SwingVoter
VIP Member
Was just thinking about how good things were in the 90s when Clinton was president. He did some things I didn't like, but even the most diehard conservative has to admit those were good times. Plus, with the way W has spent, this so called conservative has proven to be a fiscal liberal, but instead of taxing he prefers borrowing.
One reason for me being undecided is I'd like a return to those good times of Clinton, and think Obama's got a better chance of producing them than McCain. If he could claim ownership on Bill Clinton's 3rd term, he'd have my vote. But as I investigate, a number of differences are popping up.
1. This capital gains tax increase. Clinton cut this in 97 from 28% to 20%. Revenue from capital gains then increased, and increased again when Bush cut it to 15%, in spite of weak stock market performance. Obama wants to raise, initially said to an economy crushing 39%, but has since scaled back to 20%. Either way, it's a stupid idea, and his justification is fairness, and when Dems have used that, and not econ growth, as the reason for doing things, results have not been good. (See Carter, Jimmy)
2. NAFTA. Clinton supported this, and our exports to Mexico have since grown to over $130 billion a year. They buy $10 billion a year of auto parts, and have lately been buying a ton of soybeans, now over $1 billion a year, up from around $100 million before NAFTA. Obama will not expand trade, again not because of econ growth, but this abstract fairness philosophy he's pushing.
3. Deficit reduction - One of Clinton's best fiscal moves was not going through with the middle class tax cut he promised during the '92 election. Sensitive to being a tax hiker, Obama now wants to beef up credits (and filing complexity) for taxpayers making less than $250k. This could be costly, and won't stimulate the economy much when he's clamping down on trade and raising capital gains taxe.
McCain's econ package doesn't impress me much, and if he doesn't STFU about earmarks, and start talking about other items with significant budget value I'll scream. But Obama increasingly has me doubting that he can match Clinton's econ performance.
One reason for me being undecided is I'd like a return to those good times of Clinton, and think Obama's got a better chance of producing them than McCain. If he could claim ownership on Bill Clinton's 3rd term, he'd have my vote. But as I investigate, a number of differences are popping up.
1. This capital gains tax increase. Clinton cut this in 97 from 28% to 20%. Revenue from capital gains then increased, and increased again when Bush cut it to 15%, in spite of weak stock market performance. Obama wants to raise, initially said to an economy crushing 39%, but has since scaled back to 20%. Either way, it's a stupid idea, and his justification is fairness, and when Dems have used that, and not econ growth, as the reason for doing things, results have not been good. (See Carter, Jimmy)
2. NAFTA. Clinton supported this, and our exports to Mexico have since grown to over $130 billion a year. They buy $10 billion a year of auto parts, and have lately been buying a ton of soybeans, now over $1 billion a year, up from around $100 million before NAFTA. Obama will not expand trade, again not because of econ growth, but this abstract fairness philosophy he's pushing.
3. Deficit reduction - One of Clinton's best fiscal moves was not going through with the middle class tax cut he promised during the '92 election. Sensitive to being a tax hiker, Obama now wants to beef up credits (and filing complexity) for taxpayers making less than $250k. This could be costly, and won't stimulate the economy much when he's clamping down on trade and raising capital gains taxe.
McCain's econ package doesn't impress me much, and if he doesn't STFU about earmarks, and start talking about other items with significant budget value I'll scream. But Obama increasingly has me doubting that he can match Clinton's econ performance.
