I would like, sincerely, to hear from both Democrats and Republicans in my age group.
What are the issues that lead you to support the McCain / Palin ticket or the Obama / Biden ticket?
Are you a fiscal conservative? A social one? A Liberal?
Are you in favor of universal healthcare in the U.S.? Are you in favor of limited or expanded gov. roles?
How do these ideals find their way into your lives? What measures do you believe McCain or Obama will take to defend these interests? Why do you feel Obama or McCain (or Palin / Biden)is a threat to these interests?
I'm obviously pro-Obama, but I'm asking these questions out of honest interest, not to ambush your responses with my own rebuttals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Take a shower you dirty hippie. McCain 08!
i talked to a conservative ex girlfriend of mine and her vote goes to mccain mostly on the issue of abortion. she's a practicing catholic and values all life, so that was that. she also supports palin, good god i have no idea why.
ben, the fact is, they've got a lot of people scared. scared of the black man, scared of dirt, scared of "the other", foreign thing that will come get us if we don't vote for them and give them our money. a whole year of watching this unfold is making my stomach hurt until next tuesday.
I agree that many people are apprehensive about the change; but, there are Republicans out there who aren't voting for McCain out of racism or xenophobia. Their ideas are the ones that I want to understand better. I have been engrossed by liberal blogs, news, books, etc. for the entire last election cycle. So I'm going to try really hard to put preconditions aside for the next six days and see what I can learn.
As far as the stomach aches go, thats half the reason behind this blog; I kept reading the news at work with the feeling of an ulcer on the brink. I need some sort of sane medium. It may also be related to the insane amount of Big John's I've eaten over the last 5 years.
I think some people are just conservative by nature.
I may be voting for Obama, but I'm not gonna lie and say I haven't considered McCain. The notion of increasing taxes on the wealthy is appealing to me and all since, you know, I'm not rich - but working at a relatively small business I'm naturally concerned what effect those increases may have on owners of small businesses.
This election reminds me of some sort of bizarro 2000 Election - McCain is a pretty experienced, relatively safe bet as a President, IMO. Obama is a wildly inexperienced, and to an ardent conservative he's just as unacceptable as Bush was to those of us on the left. And his middle name is Hussein, so there's that.
If McCain hadn't picked Palin, I would still have voted for Obama but been able to handle a McCain victory. But with Palin in the fold...not so much. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous than Sarah Palin as President?
At the end of the day though, all this political posturing on facebook is worthless (not sure if that had any prompting to your entry...but my god it's annoying from a lot of the people doing it) and it's worthless because these are the people who only get riled up once every four years. Local and state government have far more of an effect on our day to day lives than the Presidency, but you know the loudest supporters of either side are, for the most part, not participating on that level.
I hadn't really empathized with the employees of small businesses, but I see where you are coming from. Although, isn't McCain's insurance plan going to require serious sacrifices for small businesses as well?
I don't see Obama's middle name as an electoral impediment, but I know that some people can't get beyond it (but these people most likely wouldn't vote democrat to begin with). I apply the same reasoning to the issue of race as an impediment. The strength of his campaign has come from mobalizing a willing democratic base and registering new (democratic) voters. The people who won't vote for him based on his race were most likley to vote for McCain anyways. As such, I don't expect to see any serious signs of the Bradley Effect in this election.
As far as Obama's inexpierience goes: I think when the Democratic primaries were going on I was taken with Obama based on his knack for public speaking and his idealistic outlook. It wasn't until after he won the primary that I actually sat down and said "what does he actually have in mind"? However, I think that since the start of the race proper, he has demonstrated his ability to put together a talented team of policy-makers. That, in my view, is half the battle. The President obviously won't have all the answers; he needs to surround himself with subject-matter-experts that can work together, and not let their egos over-run the process. I mean, look at the Bush cabinet (Rummy and Cheney to name the two most glaring examples). If you look at the way Obama has run his campaign, we can only hope he applies the same pincipals to his cabinet. With the exception of Joe Biden, I think he has assembled a very talented and focused group of people. And, in a perfect world, some of Obama's level-headedness will eventually rub off on Biden (sometimes I think it already has).
