Can Obama and Bidden really change the economy and keep taxes low if they win the upcoming Presidential Race 2008?
65The answer is no, and for more than one reason.
The first reason deals with economic theory. Economic cycles - or recessions and non-recession periods - happen. Part of this economic downturn is due to the down turn in the housing market. Especially on the coasts, housing prices were inflated. Two income families were causing the prices of homes to rise, because two income families can afford to pay more for a home than a single income family. Housing prices have since dropped. This is due, in part, to the number of defaults on loans. Because of the high cost of housing, people who wanted to buy homes but were unable to afford one, had to take out risky loans that financed the whole house (instead of the traditional down-payment method). When these people defaulted on their loans because they couldn't pay them anymore, they flooded the market with housing for sale. Which in turn dropped the price. New houses tend to cost more, so as housing prices have dropped, builders have stopped building. All of this is causing a recession-like cycle in America. It is nothing to worry about, economies always go through cycles.
What can Obama do about it? Pretty much nothing. He claims he is going to do more with more government spending. And here is the problem with that: there is not more money. If anything federal income reciepts will drop as income levels drop.
So Obama wants to fund more programs with more money, and raise taxes on anyone who makes over $150,000. He calls those people "rich." I can tell you, I live in California and $150,000 is not rich. It is middle class here.
He will have to raise taxes. He has a whole new slew of programs for redistributing the wealth he will bring in through taxes, and he states that those programs are going to bring the economy back up.
Which may or may not happen - but Obama doesn't have any real control over it. Americans just think he does.
Updates
Here is my update to this hub as of 10/08/2008
Obama wants to raise taxes on those individuals who make over $200,000 and families who make more than $250,000. He says that those people can affod it.
Here's my thing - so what? We are a capitalism country (or we were until this bailout) and so we need to create an atmosphere where people strive to get more. That drive has made America great. But if you make a redistribution program - which is what Obama wants to do - you take away some of that incentive. The people Obama wants to tax already bear the brunt of the taxes in this country. Why should they bear more to give poor people more money?
I might agree to this concept if you were telling me that they were going to pay down the national debt. The national debt is huge, and all giving the US more tax revenue will do is increase that debt. We need to pay down the debt.
As anyone with a family knows, you have to pay down debt before you can spend more. However, people in government seem to be ignorant of this principle.
So Obama wants to raise taxes. He simply has to in order to cover everything he does, or wants to do. You cannot avoid it. SO lets give more to a government that cannot spend money appropriately. When they do spend money, they don'tget their money's owrth. They got NON-VOTING shares in return for their investments in banks! WHat is that all about?! You are bailing these banks out, doing them a favor, get something in return - like preferred shares that have to be bought out if they go under instead of shares they can write-off in bankruptcy.
I don't trust the government to spend my money wisely. I will spend it to a greater effect than they can do.
So don't raise my taxes!!!!
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Obama wants people to think that he is going to reduce the deficit and lower taxes, but with all the programs he is advocating we all know that won't happen. For investors like myself the huge capital gains increase he is advocating will hurt a lot.
"I see your point!" "Yes!" Depending on the region in which you live in within the U.S.; based on the standard of living $150,000.00 figure income might be common salary for many individuals!"
" I truly know Joe Bidden leadership and former seasoned experience in the areas of economics and balancing the "Congressional Budget" if they become Presidential Officials makes up for Barack Obama if any areas which he lacks leadership especially tax law making amendments !" "I stand divided on the subject of tax increases on income of $150,000,000 or better because political pitfalls or vote getting behavior will change when we get right down to the end of the 2008 election!"
"Point Making Hub!" "Nice!"
CEO E.S.A.H.S. Association
I would also like to point out that the Democrats, and Obama's campaign in specific, make a great deal of noise over the fact that the Vice-President takes a large role in international politics. However, by selecting Biden, Obama is essentially saying that he will do the same thing. Otherwise, there was no reason to pick Biden, who has impeccable international relations credentials.
