POTUS spoiler

[onceawhile]

They would have a choice between doing business and make $2,000,000 instead of $3,000,000 OR they just stop doing business and make $0. Basically if they actually decided to pull out of the US the entire system would collapse and all of their money and investments would be worthless.

How about investing the minimum, or just some in the US (like mid-upper class) and the rest outside?
you're an all or nothing kind of guy, huh?
The thing about portfolios is diversity. No one said anything about ALL of it.

Also, by your logic the crisis wouldn't have happened. no one would have shifted his money to real-estate due to the low interest and they'd just be satisfied with the lower interest rates at the bank.

The analogy stands, they'll move it outside the US until it will be advantageous again. And we (well I) don't want that.

[Thorin]

Hmm, there might be some disconnect here.  I think Tom is talking about actually running a company that pays workers and produces profit, whereas with the above post you seem to be talking about investments that whether they pay workers or not still return a profit.  I say this, because a brick-and-mortar business is a lot more expensive to move out of a country than a portfolio of investments.

If we're talking about businesses rather than portfolio investments, then the cost of moving said business must be offset against the cost of the higher taxes to be paid.  For many business owners it will still be more profitable to keep the business where it is, as the increase in corporate taxes being proposed is not that high.

If we're talking about investment portfolios, there's really nothing anyone can do to stop investment in foreign holdings, short of making it illegal.  At the same time, that money wouldn't help the local economy anyway, as an economy needs the movement of goods and money to work out, not just a guy who says "I lent you this money now give me that back plus some extra".

And it's the economy you want fixed, right?  Usury kills economies, hence why the central banks raise their prime lending rates when the economy is growing too fast.

As for the crisis, I'm not sure we're on the same page there, either.  I assume you're talking about the mortgage-backed securities that banks were allowed to sell, moving their risk on mortgages to investors, thus making them not care if a mortgage was a risk or not.  If the banks who issued the mortgages had been required to retain the risk of said mortgages, there wouldn't have been mortgages issued to people who had no hope in hell of making the minimum payments.

[Tom]

They would have a choice between doing business and make $2,000,000 instead of $3,000,000 OR they just stop doing business and make $0. Basically if they actually decided to pull out of the US the entire system would collapse and all of their money and investments would be worthless.

How about investing the minimum, or just some in the US (like mid-upper class) and the rest outside?
you're an all or nothing kind of guy, huh?
The thing about portfolios is diversity. No one said anything about ALL of it.

Also, by your logic the crisis wouldn't have happened. no one would have shifted his money to real-estate due to the low interest and they'd just be satisfied with the lower interest rates at the bank.

The analogy stands, they'll move it outside the US until it will be advantageous again. And we (well I) don't want that.

I'm not an all or nothing guy, it seemed like you were saying business owners aka: the rich would up and move if they were charged too much tax.

Now, if you were actually talking about investments, thats a bit different. I for one don't really care, most investing (ie: the stock market) is pure gambling and should be treated as such.

Of course fewer investments in American companies would slow down the economy, people will spend less, and they'll make less money (or lose money) due to stock prices falling.

Rich people moving significant amounts of money or business out of a country would have serious repercussions. And if they did it to the US, it would affect the entire world. There is no place they could go without it affecting their profits.

I have to note that one part of the cause of the crisis was due to the Glass?Steagall Act being eroded. Guess who was in favor of that. I think what is interesting is the economy had no extreme downturns till  then. After it had been weakened to the point of uselessness, we had the 80s recession, the 2000 recession, and then the super major recession (depression?) of the 2008.

As Thorin pointed out, the bad mortgages had a major hand in the crisis. Of course if the banks were still properly regulated, it wouldn't have happened. The same banking rules they phased out in the US over the past couple decades or so, canada has kept pretty solid. And how did we do? Quite a lot better than the US. The one canadian bank that got hit hard that year due to the worthless securities still made a profit (without a bailout).