I think pragmatism is one of Obama's matras, and that's one reason I plan to vote for him.
first of all, as a vegetarian, i can assure you the ulcer feeling is election-related, not the result of too much big johns. i have it too.
second, my dad works for himself, so i'm a little informed on the small business angle. i can't say i know the ins and outs of it, but i do know that if he has a good year, obama's tax plan is likely to bump him up a tax bracket that mccain's wouldn't. a pretty legitimate worry to have, i suppose.
also, there are a lot of people, i think, who identify with the idea of small government. now, whether or not either candidate actually has any chance of delivering that in this term doesn't seem to matter, it is an idea that the republicans have claimed. and i think a lot of votes come down to things like that-uninformed voting based on overarching trends of one party or another rather than current problems and the candidates actually up for election. people vote for one ideal that a party supposably holds. it happens on both sides of the ticket.
but come on, palin? really? does that choice display sound judgement?
hurry up, tuesday. hurry up.
ALCON:
A vote for John McCain is a voice to finish what we started in Iraq. Take it from someone who has been on the front lines (me). Many of you have a friend or family member who has served in the Armed Forces or you may just know the average Joe (the plumber) who was in the Army. We cannot pull out of Iraq until we are 100% sure that Iraq can safely govern and maintain stability in their own country. This will not be possible if we set a time table to pull out. We can debate whether President Bush should have invaded in the first place all day long (which I will if you're up for it), but that is not the issue at hand. Until that country can secure its borders with Syria and Iran, we must remain in place. I hold the same position on Afghanistan that both the candidates agree on. STAY UNTIL OSAMA BIN LADEN IS REMOVED AND AL-QAEDA IS DISABLED. I’ve been to Afghanistan and lived there for eight months. That country needs us there for at least the next 25 years. Any body that may want to debate that with me, please take your best shot!
Under Senator Obama's plan:
To pay for the programs that he supports he would have to cut benefits for veterans’ organizations to reallocate funding for his proposed budget. Small business aspect: I can only agree with kevzim ex girlfriend. My dad owns and operates a small welding company in Jackson Michigan. We've been in business since 1962. We've had our ups and downs like any small business in America. For my father to have to immediately start health care benefits and pay the outrageous costs on an employee who hasn't been employed at our company for 90 days is insane or be faced with paying a fine is even more insane. For the record, MOST of small business in the US gross over $200,000 in one year (at least the one's that I associate with that have an already established name). To raise their taxes will cripple this already troubled economy. For Senator Obama to set the bar that any "Joe the Plumber" can have the same health care as a Federal Employee is absolutely insane!!! I had federal health care for 4 years while I was in the Navy and it was damn good. BUT I cannot express enough how much it will cost to provide it for every poor American in the US. The only way to make that happen would be TO RAISE TAXES. Guess who's going to pay those taxes???? You! You, meaning the working class average Joe who makes $42,000 a year. It’s not hard to understand who will benefit from this, NOT YOU, BUT THE LAZY FUCKER WHO DOESN’T HAVE A JOB AND WANTS A FREE HANDOUT! That’s called socialism. Under Senator McCain's plan, small business would be able to choose whatever company, in whatever state they want for health care. Being able to jump state lines is a huge plus and it would start a price war between insurance companies to drive the price of health care down. It really sucks when my employees ask for a raise and I have to stand there for 15 minutes and explain to them why they can't have one, and that reason being only because I gave them a raise when I paid the "hike" on their insurance costs for the month. To be able to give that money back to my employees would only be a dream come true for me and with Senator Obama as a possible President, that just wouldn't be possible. I'm not even going to get into the people that Senator Obama associates with because I feel that one can make their own decisions on that issue. I will say this though, if John McCain was chillen at Neo-Nazi rally's, the liberal media would have a feild day with him. That’s all the time I have for the issues as of now. I’m sure I’ll revisit some of you in the coming days leading up to Tuesdays vote. Oh and for all you Sarah Palin bashers out there, I seen that outstanding leader speak at one of her rally’s last Wednesday and I’ll let you know right now that she is more qualified to be Vice President then Joe Biden any day. This woman is SMART and she’ll pick up what she may not know as of now once she’s taken the reins as Vice President. She has done a wonderful job for the people of Alaska and she’ll do a wonderful job as a Vice President in the United States of America!!! After all, who in the hell would want a VP who pals around with Jennifer Granholm? That lady has done more destruction then any political figure in the history of the US in my personal opinion.
many things to comment on in that post, but first, thanks for stepping up and participating.