Whether you live in California or Louisiana, $150,000 income is definitely "rich." Obama and Biden can -- and will -- keep taxes low and turn the economy around. Dick Cheney does more than stick his nose in foreign policy, he works behind the scenes to promote unnecessary wars, high oil prices, tax cuts for the wealthy and every other George W. Bush economic policy, which is what has caused our economic troubles. Bush spent enough to put this nation in debt for decades. Obama will put us back on the right track.
You are assuming that the President can really do anything about the economy he is handed. Economic cycles are more than 8 years, and the most a President can do in these times is give tax breaks or raise taxes. Obama cannot keep taxes low and turn the economy around. The people who turn the economy around are companies who hire people and make products, they are the Americans who buy the products and spend their money on them, they are the "rich" people that you seem not to like who hire people and invest money in start-ups and give loans to non-profits who help those who are having a hard time. You presuppose that the economy is effected by the President. Most political science studies show that a given President has very little effect on the economy - although he is blamed for it.
On a side note - whether this was is unnecessary or not depends on your view of the world. And technically its a skirmish since only Congress can declare war and they have not done so. There are many who would state that this was a necessary war- not for oil as many assume - but because there was going to be a reaction by the Saudis, which would make Israel react and unleash a whole chain of events that no one wanted.
On oil prices - the profit per unit to a company averages around $0.04. The reason their profits seem so obscene is that they are dealing in such large units. The oil industry has more taxes, significantly more, than any other industry. So while you may not like high oil prices - and i doubt many Americans do - its not fair to say that one person is "promoting" higher oil prices.
I think you should take a closer look at economic theory and what each side will do.
What both sides need to do - and neither one will - is pull us out of debt. That chicken is going to come home to roost and crash our economy.
Your economic theory is that which is put forth by the wealthy. If you think the economy is not affected by a president who starts wars against sovereign nations for no reason, conducts foreign policy like a drunken sailor and spends money the country doesn't have like it was going out of style, then it's no wonder you think nothing a president does affects the economy. Anyone who says President Bush has not done significant damage to the economy hasn't had his eyes open. Bush is spending trillions -- not billions -- on an occupation of a country that has never been a threat to the U.S. (The so-called "war" with Iraq was over in just a few weeks.) The last declared war was WW II. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but that hasn't stopped us from fighting many wars without Congressional action. Companies do more than hire people and make products; they layoff American workers so they can hire cheap foreign labor; they cut out competition from small businesses and monopolize their industries. Oil companies and their executives routinely promote unfair labor practices and make huge profits by nefarious methods. That $0.04 profit you speak of is a sample of the oil industry's legerdemain. Bush-Cheney-McCain and the rest of the Republicans put us in debt. Obama will at least put us back on the path to prosperity.
I agree the republicans have devastated our economy and wrecked our credibilty on the world stage if you can't see that than you are out of touch with reality.SENATOR PHIL GRAHAM is one of the main reasons the economy is trashed.look into it you will be shocked at the things the republicans are up to.OBAMA/BIDEN and the DEMOCRATIC party can and will turn this country around.
I just want to say that I like political debate. It means that yo uare engaged and trying to be an informed voter and member of society. regardless of your political views - and we can all see that not everyone's agree with mine - an engaged and informed populace is the only way a democracy can really work.
You can blame the decline of the US on whomever you wish. However, if everyone is so bad, then why are they reelected. You have to come down to that issue. And the answer is - there isn't an informed populace. I think that people are reelected because they are known. And then known is always better than the unknown. this type of complacency leads to an uninformed populace.
Ignorance and lack of knowledge will be the downfall.
