Collegiate Times

Never mind the fact that the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress has accomplished absolutely nothing in its two years of power. Any column citing "Tax cuts for the rich" instantly loses any credibility anyway, because it presupposes that the wealth of the nation doesn't belong to the people who earn it - it belongs 'where the politicians think it ought to belong,' which necessarily means that an individual's wealth ultimately belongs to the government. Which leads to another pertinent point - we can, and should, criticize Congress for passing budget proposals set forth by Bush (remember, the President has actually almost no power over the budget other than the suggestions he makes - the House has to approve it) - but please show me where in Obama's platform it says that he intends to reduce government spending? Or to reduce the scope of the government? Last I checked, he was a fan of entitlements, of nationalized healthcare (i.e., expanding the bureaucracy), and of income redistribution. I'm no great fan of McCain's policy, and I do agree that we need change in Washington - but the change we need is term limits on members of Congress; not a shift towards Socialism.

So many republican talking points in your response I don't even know where to begin.....

Kyle Minor's a tool

Well, herein lies the point - the column above contains a laundry list of the standard Democratic talking points. Now, this is an opinion page, and the author is certainly entitled to his opinion - but what I don't really understand about most columns of this sort is that they try to present an image of what is wrong with the current system and claim that it needs to be changed, without ever asserting why the change Obama offers is the RIGHT change for the country. I mean, if I stood up and said "I'm going to change things by re-instating the practice of slavery," people would think I'm looney, and they'd certainly say that my vision of change is NOT what the nation needs. So what's so great about Obama's plan? Why is his change de facto 'good' change, while the changes McCain offers are de facto 'bad' change?

Kyle is right. To the two ignorant posters; those are not arguments. Try actually defending your views in a socialized manner instead of attacking an individual. The fact is that Palin and McCain are both against pork barrel spending. This is the major change they hope to bring to DC, useless spending that only adds more power to the government. This clearly biased 'guest columnist' fails to see that the current Democratic congress has a lower approval rating than Bush. The general public certainly doesn't want more of that regime; especially when Reid and Pelosi throw their hands up and roll over dead whenever a national crisis is on the horizon.

No matter how far you're down the wrong road, turn back. Simply, republicans don't believe road we've been on is the wrong road. Public opinion says it's the wrong road, and so republicans act as though they agree.

Realize that it is quite difficult to pass legislation in Congress when you have a lame-duck president of the opposite party. I understand Congress has failed to provide substantial legislation that actually works but did they even before the Democrats took office in 2006? What I would like to see is some actual interaction or leadership on the part of our president to get issues solved with Congress. Our president waits until the last minute to tackle every major issue (i.e. Wall Street, energy, immigration) and then points his fingers at Congress and deems them as failures. I am looking for leadership and in the next president; I don't care about this hypocritical experience argument I hear every single day.

Clearly public opinion states that the Democratic 'road' is by far the worse road. If you want to reduce an entire party platform or a candidate's stance down to a simple 'road' then fine but at least get it right.

For Zach: the Democrat part offers leaders such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who run off to a 5 week vacation during energy crisis or are quoted as saying 'we dont know what to do' and tossing their hands up in the face of the Wall Street crisis. The bottom line is that Congress is mandated with providing legislation for these situations, and its harder for those Democrat leaders to pass legislation when they do not even try. Its not the president's responsibility to bail out incompetent finance companies, he only can propose solutions. The housing crisis has been an issue since the Democrats took control of Congress yet they do jack squat.

For Zach: the Democrat part offers leaders such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who run off to a 5 week vacation during energy crisis or are quoted as saying 'we dont know what to do' and tossing their hands up in the face of the Wall Street crisis. The bottom line is that Congress is mandated with providing legislation for these situations, and its harder for those Democrat leaders to pass legislation when they do not even try. Its not the president's responsibility to bail out incompetent finance companies, he only can propose solutions. The housing crisis has been an issue since the Democrats took control of Congress yet they do jack squat.

I realize what I wrote was entirely anti-McCain and not Pro-Obama, but my point was that McCain's claim that he represents any kind of change is absurd. The cult thinking that McCain wants us to make bothered me, and as such I felt I had to point out how absurd it is that he's claiming that he is some agent of change. My point was to apply critical thinking to the situation, if he wants to be a maverick he has to earn that title. I obviously don't have as libertarian a viewpoint as you do and as such I felt the change represented by Obama was obvious enough that it didn't deserve focus in this piece. I hope to find the time to write another piece soon and I am planning to focus entirely on Obama's policies in some area, but we'll see where the future takes us. I will rebut your comments in later posts (stupid word limit).