I'm not sure that you can blame Jennifer Granholm for all Michigan's problems just like we can't blame Bush for all of America's problems. The whole rust-belt (Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, etc.) is hurting right now, mainly because the auto industry is hurting. The big three chose to continue making massive, gas-guzzling models despite the price increase trends in the oil industry. Now, watch as they try to rush out models to compete with Toyota and Honda, like the Ford Flash, or whatever the hell that thing is.
As far as Obama's Iraq policy is concerned. We've already seen him move closer to the center on this issue since the end of the primaries. Now, he's conceded that he would like to be out by 2011. A news article came out the other day in which the Iraqi government reinforced this idea by requesting all troops out by 2011. I'm not saying its the best strategy, I obviously havent been there to observe. However, I don't think a blank check and a "sometime in the future" withdrawl date are good strategies either. First of all, I hear too much corrupt news coming out of Iraq it makes my head spin.
I had a friend come visit me in Seattle, he was doing a wilderness EMT course in the mountains. He brought a few of his classmates with him from the course to stay the weekend. Two of the guys were hired security, Black-water type, for the Iraq war. These guys were my age, making $200,000 a year to do dirty work that the U.S. didnt want to mix their own soldiers up in. Some of their stories, which I won't get into, made me sick. What I'm saying here is that there are a range of problems with the war in Iraq.
1) The justification for military force was thin, and continues to get thinner.
2) The cost is out of control. blah blah blah, Iraqi surplus, American deficit, blah blah, you get the point.
3) The current strategy has no end-game. Until the surge, it was completley reactive. It has only recently taken a pro-active turn, and I think the surge has worked, but where do we go from here?
I'm going to lunch...more to come.
As far as Sarah Palin is concerned, I'd like to know what makes her qualified for the job. Her credentials as a reformer in Alaska are slim to none. Simply saying, "well, shes a governor" isn't good enough. George Bush was the governor of Texas and look at how well he's done. And Texas is a whole lot biggere than Alaska.
At this point in time, when the consitution is practially in tatters, and Bush/Cheney look at civil liberties like a door-mat, I'd rather have a leader coming out of the legislative branch. They know the value of working hard, and working together to come to a consensus. Executives look at bi-partisanship as a road-block; something that is not only unnecessary, but also easily circumvented. Just read up on Palin's affinity for hiring people she knows and firing those who don't agree with her (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=palin%20cronyism&st=cse&oref=slogin).
The claim that she fights special interest groups has as many holes in it as a piece of swiss cheese stapeled to a gun range target. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/us/politics/01bridge.html?scp=43&sq=palin%20bridge%20to%20nowhere&st=cse)
My impression of the Palin pick is that it was pureley political and not pragmatic. McCain wanted diasaffected Hillary voters, he wanted the conservative base, and he wanted to grab a piece of Obama's change message any way he could (i.e. "look, we both fight against special interest groups, theres a little somethin somethin for you progressives).
All this B.S. about her wardrobe, her per-diems, her traveling band of children etc. doesn't really matter. Just like Ayers, Rezko, and this new Khalidi guy don't matter for Obama. The only people who get drummed up about these surface issues are people who can't cut to the heart of the matter. People who don't seek out their own news sources, and people who have incredibly unrealistic impressions of how politics actually works.
I doubt that the commenter on the Republican side of this issue will actually come back to read this, even though I know them personally, I thought I would chuck in a few actual comments.
1) All this talk about socialism being a bad thing is completely baffling to me. Looking around the world, almost all the greatest countries in the world are socialists. Not to mention that currently living in a country where socialism is currently in place, my standard of living has never been higher. When the government makes the effort to allow everyone a decent standard of living, everyone wins. I think if nothing else, this latest downturn due to extreme capitalism should teach people that corporations have no morals, and need government regulations to keep them in line. I certainly don't trust the government 100%, but there is far more transparency there.