Ignorance, lack of knowledge and failure to take action against injustice and incompetence certainly result in the re-election of bad public officials, nwunderlich, but, also, the cards are stacked against the average American voter. The rich and powerful have far greater influence on the affairs of state than John Doe, and the poor are not represented at all. Did you ever hear of a poor Congressman? A poor Senator? A poor President? Wealthy legislators pass legislation invariably favorable to wealthy individuals and powerful corporations. The laws they put in place give incumbents a huge advantage over any challenger.
the republicans secretly close voting precincts in poor areas they manipulate the vote.they stole the presidency from AL gore.they use the war on terror to instill fear into voters this is all a game of power to them,McCain/palin ticket is a joke.the republicans have no plans on trying to make this country better,they are simply taking ideas from Obama and using them they have no plans they are unfit to govern,palin is a extremist,she is vindictive,she used her power as governor to go after her sisters ex,she is under investigation right now for abuse of power.she is a liar flip flopper,she has received millions of dollars of earmarks,she was for the bridge to nowhere won the election than turned against the idea,went back on her word.the republicans will say one thing to get elected and do the total opposite when they are in power.PALIN gave a speech at her church in which she said "THE IRAQ WAR IS A TASK FROM GOD"that clearly shows that PALIN does not have a rational mind,task from god?HITLER KILLED MILLIONS OF JEWS because he thought god was talking to him.BIN LADEN is fighting a holy war in the name of Allah.completely off the deep end thinking,and you combine her with JOHN MCCAIN who's been all over you-tube singing "BOMB BOMB BOMB,IRAN" and telling the world that this a one hundred year war,and you have a recipe for disaster,the republicans went to Iraq based on facts that they knew was lies they just wanted to kill SADDAM HUSSEIN,young men and women are dieing for a lie.they say they are mavericks but McCain voted for bush 95% of the time McCain message country first is now change that's the democrats message,but the republicans want use the message change now.OBAMA revealed his plan for a 16 month draw-down in Iraq,and the republicans attacked OBAMA for it,now the republicans are trying to start a 16 month draw-down,they have no plans,banks all across contry are on the verge of collapse.IF MCCAIN WINS IT'S GOING TO BE MORE OF THE SAME.WAR,RECESSION,DEPRESSION,AND MORE WAR.is that what you want?
I would like the comments to stay on a less hateful basis. I know people have strong feelings, but charging people with lies and deception when no one but a few can really know the truth is not fair. As is charging people with vote stealing and fixing elections. All of those charges have been heard and looked at. So let us try and keep this more discussion and less rant.
Thanks.
nwunderlich, if you only want comments you agree with I will gladly refrain from offering my views.
I didn't say comments I agree with. I said comments of a discussion nature rather than a ranting nature. There is a distinct difference between the two, and while nothing can be said to the points of a rant, a discussion can be helpful for everyone.
o.k,I'll find somewhere else to rant.
nwwunderlich, you clearly said that you do not want anyone to charge "people" with lies and deceptions, or with vote stealing or fixing elections. But this is what the incumbent Administration did. By saying no one is allowed to say that, you are siding with the Administration and cutting off comments of people like myself who know this to be true. Your hub makes numerous statements that are not true, but you insist it's unfair for others to have their say. You can't have it both ways -- unless you don't want to hear the comments of those with whom you disagree.
No. You are charging people with fixing elections. Voting precincts are set up by the States. The Bush/Gore election was decided by the US Supreme Court. Say what you want about 9 people determining the outcome of the electino - and I have plenty to say (namely that they shouldn't have) - but to charge that to the Republicans is way overstating their importance and ability. My hub doesn't make "untrue" statements. They make political statements. Which some people like, and others don't. to that end, we agree to disagree. And I encourage discussion, but not blind partisan ranting. There is nothing I can do when people disagree with me, but I want this hub to be informative for people who haven't made up their minds. Both sides of the picture can be presented. But to charge voter fraud to someone who had nothing to do with it, to charge the economy to the President - check you studies on any academic database and you will see that political science professors (notorious liberal) - have found almost no connection between what Executives (like the President, Gov) do and the economy. Its decided by other things.