[onceawhile]

Hmm, there might be some disconnect here.  I think Tom is talking about actually running a company that pays workers and produces profit, whereas with the above post you seem to be talking about investments that whether they pay workers or not still return a profit.  I say this, because a brick-and-mortar business is a lot more expensive to move out of a country than a portfolio of investments.

At the same time, that money wouldn't help the local economy anyway, as an economy needs the movement of goods and money to work out, not just a guy who says "I lent you this money now give me that back plus some extra

Yeah, kinda caught up with the princple of it, but there's also need for money circulating - lending money for new businesses (though not that popular now, there are still start-ups), and venture capital funds need financing too.
portfolio can also include real-estate, buying spaces for rental purposes etc. etc.

In general, I agree that moving a business elsewhere might not be worthwhile, but if you need to open a new center - it is. In addition companies will down size existing operations and outsource overseas, they won't completely shutdown and relocate as Tom suggested.

Producing things is china is definetely cheaper, and I don't see an increasement in import taxes due to the relationship with China, and I do know that big companies open R&D centers in India - the workforce is cheap and of high quality, unlike China. If I'm not mistaken in the past couple of years Cisco opened there a center and stopped reqruiting in the US.

As for the crisis, I'm not sure we're on the same page there, either.  I assume you're talking about the mortgage-backed securities that banks were allowed to sell, moving their risk on mortgages to investors, thus making them not care if a mortgage was a risk or not.  If the banks who issued the mortgages had been required to retain the risk of said mortgages, there wouldn't have been mortgages issued to people who had no hope in hell of making the minimum payments.

No, I wasn't talking about the extremely bad regulation. That was the "check point" that was suppose to stop it.  I was talking about Greenspan leaving the interest too low for too long, shifting investments to real-estate starting the bubble (the real estate worth more over time than money sitting in the bank). Of course, with proper regulation it wouldn't have happened, so that isn't considered the main failure. It's what usually happens when the interest is low, I was giving it as an example for shifting investments, and his logic (that doesn't fit the capitalist model).

"As chairman of the Federal Reserve, he cut interest rates and left them at rock-bottom levels for two years.

Cheap borrowing costs encouraged Americans to load up on debt to buy homes, even when they had no savings, no income and no job prospects."
from here (first hit on google, lazy)

I have to note that one part of the cause of the crisis was due to the Glass?Steagall Act being eroded. Guess who was in favor of that.

hey, you saved me looking for a new link ;-))


After a fierce lobbying campaign, Clinton agreed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which ensured a complete separation between investment and retail banks. The move heralded the coming of superbanks, huge behemoths that took in retail deposits and used them to take highly-leveraged punts in the markets.

To make matters worse, Clinton beefed up Jimmy Carter's 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to force lenders to take a more relaxed approach to disadvantaged borrowers. Liberalised banks plus millions of new sub-prime customers equalled one big problem.

Rich people moving significant amounts of money or business out of a country would have serious repercussions. And if they did it to the US, it would affect the entire world. There is no place they could go without it affecting their profits.

If there's one thing rich people are good at, it's saving their own money. I'm sure a slow economy will affect the government more than it would the rich ppl. They'll fix it first, and they'll come back. I don't think it will reach the point you're talking about, the government will have to step in first. And as I said before- they won't pull it all.

In a way, you're talking about survival. I'm talking about "jump starting" the economy. We want the rich to invest more money in the US. Corporate or not. Not the other way. Can you tell me how increasing their taxation will do that? What is their incentive other than some ideals?

[Thorin]

Funny thing is, didn't even expect financial stuff to be brought up here.

Well, at least it's on topic in that the economy was a mainstay of both candidates' platforms.  We're not discussing nyan cat or something

onceawhile, one of the things I found troubling was lack of insight into Romney's plans for the economy.  He claimed that he would reduce taxes on the rich while at the same time increasing support for needy.  Sure, he had gaffes where he said the poor were already well taken care of and where he said that 47% of America were lazy, but those were only gaffes.  Everyone misspeaks on occasion.  However, I never found details on just how cutting taxes and increasing spending was going to reduce the American deficit.  This lack of detail made it seem like he was just saying whatever anyone wanted to hear; if you go back to the McCain/Palin ticket, they did the same thing.  Meanwhile Obama/Biden stayed pretty clear on their plans, offering up details and willing to discuss them.

