China)?

In fact, maybe the threshold should be $200 million. The richest “invest” the most of all (especially in toxic assets which qualify them for government bailouts paid for by the tax dollars of the rest of us).

Look where the regressive taxation of the past eight years, with the poor and middle class paying the lion’s share of th4e burden and the wealthy at the top paying little, while receiving billions on corporate welfare from the Bush/Cheney “pro business” governmen, has left us.
Posted by: algasema | October 17th, 2008 at 11:39 pm | Report this comment
Terrible idea Roger,

Taking money from one group of people or another to provide for Washington’s schemes creates resentment and unproductive reactions at any income level.

Look what has happened in the case of Sen. Obama’s finance manager. Her grandfather had a good sized estate, shielded from estate tax by some smart moves in Bermuda based finance. The IRS did not like the fact that the estate was shielded, but the family did not like paying 55% tax which would have destoryed a very good business.

So the finance managers family fought the IRS for years all the way to the Supreme Court and eventually one. Good for her, but look how much time and money was wasted on Bermuda based schemes, tax lawyers and accountants that would have been more productively employed in the US. As a result we have less hotels, less truck parts companies, less charitable giving etc from the finance managers’ family.

Why she would support a candidate who supports and estate tax is a bit confusing after fighting this all the way to the highest court. No one wins from the estate tax except the lawyers and the accountants.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 18th, 2008 at 1:33 am | Report this comment
John Powers, thank you for your eloquent critique of the estate tax. So what’s next? Shall we turn the clock back a hundred years and get rid of the income tax too? Seems to me as if quite a few lawyers and accountants have had quite their share of boondoggles off of that one, too.

And, while we’re at it, why don’t we get rid of the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, and all those other socialistic government departments that serve no purpose except keeping plain old, hardworking billionaires from making an honest buck at the expense of everyone else, just the way things used to be back in the good old gilded age of robber baron laissez-faire dog-eat-dog capitalism.
Posted by: algasema | October 18th, 2008 at 4:30 am | Report this comment
“No one wins from the estate tax except the lawyers and the accountants”

JBP: I agree with you that spending money on lawyers and accountants in cases like this is a waste. In regard to who “wins”, I do not.

Tax policy plays a positive role in the functioning of society. Collective action through government was discovered as a public good in pre-history no doubt. Same principle as aggregation of funds from individual shareholders to create a “corporation” - in effect the same as a “government” except on a usually smaller scale involving a “private” group rather than the larger “public” and created to accomplish a more specific and limited goal than government, but otherwise the same idea, i.e exploiting the advantages of collective, rather than individual, action.

Government needs to be funded. Taxation is how it is done. So what? It is a funding mechanism. Inheritance or estate taxes were created in part to break the accretion of wealth in private hands that occurs naturally along with the creation of a “nobility” based on inherited wealth. But otherwise they are just one other source of funding.

The prospective exclusion amount for 2009 of $3.5 million, leaving aside all of the intricacies of the tax code that permit assets to be removed from the gross estate that is ultimately subject to the federal estate tax, means that very few estates are affected.

In 2004 when the exclusion amount was $1.5 million, .8%, i.e. less than 1% (about 19,000 returns out of 2.4 million deaths), of adult deaths in the USA triggered estate tax returns. Except for 1935 that is an historic low by the way. The percentage from 1934 through 2004 generally is in the 1-2% range with some anomalies higher in several years.

In 2004 the tax collected was about 22% of the gross estate valuation: $22 billion collected out of declared valuation of $102 billion, so lower than the 25% marginal income tax rate assessed on taxable incomes above (rounded) $32,000 for individual tax-payers in 2007!

Ultimately the mania among the right wing over taxes has less to do with taxes themselves than how the taxes are expended.

Too much of the right wing seems to think that tax money allocated to making war, euphemistically labeled spending on “defense”, an activity that inevitably equates to (usually) purposeless death of others and destruction of their property, is somehow a good use of the funds while paying for the health, education and survival of the aged of a population is a waste of the funds.

I disagree on both counts and in general about any excessive focus on taxation. It is usually a fruitless diversion from much more important issues. Amply illustrated by the use or better shameful exploitation by the McCain campaign of “Joe the plumber” whose goals and situation in life have nothing to do with taxes of any sort.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 18th, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Report this comment
algasema,

Take a look at this Q&A session with Obama on YouTube. Is he not just waffling? And if this is what he is like when unrehearsed, then where is the great intellect it is claimed he possesses? He has charm, I agree, and a Reaganesque coolness. That might be a lot, but it still does not make him Adlai Stevenson (nor Kennedy or Hubert Humphrey).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nnj7r1wCD4
Posted by: RCS | October 18th, 2008 at 5:22 pm | Report this comment
RCS, the fact that you have a visceral dislike for Barack Obama is no secret to readers of this blog, and I would be the last person to challenge your right to express your negative feelings about him or any other political candidate, in any country. This is, after all, what elections are about.