What instilled fear in me is not what you said at all. What instilled fear in me is watching Americans die on our on soil on 9/11 because of pilots of muslim beliefs that were trained here under the Clinton administration. THAT put fear in me. And I don't want that again. And blaming the Republicans is a blanket statement that I would say is incorrect. Not all Repubs agree wtih what the present Administration has done. You cannot realistically blame a whole party for what only some have done. I do not agree with what Bush has done, but I don't blame the whole party. That's not fair. I so miss the days of Ronald Reagan. That's a President I could stand behind. He would not have made the decisions that Bush has made. And they are from the same party. Had Reagan been in office, this whole thing would have been handled differently. Sadly, he's gone and so are the days of feeling safe. I am not a McCain fan, but I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama. Palin has been his saving grace to me. I was leaning toward Bob Barr until he picked her. I don't like a woman in that high a office, but I love what she satnds for. So, Palin has my vote. I cannot vote for someone who has said he will stand for the muslims should the 'winds go in an ugly direction.' I have to vote for someone who loves America and will stand for it. I believe McCain will stand. He already has proven that he will even to his death. And I respect him for that. We all, as Americans owe him and all vets a debt of gratitude. Even saying that, that in itself is not enough for me to vote for him, Palin with her strong beliefs and backbone is enough to sway my vote. So no, talk doesn't scare me. Seeing innocent Americans die on our own soil does. We need someone with backbone who will not let that happen again. I think Americans look to their pocketbook to see who to vote for too much and not enough to someone values. America seems to be almost morally bankrupt but don't seem to care as long as a little cash is in their pocket. How sad.
nwwunderlich, you can say the Bush-Gore election was decided by the court, but, in truth, it was decided by right-wingers on the court whose actions were entirely political (Republican) and national, not state. These were judges who did not want a Democrat in the White House. Also, voting machines were rigged and various other nefarious practices took place that are directed by Karl Rove and others of his ilk. That's national, too, not state. Other peoples opinions are "overstated," bling political rantings" and "not fair," but your statements are merely "political statements." When scholars talk about a president's power to affect the economy they are talking about the legal powers he has under the Constitution, but that doesn't encompass the unconstitutional land downright illegal practices of the president and the right-wingers who have the support of the Republican Party. allshookup, the 9-11 attack took place on President Bush's watch, despite the fact that the Clinton Administration gave the Republicans a heads-up that they unceremoniously ignored. Insofar as nwunderlich wants this hub to be one-sided, my last word is this: Palin's acceptance speech was a pack of half-truths and lies.
My point was that is was under Clinton's watch that they were trained to fly. Not Bush's. He just inheirted those muslims that did it from Clinton's reign. I beleive I also said that I don't agree with how Bush handled the crisis. Ronald Reagan would have taken care of the problem and we wouldn't be discussing this now. It would be over. She is right in that Obama says he will change money this way or that, but the fact, like she said is, he is not in a position to do that. You talk about half-truths, and then say you believe the election was rigged. Look in the mirror before you start accusing people of believing half-truths. Or telling them for that matter. She has stated facts in her hub. It looks very well researched and written to me. She has stated things that are in writing and factual. I respect her for that and support her in doing so. It appears it's the facts that you don't like so you attack her for the fact that you don't like seeing the facts in black and white. That's not fair to her after her doing her homework to make this a hub of facts, not of opinion. So many hubs on here about politics right now are all opinoin and people are eating that up. Because those are the liberal ones. The ones with no facts, just alot of ranting and raving about this and that. She has worked to make this a quality hub. Give her her props!
I don't suspect you'd change your views on this, so I can only assume you're making more than $250,000 per year and will thus disproportionately benefit from a McCain tax plan more than an Obama one. (or you're supporting McCain for, *ahem!*, other reasons, wink wink!)
In that case, you might want to reconcile with the fact that we have a half-trillion dollar deficit, and McCain's tax plan doesn't reverse any tax cuts on *anyone* so government revenues will be even *lower* than they are now. I'm not sure what sort of magical thinking someone has to use to imagine how this sort of rampant deficit spending (yes, at the hands of the socialist John McCain) will not worsen our economic problems. I suppose he can just authorize more money to be printed. A man with an admittedly poor command of economics shouldn't see any problem with that.