2. The idea that raising taxes is going to be a bad thing is ludicrous. Of course no one wants to pay higher taxes, but that isn't really an option anymore. The government has spent trillions and trillions of dollars on a war they should have never gotten involved in, and someone is going to have to pay the price. I would much rather see our generation pick up that tab for our mistakes than pass it on to our kids. The mistakes of the last eight years will not be cheap, and the faster Americans come to this conclusion, the faster America can get back on track to it's former greatness. The next generation of Americans deserve every opportunity that we were presented with, and until we start paying down our debts, this will never be accomplished.
I'll get off my soapbox now, because Ben pretty much hit every other point of the NavyVets comments. Hope a bit of an expats perspective might add a little something this.
So you say that you want a legislator who is bi-partisan. Then John McCain is your man. He is the only one of the two who has shown significant work across the aisle. You can regurgitate the 90% stat Senator Obama has beaten to death but Senator McCain has a much more bi-partisan past than Senator Obama and a MUCH longer track record but I won't beat to death Senator McCain's experience credentials.
Now wheather you are pro-union or not besides the obvious fact that the automakers did produce gas guzzlers the union factor must not be overlooked. Think about the compensation packages. Some union autoworkers make around $60 per hour on the job (hourly, sick, vacation, shut down pay.) Some made more. Labor is one of the biggest costs in business. Now to put that into an even bigger perspective think of the baby boomers. People around our parents age or a bit older are all retiring. The retiring autoworkers had great pensions. At least they were gettin some sort of production out of the guys making $60 bucks an hour. These pay and pension scales were inflated by unions. Now I am not trying to say that it's not good for these people to make a good living. I do however believe in equal pay for equal work. If a woman does the does the same job as a man she deserves to be paid the same. No questions asked! But for an autoworker to make a salary like that, for doing a job comparable to people who are not in a union and making double or more is NOT equal pay for equal work. And do not forget the union auto suppliers driving the cost from the bottom up. This has driven the price of vehicles up significantly. One bill that could be passed in an Obama presidency is a card check bill. This would mean that forming a union would no longer be by secret ballot. So if you wanted to start a union in any business today you would have to go around to all the employees and get them to sign union cards. Once you have the cards signed then a secret ballot (like we vote for public office) so that noone can know your vote and harass you for it. I'm sure a person would be far more likely to just sign a card with a union official pushing them than they would voting in privacy. Since the Democrats are in the pocket of the big labor unions which have spent tens of millions on this election and the card check bill already passed the house last year. Under an Obama presidency and a huge Democratic majority in the senate this bill would probably pass and Obama would almost definately sign it. This country does NOT need more union labor inflating the price of our products and driving our jobs overseas due to labor costs just to stay competitive.
Another issue that has driven our jobs overseas is the tax rate for businesses. At 35% the U.S. is second only to Japan in corporate tax rates. Obama wants to raise taxes on businesses. So he wants companies to stay here, keep jobs here, pay inflated wages, and as Joe Biden would say do their patriotic duty and pay higher taxes. I'm sure you all understand this concept but if you don't let me make this perfrectly clear: Big corporations DO NOT pay these higher taxes. They simply raise the price of their products and pass this cost along to you, the consumer. So the big corporations that they are trying to get the money from with these taxes merely end up hurting people like us. What's worse is the fact that Obama's plan is to raise taxes on small businesses, the backbone of this country. Why would you want to raise taxes on these businesses especially. I don't know where he get's his numbers from but I'm pretty sure most small businesses that I know of gross more than $250k per year. This is another thing that will hurt growth by decreasing operating cash that companies have to hire new employess, give current employees raises, and buy new equipment. So where is the incentive to go out start a business that employs people, contributes to the community and the tax base, only to be taxed so heavily that it is not worth your time?