Obviously, I don’t share your views about Barack Obama, but I will admit to having a dislike of Sarah Palin which is probably even more intense. However, if she were not continually engaging in the most vile types of smears and lies against Obama, and were not involved in stirring up hate and barely concealed racism among her supporters at her rallies, I might be against her a little less strongly, because then her main drawbacks would only be her incompetence, her support of right wing lunatics in Alaska, and her lying about her own record as governor.

In my view there is nothing wrong in disagreeing with Obama about the issues. I have some disagreements with what Clive Crook once called Obama’s “lurch to the right” on drilling and other issues myself.

But can we all agree that Obama is a decent and honorable man who cares about his country, and who has steadfastly remained above the politics of smear in which Palin is sinking deeper into day by day, with only occasional reluctant and ineffectual attempts by McCain to stop her vicious campaign of slime, sleaze and smear?
Posted by: algasema | October 18th, 2008 at 6:07 pm | Report this comment
algasema,

I think that anyone who reads my previous post can sense my (new-found) respect for Obama. It is true I once had a visceral dislike of him, but that is now a thing of the past. In any case, you did not address my question, which of course you are not obliged to do, but still I cannot comprehend your raging reaction, which brings in Sarah Palin, whom I did not even mention. Did you forget your candidate is winning the election? Is it beyond respectability to suggest any criticism?
Posted by: RCS | October 18th, 2008 at 6:39 pm | Report this comment
WM,

The reason that very few pay the death tax is that people spend a fortune on lawyers and accountants to avoid the death tax.

There are literally hundreds of methods to avoid the tax, none of which does much for society other than an avoid the tax.

Rather than closing down legitimate businesses or moving offshore to avoid taxes, it would be healthier for the economy if there was a legitimate means of funding rather than a 55% confiscation of the means of production to support the pipe dreams of big government.

(yeah, I know it is not all pipe dreams, but quite a bit of it is)

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 18th, 2008 at 8:52 pm | Report this comment
Now the spin to blame it on the poor, the retarded, the minorities, the tooth fairy, etc., starts ….

Since the USA Markets were deregulated by Phil Gramm etal( now vice-chairman of UBS ) and approved by Greenspan, Rubin, Levitt and later Summers with the more than 20 Presidential advisers at the time,no one in Washington DC or Brussels seems to have seen the derivatives/credit-default-swaps and sub-prime mortgage disaster spinning out of control, even when it was moving 60 trillion dollars in casino-like bets and politicians everywhere and from all parties were getting huge campaign donations from the Financial geniuses , no one was aware of anything ! how is that possible ? are they so incompetent ? ignorant ? technically blind ? distracted ? or just plain corrupt ?

now they are trying to blame it on the poor for hoping to have a roof over their heads, they are trying to blame it on immigrants, on ….and never mind the predatory lending, the game of mortgage and repossess, sell the same mortgage and repossess again, and on and on, while repackaging the nightmare into exotic financial derivatives and giving the traders, brokers, Hedge Fund managers ,lawyers and advisers, billions in fees, commissions and perks, isn’t wonderful?

Europa and America, the world,must put all these derivatives , all of them, in an OPEN MARKET, transparent and web-able, for all to see, and if the candidates cannot do that, time to get new ones.
Posted by: financialtools1@gmail.com | October 18th, 2008 at 9:44 pm | Report this comment
JBP: Please reread the statistics. The “avoidance” of the estate tax has nothing to do with lawyers and accountants, but rather the true incidence of the tax on people. Less than 1% of the population (the estate of the deceased, not the heirs) is potentially exposed to the tax to begin with. Of those the average tax collected is 20%+/- of the declared value of a given estate. That means that the size of the estates that are taxed is heavily skewed to the lowest tax rates.

The overall point is that only the wealthiest of the wealthy - who otherwise have no doubt already fully exploited the provisions of the tax code that permit movement of otherwise taxable assets into trusts to avoid estate taxation - are affected by the tax at the highest marginal rates.

The current top marginal rate is 46%, not 55%, and of course the rate that right-wing know-nothings cite, even though the top rate affects a vanishingly small number of tax-payers, given that the average rate was 22% in 2004 when the top rate was 48%.

