Permacarn’s Weblog

A Permanent Blog Carnival

Obama VS McCain On Taxes

The current state of our economy is not one of enthusiastic confidence and unbridled investment. We’ve got significant debt as a nation that we’re all going to have to pay off for many years to come. But before we as a nation start paying it off, both presidential candidate’s tax proposals plan on adding to it for the next few years. John McCain the self proclaimed “economically conservative Republican” is speaking out against his opponent Obama on the tax front. But the two candidates’ tax proposals and their projected consequences viewed side by side show that for a Democrat, Obama’s plan appears to be the one thats more conservative.

In a recent authoratative analysis provided by The Tax Policy Center stated that “Senator Obama’s plan would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt (including additional interest costs), while Senator McCain’s plan would add $4.5 trillion.

The analysis also showed that under Senator Obama’s plan revenues would total 18.2 percent of GDP in 2013 compared to McCain’s plan where the revenue yield would be 17.8 percent. A difference of .4 percent doesn’t seem like much, but when we’re talking GDP, that’s huge.

And while John McCain is pandering to Middle America saying that he’s in touch with what everyday Americans are experiencing when he lives in the lap of luxury with his millionaire heiress wife and says things like the drawdown of troops in Iraq isn’t important and that economists don’t know what they’re talking about, he doesn’t tell Middle America that his tax plan is designed to significantly benefit those in the upper-most income brackets. He doesn’t tell you that Obama’s plan is more suited to people who don’t make a significant amount of money.

June 13, 2008 Posted by | Elections, John McCain | , , , , | 3 Comments

Hillary Clinton Supporters And The Tale Of The Three Candy Bars

So if you watch CNN or any other news network for that matter and have been paying attention to the Democratic Primaries in any way you’ve probably heard pundits report that alot of Hillary Clinton supporters are saying that they wouldn’t vote for Barack Obama if he were the nominee. So I wanted to come up with a way to explain to those people why they should just chillax for a minute and change their eagerly and overly resentful attitude. I doubt it will have much of an effect but perhaps will give pause.

So you’re in a group of people who combined have just the right amount of money to buy a candy bar and you’ve got a choice between three kinds. There’s the one you really like thats got all the good stuff in it you like. Then there’s the one thats kinda similar to your favorite, a few ingredients are different but the basic formula is still there. Then there’s the one you’re allergic to. You ate one a while back and you had a severe reaction to it. So you vote for the one you really like. But there’s a split decision in the majority of the group between your second favorite that has a few different ingredients and the one you really don’t like. Your favorite candy bar is no longer a choice and you’re foced to recast your vote for the two remaining. One of your friends whom you most recently got into a tiff with is on the side that wants your second favorite and is trying to convince the group to go for that one. They really don’t want that third candy bar. So out of spite you forget your allergic reaction and vote for your least favorite. The group that wanted the bad candy bar won it with your vote and you were stuck with a candy bar that makes you sick.     

So here’s the breakdown. Hillary Clinton is your favorite candy bar. Barack Obama is the candy bar that has a few different ingredients but has the same basic formula. Politically, the two are similar except on a few issues like Health Care and foreign relations. John McCain is the third candy bar that you had an allergic reaction to. The metaphorical allergies of which I speak are the policies of a Republican administration. The last eight years have been a true test of our nation and of its leaders and it appears our leaders have failed our nation. A John McCain candy bar (administration) would no doubt bring on the same allergic reaction you experienced in the past.

The tiff spoken of in this parable that you had with your friend was the Democratic Primary. Its been hard on all of us as Democratic voters to see the candidate we love to be spoken of badly. But thats no reason to go voting for the completely opposite thing that you know is bad when it comes to politics or candy bars.

May 21, 2008 Posted by | Elections | , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Pat Buchanan

Pat Buchanan tonight said that the only reason Barack Obama is close to clinching the nomination of the Democratic party is because he’s black. “If Barack Obama were not African-American, John Edwards would have defeated him. Geraldine Ferraro, while taking a lot of heat, was right in what she said. She spoke the truth.” What is it about Obama being black that people feel has been so key to his success? Is it the fact that he’s received a huge majority of the black vote? Because black people have been voting for white people for years and to say that they would have all gone to someone else is not realistic. And who is ANYONE ANYWHERE EVER to say what or who someone would be if  their races were reversed? We should put Black Like Me on Pat Buchanan’s “to read” list.

Buchanan also rambled about how the media coverage has been unfair to West Virginians, “you’re sitting here calling them poor and uneducated or half-educated…” In fact, in comparison to the rest of the country, WV is last in everything good (literacy rates) and first in everything bad (poverty). It’s funny that Buchanan demands the “truth” be spoken with something as unknowable as who or where Barack Obama would be if he were white, but when it comes to the facts of the state of WV, he demands a level of courtesy that Clinton refuses to extend to states she lost to Obama. I recall her campaign saying things along the lines of “those states that Obama won are small and don’t matter. We’re looking at the big states that matter in the general election.” Maybe they should have run their campaign like they were in a primary and not a general election like Obama did. Sure he won small states that aren’t huge players in the general election, but Clinton’s argument that she won states vital to the Democrats in November and she should be the nominee because she did good in those states is weak and has been weakening since Indiana and North Carolina. But we’re reminded of the same point made before; this is not the general election. More and more people are beginning to see through the parallels that Clinton is trying to draw between what happened in the primaries to what will happen in November.

 

May 14, 2008 Posted by | Elections | , , , , , | 1 Comment

John Edwards Endorses Obama

CNN is reporting that John Edwards is set to endorse Barack Obama. It will be interesting to hear the reaction from the Clinton campaign. Recall James Carville’s likening Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Obama to Judas’s betrayal of Jesus. There are no holidays in coming days that would allow for a convenient metaphor, but then again Edwards doesn’t have the history with the Clintons that Richardson did so betrayal is not the word. Perhaps the Clinton’s will say it just makes sense. Despite having been defeated by Clinton in W.V. by a huge margin, Obama still has more pledged and superdelegates. Oh, and she still thinks that MI should be seated the way the votes came in even though Obama wasn’t on the ballot. Has anyone told her that she still wouldn’t win even if they were seated the way the votes came in?

In Republican news 15% of Republicans in W.V. voted for someone other than John McCain even though he is the Republican nominee and none of the other candidates are campaigning and have all endorsed McCain (except Ron Paul). Personally, I think this is much more interesting than Edwards’ endorsement.

May 14, 2008 Posted by | Elections | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Don’t Count Out The Female Vote In Indiana

According to CNN exit polls the Democratic vote by gender in Indiana was 56% female to 44% male. In a time when the white male vote is being debated, Hillary Clinton won Indiana by a narrow margin arguably due to the high female turnout that voted in her favor. The voting results for each candidate were mirrors in terms of gender with Clinton winning 51% of females and Obama winning 51% of males. More females voted than males and more females voted for Hillary Clinton.

Lest we forget there is still a Republican primary going on. Republican Indiana voters consistently threw more of their votes towards Ron Paul than Mitt Romney and at a time when people are worried about Democrats being bitter in November after a tough Primary Season and going Republican, signigicant portions of Republicans in every state have cast their votes towards candidates other than John McCain. Collectively, their votes don’t outmatch McCains overwhelming majority, but this should give more people pause when the fact is the Republican party already has their nominee and the other Republican candidates have already endorsed John McCain (except for maybe Ron Paul). Which way are those votes going to go come November?

 

May 6, 2008 Posted by | CNN, Elections | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment