So, Election Day for several of America's public offices up for the 2008 reelection has now almost arrived. Congressional races but more notably the presidential race will essentially be determined by tomorrow night at this time. November 4, 2008 will mark the end of one of the tightest and most heated presidential campaigns in American history as reflected by the current polls showing unprecedented voter turnout and realignment of states' support of parties. As the candidates make one last surge to gain the most voter support as possible in hopes of winning this presidential race, the news coverage of today has become noticably and openly more partisan with each party's intensifying campaign ads. This tends to rouse controversy and increase viewer numbers for these news sources showing bias. It seems to be a return to the old "American Journalism" of the past and to making blunt partisanship displayed instead of the supposedly more credible objective journalism. Most would claim that Fox news has a more conservative coverage while MSNBC shares a more liberal agenda. The night time coverage is said to be all the more open to being substantially biased toward one party than the daytime reports. So what, if any, is the direct causal relationship between possibly increased bias in media coverage and the turnout of this presidential election?
Okay our last post was very ambiguous, so lets step back from the huge stream of information and focus on the implications that this information has on us as individuals. Would you agree that one of the many reasons to vote for a candidate is to keep safe our ideals and keep what we believe is in our best interests in governing power? Thus, to try and truly understand why today's economy will affect our daily lives as individuals of the system, we must investigate the possibilities of each candidates' economic policies and use unbiased reason and logic to determine who could most accurately guarantee our best interest. So I ask for your logical opinion, what is the direct causal relationship between which candidate becomes president and the advancement of your economic pursuit of happiness? Don't settle for someone else's opinion. Find your own, and stand up for it. How else will you be able to make your life matter?
In the current state of economic crisis numerous voters are becoming frantic on how our society will be affected by the platforms proposed by our current presidential candidates. With our economy wavering, there is speculation on which policies will benefit the majority of the American population. With corporations declaring bankruptcy and gas prices escalating, many families across the nation are feeling monetary tension and anxious about what's in store for the future. In addition some families are worried about their money being taken from them as their taxes will rise instead of fall. By analyzing what the candidates have in store for the next four years, in terms of taxes and effects on the economy, we can lay out an understanding on each candidate's policies, and inevitably how it may affect our nation.
Obama's Policy on Tax Reform:
Barack Obama has developed an extensive tax plan for the American people. In an effort to alleviate tax "burdens" on middle class citizens and small business owners who aid in increasing job opportunities, Obama has devised a plan that will decrease their taxes and restore fiscal responsibility. In terms of corporations, all tax breaks will be ceased for those who outsource jobs, yet companies who create jobs in for corporate America will be granted tax breaks. His agenda includes cutting taxes for 95% of the population (those making less than $200,000 annually) and increasing taxes on the remaining 5% of the population who earn $250,000 dollars or more. Despite these tax increases for the upper class, the Obama campaign stated that they will pay the same or less in taxes than they did in the 1990's.
In addition, Obama is aiming to help spread the wealth and is asking that the percentage of the population making over $250,000 to help compensate for 2-4% more in terms of taxes on social security. In respect of dividend taxes, Obama is proposing an increase from 15% to 39.6%. As such, 39.6% of the money earned in taxes from investments in the stock market, mutual funds, college funds, IRA, retirement accounts, and life insurance will be paid to the government. Housing taxes too are on his list of proposals and states that there will be a tax of 28% on all profits made from real estate sales. Further, he has placed on his policy the implementation of new taxes, for instance on gasoline, natural resource consumption, and taxes to help fund socialized medicine.
McCain had developed a "pro-growth tax policy" in which he is proposing to keep tax rates low. He plans to maintain the current tax rate on small business in the respect that tax increases "hurt" all workers. In terms of corporations his agenda is to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% with the intentions of helping keep jobs here in America. In order to spark innovation, he maintains that there should be a "permanent tax credit equal to 10 percent of wages spent on research and development."
In addition, McCain is an advocator of permanently repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax and keeping the tax rates low. His policy is to keep the top tax at 35% and maintain the tax on dividends at 15%. He is in favor of rewarding individuals and families, who save, invest, and take risks and supports tax deductions on "First-Year Expensing" of new technologically advanced equipment. He is in favor of keeping energy prices low to help stimulate small business and reform our energy dependence.
By taking a look into a few of the tax policies created by each candidate, we must ask, what is the casual relationship between McCain and Obama's reformations and the effects that will result on our economy? In an unbiased manner that doesn't skew plain facts and relationships between policies, we ask for comments on how others might demonstrate these correlations and show logically how our economy will be effected.
McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, believing the wealth will make its way down to the lower class.
Pros: Large wealthy corporations and upper class prosper, helps the top 0.1 percent of the income scale.
Cons: Under the assumption that the upper class will not be greedy and keep it all to themselves.
Little tax helps to the middle class:
Pros: The majority of revenue would come from the majority group.
Cons: The majority of the population would not benefit from this.
In analyzing McCain's and Obama's tax policies, one may wonder how each will affect Americans personally. How will these plans affect you and your financial state? With that in mind, though each plan calls for tax cuts and similarly want to stimulate the economy, the proposed presidential nominees’ tax policies will have separate and distinct effects on the American people. McCain’s plan to reduce taxes is purposed to increase each individual’s income with many benefits going to the upper, corporate class. Obama’s plan to reduce taxes and close out many tax break loopholes intends to increase the income for poorest to middle classes of people, yet those making over $250000 will have a larger tax rate that decreases their overall income. Neither plan generates the amount of revenue for which the current American economy needs to be balanced financially. As such, economists deciphering these plans were concerned when they discovered that both plans cut taxes without regaining enough revenue and leave an even more enlarged national debt that adds further to the growing deficit. Consequently, low-middle income Americans may tend to favor Obama's plan while middle-upper income Americans may favor McCain, yet this is a broad generalization that does not include personal perspectives of voters. Currently, no one plan is favored more noticeably than the other when polled with the American people. As a result, one may inquire what, if any, is the causal relationship between choosing the candidate whose plan is best economically for the individual and the individual's personal belief system?
During the last televised debate, it seemed to me that a large amount of time was spent focused on the discussion of the economy and how each presidential candidate plans to fix the crisis. Since we have already established in our last posting that both candidates have varied "qualifications", i now realized that i asked the wrong question.
Since the judgment of knowledge can only be measured by how one articulates and expresses this amount of knowledge in their own view of what is right, I see that we cannot base our discussion on what we think the candidates know about the subject at hand, but rather base it on what they actually express that they know and what they plan to do with this knowledge.
After having viewed the last televised debate, linked above, I ask you: What is the causal relationship between the strong points or weak points of each candidates expressed plan of action(Links to published plans: Obama or Mccain) in subject to the economy and their merit of being the next President of the United States? Please try to discuss in a manner which will help readers, such as myself, better understand the actually strong and weak points of each of their plans and explain why these are strong or weak.
Hi, my name is Laurent and I created this blog with the intent to get more information about the political debates without all the emotions and bias. I am still undecided myself, thus am not here to sway you but rather to raise questions that we can all investigate together by using a source of unbiased info on the subject at hand. So, I ask you to please post a comment to my blog to offer your own analysis and best thoughts on the issue of the economy relevant to the current political debates to increase our knowledge on this complex subject. What if any is the causal relationship between each presidential candidate's stance on the economy and each of their "qualifications" to lead our country based on this economic view?
Posts
