Conservatives, here's why Obama won

Oh clearly, this stuff had to have been used from the beginning -- one reference in the 3rd debate isn't gonna make a difference. (Though I'm not sure anything would make a difference in the face of an October financial meltdown.)

Partly for the reason Podhoretz says (low-information voters don't know or "get" this stuff) but also because Obama is an unusually good liar -- perfect sang-froid, perfect unflappability, the boldness born of antinomian self-righteous, and the perfect confidence that the media will never call him on his lies. Last night just e.g., were the "100% negative ads," the born-alive act, his ACORN ties, Bill Ayres' living room. His words were flat-out lies, no ifs, ands or buts, but because his manner is so smooth, you have to know the facts to have it even enter your head that he might be lying.

The born-alive lies were particularly disgraceful because they already had been shown to be lies after he began telling them months ago, and it got to the point that his campaign kept backtracking. But it all happened in low-readership venues. So why not lie in a high-readership venue that doesn't know the backstory?

Mark my words, Rod, for I will have lots of occasion to cite them from January 2009 to January 2013: This man is as good a liar as Bill Clinton.

McCain Is Confused, Once Again
Good post from Felix Salmon this morning on McCain's attack on Fannie/Freddie and his devotion last night in the debate to home ownership:

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/10/16/hexed#blogComments

"what on earth John McCain meant last night when he said this:

I am convinced that, until we reverse this continued decline in home ownership and put a floor under it, and so that people have not only the hope and belief they can stay in their homes and realize the American dream, but that value will come up.

I thought the right-wing talking point was that CRA and Fannie and Freddie lent money to too many people, thereby driving homeownership up past any point of reasonableness. In fact, of course, it was the subprime lenders who did that. But either way, homeownership rates are far too high, and need to come down. Insofar as there has been a "decline in home ownership" it's been not only necessary but recent, and not very big. If McCain really wants to reverse it, one has to wonder what exactly his complaint is about Fannie and Freddie."

So, inform me. What does McCain believe?

Sorry, I meant "impose". The perils of multi-tasking (as explained this morning on NPR).

JPod's argument is ridiculous and self-serving: McCain is losing because he did a poor job explaining his superior positions!

Memo to the GOP: Can you entertain the possibility that undecideds don't misunderstand your policy proposals, but reject them as likely to further erode the common good?

Can you entertain the possibility that...

1. "Drill Baby Drill" will not provide energy independence, given America's energy needs vs. the size of our reserves?

2. "Less Government Regulation!" may not be the best solution to fixing an economy plundered by hedge funds gone wild?

3. "No Taxes on Joe the Plumber!" is not a particularly powerful rallying cry, when Joe is among the 2% of Americans who make over $250k per year...particularly when a large swath of the rest of us see declining incomes, shrinking net worths, and a swelling federal debt to pass on to our children.

4. "Spread the Wealth" via a progressive tax code does not seem so outrageous when, in recent history, insiders and financial sophisticates have manipulated the regulatory and tax structure for their own ends, leading to a greater concentration of wealth than ever before?

Rick,

No, they can't. Like our Decider-in-chief, many of these people seem to be genetically incapable of entertaining the possiblity that, heaven forbid, they might actually be *wrong* once in awhile.

Victor,

Yeah, at this point, how much more information do these people need? It's pretty sad that this election might be decided by people who in many cases are, frankly, too ignorant or who don't care enough to have have paid attention by now, when this campaign has been going on FOR 20 MONTHS NOW.

I can understand being torn between candidates when neither of them quite matches up with your ideals and values. But, let's face it, it's been clear for some time now that one of these two will be the next president. So ... pick one, or shut up.

"undecided voters are, or so studies tell us, often astonishingly ill-informed."

In contrast to those voters who are unequivocally supportive of McCain due to Obama's hanging out with terrorists. Now those people are astonishingly informed.

"Spread the Wealth" via a progressive tax code does not seem so outrageous when, in recent history, insiders and financial sophisticates have manipulated the regulatory and tax structure for their own ends, leading to a greater concentration of wealth than ever before?

Do people really believe this? What Rick is saying is, "Hey buddy, I'm feeling the pinch, give me your money." Is he wearing a bandana over his face as he types? At least have the cajones to come get the cash yourself, El Bandito.

News flash. We do have a progressive tax system. If you were really concerned that "insiders and financial sophisticates have manipulated the regulatory and tax structure for their own ends, leading to a greater concentration of wealth" you would support a tax intended to capture those "ill gotten" gains. Which would not be merely ratcheting up marginal rates and socking high earners and the self employed.

I had hoped that Freeper claims that Obama is an unreconstructed '60s radical were hyperbole, but he doesn't even hide it anymore. Property should be redistributed, medical care should be a right provided by the government, home ownership should be guaranteed by the government, etc., etc. The Clintons for all their faults, which are many, at least understood that punishing the entrepreneurial class will not lead to prosperity for the middle class. But Obama appears to believe that if you take all the property from the investment bankers and force them to go farm in the Arizona desert, America will prosper. I gotta say I have my doubts about that.

