Lucky White Girl

Middle class McCain supporters are voting against their own economic interests

Whew, I knocked on about 40 doors this afternoon campaigning for Obama in a middle class neighborhood in central Florida. There were lots of McCain signs out; this is a conservative little town and that apparently was a conservative little neighborhood.  Which is odd because it wasn't a wealthy neighborhood: small, modest houses, lots of late model cars in driveways.  Not people who looked like they made more than a quarter of a million dollars a year.  Unless they do, Obama's tax plan would benefit them way more than McCain's would.  And yet they are voting for McCain.  Why?

George Lakoff, author of Don't think of an Elephant, would say it's because the Republicans are good at framing their party platform in terms of values that people identify with that they've convinced them the Democrats are against: Family, Religion, Freedom.  Democrats are doing well this year for a variety of reasons but one of them is that they've heard Lakoff and have successfully countered that argument.  Democrats were obviously never against any of those things in the first place but now they're re-framing the debate.  This election is about Economic Responsibility, Community, Unity, Hope and, of course, Change.  Those are the values resonating with people this year and that's why Obama's going to win next Tuesday.

But still.  I'm amazed that some non-rich people support McCain.  Eight years of Bush's economic policies have devastated this country.  Greenspan has admitted deregulation may not have been such a great idea.  I heard today that the jobless rate might go as high as 8.5% soon.  People who had their retirement funds in 401K plans right now are screwed (great idea, eh? convince people that they don't need pensions but should instead gamble on the stock market for their retirement!)  Experts are talking long term recession and still --still!-- some people are thinking yeah, let's keep doing what we're doing!?  I don't get it.

Ok, so some people are always going to vote against their own economic interests no matter what. Maybe for the same reason poor people buy lottery tickets.  They're about as likely to ever be rich enough to benefit from Republicans' fiscal policies as they are to hit the jackpot but there's always the hope.  Joe the Plumber (who apparently doesn't make more than $250K/yr) hopes that some day he will be rich and when that day comes he wants to pay lower taxes.  hmmm...

I can understand when I pass a McMansion with a McCain/Palin sign out front but I don't understand when I see McCain signs in yards of people in the middle to lower economic classes.  Maybe they don't know...? 

Mysteries of middle class voters supporting McCain

Whew, I knocked on about 40 doors this afternoon campaigning for Obama in a middle class neighborhood in central Florida. There were lots of McCain signs out; this is a conservative little town and that apparently was a conservative little neighborhood.  Which is odd because it wasn't a wealthy neighborhood: small, modest houses, lots of late model cars in driveways.  Not people who looked like they made more than a quarter of a million dollars a year.  Unless they do, Obama's tax plan would benefit them way more than McCain's would.  And yet they are voting for McCain.  Why?

George Lakoff, author of Don't think of an Elephant, would say it's because the Republicans are good at framing their party platform in terms of values that people identify with that they've convinced them the Democrats are against: Family, Religion, Freedom.  Democrats are doing well this year for a variety of reasons but one of them is that they've heard Lakoff and have learned how to frame their platform in terms of valuest.   This election is about Responsibility, Community, Unity, Hope and, of course, Change.  Those are the values resonating with people this year and that's why Obama's going to win next Tuesday.

But still.  I'm amazed that some non-rich people support McCain.  Eight years of Bush's economic policies have devastated this country.  Greenspan has admitted deregulation may not have been such a great idea.  I heard today that the jobless rate might go as high as 8.5% soon.  People who had their retirement funds in 401K plans right now are screwed (btw, aren't 401K plans a great idea -- convince people that they don't need pensions but should instead gamble on the stock market for their retirement!)  Experts are talking long term recession and still --still!-- some people are thinking yeah, let's keep doing what we're doing!?  I don't get it.

Ok, so some people are always going to vote against their own economic interests no matter what. Maybe for the same reason poor people buy lottery tickets.  They're about as likely to ever be rich enough to benefit from Republicans' fiscal policies as they are to hit the jackpot but there's always the hope.  Joe the Plumber (who apparently doesn't make more than $250K/yr) hopes that some day he will be rich and when that day comes he wants to pay lower taxes.  hmmm...

I can understand when I pass a McMansion with a McCain/Palin sign out front but I don't understand when I see McCain signs in yards of people in the middle to lower economic classes. 

Explanation anyone?

Obama and the capital gains tax

I encountered a new scare tactic that the Republicans are using to frighten rich people about how much that crazy black radical's going to raise their taxes.  It involves the capital gains tax.  I learned a lot while researching it so I thought I'd share in case any of you come up against this. 

The capital gains tax is just what it says: a tax on whatever capital (profit) you gain during the tax year.  (This should tell you right away it's mostly a rich people thing.) Say you have some stock you bought at $1 per share and in 2008 you sold that stock for $21 per share.  Your capital gain/profit is $20 per share.  NOTE: It doesn't apply until you sell it.  It also applies to other things like real estate and such (although I think it doesn't apply to your homestead just investment properties --again, it's mostly for those wealthy enough to have investment properties, not your average Joe working at Wal-Mart.)

Before we go any further I should point out the obvious: Not many people are taking in a lot of capital GAINS right now.  Most people have capital LOSSES at the moment (just take a look at your 401K lately) so all this is moot.  But nonetheless...

The rumor goes like this: The current capital gains tax is 15%.  McCain wants to cut it 7.5%.  Obama wants to raise it to 28%.  Obama is a radical socialist!

Well here's the truth: The capital gains tax rate varies based on a variety of factors: how long you've had the asset that you sold and what income bracket you fall in.  If you fall into one of the lower income brackets say, in the "10% or 15% federal tax brackets (for tax year 2004, up to about $58K for married filing jointly, and less for others)" the tax rate is 5%.  If you're already quite wealthy though, and you make a lot of profit that year "Long-term gains are taxed at 15% if you fall in one of the higher income-tax brackets (e.g., 25%, 28%, and so on). [Source: http://invest-faq.com/articles/tax-cap-gains-rates.html].  So the Republican's argument is clearly aimed at the tax rate for capital gains for the wealthy, not for everyone who has capital gains.

But let's put this all in perspective.  It turns out that actually the rate on capital gains for the upper class was 20% throughout the 1990s.  Democrat Bill Clinton LOWERED it from its previous level of 28% which that radical socialist Ronald Reagan instituted in the Tax Reform Law of 1986.  Sorta blows up everything you thought you knew about Democrats and Republicans doesn't it?   It turns out that in this case it's McCain who's the radical who wants to lower this tax for the very rich to unprecedented levels.  The man would bankrupt the country. My, my, how it all comes into perspective now!

But I digress.  So how did this tax get to its current level of 15%?  Bush cut it down that far in 2003 to benefit his wealthy campaign donors so 15% is more an aberration than the norm.  But that's not all, this rate has a sunset provision set to expire in 2011 unless Congress renews it (not likely with the Republicans out of power).  So in 2011 the rate's going back up to 20% anyway even if Obama does nothing.  Hopefully though we won't have to wait that long.  Our government is 4 trillion dollars in debt thanks to Bush; they need the money.  Obama will hopefully raise the rate back up to where it belongs long before 2011.

What's the upshot of all this?  Even the well-off hardly have much to fear from an Obama presidency.  We're quite far from socialism here.

To even be worried about the capital gains tax at this moment when the economy's in the tank is and most people are losing money not gaining it, is just one more example of how out of touch Republicans are.

Putting on the historical blinders

Well, McCain has finally agreed to tone down the screeching rhetoric of his campaign and return to substantive issues (wonder if Sarah Palin will get that memo?). 

He's even gone so far as to correct some white people at his "town hall meetings" railing against that "Muslim" and shouting "kill him, kill him".  This is a long overdue and definitely welcome change in tone from the Republican side. 

I'm glad that Representative John Lewis (D-GA) spoke out over the weekend and warned, in his wise way, about the dangers of inflammatory rhetoric.  The man knows what he's talking about; his political consciousness was forged in the fire of the civil rights movement.  What amazes me is that he got criticized for drawing on the lessons of that era (the right is saying that by doing so he compared McCain to George Wallace-- another man who used powerful rhetoric to incite people's basest instincts).  That criticism irked me.  Attacking Mr Lewis is a classic case of attacking the messenger.  Why else were they quicker to jump on Lewis for calling McCain out on his inflammatory rhetoric than they were to criticize McCain or his supporters for the undercurrent of racism running through their campaign? 

Furthermore, the premise of their criticism is itself problematic.  Criticize someone for making a historical comparison?  Here's why that bothers me: it's a denial of the old saying about those who don't learn from history being doomed to repeat it.  It's true and that's why conservatives avoid encouraging people to draw historical connections. 

Spin usually can only last so long.  It might be socially acceptable to hate X group of people today but 20 years from now?  There's no controlling the rationality and perspective that comes with the passage of time.  Eventually even people who couldn't see the ugliness of historical events as they happen, can usually see it decades later (which is why we so often erect monuments to past mistakes while contemporaneously committing the same mistake).  Given that, the only thing they can hope for is to get you to see absolutely no connection between contemporary events and anything that ever happened in our past.  Everything is isolated and has no connection with anything else.  Only if you can look at the world in this way, does the conservative viewpoint make any sense at all. 

All I can say is well, good luck with that.  I'll keep looking at the big picture.

Congratulations to one of my favorite economists!

Paul Krugman, Princeton University professor and columnist for the New York Times has won the Nobel Prize for Economics!   Congratualtions Mr Krugman!

Getting ready to watch the debate and was reminded that I haven't posted anything for the last debate.  Even the hilarious Sarah Palin debate flowchart.  I've been overwhelmed and discouraged lately and needed to take a little break.  Hopefully will be back soon.  Enjoy tonight's debate y'all!