Those of us in the real world know that for fiscal stimulus, and if you have any prayer of maintaining the budget balance, you have to either reward the middle class (who will stimulate the economy through consumption, generally) or reward the rich (who would presumably invest more...but this was disproven in the 80s). It does strike me as odd that people earning considerably less than $250,000 who would personally benefit from the Obama tax plan, are arguing against it in favor of an economic theory that's been debunked.
OK I am starting to jump in here just because I need a little outlet. The first and most important thing I see at this point is that everyone is under the impression that this is $250k for business owners.
First this has been ameneded (again) to $100k GROSS. Let me take a moment and explain this. If you bring in $110k a year, with one employee whom you pay $25k a year, pay out $20k in materials (I am being very low in my figures here), spend $5k a year on office expenses (lets say you are out of your house or garage), this leaves you with $60k. Now we all know that you can't operate on the numbers I just gave, but you will fall into the 60% tax bracket on your GROSS not your NET. In other words you would end up making nothing, and your "income" would be redistributed for you.
Second if you are an independent contractor you ARE a business owner. This is not just targeting big business. So if you are a contractor making more than $100k a year expect to get hit and hit hard.
Third I agree that financial cycles go in 8 year incriments. Does this mean that I think Bush has not done damage? Absoluetly not, I am not an idiot here people. What I am saying is that we have not seen the ramifications of that on a personal level YET. What we ARE seeing is the ramifications of the Free Trade Agreement made by Clinton which shut down my home town and my husband's (literally). By removing tarrifs there is no way the textile mill in town could remain competitive. And don't forget that Clinton literally went around to the Senate and House and wrote checks to get that bill passed. Isn't it nice that our elected officials got a nice payday out of that?
Finally, if you are happy in your station, are an employee who doesn't think their job in jepordy (or could be in the next 4-8 years), not an independent contractor, and don't want to achieve the American Dream of being financially stable, then by all means vote Democratic. Otherwise, while you may not like the canidate, their platform means that you have the right to Persue your own fortune and they won't take over half of it.
Where? Please provide a link, blogging2.
where what? Sorry not being a smart aleck here, just not sure what the question is. I had a meeting with some friend's, our accountants and attornies where we read it together, you know the old fashioned printed up versions that lawyers and tax professionals get. We then had a very interesting discussion on the ramifications for each of us in turn and how it would affect us, frankly I don't make close to $100k a year, but most of my friends do, so I was brought in to the discussion as the "other" party.
I don't rely on the internet to give me accurate information when there is so much money promoting a person who won't answer any real questions nor has he ever made a serious decision in his life, but he does have over $150 million comming in a month, sorry I think anything I read is skewed. I made a reqest months ago asking what he had done and why he was qualified (excluding the fact he is not Bush) and didn't get a single response on over 10 forums. Opposite side of that coin is that McCain doesn't have the money or he would prob do the same thing.
Still Obama has hidden behind his race (and I am not a racists, but if you read Obama's wife, Michelle's college thesis and look at what Obama has voted for they are very radical and racists towards my own race) but whenever a "tough" question is brought up or questioning what he has said it becomes a "racial" issue. The bottom line is pretty simple to see and read, he projects to inject the country with a lot of money, while cutting taxes. Come on! How high do you have to get in math to see that isn't possible.
So if the question is a link for the tax plan, the only answer I can say is 2 attorneys, and 4 CPA's, who I trust to have more accurate information for me since they are the ones who fill out my tax forms every year along with many other's. The overall consisncense is exactly what I wrote above. Do you really think they are going to post it in an easy place to find? For that matter do you really think Obama (or McCain for that matter) will keep the "promises" they have made?