Isn't it a matter of justice? When Bush came into office it was refreshing to hear someone speak of justice in tax policy. His comment was that paying more than a third of your income to the federal government is unjust. I think the threshold might be lower than that. Of course liberals, who don't give to charity, don't fully appreciate this issue. But for folks who already give away 10-15%+ of their income, a 40%+ tax rate is painful.

For Obama whether a tax policy is just simply isn't a consideration. Property belongs to those with the political will to take it. And yes we can. So we will. The sans culottes are on the march.

In contrast to those voters who are unequivocally supportive of McCain due to Obama's hanging out with terrorists. Now those people are astonishingly informed.

But they're invincibly ignorant, so it's not worth taking the trouble to try to inform them otherwise.

I largely agree with Podhoretz.

Even if you are an Obamamaniac, you can size up just McCain's tactical performance. This kind of short-hand senatorese is something which afflicts, well, senators who run for president to an unusual degree. We saw much the same thing with Kerry and Dole.

As for the rest:

1. Derek's position that McCain essentially agrees with Bush's policy works only on the lowest standards of the contemporary era - if you vote with the president of your party the bulk of the time, it is hard to find any senator who doesn't fit the bill over the last 15 years. Of the 55-60 or so GOP senators who have served over the last seven years, there might be only a few - Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords briefly before he defected, maybe one of the Maine senators on a frisky day - who have been at odds with the Administration and their own party more than McCain has been, from global warming to the Surge to torture to tax cuts (and to my knowledge, McCain has not recanted his vote against the cuts, only his opposition to letting them expire) to spending to campaign finance reform - it's a long list.

And then Rick asks some questions:

1. "Drill Baby Drill" will not provide energy independence, given America's energy needs vs. the size of our reserves?

I'm not aware of anyone who seriously suggests that drilling alone will provide energy independence - only that it is one important contribution to it.

2. "Less Government Regulation!" may not be the best solution to fixing an economy plundered by hedge funds gone wild?

McCain was certainly calling for *more* regulation of Fannie and Freddie years ago. I think you can also mak a case for more regulatory requirements of transparancy for the more exotic derivatives and credit default swaps. But there's places to reduce regulation - axing Sarabanes Oxley and mark to market.

3. "No Taxes on Joe the Plumber!" is not a particularly powerful rallying cry, when Joe is among the 2% of Americans who make over $250k per year...particularly when a large swath of the rest of us see declining incomes, shrinking net worths, and a swelling federal debt to pass on to our children.

But small businesses provide most of the jobs in the U.S. - and that means Joe the plumber, who is likely a sole proprietorship and filing taxes as such. The more you tax him, the less workers he is likely to hire.

But perhaps Obama can be persuaded to add a small business exception?

4. "Spread the Wealth" via a progressive tax code does not seem so outrageous when, in recent history, insiders and financial sophisticates have manipulated the regulatory and tax structure for their own ends, leading to a greater concentration of wealth than ever before?

Progressive - how progressive should the code be?

The top 1% AGI of top income earners in this country take home about 22% of the nation's income. But they pay 39.9% of the income tax burden. The bottom 40% do not even pay any income tax any longer.

How much more do you want from them?

Also, I fail to see how a living wage at all relates to tax policy, other than that high taxes on the job creating class reduces wages and increases unemployment. Low wages, by the way, are in part a result of the over supply of labor. I'll leave you to ponder solutions to that problem.

"A low wage is simply a measure of the value of the worker's contribution to the business or product."

Unfortunately, I think this statement is true.

And it shows how screwed up things are.

Movie stars have more "value" than teachers.

Athletes have more "value" than firefighters.

Stock brokers have more "value" than soldiers.

Chefs have more "value" than farmers.

Wonderful.

A low wage is simply a measure of the value of the worker's contribution to the business or product.

Riddle me this:

Company X sells $100 billion worth of subprime mortgages to the public. Or hyped dot.bomb stock. Company X makes over $10 billion in commissions. It has 10,000 employees who average $1 million in yearly compensation.

A year later Company X's customers have seen their purchases dwindle in value to $20 Billion. They have lost a combined $80 billion through their dealings with Company X.

Are Company X's employees really "worth" their $1 million in compensation per year?

Is it really intrinsically unjust to tax their $1 million in income at a marginal rate above 33%?

Is it really intrinsically unjust to tax their $1 million in income at a marginal rate above 33%?

It does not appear that anyone is advocating taxing "bad people." So I guess if you want to impose high marginal rates on only bad people I could get behind that as long as I can help craft the list. Atheists should definitely be on it. We should tax those guys at a 75% marginal rate. And hippies too. Also people who want to impose high marginal tax rates should get stuck with the rates they recommend imposing. I just don't see the argument that people with high incomes are bad and should therefore be subject to punitive tax rates.

Obviously 33% is not a magical line with any particular significance. But there is a line out there to be determined based upon how much any single individual should be contributing financially to the common good (rather than how much money the grasping class wants). I don't think it's above a third. But maybe it's 25% or 20% instead. Either way, a good rule of thumb for you should be "what percentage am I currently willing to pay."

Rick has a penetrating analysis here. Don't let your ideologies block out your brain.