So where is the incentive under an Obama presidency? So if my business makes too much I am going to be taxed heavily. If I personally make too much I will be taxed heavily. Did you know that under the current tax plan the top earning 1% pay more income tax than the bottom 90%. Now I am not totally against progressive income tax but let me point you to a link that I think is very helpful in explaining our tax system and the certain misconceptions about it. This is a scenario written by an economics professor at the University of Georgia. Read it before continuing or the next part will not make as good of sense. The link is- http://specialitysites24-7.blogspot.com/2008/03/tax-system-explained-in-beer.html Now having read this consider that Senator Obama wants to double the capital gains tax. Where is the incentive to invest? The stock market is in shambles these top tier earners are the ones with the money to put into the market to help right the ship. So Senator Obama wants people to put their money at risk in the market. So the investor takes all the risk and in the event he does turn a profit the government gets almost thirty percent. If I was an investor I might just go drink (invest) somewhere else. Now Obama's income tax plan is to "provide tax relief to 95% of Americans." Really? Because last time I checked 38% of Americans don't even pay taxes. So under Obama's plan these people also receive tax relief in the form of a check. Some of these people may pay in but get more back than they put in and Obama will give them even more. So basically he will turn our tax system into a de-facto welfare system also known as socialism. Where in this case Robin Hood Obama will take the money from the rich and give it to the poor. Where is the incentive to go out and work? Why try to move up and prosper? Why get a better job maybe a job that provides health care or better health care? Hell, right now I get a check every month and free health care. Things are going great. Why would someone strive for something better in this system? These are principles that this country was founded and built on and I think we have already begun to lose them. Things like socialist ideals and free health care aren't going to help but hurt this very fragile economic state. It just sickens me that people don't look at the big picture (I am not directing this at anyone in this blog at all) or are just too stupid to. They look at Obama and say that sounds like it would be good for me. What's good for you might not be what's best for the country. That is why I will put my COUNTRY FIRST tomorrow and vote for John McCain!
You too have a choice. I obviously fall into Obama's 95%. But I don't want it because I know the price is much greater! So here's what it boils down to: Elect tax and spend liberals (not our parents and grandparents democrats- ultra liberals. Senator Obama being the most liberal of all of them) and give Nancy Pelosi a blank check or give the reins to a man who has the experience and knowledge to hold them. There are many issues I could go on about but I feel I have written too much already. Consider these things and their implications on our country. I am not trying to change your vote, just giving you some thoughts to make sure you are making a well rounded informed decision. Thank You!
Actually that last one was, Navyvet's older cousin (other side of the fam Kyle)
So socialism is good? Leaving behind the ideals that built this nation and made it the wealthiest nation in the world is good? To take from those who earned and give it to those who didn't is good? Now by reading the posts on this blog I can assume that the people here are educated and well informed and will go on in the future to make a good living. You've worked hard getting an education, putting it to use and making your own way in your career. Do you really want larger portions of your income to be taken and given to those who chose not to work as hard as you. This is not the 1950s or 60s. All people have equal access to education. People our age should be able to go to college and work make a better life for themselves, not wait for a democratic (socialist) government to come along and give to them what others have earned. Socialism is not the answer to capitalist problems. Here is something else you may not have considered: As stated earlier George Bush is not to blame for all our problems. That is definitely not to say he didn't have a hand in it. Some of the things that caused this downturn include the burst of the internet boom bubble, the 9/11 attacks, and the beginning of an economic downturn in a cyclical economy as he took office. Now as I said earlier he is not free from blame but the biggest problem in this most recent collapse lies in the current (Democratic) Congress. Watch this video from four years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Listen to Bill Clinton at the end. Yes your favorite Dem ol' Billy blowjob saying it how it is. Democratic legislators and groups like ACORN pushed the lenders in this country to give "affordable loans" to people. Most of these people were black and it was made out to be a race issue. And also why wouldn't they want Freddie and Fannie to give out more loans they were all on their payroll. Did you know Obama was second only to Chris Dodd in money received from these entities? So banks issued the bad loans, which was okay because they were government insured, bundled them together as investments and sold them off. Everything was fine until the economic factors listed above and the rise of interest rates in the adjustable rate mortgages and people began not paying their mortgages and that caused the bubble to burst. While corporations may have no morals neither do politicians. (cough- Kwame Not comparing anyone to him but he is too easy of an example.) Now, Republicans (John McCain included) who are historically anti-regulation tried to impose regulations on these companies but were blocked by the Dems. Hmm I wonder why? Sounds like some legislators were looking out for number one and not the American people. Read this letter- http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/gse_reform_060505.pdf Now think about Bill Clinton's comments. That people is the cause of our latest economic downturn. NOT extreme capitalism! Extreme greed on the part of legislators and Execs that they schmooze with. So you say socialism is good. Good for who? These guys obviously already have it good. I'd like to see something good go to someone who worked for it; not someone who screwed the American people. From dirty CEOs all the way down to the lazy ass who does nothing and collects a check!