(Let me again state as it seems to help, I do NOT like Bush and think he is to date the worst thing that has happened to us. I think Obama would make him look like a cake walk, of course that is only for those of us who still believe in the American Dream, work hard and you will earn more and have a better life.)
blogging2: "First this has been ameneded (again) to $100k GROSS." I'd like to see a link supporting this, not (unverifiable) conversations with people you know. Otherwise, I'll assume this is the sort of F.U.D. that we've come to expect from McCain supporters (and I don't care if you say you're not a McCain supporter).
Its very interesting and nice hub. Yes he will change the economy.
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/ here is a calculator (Obama Sponsored, still shows that McCain is a better option if you make $100k as a family with one child. Again this is higher than what I make, but McCain's still come out better for me as long as I make more than $50k a year which my family has to make to live.) Plug in your own numbers see how you come out.
Just for giggles put in $100k, McCains is better for you there too.
Simple math says that Obama's numbers just don't add up. And check with your CPA, the figures HAVE been changed, and it was done so late for a purpose. I am sure it will show up online AFTER Tues. But then I am the one who goes to people I trust not the internet, you should do the same.
Simply put my husband works for 7 companies to make sure our ends meet. I don't want anyone (McCain or Obama or Santa for that matter) to tell me that more of our money should go to those "in need" when we are struggling ourselves.
All that being said though I really don't think either canidate will or can do everything they are promising, no president has yet, this is all just to get votes we all know that right?
Why is that - any time I see Obama-Biden, I read Osama Binladen? :D
Thanks for all your wonderful comments. I tend to agree that there isn't much the President can do. What is more - social scientists agree. There simply isn't much a cheif executive can do. This is in part because the solutions with taxes, income and spending reside with the Legislature (Congress).
I don't think either guy as President can do much. But I think Obama can hurt us more. If you want to spend more, you need more revenue. And that has to come from people like me and you -who are working hard.
blogging2: that's a change of basis. Under very specific circumstances (it seems one-earner, one-child), at $100k, you will get more from a McCain tax cut than an Obama tax cut. But that is not saying Obama will raise taxes on you. It just means your tax cut from the Obama plan is less than your tax cut from the McCain plan. It's odd that this is now being twisted to mean Obama's going to raise your taxes for $100k per year citizens/businesses.
nwunderlich: Yes, taxes are the source of government revenue. So a completely tax-free regime, as much as that sounds nice, would not have money for roads, defence, Medicare, Social Security, etc. Here's a terrific analysis and perspective on the purported socialism of Dems, Repubs, Obama and McCain:
The question was about taxes at $100k a year. Everyone has said that Obama's plan is better if you make LESS than $200k as an individual and $250k as a couple. That is just not true looking at the calculator.
Still all and all, you clearly want to believe in Obama and that is fully your right, I just hope for myself and my friends after discussing with people that do my taxes (that is an oxymoron in itself we should not need attorneys and others to tell us how this will affect us!), but I digress. Either way, neither man can do what they are claiming it just is not possible. So it comes down to who do you fear the least.
blogging, seems you have been attacked. Sorry about that. You have said nothing but the truth.But on hubpages, that seems to be the unpopular thing to do. I hate to think we have to vote for the lesser of the 2 evils, which to me is very easy to decide. If anyone has seen me post, they know where I stand. And that is far away from any stance Obama has. I will be voting for Palin and hubby will be voting for Barr. We may not win, but at least we can tell our son we tried and had no part in what will happen under and Obama administration. I refuse to drink the coolaid.
When the choice is between two evils, the real koolaid refusal is not to vote at all :)
blogging2: No, Obama said clearly, many, many times, that taxes won't go up from where they are currently for people making $250k and less. I agree that both tax plans will incur much more debt; the question is whose is more expensive (McCain's, by a long shot), and who you trust to not launch another incredibly expensive war, and to understand enough about the economy to not do something incredibly stupid. To me, that choice is abundantly clear.
allshookup: Do you think Bush voters have assumed their responsibility in voting in such an irresponsible and incredibly incompetente administration?