As usual the facts trump ideological nonsense.

Although a bit off in terms of grammar, spelling, etc. financialtools1 is correct.

The on-going attempt by the Republican right-wing to blame the poor for the financial markets debacle that is 100% due to the folly and greed of the irresponsible rich and their apologists, such Senator McCain and former Senator Gramm not to mention politician enablers such as President Bush and former Fed Governor Greespan, should be condemned at every opportunity.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 18th, 2008 at 11:54 pm | Report this comment
it is clear that wendell murray works for the barack obama campaign.

any business owner (small or medium size) always factors in taxes and tax rates. this is always taken into consideration when you plan and/or amend your budget.

the u.s. media is not doing it’s job. barack obama wants to increase taxes on people who make over 250K by 33.3%.

at the moment, those who make 250K pay social security and medicade tax on the first 250K. anything above that is not taxed.

barack obama wants to change this. this is in his platform. this will hit small business owners. anyone who has a business with 15 employees is still a small business owner.

he also wants to put couples who make 250K into a higher tax bracket. that’s _couples_ so this is an additional tax on anyone who is married and conceivably makes 125K. or some variation which adds up to 250K.

i don’t think obama is a bad person. and maybe it isn’t fair that some people pay into the pension system via 100% of their salaries. but the economy is going down the tubes and it is the people at the upper end of the spectrum who are still 1.) buying cars 2.) making some degree of investments 3.) eating at restaurants and using services that keep people making 20 - 30K in jobs.

it pains me that neither presidential candidate has a clear grasp of economics. or that there is not a single person in congress who studied economics.

but i get the impression that cindy mccain who inherited her father’s company only –which is thriving, does.
Posted by: Michelle | October 19th, 2008 at 10:36 am | Report this comment
i think clive crook is wrong about joe the plumber.

mccain just put a visual with barack obama’s tax plan. and he was able to grind the elements down to 3 words. he was so successful that he got barack obama to look into the camera and directly address ‘joe the plumber.’

i am sure after the debate and this will continue for at least another week, the majority of americans went to youtube or goolge in search of ‘joe the plumber.’

and now that the u.s. media has dug up stuff on the plumber (that he owes back taxes, etc.) he has evolved into a symbol of ‘joe everyman.’
Posted by: Michelle | October 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am | Report this comment
I enjoyed the debate and thought Mr McCain did a great job defending capitalism. He is in an unenviable position. There is an incumbent of his party in the White House who is terribly unpopular. The financial markets are in a crisis. The media have already decided Obama should win. Mr. Obama is outspending Mr. McCain by hundreds of millions of dollars. Still Mr. Obama hovers at only 49%. I think that shows a resevoir of belief in capitalism in the country. In fact by 84% to 13% Americans believe the government should focus on wealth creation not redistribution. That’s probably higher percentage of believers in capitalism than any country on earth, and doesn’t bode well for the popularity of Mr. Obama’s policies once he is in office. I think a filibuster proof majority will hurt Mr. Obama. He won’t have any discipline to rein in his instincutal socialism.
Posted by: Ted | October 19th, 2008 at 4:49 pm | Report this comment
It also sounds as if Michelle’s thinking on this issue does not go far beyond three words, either: “Joe the [unlicensed] Plumber”.

McCain, in a final act of extreme desperation, and possibly in reaction to the fact that the most decent and honorable of all the people in the entire Bush/Cheney administration (if not the only one) Colin Powell, has now endorsed Obama. has now played his wild card, and thrown his “Hail Mary” pass, with a reported ad against Obama on the illegal immigrant driver’s license issue.

Given McCain’s previous support for “amnesty”, this is the ultimate act of hypocrisy, one which is intended to divide the American people along racial lines (white and black on one side, Latino and Asian on the other) as no other issue could possibly do.

It is also suicidal. The Latino vote was crucial to George W. Bush’s victories in both elections. No matter how many racial bigots McCain may expect to rally over to his side if he continues to scapegoat immigrants in the last two weeks of the campaign, McCain will, in effect be writing off the entire Latino vote and with it, not only the election, but what ever shreds of decency he may still have left, if any.
Posted by: algasema | October 19th, 2008 at 4:50 pm | Report this comment
Ted, how well has what you generously choose to call “capitalism” fared under George W. Bush? Or have you already forgotten that the Republicans are still in the White House, and have had to resort to nationalization on an unheard of scale to save our “capitalist” economy from going down Joe the [unlicensed] Plumber’s drain? Or did you just take an “information holiday” this month, while the rest of the world was worried about whether there would be bank holidays.