The funny part is neither Tom nor I are American, we're from the Frozen North, so we shouldn't even care about who's in the White House

[onceawhile]

The funny part is neither Tom nor I are American, we're from the Frozen North, so we shouldn't even care about who's in the White House

I know where you guys are from.
I'll confess and say I've been kinda lurking in your forum since Melbosa and Mags(iirc) started it (2004 I think??). Before there was a "website".
Used to read once a week, then once every 3-4 months or even more, and now maybe once every couple of weeks or so(hence "onceawhile"). usually I just have nothing to say/contribute and I do enjoy reading you guys, as DD said - high quality.
hope it's not too creepy :-)

I think you offer a better perspective, outsiders always have insights.
and why shouldn't you care who's in the white house? It affects the global economy. I think the whole world has an opinion (as you said, different focus).

I never found details on just how cutting taxes and increasing spending was going to reduce the American deficit

I'll try and find something that explains the economical plan (to be honest, I didn't see one), but I gotta go now.
I guess that it's just so obvious to me, like that low interest leads to real-estate acquisitions etc.
I've made most of the basic points here - lower tax will encourage rich to invest more, there'll be more money in the system and that will get the market started. It's the basic capitalist economy.

But you make a very good point. It's not specific and it really should be explained more clearly.

The thing I find puzzling is how come ppl always assume the rich will do what they want them to.
The rich will pay the taxes and suffer quietly, and do what they're told. The rich have so many options to do things otherwise. They don't have to play by the rules. Just like the example you gave about a smart CEO.  Or what you said about investing money overseas - you can't stop it. you have to make it worthwhile, and somehow I always feel that fact is overlooked.


I didn't mean for this to become such a long thread, but you know how ppl get carried away over these subjects. I just wanted to explain how can ppl vote for someone that "will take their money and give it to the rich"... lol.
I hope you got some kind of an answer :-))  (even if you disagree).

[Tom]

If there's one thing rich people are good at, it's saving their own money. I'm sure a slow economy will affect the government more than it would the rich ppl. They'll fix it first, and they'll come back. I don't think it will reach the point you're talking about, the government will have to step in first. And as I said before- they won't pull it all.

They've already pulled a bunch, even with large tax cuts. I really don't think you understand the situation as it currently sits, and the stupid threats that the super rich keep making. ie: "If taxes go up, I'll just shut my business down" type of stuff.

I'm not sure you've been reading my walls of text. I've already (I think) clearly stated what can only happen from those threats from being realized.

1. taxes go up
2. rich people and businesses move money and jobs out of the country
3. economy slows due to less money and jobs for the majority of the population
4. rich people make less money
5. goto 1

Of course the gov't suffers as well. It's a self feeding cycle of doom. /if/ the people making the threats actually had the balls to do it. I don't believe they do. It could easily lead to a full collapse.

In a way, you're talking about survival. I'm talking about "jump starting" the economy. We want the rich to invest more money in the US. Corporate or not. Not the other way. Can you tell me how increasing their taxation will do that? What is their incentive other than some ideals?

Yeah, that jump starting is called "Trickle down" and its been tried. And it failed. Miserably. 3 words: bush tax cuts.

I'll try and find something that explains the economical plan (to be honest, I didn't see one), but I gotta go now.
I guess that it's just so obvious to me, like that low interest leads to real-estate acquisitions etc.
I've made most of the basic points here - lower tax will encourage rich to invest more, there'll be more money in the system and that will get the market started. It's the basic capitalist economy.

Sadly they've tried all that and its failed horribly. The bush tax cuts (and increased spending) have only made things worse. And will continue making things worse till they are allowed to expire.

