About Politics

Darryl Cherness asked:


In a previous post, I discussed Obama’s positions on key economic issues. In this post, I will compare and contrast the two candidates on those same economic issues. After reviewing these issues, I am confident that you will conclude that Barack Obama is a friend of working people while John McCain is a friend of big business and the wealthy elite.

On labor related issues, Obama supported the Employee Free Choice Act, federal legislation that grants workers the right to join unions free from employer harassment or intimidation. Obama voted in favor of the motion to close debate on the Employee Free Choice Act. McCain not only failed to sponsor this legislation, he voted against the motion to close debate, effectively killing the Employee Free Choice Act. (H.R. 800, Vote #227, 6/26/07)

On another labor issue, protecting striking workers, Obama has opposed replacing striking workers with permanent replacements. McCain voted against ending debate on a bill that would prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacements for striking workers (S55, Vote #189, 7/13/94).

Finally, in regard to labor issues, Obama has supported raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation.  Obama voted in favor of raising the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour while McCain voted against increasing the minimum wage (SA.44 to S.256, Vote #26, 3/7/05).

On the subject of tax relief for working families, Obama supports a tax credit of $500 per individual or $1,000 per working family. In addition, Obama supports requiring the wealthiest Americans to pay a higher tax rate to finance these tax credits and other federal programs. McCain supports  a summer gas tax holiday in which the federal gas tax and the diesel tax would be suspended. He also supports keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, where the top tax rate was cut from 39.6% to 35.0%, giving the very wealthy a tax windfall.

In regard to the so called summer “tax holiday,” this proposal has been denounced by Obama as a “gimmick.” The problem with this proposal is that it has no long term effect. The tax relief is limited and temporary. What happens when summer ends? In addition, a cut in the gas tax, even if temporary, would mean that state governments would lose millions of dollars in federal funding for highway improvements necessary for safety and the reduction of traffic congestion.

Another issue of major importance to this year’s presidential campaign is trade. Obama wants to amend the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) so that it benefits American workers by including good labor and environmental standards. McCain is a strong supporter of NAFTA, which the AFL-CIO has stated has cost 1 million American jobs from 1993-2004 (Working Families Vote 2008). McCain has made it clear that he does not support amending NAFTA to create stronger labor and environmental standards.

In regard to the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), a free trade agreement that is opposed by the labor movement, Obama voted against it while McCain voted for CAFTA (S.1307, Vote 170, 6/30/05).

Finally, in regard to protecting homeownership and cracking down on mortgage fraud, Obama supports the creation of a fund to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. The fund would be paid, in part, from increased penalties levied against lenders who act irresponsibly or commit fraud. Obama has also introduced legislation (Stop Fraud Act) that defines mortgage fraud, increases funding for state and local law enforcement, and increases penalties for mortgage fraud.

As for his plan to deal with this problem, McCain said the following: …”there is no substitute for faster economic growth.  No government program is a substitute for the jobs provided by a growing economy.” (Forbes, March 20, 2008) In other words, McCain’s plan is to do nothing for those faced with the loss of their homes or for those who watch while the value of their homes decline. This should hardly come as a surprise to those who may recall that McCain was previously quoted as saying that he did not understand economics.

 

 



Vinyl Siding For Your Home

Josh Greenberger asked:


by Josh Greenberger

(October 17, 2008) Barack Obama to Joe the Plumber on October 13: ” … I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need. And for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well — even though they’ve been working hard, and I appreciate that — I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect the disagreement. I just want you to be clear, it’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you — that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

If this statement doesn’t worry you, you haven’t looked at it too closely. It’s been proven over and over that taking from those who’ve earned and giving it those who haven’t, doesn’t help those who gave or those who received — it ruins everybody!

The mortgage crisis we’re currently experiencing was about exactly that — giving “opportunities” to the less privileged, by taking (undeserved loans) from the banks. We all know how that turned out. It did not spread the wealth. It spread disaster.

Social promotion does not help underachievers, it only reduces overall achievement.

What Obama is proposing is another form of Affirmative Action. But, instead of giving a job that you qualify for to a less qualified person, he wants to give money that you’ve earned to someone who has not. This is absolutely outrages.

Institutionalized handouts do not make people do better; it only makes them expect more. Obama’s plan would turn the entire U.S. into an “inner city.” Can you think of a more counterproductive plan?

Why does Obama’s plan for giving people a “chance at success” revolve around taking from others, to begin with? It does not produce more goods and services, it only (unethically) reshuffles what we have.

There are options that take from no one and give to everyone.

A reduction in fuel costs would put money in the pocket of every American by reducing the price of a long list of other goods and services — and we wouldn’t have to take money from anyone. All we have to do is lift all oil drilling restrictions.

But Obama’s answer to lifting oil drilling restrictions, as Senator McCain pointed out, is he’ll “look at it?”

Let me see if I understand this correctly. To take money from one person and give it to another, that Obama doesn’t have to “look at,” he “knows” it’ll work, despite the fact that other such programs have failed miserably. But lifting drilling restrictions, which has absolutely no drawbacks, no downside, it takes money out of no one’s pocket, it’ll produce jobs, it’ll stimulate the economy even before gas prices drop drastically — that he has to “look at?” Is he kidding? It’s almost as if Obama’s working for an enemy country and trying to bring us down.

And this nonsense about how well Obama carries himself in debates is idiocy. There’s no question Obama came off calmer and “cooler” than McCain in the presidential debates. (Maybe Obama wouldn’t be so calm and cool if he had gone through in life what McCain has gone through, but that’s a whole other discussion.) But the notion that Obama would do better as a president because he debates better or comes off better is foolish. Who’s he going to debate as president; bin Laden, Achmedinejad, OPEC, the Caribou reindeer in Alaska?

And do we really want a president whose going to look calm and cool while we’re being nuked by Achmedinejad, or would we rather have a president who knows how to deal with brutal regimes?

Obama being plagued with allegations of links to shady people and activities — from associating with a terrorist to ACORN’s election scandals to threatening legal action against people who criticize him — should give you pause for thought. McCain, on the other hand, who’s been reviled by a media that is no friend of republicans and attacked by Obama, has not had one credible accusation of unethical behavior lodged against him that even needed defending. Doesn’t this alone tell you something about the character of the two candidates?

It’s difficult to understand why even blacks would want to vote for Obama. Sure it would be nice to have a black president, but doesn’t the character of the person mean anything? If we had a respectable black candidate running against a shady white candidate, the majority of whites, I believe, would not vote for the white candidate simply because he’s white. What good is a president of your ethnic background if he serves no one’s interest?

Essentially, what we’re faced with is a saint who doesn’t come off very well and a devil who wants to sweet talk you out of your soul. Which one do you think is in your interest to vote for?

by Josh Greenberger



Designer Scented Candles