However, perhaps your definition of “capitalism” and “socialism” is just slightly different from most other people’s. Yours seems to be as follows: “Capitalism” = any economic plan put forth by a Republican. “Socialism” = any economic plan suggested by a Democrat.
Posted by: algasema | October 19th, 2008 at 5:03 pm | Report this comment
I have just watched Powell’s endorsement of Obama.

I think Colin Powell has spoken much more eloquently than I have ever heard Obama speak. I am duly impressed. I think I will be voting for Colin Powell.
Posted by: RCS | October 19th, 2008 at 5:04 pm | Report this comment
RCS, perhaps I went overboard. I can see that your attitude toward Obama has been a good deal more objective, and I certainly do not mean to accuse anyone of being an Obama-hater merely because he or she might not support his views on the issues.

You compare Obama with, among others, Adlai Stevenson. I was a great fan of Stevenson’s during his two unsuccessful campaigns against Eisenhower while I was in my student years. But, perhaps in contrast to some others, I don’t see Obama as purely cool and cerebral. I see him as a Stevenson with a good deal of Martin Luther King thrown in.

This why I think, unlike you and many others whom I also respect, that Obama has the potential to be a very great president. At least, he will be a far more centrist one than many people believe. Whether that is entirely a good thing or not, I am not so sure.
Posted by: algasema | October 19th, 2008 at 5:25 pm | Report this comment
“Ted” sounds like a real person, although he spouts utter nonsense. “Michelle” is just another of the “robo-spammers” from the McCain campaign.

RCS: Colin Powell made some intelligent comments, but he has everything to gain and nothing to lose by saying what he did at the time he has done so. He was exploited and ravaged by the Republican right-wing after all, so I am sure he enjoys the opportunity to exact some revenge. Good for him anyway, even though his announcement is largely self-serving. It likely will help the Obama campaign which I still think needs all the help and money it can get.

Mr. Powell is at best a “conventional” thinker and as such would be a mediocre President - probably similar to Gerald Ford - were he to run and be elected.

He could and should be much more forceful in his condemnation of the slander and lynch-mob-exhortation coming from Governor Palin and from McCain campaign operatives. It is Senator McCain’s campaign, so he could stop them if wanted to. He clearly doesn’t. A truly insidious relationship Senator McCain has is with Gordon Liddy, a convicted felon who is on record still advocating terrorist action in the USA against American citizens and officials. The casual acquaintance of Senator Obama with Prof. Ayers and the fact that Prof. Ayers’ brush with violence (against property, not people, by the way) was 4 decades ago utterly pales into nothing in comparison.

Listen to Liddy sometime. Violent right-wing extremism is still what he advocates and he is allowed to do it over the public airwaves.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 19th, 2008 at 6:06 pm | Report this comment
Wendell. once again, you have hit the nail on the head. In the American media, real right wing extremism and incitement to violence is ignored or glossed over, while even forty-year old left wing incidents are resurrected and blown up as if they were the only thing that mattered in America today.

Can anyone imagine what the reaction would be if people at Obama/Biden rallies started screaming violent epithets against McCain or Palin? The robo-Mary’s and robo-Jennifers of America, as well as robo-Fox News, would be shouting “terrorist!” from the rooftops.
Posted by: algasema | October 19th, 2008 at 7:30 pm | Report this comment
No matter what party or ideology:

How can we say that when very professional Bankers and Hedge-Fund Managers make huge bets and mistakes and demand and get billions of dollars/pounds/euros in a massive Bail-Out is just Capitalism getting a small adjustment

but when middle- and working-class taxpayers ask for fair mortgages and rates , ask for health care ,eduction and cheap energy prices, thay call that socialism and evil ?

already in the USA, the financial/Hedge-Fund Lobby’s are saying that the meetings in N.Y.C. are to give the U.N. bourocrats power over the world money, to create a global money government, to take our money away and tell the banks what to do ….

so i would urge Sarkozy,Brown,Barroso,Bush , etc., to make sure they clarify that this is about bringing TRANSPARENCY TO THE MARKETS, to put all the derivatives in an OPEN MARKET, on a web-site, for all to see, to see who sells what , who buys what, who bets, who pays taxes,who wins and who loses, etc.,simply clear and transparent….

one first meeting on November 10-15 to set the parameters and fixes to actual Regulations and another on December 10-15 to set the details and close the deal…

a) can we agree that this has been a huge warning sign for all ?

b) that we need a new 21 century market,new tools and new ideas,better regulations and everyone must be able to trade fair and honest ?

c) that we need Energy Security and Independence ? ,that we will always use oil and gas, but we must diversify enough for the 6+ billion humans that deserve to eat fresh foods, drink fresh water , drive and work and play every day in this little planet?