As far as raising taxes being a bad thing it sure as hell is! There are some things that tax dollars are needed for and I have no problem paying taxes because freedom is not free. You see when you raise taxes you take away disposable income. This not only takes away money people may have spent and put into the system other ways it makes them tighter with their remaining dollars. The money that people save with lower taxes can be spent on investment or spent on the open market. Investment is good because it drives business in this country. And spending money in the market is definitely good because then it creates more tax revenue. You get to double dip that way. Take a moment to read this article on how less is more in our tax system.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006842
You don't have to pay high taxes just to solve our problems or at the very least not as high as Obama will take them. Here is the deal with Obama he basically has three choices. Raise taxes higher than he claims he will (ala Clinton who ran on a middle class tax cut in 1992 and raised taxes one month after inauguration), break his campaign promises (ala every politician), or increase the deficit. I honestly believe it will be a combination of the latter and the former with a sprinkling of broken promises. I don't want to pass on any bills for any mistakes to my children either. (cough- state sponsored health care) Talk about a drain on the system! This thing will never go away. Once it is put in it could never be repealed and will grow in cost every year. Yes this will be a mistake I don't want to pass on to my children and that is another reason I vote the way I do! Oh you want health care? Here's an idea... get a fucking job! Don't have a job? Here's an idea, get an education and better yourself. Don't have money to get an education? Take advantage of all the give aways that are already in place and get an education, get a good job, and QUIT BEING A DRAIN on those of us who have taken the steps I just stated above. I'd love to get off my soap box but if things stay the way the polls say they are then I'll be on this mother fucker for the next four years saying I told you so watching this once great country and the ideals it was established on go down like the Hindenburg!
Alright, I'm not sure how I have gotten so sucked into this, but since there is only one more day before the election, I'll take the bait. Let's break it down!
So you say that you want a legislator who is bi-partisan?
Although I must agree with you that McCain's record clearly shows that he has been very bi-partisan in the past, it's the McCain campaign that scares me the most. Up until 2 years ago, McCain was by far my favorite Republican, showing a very moderate track record. If the choice in 2000 was between McCain and Gore, I would have been hard pressed to figure out why I shouldn't vote for him. However, it has appeared to me that McCain has sold his soul in this bid for President, completely changing all his policies that I used to agree with him on. Maybe this is all a rouse to fool the Religious Right, but I'm not willing to vote on that.
Pro-Union:
Clearly, you are far more versed in the union politics than I. Personally, I would say that unions are a pretty minor topic of this years election, like gun control was in 2000 and gay marriage was in 2004. People get fired up over the issue, and then no legislation actually gets proposed in the four years. I have to agree with you that the Automaker unions have gotten out of control, which is why all the major automakers barely have their head above water. I have no doubt that unions are far from saints, I think in general they have good intentions. Speaking as someone whose father's job was saved by a union, I do have a little personal experience in this. My father's job was in jeopardy because he had taken home some tires that had been thrown out by his company, and some middle management asshole looking to get to the top tried to get him fired, even though he had done nothing wrong. His job was saved by the unions, and so it's hard for me not to support them. I think for every bad union, there is another bad employer, so I would rather come down on the side of the working man. Sorry I don't have more to say on that issue, but like I said, I'm far more concerned about the Iraq war, Socialized Medicine, and the economy than unions in particular.
Jobs Overseas:
I must admit I don't have the answers for this problem. I do know that the last 8 years of Republican rule has been absolutely horrible for the economy, and at this point I'm willing to try anything that will bring about change. I think a lot of jobs move overseas due to lowered standards for works health and tax havens. If you are willing to lower the safety and standards of living to ensure Americans have jobs, I'm not sure I can get behind that. America has to be creative to get businesses to chose to employ American workers instead of just assuming that they will stick around. We also need to close corporate loop holes that allow companies to set up head offices in tax havens and continue to operate businesses within our boarders. This will never happen, and I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but that's my two cents.
