like with many things in life, this issue-by-issue breakdown of the campaign hasn't gone as i had planned. here it is just 3 days from election day and i've only posted a few reviews of issues. at this point, i should hope you all know who you're voting for, but i'll leave one last issue post because i'd like to discuss (rather one-sided, i might add) something i've become a litte fired up about lately.
i will direct you to the candidates' official websites here and here to review their tax plans if you haven't already. briefly, mccain suggests across-the-board cuts, while obama suggests cuts for most except the weathly. obama also supports increasing taxes on such things as capital-gains, large corporations, oil company windfalls, and estates over $7M. it is hard to find some of the specifics to the obama tax plan with regards to tax increases on his website- some are insinuated, others not mentioned directly at all.
was on an e-mail thread earlier in the week with wiley and a few others regarding the candidates and their economic policies. the debate mostly centered around obama's plans and whether his plans for tax increases on the wealthy and on businesses would do anything to help the beleaguered economy. many argued that his tax plan will hurt businesses to the point of forcing jobs overseas, forcing job cuts and forcing price increases. they argued that there was no proof that tax hikes would help the economy; rather, that history and economic research showed tax cuts across the board were better for stimulating investment and business. the claims of "redistrubution of wealth" were made, and it was suggested that the obama plan just moves money around, rather than helping everyone get more money on their own.
it is hard to dispute some of those claims. i would tend to agree that the mccain plan is more favorable for business, which suggests that it should thus be better for the economy as a whole. (there are however some prominent economists who argue that under democratic presidents and their tax policies (higher taxes for the wealthy and business), the GNP historically increases more than it does under republicans.) but while mccain's plan will put more money in everyone's pocket, it will do so in a way that will significantly widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
here's a graph the washington post drew up showing how different income brackets would be affected by each candidate's tax plans. now here's another interpretation of those same data, illustrated so that each group is displayed proportionate to its size. notice in those graphs how the mccain tax cuts get larger for each increase in income, thus bringing more money to those already more fortunate. notice also how almost 2/3 of americans, the 2/3 that need it most, fare significantly better under the obama plan, and 99% will be the same or better off. the increase in take-home revenue for those people should increase demand for goods and services. this demand should force businesses to keep prices stable, force supplies and thus production up, and create jobs, thereby offsetting the potential negative effects of corporate tax increases.
with regards to government revenue from taxes, when 1% of americans are essentially paying for programs and policies that the other 99% are more likely to use, it is hard to deny that there is a redistribution of wealth. this is where the debate leaves economics somewhat and turns to social justice. i would argue that "redistribution of wealth" is not a pejorative term, but a necessary process in a healthy society. to help the least of our society should allow them to be better suited to help society as a whole, thus contributing more and ultimately reversing their position from that of a financial drain to one of financial support. it's also the moral and ethical thing to do.
this process of rehabilitating the lower class takes efficient, well-designed social plans that require significant sums of money, money which must ultimately come from those who are more fortunate. it would also take way more time (and space) to discuss, so for now, i will leave you with my final assessment on the issue of taxes: for the reasoning i outlined above, i've gotta side with the obama plan.
tomorrow, my final assessment.
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
election 2008: debate #3
a two-for-one post day, so i can hold up my pledge to respond to each debate.
enjoyed last night's debate a little more than the previous one. for starters, i thought the format was great, and i thought bob schieffer did a great job. i thought he missed a few opportunities to chase them down a little more, but overall i thought he was unbiased and fair with his questioning.
from the candidates, the rhetoric was all the same, most of it right down to the sound bites that are all too familiar now- "the same kind of insurance senator mccain and i enjoy", "clean coal, solar, biodiesel, wind...", etc. even the newest proposals, those regarding the recovery plans for the falling economy didn't seem to offer much of anything new. like with the last debate, i think i was too familiar with each candidate's policies and plans to get anything out of their context.