Europa and the USA must launch a massive solar energy plan , wind and water turbines, geothermal sites, hydrogen/methanol fuel-cells,hybrids and plug-in electric cars,new batteries, coal-to- liquid capturing CO2 , new sands- and shale- oil and gas saving table waters and controlling toxic spills, and Very Important “new synthetic jet/prop fuels” for the Aviation Industry , from jatropha-seaweeds/algae-etc., new composites ,new motors, new deep-water platforms for Arctic/Atlantic search, we must move forward at once, this has been a once in a lifetime warning signal,let’s act.
Posted by: financialtools1@gmail.com | October 19th, 2008 at 9:30 pm | Report this comment
Wendell,

The rates revert to 55%, with $1 Million exemption in 2010, which should be the numbers in question when the Bush Reforms expire.

The reason that “less than 1%” of the population pays estate tax is because they structure their estate so as to be shielded from tax, using similar but smaller scale techniques such as those Obama’s finance chairman used.

The most obvious and by far most common tax dodge is Life Insurance which is exempt from the estate tax (through some quite sensible lobbying by the Insurance industry). You may want to ask yourself how many people out there have life insurance policies before you claim that the estate tax does not effect many people.

People make sub-optimal financial decision, in many cases terrible financial decisions, to avoid the 55% confiscation.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 19th, 2008 at 10:20 pm | Report this comment
JBP: “because they structure their estate so as to be shielded from tax”

I agree, but the tax code permits “sheltering” through various means primarily through the establishment of trusts or I guess through the use of some type of life insurance, as you note. I do not know the details of that technique.

How many people need or want to establish a trust, I do not know. That may also be an action that few need to pursue - likely, but I do not know the statistics.

Keep in mind the only reason why I made any more detailed comment about any type of tax is that the McCain campaign has now changed this week’s campaign strategy to emphasize tax policy using “Joe the plumber” as an example.

As written earlier, tax issues are completely irrelevant to “Joe the plumber”’s situation regarding acquiring his employer’s business.

In addition the Obama tax reform in essence undoes the folly of the Bush Administration actions on taxes.

I honestly do not understand why right-wingers become so “exercised” about taxes. Ultimately who cares? So long as we all have enough income for decent shelter, food, etc. the rest is superfluous.

Creativity in life whether through one’s work or one’s personal life is what counts, not the accumulation of goods or other assets. If excess income is mostly taxed away to the benefit of others who need it, all the better.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 19th, 2008 at 10:51 pm | Report this comment
WM,

Quite a few people have life insurance policies, much like quite a few people run S-Type corporations. If you start adding up all the people that Sen. Obama wants to penalize with his taxes (got a pension? 25% smack on your oil holdings etc), you reach a substantial part of the population.

You are quite wrong about small businesses not needing to do tax planning. Many people skip the step, but with a massive tax increase lined up by Obama/Pelosi, every small business should be looking at what happens when their success will be penalized.

Many people (not only the fearsome Right Wing) like to use their own good judgment about things such as how much vacation to take, what kind of car to drive, where to go to school and many other issues that cost a great deal of money. Sometimes a Presidential Candidate’s wife just needs a $447 Lunch at the Waldorf, even if it is “superfluous”.

http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/a-little-snack-for-michelle-obama/#comments

I suppose we could all wear burlap sacks to make you happy Wendell, but shouldn’t an individual be the best judge his own happiness, rather than asking for Senator Obama’s permission to spend ones own money?

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 19th, 2008 at 11:22 pm | Report this comment
JBP: Mine was a rhetorical comment, but I am serious about my point on wealth accumulation. After basic needs - however defined - are met, who cares after that. Creativity in my opinion is what makes one’s life meaningful not accumulation of goods. I am not suggesting that people walk around in burlap, so don’t overdo it.

S-corporations are actually tax-advantaged entities because they permit individuals owning them to pay themselves a salary. That is the basis for FICA tax calculation which is a big number at 15.3% on top of income taxes. That as opposed to paying FICA taxes as a sole proprietor up to the cut-off income which was $97,500 in 2007. A legitimate tax break in my opinion.

Mr. Crook’s current post is on taxes, healthcar etc. in the USA, so we can continue with this later.