Milla: When you refuse to vote for the better (not perfect) candidate, you leave the choice of your government to those who've drunk far more Kool-Aid than you have.
all- Thanks for the encouraging words. I guess when you don't have the millions Obama has your word isn't worth as much... Funny part to me is why would I lie about something that will be proven if he is elected? I have not addressed any of the "out there" stances, just what is in literature.
live- yes he said that and then it was changed. As I said in the last week, but again I think they are both lying to be honest there is no way either numbers work is the simple point of it. Isn't it a sad state of affairs that these two are the best the US has to offer the world and itself?
Obama is on tape saying he would "necessarily" spike the cost of electricty under his plan by "huge" increases in taxes on coal plants.
Those costs will get shifted to you and me, so that is a tax on over 50% of the people because over 50% of us get our electricity from coal-fired plants. I live in FL where there are no coal mines. But there is a coal fired plant 10 minutes away as the crow flies.
Companies that use electricity...that's all of them...will have to raise their prices to make up their increased costs.
So EVERYONE is going to get a big bite out of his or her paycheck. So when Obama tells you you're getting a tax cut, you'd better hold onto your wallet.
You're going to be paying several hundred dollars more for your A/C and for every product you buy.
The best to you.
Kelley Eidem
Together we can cure cancer - one person at a time!
Simply pulling out of policing the world saves billions a year. Couple that with mandating that car manufacturers make cars with nothing less than 35 mpg engines (supply and demand on the gas end, since it's nigh impossible to regulate oil prices) and taxing big business more than before, and boom. You have a more efficient economy than before. This means we need to regulate greedy CEOs, you know, the ones who took an enormous vacation at our tax dollar expense? The same ones who suckered Americans -- albiet morons, at that -- into mortgages too big for their wallet!
We can't trust the people McCain makes his money from. It's the same cycle Bush has had in office, and the rich will only get richer. I'm all for people earning money, but the truth is I'm tired of funding these arse holes' vacations and luxury sedans while they pop up prices to keep the same profit, all the while the lower workers never earn a cent more.
It's materialism at its finest, and America is showcasing it to the world. This election, I'll not allow it.
I would like to point out to Milla Mahno, that there are more than 2 parties running for President. I think about 13. You can't find someone there to vote for?
If you think pulling out of policing the world is going to solve problems - you must be an isolationist. It was the lack of intervention early on that allowed WWII to happen at such an atrocious scale. Genocide happens, and we go in to try and stop it. I don't understand what is wrong with needing to help those who cannot protect themselves? It is very hard to stop a tank from rolling over you and your house unless you have another, bigger, better tank. That's what the US provides overseas with its military. We also do things like build schools, infrastructure, hospitals and provide training to other nations. Pulling out won't save us billions a year, it will cost more in human lives than I think Americans are prepared to let happen. If we pull out, the next outcry will be that we aren't doing anything. Isolationist policies don't work in the world today.
As for taxing big business - they are the one that provide a lot of the "things" this economy runs on - including jobs and goods. So you want to tax them more? They are just going to reduce their workforces and cause more economic troubles. This is a bad situation to get into.
Obama is simply going to tax us more. And both are going to have huge deficit spending (which I am adamently against).
And there are other people on the Presidential ballot - but they don't seem to try and campaign much. And it's because this country is so stuck in with the Dems and Reps, that it is hard to get another party in there. It would be good if we could. But it isn't a reality this election.
Just a side note there is a hub on here about the money that each get from different groups. McCain we do know where his money comes from and who can be boycotted if ness. Obama is receiving money from sources that are undocumented. If he is not elected this will be researched and can not lead to good things. If he is elected he will continue unquestioned.