i did, however, gain a lot by watching these men in their attitudes towards each other. the longer this campaign goes on, the more mccain comes across as a grumpy old man. his tone of voice, his snide comments, and his annoying smirks give the impression that he's completely fed up with obama. on the times when obama gave his negative opinions of mccain's plans, he gave straightforward opinions of why he felt those choices would not work. when mccain brought up perceived flaws in the obama plan, he did so with a sense of incredulity and arrogance that those suggestions would even be made. this kind of attitude does not exactly match up with the open-minded, reach-across-the-aisle persona that he is trying to portray. worse, it insinuates an inability to negotiate with adversaries, a quality that a presidant can ill afford.
time is winding down, and as you can see from my lack of recent posts, i've not found my own time to comment more on this election. i'd like to put up another comparitive post or two on policies, but as much as i wanted my vote decided only on issues, i'm having a difficult time separating the subjective from the objective. this ship is listing to port, and it will take a strong wind in the next 3 weeks to change the course to starboard.
enjoyed last night's debate a little more than the previous one. for starters, i thought the format was great, and i thought bob schieffer did a great job. i thought he missed a few opportunities to chase them down a little more, but overall i thought he was unbiased and fair with his questioning.
from the candidates, the rhetoric was all the same, most of it right down to the sound bites that are all too familiar now- "the same kind of insurance senator mccain and i enjoy", "clean coal, solar, biodiesel, wind...", etc. even the newest proposals, those regarding the recovery plans for the falling economy didn't seem to offer much of anything new. like with the last debate, i think i was too familiar with each candidate's policies and plans to get anything out of their context.
i did, however, gain a lot by watching these men in their attitudes towards each other. the longer this campaign goes on, the more mccain comes across as a grumpy old man. his tone of voice, his snide comments, and his annoying smirks give the impression that he's completely fed up with obama. on the times when obama gave his negative opinions of mccain's plans, he gave straightforward opinions of why he felt those choices would not work. when mccain brought up perceived flaws in the obama plan, he did so with a sense of incredulity and arrogance that those suggestions would even be made. this kind of attitude does not exactly match up with the open-minded, reach-across-the-aisle persona that he is trying to portray. worse, it insinuates an inability to negotiate with adversaries, a quality that a presidant can ill afford.
time is winding down, and as you can see from my lack of recent posts, i've not found my own time to comment more on this election. i'd like to put up another comparitive post or two on policies, but as much as i wanted my vote decided only on issues, i'm having a difficult time separating the subjective from the objective. this ship is listing to port, and it will take a strong wind in the next 3 weeks to change the course to starboard.
Friday, October 3, 2008
election 2008: vice-presidential debate
at some point during last night's debate, i realized that the experience was not unlike watching a NASCAR race: i was watching the competitors going round and round in circles, waiting for one of them to crash. made it a little less exciting since neither of them truly crashed, but i think something may have been gained in the exercise.
first off, some comments on the moderator, gwen ifill. a wonderful woman, i'm sure, but if i were in the mccain camp, i'd be furious. i didn't keep track, but if i had to guess, ifill offered the last word to joe biden on at least 80% of the questions she asked, regardless of who was asked the question first. maybe some of that blame can be shifted to palin, who seemed to not use all of her allotted time on more than one occasion, but i think the disproportionate opportunities for rebuttal by biden were glaring. i think ifill also could have pressed each candidate further during the free time after the 90-second answers were given.
regarding the debaters, it was interesting to watch the differences in style. from the outset, biden looked directly at ifill when answering questions and rarely at the camera, while palin looked directly at the camera almost immediately after she began speaking each time. biden used the camera more so as the debate went on, but only when he had aggressive points to make, which came off as harsh and negative. palin came across as speaking directly to the public, which was clearly intentional. because her style was smooth and pleasant, her points seemed more substantive than they truly were.
this debate frustrated me. i think biden had more substance, but it was hard to tell because he blew much of his credibility with his style. he kept tripping over words, needlessly repeated phrases, and ranted about "fundamental" differences so much that the term got watered down. he refused to acknowledge any potential differences between himself and obama. biden insisted he and obama have always been of the same opinions on iraq, although their voting records demonstrate otherwise. palin hit him hard on that, calling out his kerry-esque reversal given his aye vote on the war resolution. biden could have defended himself better but chose to lose face to defend the ticket. it painted a wishy-washy picture which i think weakened biden a good bit.
palin, to me, had nothing to say. she brought up the points she was coached to bring up, and made them well. it infuriated me when she said something like "i may not answer the questions directly as you or the moderator would like me to", and she kept her promise. she repeatedly brought up unrelated topics and harped on "energy independence" as if it were the answer to all the world's problems. often, her answers started well but turned to canned fluff (shout-outs to all her buddies in alaska), and on one occasion (don't remember the question) she just rambled for all her alloted time with a bunch of patriotic cheez-whiz and not a single salient point. she came off as as a promoter for the ticket, someone like giuliani or romney, rather than someone on the ticket herself.
and then, she said it. the one thing about this current president that drives me crazier than anything, and palin said it. during an answer to a question about the dangers of pakistan and iran, palin dropped the N-bomb: "nucular". i didn't want to believe it at first, but she said it again. "nucular". and again. "nucular". and again. "nucular". there is one and only one way to pronounce the word "nuclear"- just as it's written, with the "l" right after the "c". our current president doesn't seem to understand that, and unfortunately, it seems mrs. palin doesn't either. it is extremely hard for me have faith that someone can comprehend the intricacies and ramifications of nuclear proliferation if they cannot even pronounce the damn word.
here's my bottom-line interpretation: biden is a good guy with a strong background of service who is afraid to say where he differs with obama for fear of presenting a divided ticket. palin is a wonderful public speaker, and i'm sure the best gosh-darn cookie-makin', baby-totin', moose-killin' hockey mom up there in juneau, but someone who has no right being a proverbial heartbeat away from running the free world.
almost every pundit i watched last night before and after the debate made the point that while VP debates may be interesting, they don't affect the election at all; people vote on the presidential candidates, not the VP's. unless i am given reason to be swayed differently between now and nov. 4, i may be the exception to that rule.
first off, some comments on the moderator, gwen ifill. a wonderful woman, i'm sure, but if i were in the mccain camp, i'd be furious. i didn't keep track, but if i had to guess, ifill offered the last word to joe biden on at least 80% of the questions she asked, regardless of who was asked the question first. maybe some of that blame can be shifted to palin, who seemed to not use all of her allotted time on more than one occasion, but i think the disproportionate opportunities for rebuttal by biden were glaring. i think ifill also could have pressed each candidate further during the free time after the 90-second answers were given.
regarding the debaters, it was interesting to watch the differences in style. from the outset, biden looked directly at ifill when answering questions and rarely at the camera, while palin looked directly at the camera almost immediately after she began speaking each time. biden used the camera more so as the debate went on, but only when he had aggressive points to make, which came off as harsh and negative. palin came across as speaking directly to the public, which was clearly intentional. because her style was smooth and pleasant, her points seemed more substantive than they truly were.
this debate frustrated me. i think biden had more substance, but it was hard to tell because he blew much of his credibility with his style. he kept tripping over words, needlessly repeated phrases, and ranted about "fundamental" differences so much that the term got watered down. he refused to acknowledge any potential differences between himself and obama. biden insisted he and obama have always been of the same opinions on iraq, although their voting records demonstrate otherwise. palin hit him hard on that, calling out his kerry-esque reversal given his aye vote on the war resolution. biden could have defended himself better but chose to lose face to defend the ticket. it painted a wishy-washy picture which i think weakened biden a good bit.
palin, to me, had nothing to say. she brought up the points she was coached to bring up, and made them well. it infuriated me when she said something like "i may not answer the questions directly as you or the moderator would like me to", and she kept her promise. she repeatedly brought up unrelated topics and harped on "energy independence" as if it were the answer to all the world's problems. often, her answers started well but turned to canned fluff (shout-outs to all her buddies in alaska), and on one occasion (don't remember the question) she just rambled for all her alloted time with a bunch of patriotic cheez-whiz and not a single salient point. she came off as as a promoter for the ticket, someone like giuliani or romney, rather than someone on the ticket herself.