The thing I find puzzling is how come ppl always assume the rich will do what they want them to.
The rich will pay the taxes and suffer quietly, and do what they're told. The rich have so many options to do things otherwise. They don't have to play by the rules. Just like the example you gave about a smart CEO.  Or what you said about investing money overseas - you can't stop it. you have to make it worthwhile, and somehow I always feel that fact is overlooked.

Of course they won't do the ideal thing. Most of them are greedy sociopaths. Then again, most people wont do the ideal thing either.

"encouraging" the super rich to do something that they don't want to do, isn't going to make them do it. They already don't want to help the economy, they want to hoard as much money as is possible.

You say they'll just move some/most of their stuff overseas, well they've already done that. Look at all the outsourcing to asia. They've probably already moved as much as they can by now, without causing large ripples.

The funny part is neither Tom nor I are American, we're from the Frozen North, so we shouldn't even care about who's in the White House

I think it does matter though. The US has a huge influence on the rest of the world. What do you think happens when spending far exceeds income? That's essentially Romeny's plan. Spend a lot, tax less. Somehow the govt is then able to magically balance the budget and pay down 16 trillion in debt. It's very basic math.

Also, the US has The Harper wrapped around its finger. At some point we need to tell the US off. The US government really needs to keep its nose out of our business. guh.

[Thorin]

Wow, 8 years?  You should have more than 15 posts by now

Low interest leads to speculation on real estate acquisitions, thus leading to real estate bubbles such as we've seen going back and forth across North America (Canada included) over the last ten years.  High interest leads to real estate selloffs, correcting the market prices (and usually wiping out a great many citizens' equity).  Medium interest is best for long-term stable real estate growth, but only if properly regulated.  Of course most politicians want growth-Growth-GROWTH, rather than moderate-but-sustainable growth, therefore we see prime rates from central banks manipulated to try and heat up the economy and thereby also the real estate markets.

Low tax does not encourage investment by the rich, it's actually the expected return on an investment that encourages it.  The rich do not care if the poor suffer, they care if there is more money to be made.  And this is not some slam of the rich, this is merely human nature expressing itself - we are all hardwired to try and survive, even at the expense of others.  While high tax tends to dampen the expected return on an investment, even if taxes are high a rich person will still invest their money if there's a large return on it.

So how can a government increase the expected return on investment?  Well, it can lower corporate taxes or give special tax rates for certain investment returns (eg dividends).  That seems pretty straightforward.  Or it can make sure the workforce is more productive, by ensuring it is properly educated and has access to productivity-enhancing technology.  That takes a lot more work, but will have the same effect as lowering taxes.

However, Obama's not been talking about corporate taxes, he's been talking about personal taxes.  His figure of increasing the top rate ($200,000+) by 3.5% means that someone just at the low edge will have to pay $7,000 more per year ($583.33 more per month when their gross paycheque is $16,666.67).  So is that fair?  Or should that $583.33 be paid by ten people making $20,000 each per year?  If someone were to ask me that, I would say that the single person making $200k per year has much more disposable income after adequate shelter, proper nutrition, and quality healthcare is paid for than the ten people making $20k each.  And yet it's the same amount of tax.  That's the basis for my standpoint that it's fair to ask the person with higher income to pay more tax, as it will affect their standard of living less.

Now, here's a couple of interesting articles about taxes (well, if you're into that kind of thing):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
http://slumbuddy.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/comparison-of-us-and-canadian-tax-rates-for-2010/
http://slumbuddy.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/comparison-of-canadian-and-us-federal-tax-rates-for-2011/

edit: here's a second problem, more outlays than revenues (going back to 2001):

[onceawhile]

From mobile so I'll keep it short.
Let's separate the "fair" from what will actually happen. Tom says they've already took it all out, you say it's ideals that will keep them paying taxes.