Taxes:
I already commented on this, so I won't rehash it to much. Americans need to accept that they will begin to pay higher taxes. Trickle down economics does not work, that has been proven in the last eight years. Of course the top 1% pays the most income taxes, that's because they make the most money! It's simple math. If you are making $100,000 and are taxed 30% you are going to be paying heaps more than someone making minimum wage and being taxed 20% who are just trying to scrape by. If you listen to Warren Buffet (The richest man in the world), he completely agrees, and has helped shaped Obama's tax plan. I personally would be more than happy to donate more of my paycheck if I knew it was making the life of my community better. Having lived in a country that is both socialist and capitalist, I can say without a doubt that I would much rather have a few people bilk the system so that the majority of people who have fallen on hard times are allowed to have a chance to have a decent standard of living, than allowing good people to not have basic social services because I want to renovate my house, and can't take the chance that someone might take a few extra dollars when they don't deserve it. The idea that Democrats are "tax and spend" with no grasp of how to run an economy I submit a very basic argument that anyone can understand:
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/greenberg/qqxsgFiscalConservative.jpg
The last three "fiscal conservatives" that America has elected into office have increased the deficit by trillions of dollars, where the only "tax and spend" liberal has actually balanced the budget. I would much rather the United States be it's own country and not be owned by China and Japan, but maybe I'm in the minority on that. If you don't want higher taxes, and voted for Bush and supported his policies, I have no sympathy for you, because that money has to come from somewhere.
Socialism:
/Disclaimer
Obama is not a Socialist, regardless of what McCain will have you believe. There is actually a socialist party candidate for President, and he is most definitely not Obama. This is completely off topic, but I feel navyvetscuz has some misinformed views about what socialism actually is, and as someone who lives in a socialist country, I feel obliged to respond.
/End Disclaimer
I don't even know where to start on this one. It's such a huge issue that there is no way I can explain it all, in all it's forms here. But, who doesn't like a good challenge. First of all, forget about the fact that the USA is the wealthiest nation in the world. This may have been true 8 years go, but we are fighting two wars, expanded the government far beyond anything we were willing to pay for, and just spent $700 billion giving money to banks. We clearly have been given different information on why the economy has taken a downturn. I must admit I tried watching that Youtube video, but the editing was so choppy, I have no idea what was going on. Are those comments from the same hearing? I can't tell, maybe you can clear that up for me, because it looked to me like it was just taking soundbytes to assemble an argument. I have been reading several economic magazines and podcasts which have informed me that the issue has to do with banks not being regulated, not the government pushing them to give out loans. I have my doubts that any politician would argue that a blank check should be given out to anyone who walked in the door with a credit statement, which is what was happening in the credit crisis at it's worst. Foreign investors saw home loans as a solid investment, and there was more money that wanted to invest than places to put it. Therefore, the banks kept giving out more and more loans to people who didn't deserve them, because they saw it as a good investment. No one was twisting their arms, people who were investing saw these people as a sound investment, not a welfare program. Please check out This American Life Episode 355 and 365 for more information about why this happened, and how it could have been stopped in retrospect.
This idea that everyone has an equal opportunity in this world and the reason that some people succeed and some people is simply due to hard work is absurd. Go into inner city Detroit for a few classes, and then come back and tell me everyone has "equal education". Not everyone is equal, and not everyone is given an equal shot. There are people smarter, better looking, stronger, and more wealthy than me, just as there are people who have less than me. When you are born, you start out with a lucky dip. I find it fascinating that we actually agree that everyone should be able to have an opportunity to go to college. You do realize that this is one of the foundations for Socialism, along with affordable health care, and access to other services. My mother has lost her job several times due to the economy (although I'm sure you would blame it on the fact that she doesn't work as hard as you and me), and she has been lucky enough to have a husband who is able to support her. Personally, if she didn't have that safety net, I would be more than happy to pay extra taxes to help her out, as well as everyone else who will find themselves in that position. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and I would rather have everyone have a good life. This will never happen, but just because an ideal world cannot be achieved doesn't mean you should stop trying.
This has gotten WAY too long, but I really enjoyed reading some opposing views, especially from my cousin who I now think I understand a bit more now, even if I don't agree with him. I certainly hope at least one of you feels the same way about my absurd rant. I know this won't change anyones mind on the issues, but regardless, I think we can all agree that no matter how you feel, you should get out and vote!
Christmas is going to be a blast - for both sides of the family, but I don't think we'll all be getting together as one this year. Politics + Beer + Jagermeister = Navyvet and Navyvetscuz ganging up on Kyle b
Post a Comment