Don’t worry there is no chance I will have a position any Obama Administration - assuming there is one - where I would have a chance to take away your assets and hard-earned income.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 20th, 2008 at 12:16 am | Report this comment
As long as no one takes away Michelle’s $447 lunches, an Obama administration will not meet serious opposition from anyone that matters.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 20th, 2008 at 1:41 am | Report this comment
I’m glad you think I am a real person. What I posted is all true. To have a successful presidency Obama needs Republican opposition to rein in his worst instincts.

“I honestly do not understand why right-wingers become so “exercised” about taxes. Ultimately who cares? So long as we all have enough income for decent shelter, food, etc. the rest is superfluous. If excess income is mostly taxed away to the benefit of others who need it, all the better.”

From each according to his abilities - to each according to his needs?? You are a communist! Ha.

Here is the bad news for you Commie about taking my wealth!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/americans-oppose-income-redistribution-fix-economy.aspx

As I posted above Americans support wealth creation over wealth redistribution by 84% to 13%. DO you know why? Americans like freedom. All kinds of freedom. Freedom to shoot animals and eat ‘em. Freedom to make money and spend it how they want. They don’t want some creep central planner deciding when their food clothing and shelter is adequate. They like to decide that for themselves!

I do hope that after you get yourself a nice cardboard box and some half-eaten Burger Kings from the dumpster you will hand the rest over to the government. Otherwise you’re a hypocrite.
Posted by: Ted | October 20th, 2008 at 4:10 am | Report this comment
wendell, i am a real person. and i actually studied economics. and unlike most americans, have a passport and have lived in other countries.

wendell you write “Creativity in life whether through one’s work or one’s personal life is what counts, not the accumulation of goods or other assets.”

perhaps you were merely joking around.

the backbone of the u.s. are small and medium-sized business. as it is in countries such as germany. i have my own company and work 12 hour days 6 - 7 days/week.

generally people work 12 hours days because they believe in wealth creation not just for pure unadulturated fun.

as Ted noted, americans are sceptical of anything that smells like wealth distribution.

even germany restructured its social system a few years ago because too many people (note, i did not say all) from the part of the country who grew up under the soviet union were fine living off the state and letting the west germans finance their cushy, tax-free lifestyles.
Posted by: Michelle | October 20th, 2008 at 1:26 pm | Report this comment
“perhaps you were merely joking around. ”

Not in the least.

“americans are [skeptical] of anything that smells like wealth distribution”

Based on what statistic and measured how?

“germany restructured its social system”

How specifically?

“letting the west germans finance their cushy, tax-free lifestyles”

What “tax-free lifestyles” and what basis for this comment?

You may be a real person, but your comments are “robospam”. Usual factually-unsubstantiated nonsense.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pm | Report this comment
generally people on these boards are respectful of each other. which is why i asked if you work for the obama campaign.

i have not voiced any support for either candidate. i wrote earlier that i am very disappointed that neither one has a clear grasp of economics. somehow i believe such an assertion doesn’t make me pro-anybody.

but if you looked at ted’s gallup link. and i will add it again. it shows that ‘Americans overwhelmingly — by 84% to 13% — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.’ the graph shows that it spans the political spectrum. with only 19% of democrats being for wealth redistribution

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/americans-oppose-income-redistribution-fix-economy.aspx
Posted by: Michelle | October 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Report this comment
I think that Wendell Murray has some good points about the debate and the candidates understanding of the current economic crisis. I think that what was obvious was the bold face lies that John McCain was was telling during the debate. I made a video of some of the better ones you can see it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2vVFYYnNto And if you want to comment on anything political on the web without the permission of the site owner to help lead the transparency revolution needed to understand and decipher the current presidential election check out http://www.reframeit.com
Posted by: Maximilian | October 21st, 2008 at 7:05 pm | Report this comment
In my point of view, Obama got the upper hand in the final candidates’ debate.

The banking system and stock market have been unstable in recent month. As a result,unemployment rate increased in the U.S.and the masses are still in panic. Under this unususal economic situations, Obama’s grace would indeed boost the American people’s confidence.

Actually, each time when Obama gives a public speech, he seems to be full of passion to inspire people. I think this is a kind of quality that a president should own. That’s also why Obama is favored by the media.

“I am not a perfect man. But I promise you to be honest……” It was said by Obama in a speech, which impressed me. Transparency really counts for the government and the cizitens.
Posted by: Jingyi Xie | November 1st, 2008 at 6:35 pm | Report this comment