I'm saying that those that didn't bother to reorganize in a way to pay less - whether it was ideals or didn't matter to them that much, now will. So in effect you'll get less. If I would need to pay an accountant $5000 so I won't have to pay additional $7000 I will. Every month. Or even open an account in Belize

If the super rich wanted to hoard so much they wouldn't give so much to charity (buffett and gates as an example).

Personal taxes do effect portfolio- as discussed earlier. As for models- later.

[Thorin]

Paying an account $5k so you don't have to pay $7k only works if there are loopholes.  One of the things I mentioned earlier is that loopholes need to be removed.  A big one is the idea that dividends (and thus stock options) get taxed at less than half the rate of salary.  Another one is the ability to write off non-realized losses, that is, losses that didn't really happen.

Opening an account in another country doesn't make you exempt from paying American taxes, unless you are no longer living and working in the US.  Even then, many countries have tax treaties allowing ex-patriates to be taxed in their country of origin.  But hey, if a rich person decides to move to another country and live and work there, good for them.  Freedom of movement, and all that.

My comments about fairness are from the perspective of the poor, not the rich.  I'm not expecting someone who makes a lot of money to just automatically want to share it, as you said before.  However, one of the problems that has been facing the US for several decades is the widening of the gap between the richest and the poorest, while the middle and upper-middle classes are shrinking.  If this continues unchecked the US could end up with a very rich elite and a huge contingent of working poor.  If said contingent then feels wronged or unfairly treated by tax laws that favour the rich, well, there's a lot of guns and a lot of crazies in the US and they may just decide to "take it back".

-----

This thread should be reviewed two years from now to see what actually did happen.

[Tom]

I just have to state that I am very biased against anything anyone says that I've heard said on Fox News, or by (far-right) republican politicians for that matter. They all have a long history (past 12 years at least) of being at best being misleading, and at worst outright blatant lying.

I will have to see some very very clear and convincing evidence to show that trickle down actually works. And it can't come from /just/ right wing think tanks, or people paid by (far right) republicans.

It doesn't help that a lot of it makes no sense what so ever.

I also can't really stomach some of the things far left liberals have to say either. But the far right are a lot louder.

[Mr. Analog]

Trickle down requires the people who acquire wealth to spend it back. It's a fallacy, you don't get wealthy by spending your wealth.

[onceawhile]

4. rich people make less money

Nope. Rich people make money overseas. Not so bad for them. what you're talking about  - total failure - won't be allowed to happen by the government. It's not arm wrestling. who's stronger. The government needs to take care of others (most of the population really), and they'll have to take action far earlier than that. The man on the street can't take it.

One of the things I mentioned earlier is that loopholes need to be removed.

That's kinda impossible. you only find loopholes after the fact, and the harder you push the harder ppl will look for them. it's a cat and mouse game, and it's really futile.

many countries have tax treaties allowing ex-patriates to be taxed in their country of origin.

That's why I mentioned Belize (afaik). Besides, what actually happens is that they move their money into new companies they open abroad. Buy whatever they need under the corporate's name (like private jets) and rent it to themselves for like a dollar a day- instead of buying here, drawing cash etc. etc. (it's a big problem to start to evaluate all the costs and how realistic the rent is, the government doesn't bother really - so I've been told).
tax sheltering is a BIG industry.

As I said before - you'll reach the breaking point of more people which will resolve to that.

But hey, if a rich person decides to move to another country and live and work there, good for them.  Freedom of movement, and all that

No, bad for us. You want them to make transactions and get the taxes from it. you want their "loans", you want them to do business here. you DON'T want to encourage skilled workforce to leave. Also, high taxation means skilled workforce won't immigrate to the country. Canada's immigration law encourages rich skilled people to immigrate there. why? they create new companies, bring new ideas, new patents etc. They're mainly over-achievers.  A big chunk of the 500 fortune companies were founded by skilled immigrants.
This is from an article from may  link


"Meanwhile, the newly rich people in several emerging markets ? Russia, China or Brazil ? are looking to come to better protect their wealth or families. The combination of slowing growth, political uncertainty and volatile markets at home has lured some of the newly rich around the world to move to Britain or the United States."

