home | register | login

superacidjax

Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.. (Steve Jobs, Apple Computer)
December 2008
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031 
Archives
Tags

I've tried to stay out of the political debate for as long as possible. I wasn't very inspired by any of the candidates, aside from perhaps Ron Paul, although Paul's foreign policy proposals were frightening at best and distasterous at worst.

However, with the field narrowed to Barak Hussein Obama and John Sidney McCain III, I begun to really pay attention to the race. I just gave $10 to John McCain because upon learning more about Obama, I've become very angry and fearful at his policy positions.

First of all Obama is an advocate of income redistribution. The Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" has never been more typified than in Obama's proposals, except perhaps in the opening days of the Bolshevik Revolution. The most blatant example of this is found in Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

This proposal is capitalizing on general ignorance about the oil industry specifically and economics in general. Just how much profit does the energy section command? In absolute dollars, the number is in the billions, but viewed in terms of profit margin, energy companies only profit 9.6%, according to Thompson Reuters analysis of the S&P energy sector. almost 10% profit is hardly gouging and it's certainly not excessive by anyone's reasonable standards. Google, by comparison profited over 25%. The question then begged is, "should internet profits be subject to a windfall tax? What industry is next? Perhaps they should put a windfall profit tax on your local coffee shop or bar? If the criteria, being consistent with the energy sector "windfall" is a 9.6% or higher profit margin, then just about any profitable business would be subject to additional taxation. What would this do to the economy? All businesses already pay corporate taxes on revenues. If a company makes more money, they pay more taxes. So the tax burden is already adjusted for the relative income of a business.

The evil thing about this so-called windfall tax on oil companies is that Obama wants to then pay poorer families $1000 from the tax. This is money those families did not earn. This is money that is going to be essentially stolen from the oil companies. Who cares about the oil companies right? I do and you should too. Who owns oil companies, or any public corporation for that matter? You do, I do, average people. The companies are owned by their shareholders. I personally do not own any oil company stock, but I'm pretty sure that my pension fund is invested in the energy sector. A great majority of teacher, firefighter, railroad worker pension funds are heavily invested in the energy sector. So, steal profits from the energy sector and you're stealing money from average people's retirement. Barak Obama is proposing income redistribution -- stealing money from our pocket and giving it to the "poor."

The interesting thing is that when an economy declines, the area hit hardest first will be people that are in lower-paying, unskilled positions. These workers on the margins are the easiest to lay off because their contributions to an organization or relatively smaller than those higher up the food chain. A windfall profits tax will result in slower economic growth, a reduction in investment and resultingly an increase in the unemployment rate.

Out of 25 companies in the S&P energy sector, 20 of them had more employees at the end of this year than at the end of 2006. Increasing the tax burden will logically result in fewer jobs not only in that sector, but within the entire economy. Those energy workers spend money, which creates jobs for the other industries that make things those people buy. If I have a job, I'm going to buy shoes, or cars or perhaps buy a house. My job alone just created demand in all sorts of other industries. It's a cascade effect. Depress one area of the economy and other areas will quickly follow.

Another reason for my great fear of Obama is his Global Poverty Tax initiative. This Senate bill would require the United States to give .7 percent of GNP to the United Nations to obstensiably fight world poverty. This would result in an increase of roughly 840 BILLION dollars over the extensive aid we already spend. This is effectively putting US tax dollars under the control of the United Nations. I am all for helping with world poverty, however I am strongly against being forced to pay a "poverty tax" to the United Nations. The United Nations has proven time and time again that they are terrible at administering anything. The Oil for Food scandal is a prime example. And just who would this money go to? Those dictators that already waste billions of US aid every year by buying themselves golden palaces.

I am a big advocate for the One program (www.one.org) This is an anti-poverty organization that seeks to end poverty in Africa by promoting trade and assisting in the creation of business. It's major goal is to help countries through trade rather than handouts. It's the "teach a man to fish" idea. The US is already the world leader in foreign aid. It's time that other countries step up to the plate. It's also time that countries start to help themselves.

Another thing that is pissing me off is that Obama wants to raise taxes on incomes $42,000 and higher. In most cities, $42,000 is not a very big salary. It's barely above entry level in most careers. Yet he wants to raise taxes on those earners. Why? To pay for what? Why not reduce spending instead of harming workers? Gas prices are already killing us and yet Obama wants to hurt the middle-class even more? And why? Redistribution of course. He wants money to come from you and me to essentially be redistributed however he sees fit.

I don't trust the government with my money any more than I trust North Korea to play nice.

I just gave $10 to John McCain because the way I see it.. I'd rather spend $10 now to save thousands later.

I can't afford Barak Obama and neither can you. Go visit www.johnmccain.com and donate $5 or whatever you can afford. The stakes are especially high in this election.. measured directly on your paycheck.

 

Even the Democrats like McCain..

http://www.youtube.com/v/uSpcxkKlEFA&hl=en&fs=1"> name="allowFullScreen" value="true">http://www.youtube.com/v/uSpcxkKlEFA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

Congrats for getting involved and being so passionate! You make many interesting points that are valuable to look into. I love looking at both sides and comparing the issues - especially when I'm not always sure which candidate supports what - and what it really means beyond the political spin. I try to keep an open mind. When we learn about one candidate, we must also learn about the other, right? (And I never find myself agreeing with one candidate entirely). So, I saw a "fact checker" on the Washingtonpost.com about McCain vs. Obama on taxes. Have you seen it? (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_vs_obama_on_taxes.html) If so, what do you think? Is it bogus, in your opinion? It sounded like the fact checker, Michael Dobbs, said that McCain is exaggerating Obama's position on taxes. It reads: "There are significant differences between the two candidates on tax policy. McCain would like to make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, and has proposed a few more of his own. Obama, by contrast, favors allowing the tax cuts to expire as scheduled for Americans earning more than $250,000 a year. He would raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, but has also promised tax breaks for low and middle-income Americans… In order to substantiate its claim that large numbers of ordinary Americans will be worse off under the Democrats, the McCain camp points to an Obama proposal to raise tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Obama advisers argue that any tax increases will be offset by credits for lower-income families. They also point out that most middle and low-income families invest in the market through 401 (k) plans that are exempt from capital gains taxes." I thought that last part might make you feel better about your pension concerns. It is an interesting read in general - especially if you are into the election. I was speaking with an economics professor from UMKC last Thursday who had a lot to say about Social Security and how the candidates differ. Of course, this economist prefers his own plan in regards to S.S. - but he said that McCain's stance was not economically viable. We also talked about how unemployment levels relate to the government, our taxes, and programs like S.S. Alas, I only had 30 minutes with him - which is never long enough to see the total picture. It is interesting to see how McCain and Obama differ on labor and employment, too). Additionally, I was curious about the Global Poverty Tax you wrote of - that is controversial, indeed. At first, I'm with you and sort of like: WTW - what the waste? I've seen different POVs on this. I don't know enough to share my own - but one person noted that we spend a lot more on war in Iraq than we would on the GPT. It made me think twice. I'm also glad you bought up issues with the business model approach and "charity." There are so many new exciting ideas in this area that are positively changing the way we think about sustainability and the economic models of charity. Right on. Thanks for the thoughts. To be honest, I'm still at the point where I'll continue to look at positions on both sides and carefully view Ads. If only Paris Hilton could create some more love in the middle, right? (Lastly, I found another "fact checker" that corrects that TV ad that says Obama wants to raise taxes on incomes higher than $42,000. Take it for a grain of salt, but it’s worth a look: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html).

Great deals from Ink Advertisers
Visit ads.inkkc.com