and then, she said it. the one thing about this current president that drives me crazier than anything, and palin said it. during an answer to a question about the dangers of pakistan and iran, palin dropped the N-bomb: "nucular". i didn't want to believe it at first, but she said it again. "nucular". and again. "nucular". and again. "nucular". there is one and only one way to pronounce the word "nuclear"- just as it's written, with the "l" right after the "c". our current president doesn't seem to understand that, and unfortunately, it seems mrs. palin doesn't either. it is extremely hard for me have faith that someone can comprehend the intricacies and ramifications of nuclear proliferation if they cannot even pronounce the damn word.
here's my bottom-line interpretation: biden is a good guy with a strong background of service who is afraid to say where he differs with obama for fear of presenting a divided ticket. palin is a wonderful public speaker, and i'm sure the best gosh-darn cookie-makin', baby-totin', moose-killin' hockey mom up there in juneau, but someone who has no right being a proverbial heartbeat away from running the free world.
almost every pundit i watched last night before and after the debate made the point that while VP debates may be interesting, they don't affect the election at all; people vote on the presidential candidates, not the VP's. unless i am given reason to be swayed differently between now and nov. 4, i may be the exception to that rule.
Monday, September 8, 2008
election 2008: immigration
obama calls the issue "immigration" on his website, mccain calls it "border security and immigration". that's about where the candidates differ the most, because as far as i can see it, their plans for reform aren't that dissimilar.
both candidates support reinforcing border security with manpower, financial aid, and technology. obama says nothing more than just that; mccain suggests he'll spend money on unmanned patrols of the border and subsidies to US attorneys in border states. both candidates support an employment eligibility system for businesses to verify the immigration status of employees. obama just says he'll "crack down" on employers who hire illegals, mccain supports their aggressive prosecution.
with regards to the immigration system, both support streamlining the process, with mccain giving some detail and breaking down immigrant workers into several groups- highly skilled, low-skilled non-agricultural, and low-skilled agricultural. his suggestion for the last group, however, is the quite vague promise of providing "a non-bureaucratic, adaptable, useable program that is reflective of market needs and protects both the immigrant and US workers". translation- "we'll conveniently ignore this group, since we know our food supply system would collapse if we cut off the supply of illegal workers in agriculture". at least mccain gives it a shot though- obama doesn't address the topic at all.
neither candidate supports a mass deportation of illegals. rather, they both would ask that all illegals be accounted for, be asked to learn english, pay a fine, and be offered a chance at citizenship after all others who are currently in the system. mccain gives a little more language about weeding out those with criminal records or who have used ill-gotten social security numbers.
obama gives additional points about working with mexico to promote their economic development as a way of decreasing illegal immigration and to expedite the citizenship process for immigrants who serve in the military.
in summary, i'm struggling to find much difference between the candidates on this point. i'll have to call it a push for now, and see how it plays out during the debates.
both candidates support reinforcing border security with manpower, financial aid, and technology. obama says nothing more than just that; mccain suggests he'll spend money on unmanned patrols of the border and subsidies to US attorneys in border states. both candidates support an employment eligibility system for businesses to verify the immigration status of employees. obama just says he'll "crack down" on employers who hire illegals, mccain supports their aggressive prosecution.
with regards to the immigration system, both support streamlining the process, with mccain giving some detail and breaking down immigrant workers into several groups- highly skilled, low-skilled non-agricultural, and low-skilled agricultural. his suggestion for the last group, however, is the quite vague promise of providing "a non-bureaucratic, adaptable, useable program that is reflective of market needs and protects both the immigrant and US workers". translation- "we'll conveniently ignore this group, since we know our food supply system would collapse if we cut off the supply of illegal workers in agriculture". at least mccain gives it a shot though- obama doesn't address the topic at all.
neither candidate supports a mass deportation of illegals. rather, they both would ask that all illegals be accounted for, be asked to learn english, pay a fine, and be offered a chance at citizenship after all others who are currently in the system. mccain gives a little more language about weeding out those with criminal records or who have used ill-gotten social security numbers.
obama gives additional points about working with mexico to promote their economic development as a way of decreasing illegal immigration and to expedite the citizenship process for immigrants who serve in the military.