Well, they'll think twice before coming to the US.

At the moment, they're leaving france due to planned taxation there:

"... Even young, dynamic people pulling in 200,000 euros [$250,000] are wondering whether to remain in a country ...."

"Some have already left. Laetitia Casta, a wealthy French model (and a Victoria's Secret Angel) moved to London while Alain Ducasse, a French chef, became a naturalized citizen of Monaco to take advantage of that principality?s very low tax rates. French singer and actor Johnny Hallyday (nicknamed ?the biggest rock star you?ve never heard of?) moved to Gstaad, Switzerland, to escape the high taxes of France.
.....
Hollande?s proposal is dampening enthusiasm for others to move to France as well. "
--
"And while France was just beginning to recover from a recession that followed the Great Recession in the United States, the Bank of France is predicting that it will go into recession again this fall. "

link1

link2


I think there are 2 discussions here:
1. what is the ideal model.
2. what needs to be done now.

Your fair arguments goes into 1. Clearly the situation isn't good enough and the poor aren't taken care of adequately. Health care argument alone is enough. BUT, is now the time to try and fix it all?? absolutely not.
No, I'm not saying wait for the economy to boom- you'll never start. But you need to have some baseline, some room for error while implementing your solutions, some stability - you don't expect it to go smoothly, do you?
do it partially, don't go full steam ahead.

In a way, Obama is too early - or too late, whichever you prefer. He's so focused on the ideal, that he's just reckless when it comes to dealing with the crisis. He doesn't understand timing. I may or may not agree with the way he want to do things, but that's how it always go, left-right. But we're not in a normal situation now, and he seems to be oblivious to that (and before Tom says anything - just my opinion, not going to argue over it). I'm hoping now that he has extra 4 years he won't be in such a rush, stop to think and will do better.

All of my arguments are "what do we need to do now, to get out of the crisis" . It hasn't improved much. Making rich people try and find ways to avoid paying taxes (and the loopholes are there) moving funds abroad etc. etc. is just not the way.

As for the lowering taxes model, it's the laffer curve link

"Bearing this in mind, common sense would seem to dictate that our goal should always be to have tax rates which keep us on the ascent, or left side of the peak. Once over that crest, the dangers become much more numerous. "

The question, of course, is where we're at. Laffer did the math and deduced they were on the right so taxation had to be reduced. And that's the model Reagan used. SUCCESSFULLY.

"During the Reagan presidency, the top marginal rate of tax in the US fell from 70% to 31%, while revenue continued to increase every year from 1980 ($885B) to 1990 ($1.93T). According to the CBO historical tables, government revenue as a percentage of GDP increased from 31.8% in 1980 to 33.2% in 1989"

Of course, nowadays we're obviously not at the same place on the curve.
I'm not an economical expert, but I'm sure Romney's guys did the math, and how much of a reduction is feasible.
And you know what? maybe reducing taxes won't get it started as much as in Reagan's days, but it sure as hell has more of a chance than INCREASING it (insert all my previous arguments here + the "mood" it creates. Up vs. down).
Also- Romney wouldn't have spent as much. But that's another debate.

as for the Bush tax cuts - my friend (whom I used for much of the data. he's a financial advisor) said that the current assumption is that they'll be extended for at least another year. Let's see what's going to happen.

This thread should be reviewed two years from now to see what actually did happen.

If I'll still lurk around I'll bump :-) . kinda hope to be proved wrong here...

[Thorin]

Ah, the Laffer Curve.  I first learned about it from Wikipedia a couple of years ago, thanks for that other link which also does a good job of explaining it.

The problem with throwing the Laffer Curve out there is that it's not simple or cut-n-dried or even the same for all citizens - different people with different incomes and different aversion to risks will have the peak of the curve at different tax rates.  Figuring out even a generalized statement on whether the US is on the up slope or the down slope of the curve is a humongous task and best left to professional number crunchers, like the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO stated back in 2005 that a 10% cut in taxes would increase the deficit, not decrease it, thus implying that the average US citizen was on the up slope back then.  They published their data and processes for others to duplicate if so desired.

