My JPG photos
Posting tweet...
I also thoroughly enjoyed the New York Times’ endorsement of Barack Obama today. Just a few of their more salient points, if I may quote.
Mr. McCain talks about reform a lot, but his vision is pinched. His answer to any economic question is to eliminate pork-barrel spending — about $18 billion in a $3 trillion budget — cut taxes and wait for unfettered markets to solve the problem.
Mr. Obama is clear that the nation’s tax structure must be changed to make it fairer. That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will have to pay some more. Working Americans, who have seen their standard of living fall and their children’s options narrow, will benefit. Mr. Obama wants to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation, restore a climate in which workers are able to organize unions if they wish and expand educational opportunities.
…
Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
…
Mr. Obama would have a learning curve on foreign affairs, but he has already showed sounder judgment than his opponent on these critical issues. His choice of Senator Joseph Biden — who has deep foreign-policy expertise — as his running mate is another sign of that sound judgment. Mr. McCain’s long interest in foreign policy and the many dangers this country now faces make his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska more irresponsible.
…
Unfortunately, Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, sees the world as divided into friends (like Georgia) and adversaries (like Russia). He proposed kicking Russia out of the Group of 8 industrialized nations even before the invasion of Georgia. The United States must find a way to constrain the Russians’ worst impulses, while preserving the ability to work with them on arms control and other vital initiatives.
Both candidates talk tough on terrorism, and neither has ruled out military action to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Obama has called for a serious effort to try to wean Tehran from its nuclear ambitions with more credible diplomatic overtures and tougher sanctions. Mr. McCain’s willingness to joke about bombing Iran was frightening.
…
It will be an enormous challenge just to get the nation back to where it was before Mr. Bush, to begin to mend its image in the world and to restore its self-confidence and its self-respect. Doing all of that, and leading America forward, will require strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand.
Mr. Obama has those qualities in abundance. Watching him being tested in the campaign has long since erased the reservations that led us to endorse Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries. He has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility.
….
The nation’s problems are simply too grave to be reduced to slashing “robo-calls” and negative ads. This country needs sensible leadership, compassionate leadership, honest leadership and strong leadership. Barack Obama has shown that he has all of those qualities.
Tags: barack obama, john mccain
Facebook
LinkedIn
Of the points referenced, the one that I have the most pressing concern is as follows: “That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will have to pay some more.”
What concerns me is that I took a job that I work a significant number of hours and don’t jump out of bed to go to every day. I do this because I value the opportunity it gives me to achieve my more pressing goals of family life. I went with my place of work because it provides a stable, well paying, non-relocating position. In essence, I sacrificed job fulfillment for personal fulfillment, a choice I do not regret.
Yet, I’m going to eventually fall under this “well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately” umbrella who have to pay more to - as has been repeated ad nauseum - “share the wealth.” I don’t understand why this is necessary, and perhaps you or another reader can explain to me why because I am searching for answers as I wrestle with this delicate matter.
Why is it that I made personal choices, sacrificed job satisfaction for family satisfaction, and am going to be made to pay more because someone else made personal decisions to pursue a different path than I. Why am I forced to pay a greater proportion? Shouldn’t have I have some say on where I choose to send funds for the better social advancement of the United States (my church, my college, my charities) than what I perceive to be a horribly inefficient government system?
I certainly don’t mean to come off sounding too whiny and a McCain backer because I disagree with the man on a great many points, many of which highlighted in the quotes that comprised this blog post. Rather, as a staunch supporter of his, perhaps you or the readers can assure my fears and sway me on this perplexing tax issue.
In rereading what I should have proofread before I posted, I do realize that I included a bonus “have” but perhaps more concerning is that I dangled a “his” that meant to refer to Obama when sentence structure dictates it refers to McCain in the last paragraph. Normally I wouldn’t feel the need to post a correction piece but given my harsh criticism of the University of Phoenix teammates of mine and the “it’s” issue from an earlier Eli post I do feel obligated to write this second post.
I’m not terribly keen on using my blog to argue politics with commenters, but just real quick:
Drew, I’m not at all informed about your income situation. I assume that you’re doing well, but unless you’re making more than $250,000 a year, you’re not going to pay more taxes under Obama.
Here’s a handy tax calculator on his site: http://taxcut.barackobama.com (I fully acknowledge that this is only his proposed plan and it may not reflect what actually happens if he’s in office.)
If you are making more than $250,000 a year, two things pop into my head.