in summary, i'm struggling to find much difference between the candidates on this point. i'll have to call it a push for now, and see how it plays out during the debates.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
election 2008: health care
i chose an issue near and dear to my heart to be the first in my election 2008 series. despite being in the trenches of the health care battlefield, i'm by no means an expert in health care policy. my attitudes towards socialized medicine sometimes change by the day, depending on the kind of day that i'm having. when i see a system struggling to keep afloat, and grow more skeptical by the day that anything can save it, it's hard for me to align with any philosophy on reform.
bookkeeping item: all information in this series about the candidates' plans and positions will come from their websites or links that they themselves provide. a few additional links may be placed just for fun or clarification. additionally, since i'm now finding these will be long posts, i'll going to do one candidate's position at a time, alternating who goes first. today, it's mccain.
mccain gives a somewhat brief outline on his health care policy, expanded upon in this speech from april. his plan to help uninsured americans involves a direct tax credit for those who either opt out of their employer's health plan or who are self-employed. he claims there will be no repercussions for those with pre-existing conditions, yet his policy abides by the HIPAA rule stating, as mccain puts it, that "if you remain employed and insured you will build protection against the cost of treating any pre-existing condition." many americans who will be using his plan will have a period where they will be either unemployed or uninsured, thus exposing them to cost liability.
he also proposes a "guaranteed access plan" for those who are the worst of the worst- people with illness who can't get coverage. it establishes a guideline system for states to provide the services with some federal support- basically, a "best of" medicaid system, taking advice and policies from states where things are working well.
to cut health care costs, he and obama both propose supporting disease management programs, with mccain pledging research dollars towards primary care, and they both pledge support of electronic medical record systems. sounds nice. mccain also plans to support "walk-in clinics in retail outlets". (ouch- that's hitting below the belt for a primary care guy like me.) lastly, he supports tort reform for medical malpractice, specifically pledging to eliminate suits against doctors who follow guidelines and "best practice" plans. how he'll do that, he doesn't say.
overall, nothing truly groundbreaking. mostly status quo, with the republican carrot of tax credits dangled as the bait for his plan. the plan moves almost all responsibility away from the federal government (a point mccain seems to celebrate in the speech above), either delegating to the states, the individuals, or the private sector. good? i'm not sure. but leaves him as president with little to blame if things don't go well.
tomorrow, obama, and my overall assessment of the issue.
bookkeeping item: all information in this series about the candidates' plans and positions will come from their websites or links that they themselves provide. a few additional links may be placed just for fun or clarification. additionally, since i'm now finding these will be long posts, i'll going to do one candidate's position at a time, alternating who goes first. today, it's mccain.
mccain gives a somewhat brief outline on his health care policy, expanded upon in this speech from april. his plan to help uninsured americans involves a direct tax credit for those who either opt out of their employer's health plan or who are self-employed. he claims there will be no repercussions for those with pre-existing conditions, yet his policy abides by the HIPAA rule stating, as mccain puts it, that "if you remain employed and insured you will build protection against the cost of treating any pre-existing condition." many americans who will be using his plan will have a period where they will be either unemployed or uninsured, thus exposing them to cost liability.
he also proposes a "guaranteed access plan" for those who are the worst of the worst- people with illness who can't get coverage. it establishes a guideline system for states to provide the services with some federal support- basically, a "best of" medicaid system, taking advice and policies from states where things are working well.
to cut health care costs, he and obama both propose supporting disease management programs, with mccain pledging research dollars towards primary care, and they both pledge support of electronic medical record systems. sounds nice. mccain also plans to support "walk-in clinics in retail outlets". (ouch- that's hitting below the belt for a primary care guy like me.) lastly, he supports tort reform for medical malpractice, specifically pledging to eliminate suits against doctors who follow guidelines and "best practice" plans. how he'll do that, he doesn't say.
overall, nothing truly groundbreaking. mostly status quo, with the republican carrot of tax credits dangled as the bait for his plan. the plan moves almost all responsibility away from the federal government (a point mccain seems to celebrate in the speech above), either delegating to the states, the individuals, or the private sector. good? i'm not sure. but leaves him as president with little to blame if things don't go well.
tomorrow, obama, and my overall assessment of the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)