So your basic point here is that the average US citizen is at the peak or already on the down slope of their personal Laffer Curve, and especially so the rich; thus decreasing taxes for the rich should increase revenues by stimulating the economy.  This is a point we simply disagree on, then - I think the rich and super-rich have had so many tax cuts and breaks in the last 30 years they are well down on the down slope of their personal Laffer curves.  I have not seen any true attempt at finding out where the US sits now on a generalized curve since the CBO did that study back in 2005.  It could be that I simply missed it.

The most basic problem still is borrowing to match the budget rather than having the budget match the revenues.  To reduce the budget, there are really only four major budget items: Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Defense.  To increase the revenues, taxes need to be increased (whether personal income tax or consumption tax or corporate tax or a blend) or the tax base needs to be expanded (more workers, more companies, more consumption).

One thing that really needs to be avoided, though, is a super-rich elite and a large poor class with no one in-between; this generally ends up in violent uprisings.  I know it seems highly implausible to have bread riots and cops framed for shooting their chopper guns at unarmed civilians (bonus points if you can name the movie), but that's only because we all believe our politicians will see it coming and head it off with judicious taxation.  Politicians have been known to get blindsided.

[onceawhile]

I didn't see any either, but I'm sure it was done - at least some kind of an assessment, and how much can be reduced for each. I mean, you don't try to run a country by guessing. Even Obama tries to work according to some model (which I dunno what it is, but GOD I hope he has one).

my friend -who can actually do the math given all the data, but I doubt he would've ever bothered (that's what you get with m.sc in economics and finance)-said it should be lower and that in general taxes skew the market as deadweight.
I'm not sure how much I agree, as you said - it's much more tricky than that, and he didn't bother to do the math.
But I do know that it just hasn't been improving, and raising taxes won't exactly give incentive to the rich guys who feel like they're ganged up upon already.
I won't be so vain to say the market taking a plunge now is just due to Obama, but I think it had it's affect - "back to reality" after holding off w/ expectations.
We need a positive interaction for growth. not "shut up and give us your money".

for me, and it's a personal feeling, it felt like he came to the job with an attitude of "I'm the king of the world now, you'll do what I say", got that Nobel prize and all, and when the dust settled, well- it doesn't work like that. It's a general notion, but I don't think I'm the only one that felt like that. feels like they're trying to ride out the storm.

or the tax base needs to be expanded

lower taxation should do that. more transactions, recruiting local instead of outsourcing etc. etc. etc. my POV.

One thing that really needs to be avoided, though, is a super-rich elite and a large poor class with no one in-between;

couldn't agree more. That's one of the ailments of a capitalist economy. And it should be "fixed" in other ways. Personally I really like the negative tax idea, I think they can rearrange it to work. Setting a negative tax bracket above welfare- if you managed to find work you're guaranteed higher income than welfare, even if you don't earn as much and it would also help small businesses - bigger work force. I can't understand why they're not embracing it, or try (well, Nixon almost. yes, I said nixon...  shhh) but as I said before- I'm no economy expert, and it's probably quite complicated.

...but that's only because we all believe our politicians will see it coming and head it off with judicious taxation.  Politicians have been known to get blindsided

well, that's why we alternate between republicans and democrats. You vote for republicans to fix the economy, you vote for democrats to fix the poverty. kinda like court - the prosecutor does all he can to convict, the defence attorney does all he can to acquit and we get to decide.
Only with government, it's not that final. We can get a middle point. that's how I see things.
Obama is out of sync.

bonus points if you can name the movie

Ahh, no.  Clues??

Well, I think I posted enough to cover 8 years now, at least if you count by characters...  so unless there'll be any new ideas -  talk to ya in a couple of years :-)