I really do wish that the others were out there more, but it seems that the one with the most money is the one who we hear about. This is NOT what it was supposed to be.
blogging2: All sources of funding are public record. The fact that Obama's sources are fragmented has to to do with the fact that he raised an unprecedented amount from private citizens. I have to say you're doing a great job of putting out a lot of anti-Obama propaganda, and without that pesky substantiated evidence that usually makes propaganda disappear. Good to see we have some North Korean-style representation on HubPages!
live- I love the fact that we can have these discussions. Either way, we are blessed to still have those options. I pray that whoever wins allows us to keep those freedoms and that we as people demand that they continue to allow it. The right to free speach, the right to bear arms, the right to the persuit of happiness. I have said many times that I don't believe either canidate or what they say, facts have shown that many if not most of the promises just can not be completed. I admire your ability to still believe what a person says. I really do, maybe I am just jaded. Or maybe it is I have read the books written by those in question, and look at the fine print in the PRINTED information, sorry I am not going to do your research for you. We will all suffer for a long time no matter who wins from what has happened in the past. Neither group can "fix" anything without bringing work back into the states. Taxing the corporations who provide those jobs is just not the solution to me (I don't know the solution), and I fall in a group that won't benefit either way because I flat out refuse to fall behind on my payments, I will stock shelves, do resets, take jobs that no one wants and therefore I will never receive the benefits of "welfare" in the US. I am not sorry that I don't feel it is my nor my friends obligation to cover other people. I can barely afford to pay my bills as it is.
I know that personally 5 of my friends will have to let people go if Obama wins. That money will go to taxes and they can't afford to pay a person on staff. So while yes, that money will go to a "needy" person, I would prefer they be able to pay someone who will help their company grow and that is willing to work for it.
Clearly you disagree with this, and that is your right, but do not claim that I am a liar or spreading propaganda because I will not do your research for you. The canidate you endorse is the one who wants to take away our right to bear arms, raise taxes on those providing jobs, in the same party as Clinton who took the jobs out of the country with the Free Trade Agreement, wants retribution for past wrongs, and redistribution of wealth. He held out on voting on the bail out until the last moment and can't take on his own pastor, personally that is NOT the type of person I want as my Comander and Chief.
Do not look for others to do your research for you, make your own informed decision, and please don't expect it all to be out in the open online. Mine is actually independent, though I know they have no chance of winning.
You making an accusation, me asking for proof, and you responding, "I'm not going to do your research for you" is a bit silly. It's best to ignore unfounded accusations unless they bring credible proof with them.
Fortunately, I have made my own decisions, they are grounded in fact and reason (and not magical thinking) and I've never been more confident in them.
Allshookup, one thing we forget is that many of the people in the Twin Towers were not Americans. Many were citizens of other nations who worked here for the various companies with offices in those towers. Still, we mourn all those innocents who lost their lives that day, from the people who worked in the restaurants, offices and companies, to the firemen, police officers and other rescue workers.
nwunderlich, I do not know if either Obama or McCain would be able to do much of what they want to do. Some of their ideas are similar; others are very different. I support Obama because I believe he will do the best by most of us.
If I were making $250,000.00 per year I would not mind a bump in my tax rate. After all, most people at that or a higher level can call on so many deductions that most of us in lesser tax brackets can never fully use.
That's one reason I have to laugh when McCain keeps saying that our businesses pay 35% taxes. In theory, they do, but in actuality there are so many deductions they might end up paying little or nothing at all. Some of the largest companies pay absolutely no taxes at all.
Great hub!
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
Ill choose the lesser evil...On my behalf it will be Obama...
And I already voted for mcCain - weeks ago. I certainly wish that the news channels would embargo results until the polls closed across the nation. That way people have to make their own choices and not base their choie on what others are, or are not, doing.
I enjoyed the hub and agreed with much of what you wrote. My belief is that it does not matter which man gets elected, neither can fix the United States' problems .... I believe that it will take at least 2 generations and and complete overhaul/abolishment of the two party system .... What scares me is our freedoms are slowly being taken away, the constitution is starting to be ignored and many great leaders have said, "If a nation that experiences freedom loses it -- it is lost forever -- it will not be recovered." thanks for the thought provoking hub
And now we see how it actually unfolds :) I pray that the right person is there, time will tell as it always does.
allshookup says:
15 months ago
Good hub. Well said. And very true. Good work.