1.) I need to get a job at Walgreens
2.) You’re right — I’m not going to feel sorry for you that you have to shed a few extra bucks in order to “spread the wealth” a bit. That’s purely my philosophy on life, and also backed by my economic belief that handing more money to people who already have lots of money has never really solved anything.
Again, just personal philosophy at work here.
It should also be noted that Obama’s tax plan regarding the rich isn’t necessarily undue or excessive taxation; it’s mostly just a return to normalcy after Bush decided he should ease the burden of the rich by cutting their taxes.
Also, if you want to, as you say, re-distribute your funds to better the United States of America, you’re still welcome to do that. You have my address, if that urge ever becomes irresistible.
Now wait a minute, how can you not discuss politics on your blog with commenters when that was the whole post? Boo to this! Non spiteful discussion is woefully missing from this (and practically every) campaign process. The lack of meaningful conversation is what I whined about on my own blog (link to post above). I’m not going to start dismissing Democratic values and beliefs because I have reservations about a tax plan. I think we need more semi-intelligent conversation in the matter and kudos to you for answering my original post.
No, I do not make more than $250,000 with Walgreens. It’s actually less than a quarter of that, but I do aspire to greater things with the company that when combined with other income might possibly/hopefully put me at that mark in eight years (because I do believe Obama wins this election and in 2012 with the Republicans having no heir apparent). If all of this happens, then my originally outlined concerns would take effect. So no, it’s not imminent and no I wasn’t concerned about the immediate ramifications of this tax plan. But it did concern my own personal philosophical beliefs and future possibilities. I think at the heart of our disagreement on the matter is that the Obama plan wants to fix the economy with the money of wealthier Americans while I don’t necessarily subscribe to the belief that those making over 250K owe that responsibility to the government.
As for redistributing funds, it’s actually you who in fact owe me money in the form of VUFSA dues in which case you have my address. Snaps!
And kudos to Drew for engaging in some reasonable discourse without calling me an American-hating socialist. Even if I am. I am NOT, however, Muslim.
Obviously we disagree with the economic ideas and, basically, Reaganomics.
Here’s a pretty good (I think) article about policies related to Democratic/Republican ideas and the economy. Note specifically the graph on the left side of the article that shows the income growth for different demographics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
Some might discard it because it’s from a historically liberal newspaper, but it lays out my viewpoints without me having to type it all. And the author, as noted at the bottom of the article, has spent far more time learning about economics than we ever will.
Also, while I’m here, just wanted to note this comment you made in your original post:
“Why is it that I made personal choices, sacrificed job satisfaction for family satisfaction, and am going to be made to pay more because someone else made personal decisions to pursue a different path than I.”
Surely you don’t feel that wealth is solely related to personal choice, do you?
An excellent link you provide. I found it to provide a worthwhile argument for the Democratic tax position, and a far better piece of information than the black and white propaganda that litters our airwaves these days. Thank you for that.
As for my quote, of course I do not feel that wealth is related solely to personal choice. The key word being “solely” as I do believe that personal choice does play a significant role. I don’t think there would be a much debate that environmental factors and skill sets likewise play an important role.
But in once again falling back sports analogies to outline and explain myself, I will give the example of Alex Rodriguez. The man is the best third baseman in baseball, perhaps ever. He chose to play baseball in a highly media intense market where the money was, he clearly has impressive baseball skills, and I’m willing to bet he was in an environment that fostered his talents throughout his younger days. All of these combined to warrant some ungodly contract in which he makes lots of money. As someone who would benefit from splitting up some of that contract, I can definitely say I have no interest in any of his money. He’s earned it. It’s his, not mine. I continue to struggle with the characterization of “the rich” not doing their part or placing the burden on them to fix financial woes. A-Rod could have decided to play ball in Cleveland (no media coverage there) or go into finger painting but because he opted to hone his skill set, find someone willing to pay him for his talents, and shoulder the struggles of being a big league player in New York we should make him pay more?
Interesting that you bring up A-Rod as an example here, as I’d make the case that he’s a glaring example of the problematic gap between the rich and poor (and middle class) in America.
There’s no doubt that A-Rod is incredibly talented. And if we’re basing his salary off the rarity of his skillset on the planet Earth, there’s a case to be made for a very large paycheck. But my problem comes from the idea that he’s completely “earned” his money, and that justifies his $25 million contract.
