So, it's getting pretty close to the election and I have two serious questions to ask. Can anybody answer them for me?
1. How does Obama have enough experience for the White House?
2. How is Obama not, at the very least, a borderline socialist?
It's not wise to take away accountability for individual actions, nor is it fair. But if you look at several of his policies (especially in regard to the economy), that's what he does. The Democrats gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac free reign with no accountability, and here we are, $700 billion later. The bailout plan was a horrible decision that was all but forced on us, but where was the accountability for corporate suits who mismanaged the economy into the ground? On the other hand, we make less than $200,000 a year (What?! I know, we live like kings, don't we?!) and a tax break would be nice. But holding companies accountable for their actions would be nicer. Do you think he'll do both. Puh-lease!
And seriously, if you have an answer to either of those questions, let me know. They were asked in good faith.
7 comments:
If only our blogs could reach all unsure voters and the ones that are not hard core Obama
I'm wondering if Obama/Biden would be willing to shell out some of their pocket money to "spread the wealth". I wonder how many of our government officials, who make butt loads of money, are going to allow savior Obama to dig into their pockets. So then one might want to ask where's the money going to eventually come from? Where it's always come from-the middle class. Obama is a suave man and at times I've almost been sucked in with the rest of the world.
Hi Cheyenne!! I'm sure you will be *shocked* to learn that I am voting for Obama...and here are some of the reasons why, in addition to trying to answer your questions. These aren't my words (I am borrowing them from someone far wiser than I can claim to be) but ones I strongly agree with. Hugs!!
Well the answer to number 1 isn't really possible. Either people think he doesn't have enough experience of they do. I'm uncertain as to how his "experience" or lack thereof is really a problem. Richard Nixon had all kinds of experience and he turned out great. So, why is that such an issue? He has obviously studied and thought about the numerous issues that a president would face and he has spent time in both the state and national senate. He has also run a national campaign for 17+ months now. The president doesn't handle everything on his own, he surrounds himself with advisers and others who can provide necessary expertise if he doesn't know what he needs to know. Lincoln was our least experienced president of all, and look at all he accomplished. Finally, if you really want to trot out that talking point, how in the world is Sarah Palin qualified to be president if McCain dies?
As to the socialism point. 1) There are several, several, accepted policies of the United States government that are socialist. Social Security, the progressive income tax, Welfare, etc. 2) Socialism and the whole Freddie and Fannie thing aren't related at all. Lack of regulation is capitalism at its finest. Also, to somehow claim that that is the sole reason for the economic collapse is to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the economic situations that led to our current problems. The derivatives market and credit default swaps can't be blamed on Fannie and Freddie, just ask Alan Greenspan. So, that argument isn't even discussing the same point. As to the whole tax issue, I'll quote John McCain.
MCCAIN: "I think your question -- questioning the fundamentals of a progressive tax system where people who make more money pay more in taxes than a flat, across-the-board percentage. I think it's to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more. We have over the years, beginning with John F. Kennedy, reduced some of those marginal tax rates to make them less onerous. But I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay -- all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they -- you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view..."
Show me where McCain is planning to hold companies accountable. I expect that Obama isn't going to be able to go through with his tax cuts because of the deficit, but McCain claims he'll cut everyone's taxes. So if anyone really thinks that Obama can't do both of those things, how is John McCain going to do both if he wants to cut taxes even more?
Finally, to return to the "borderline socialist". I don't suppose that anyone who supports a progressive tax can escape that label if we are really attempting to apply it so broadly. Socialism isn't about picking and choosing when to apply capitalism and when to apply socialism it is about a broad ranging program to redistribute wealth and provide workers with controls of the means of production. Nowhere does Obama advocate that. Finally. Who cares? Unbridled capitalism got us into this mess, why is socialism such a dirty word? If you really don't believe in socialism, stop paying your taxes, because the government is spending that on other people.
CHeyenne, your response? I can't wait to hear this one. :) Boy I love a good debate on the old bloggity-blog.
It might actually surprise people that I agree, to an extent, with Erin. The difference being, I don't think I would take it (meaning...ugh...socialism...) as far. But I wrote a new post all about it!
First, unlike many, I am no fan of political discussions. But even from far across the sea, I feel I should make a comment. I've lived in both socialists and communists countries for extended periods of time...and no thank you. Speaking on making corporate America pay their fare share of the tax...from my understanding Obama plans on nearly doubling the capital gains tax to stick it to that very small percentage of very wealthy. Little do people realize that it's going to affect the larger majority of us...the middle class. Why punish such a large percentage just because you want to go after those handful of people that make millions every year? My biggest concern/worry with this election, like most, is over how the candidate can handle financial issues and domestic policies. A lot of the social issues are out of his/her hands much as we think otherwise.
I'm not a fan of sharing the wealth or sharing my piece of the pie, call me selfish. I also don't think it's right to penalize me because I may work harder or prove to be more successful than someone else.
But Sara - It's easy to say you don't want to share the wealth, but aren't you glad tax payers shared the wealth when you couldn't afford maternity/birth/baby coverage when you were having Zade? I mean, you got much better coverage for free using Medicaid than what I get paying over $100 a month for with my insurance.
Post a Comment