Congress: Unfortunately the Democrats do not control an un-filibusterable majority in the Senate, making passing most laws difficult to pass. This added with the fact that the current GOP minority is one of the most obstructive minorities in US history means that nothing happens unless it is politically embarrassing for the GOP to make it fail (ie the new GI Bill). While they are imperfect at best, it is not even mostly the Democrats fault that things are stalled so often. If they have a low approval rating it is largely due to a misunderstanding on how the Senate rules work. Tax cuts for the rich: Here's the problem: people who make more pay less percentage-wise on their taxes. For instance a capitalist like Warren Buffet pays 17.7% where as his secretary pays about 30%. This is not a fair tax code and it definitely means that we should not be offering more tax breaks to people already paying under their fair share. Even Adam Smith would balk at those numbers. If we actually lived in a country with a flat-tax system then your argument might make sense.

The banks: Unfortunately the banks have been operating under a "Too Big to Fail" policy and as such if we let them fail outright it will cause a repeat of the Great Depression, something we do not need. If we are stuck bailing them out then we need to make sure they are a) penalized for being a failure and b) we need to have assurances that they won't do the same thing over again. There are various suggestions on how to carry out a & b, many of which are detailed in Obama's economic policies. I would love to let the idiots fail, unfortunately their failure affects everyone else. And finally, government spending: Unfortunately, despite what the Republicans want you to think they have generally increased spending whereas the Democrats have generally decreased spending while in power. I don't share the belief that the government has to be more inefficient than a contractor. In fact in my time as a govt. contractor I have seen contractors cost more than doing it in house would have. Democrats are not socialist by any means, we just believe that government, if managed correctly, can do some things right and not have to take a cut. Really for something like healthcare I don't want the doctor weighing the bottom line when deciding if I should live or die.

Patrick, thanks for taking the time to give further insights. I'd like to focus on the McCain/Bush indistinguishability that many fear, as you did in your article. Obama has been touting the fact that McCain voted with Bush on 90% of issues. Please read http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/McCain_a_Bush_clone_These_numbers_dispute_that.html for a different take. As for your statement about the tax code, Buffett probably pays 17.7% tax on his GROSS income, but tax is not computed on gross income. I would expect the nation's most touted investor to have lots of tax writeoffs and (legal) shelters. The fact is that he probably paid upwards of 30% on his taxable income, much like the secretary. More in a sec...

For instance, if I make $50K and put $15K in a tax-deferred 401(k), immediately I am paying 17.8% on my gross income, before I take a personal exemption or declare dependents. If the secretary is not taking advantage of that, is that my fault? If she's paying 30% taxes, she's clearly in a decent tax bracket, and I'd assume she could afford to if she wanted. Not to mention that after Buffett announced he would give $37 billion to Bill/Melinda Gates Foundation at 5% a year, he is donating about $1.85 billion a year. No wonder his tax rate is lower - he gives a substantial portion of his income away!

This $700 billion (probably over a trillion $) reminds me of hostage taking. Pay us with no strings attached or the worse will happen to your love ones. Usually the families pay even though no one will admit it. The result...a lot more hostage taking. I can see the line forming....auto industry (already getting a bailout), credit card companies, etc.

Make 50k a year and put 15k in a tax-deferred 401k? Yeah, right, the only people i know who can live off 35k a year (before taxes) are those getting a supplement from their parents.

What caused the failure of these banks was loans that shouldn't have been made in the first place, Patrick. If government regulation was what we needed then how did Fannie and Freddie (two governmentally regulated entities) cause this whole crisis in the first place? And the Bush tax cuts decreased taxes approx. 3% across the board. Agreed, the wealthy took in more money because 3% is more to them than 3% is to someone in the middle class. But if someone in the upper class is contributing that much to society (as reflected in their incomes), they should be entitled to more. Keep your head in the books until you get the facts straight.

At Fozzy: So how do the 150 million Americans that do make less than 35k a year get by? If people had been saving %30 of their income we would probably be in a much better position right now.

Aaron, that is right on point. Fozzy, my figures were meant as a simple example. I really didn't feel like spending a lot of time including the additional deductions that would come into play, leading to an even lower overall tax rate. The point is that Buffett has paid income tax on the income that he has earned in the past, and is now donating, so in some sense, he's getting a delayed refund. To look at his one-year tax rate is disingenuous, because it ignores his history of paying taxes. I'm sure his cumulative tax rate over his entire career is much higher.

to:jason Fozzy, a lot of us get by with less than $35k a year, including me. I even bought a house that I can afford, what a concept! It’s called budgeting and not spending more than you make, something that the gov’t and many in the general public don’t seem to be able to do. Screw the banks, let the market sort itself out, we don't need to be spending $7 billion from the taxpayers to bail out investors, or even to spend taxpayer dollars bailing out homebuyers who were dumb enough to sign up for an ARM. Investors and buyers take risks, and risks imply that you can lose everything, that’s how the market works. Let them learn the lesson, the country will be better for it.

Correction, Jonathan: $7 HUNDRED billion.

By the way, if the government can't even ensure future solvency of social security, which it is responsible for, why should it prioritize ensuring the solvency of private banks? Of course, I realize there's more at play because the government has been involved with Freddie and Fanny for some time and made unwise lending regulations, but this just further proves the point: if you can't even run your own investments, keep out of private ones.