One of the most illuminating things I’ve ever done was take a full-time, manual labor job after my freshman year of college. It was with the city of Galesburg, and I was placed into the sewer department (not IN the sewers, mind you). That branch was made up of five guys, all of whom had been working there at least 10 years. One man, in particular, had worked for 38 years at the sewer department, driving trucks around, getting up at 6 a.m. Monday-through-Friday, leading the crew, lugging around 50-pound manhole covers, fixing equipment in the shop and dropping down manholes to fix broken pipes, which meant standing in sewer water, which is even grosser than you think it is. He never took a sick day and I never heard him complain about anything. He was the single hardest worker I’ve ever seen in my life. And he made $18.00 an hour for his efforts.
Granted, that’s enough money for him to get by fine in a small town in Illinois. But he certainly didn’t have enough leftover money to afford anything far beyond what was necessary.
I’m sure you see where this is going, but does A-Rod really “earn” the $24.964 million gap in their salaries? Clearly, A-Rod has more pressure placed on him and deals with lots of things that my old sewer friend doesn’t deal with. Then again, A-Rod doesn’t have to stand in poop and used tampons for several hours each day. Should the gap in their salaries be that huge?
I’d make the same case for a more modest example — even just someone in upper management at a large corporation, who might pull in $700,000. That person is likely very smart and educated, and has worked hard to get to that point. But are they working any harder than the sewer rats, bus drivers, factory workers and other blue-collar folks? Or –again — are they working so much harder that it justifies a salary that is sometimes 20 times greater? I don’t feel that’s the case.
The point isn’t so much about the salary difference. Life isn’t fair, I know. Some people are able to afford college, and others aren’t. Some of the people in the latter category do find a way to make it work, but for many others, college isn’t a reasonable option. And that, in most cases, means blue-collar type work.
As great as it would be if no one in America was taxed, the money in society has to come from somewhere. And I’d prefer that the funding for government programs came from the folks like Alex Rodriguez or Joe Executive (see what I did there?!) at some Fortune 500 company. If Obama’s tax plan can save my sewer buddy just $2,500 a year in taxes, that will actually make a HUGE difference for him. And if the plan costs A-Rod an extra $100,000 (or even $1 million) a year in taxes, is that lost cash really going to affect his life in a significant way … even if, as you say, he’s earned it?
I’m sure you’ll still disagree with me, and that’s fine. Aside from the “income fairness” aspect of the discussion, I also believe that putting more money back into the hands of the middle class is the best way to stimulate the economy, because they’re the ones who will be more likely to spend it — studies have shown that, after a certain level of income, extra cash just gets dropped into bank accounts on top of the already-large pile, and not put back into the economy.
Anyway. Like that study showed in my previous post, this type of economic principle has worked in the past, and it’s my hope that it will work again. Our economy certainly needs it.
I’ve written too much and you’ve probably nodded off by now.
To start, I actually laughed out loud at Joe the Executive. Yay for political humor!
I think our fundamental difference in this discussion is that yes, I believe that A-Rod really does “‘earn’ the $24.964 million gap in their salaries.” I have no doubt that Galesburg Sewer Man (can we go Gary the Plumber?) works incredibly hard and provides a tremendous service to his town and country. But the fact of the matter is you and I could do that job too while you and I could not play third base for the New York Yankees. The market dictates salaries and your fellow colleague could have opted on a different career path if he wanted to find a skill set that was rewarded more favorably on his paycheck. While A-Rod enjoys his plumbing clean, I simply don’t think it is his responsibility to make up the difference in the salaries. After all, it’s not as if he pays no tax, but simply that should he penalized an even greater percentage for having found demand for his talents? Eh, I don’t think so. I can see your argument, but I think I will respectfully have to disagree.
What I do not disagree with, though, is that the single best way to stimulate the economy is finding a way to unburden the middle class. I wish I had a grand plan or could eloquently solve this issue, but I don’t. Perhaps I’ve been too negative, but I don’t think it should come from Joe the Executive. Perhaps scaling back in other governmental spending. Perhaps in reducing forces overseas. Perhaps somewhere else. As I said, I’m not smart enough to figure out that matter.
Honestly my second largest concern (the largest is a whole separate conversation that I don’t want to get into) is the nation’s escalating debt. We saw what wild spending and loaning did for the mortgage market. I’m horribly afraid that someday our government will be the one defaulting instead of individual firms, and no one seems terribly worried among our candidates. It’s mighty tough to get elected on such a boring platform when every one wants action and it’s expensive to take action on anything.
I really think you and I just strongly disagree about the role that luck plays in life.
I’m not sure I’d quite categorize it as that, but I have enjoyed having an intellectual discourse without black and white imagery and propaganda.