Personally, I’ve always enjoyed watching political ads. Recently, this campaign has been getting really nasty. I love watching negative ads and have always thought they were more useful than positive ads. Its takes many good deeds to build a good reputation but only one bad one to knock it down. That’s why I consider negative ads more useful. The candidate can say how great he is but people are always skeptical about politicians. In the end, people decide the less of two evils or another cliché which is, the best defense is a good offense. Negative ads exaggerate and twist the truth but I always considered negative ads to be very useful. However, I read the link non_sequitur_inc posted and it makes sense. A lot of people don’t believe these ads, but they still plant the seed of doubt, however small.
The Obama ads against McCain create two views, one is that McCain is a second Bush and the second is that he’s for big oil and big money. I looked onto this site http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/John_McCain_Tax_Reform.htm. McCain supports tax cuts for business but not only huge businesses the ad describes. He calls for tax cuts on middle class family and small businesses. He wants to cut taxes and have less government control over these small mom and pop shops struggling to keep their business. McCain wants billions of dollars in tax cuts but at the same time, wants to reduce government policy, just as Reagan did. Ads can stretch the truth and especially take things out of context. I remember the 3 am ads by Hillary and how SNL made a parody of it. However, Obama’s tax plan results in about 37% marginal tax rates for incomes 31-45 thousand, which is a 13% increase from now. These negative ads twist the truth. However, they are meant for undecided voters. A majority of voters already have their mind made up and the ads are mostly for swing states. After looking in the gallop, these ads are mostly targeted against swing voters.
The article states that negative ads have the strongest affect out of all political ads. I think, this is because it can give the candidate a boost to get these independent swing voters. Now, the ad against Obama says he becomes just another celebrity and using Paris Hilton in the ad connects Obama to that kind of celebrity status. This is one of Obama’s biggest attacks, first that he is too inexperienced and second is that he is all fluff and a political celebrity. This ad targets that and swing voters connect him to Hollywood types. This is also twisting. Obama has become like a celebrity but he is also a talented orator and, dare I say, better than those Hollywood types. Obama’s campaign can use the same celebrity status question to say that people like him, they will listen to him, and with the support of the youth he is very charismatic.
Negative ads make a simple piece of information about a candidate a character flaw, or twist it until it is almost something else. According to the Wisconsin Advertising Programs, negative ads are meant to teach while positive ads play on our emotions. Negative ads “shine through political clatter.” By my own experience, I remember mostly these negative ads because they are entertaining, although exaggerated, while the positive ads just seem to be fluff. In the end, most people know these ads are made from the opposite side. The basic rule is that anything remotely political is biased.

 Natalie Weinstein

Barack Obama has changed his mind on accepting public financing; he will be the first major candidate to drop out of the financing system since the Watergate scandal. I believe Barack Obama is taking a risk by choosing this route, but I think it was a wise decision. His decision was based on the fact that “financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken”. Obama’s decision also took into consideration the fact that the Republican Party has earned around four times the amount of cash that the Democrats have in the past. The Obama campaign has been remarkably successful. Obama has turned the internet into an “electoral cash register” raising over $265 million by the end of April, and $10 million of this money was earmarked for the general election. Obama’s campaign a surprise to some has even vastly out raised McCain’s. The public finance system is paid for with the optional $3 contributions to the presidential fund in their tax returns. Obama would have been limited to spending no more than $84.1 million between the Democratic National Convention and the election, but it has been estimated he will raise and spend around $200 million. This money will strength Obama’s campaign. Obama’s campaign will also have the benefit of having a larger say over where the money in his campaign is spent. He still however, must follow all federal campaign finance laws and the FEC reporting requirements.

On the negative side McCain’s campaign argues Obama has broken his promise and has “’failed to demonstrate the kind of principled leadership that Americans are looking for in our next president’”. This is a risk Obama has taken, and he hopes his supporters understand that changing his mind is worth the extra funding. I believe Barack Obama supporters will continue to support him regardless of him changing his mind. Every person at one point has changed his or her mind. Changing your mind is not always a bad choice, often times a person has pondered an idea and has carefully taken into all considerations before changing ones mind. In this situation Barack Obama’s change of mind might win him the election.

Before working on this topic, I had no idea how complicated and controversial the issue of Health Care could be. However, both Obama and McCain have attempted to make it a priority as nearly 47 million Americans lack health insurance. In this day and age, that statistic is unacceptable, yet there has yet to be a successful, attainable solution.

When dealing with McCain's plan, he directly goes along with his slogan of "Country First: Reform. Prosperity. Peace." This action shows that he is willing to stick to a promise, such as reform, although I am not sure his plans are realistic. For example, McCain stated,"We want a system of Health Care in which everyone can afford and acquire treatment and preventative care they need." This statement is indeed true as the current state seems to resemble social Darwinism. I can definitely relate to the Health Care system being somewhat unfair, since a friend of the family's son was diagnosed with cancer. At the age of twenty, and not attending college(health care included), he can not afford health insurance and is unable to receive proper treatment that could save his life. With that being said, I completely agree with the fact that everyone deserves health care. Although McCain seems to have the goal in mind, I do believe that his promises for the future of Health Care are mostly vague and unrealistic. For instance, the idea of state flexibility in which, "States should have the flexibility to experiment with alternate forms of access, such as coordinated payments," sounds good, but how could any business with the economy in such a deficit, extend payments even further and have an even broader constructionist view? Monetarily, "McCain proposes a tax credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families that would go toward the purchase of health insurance." In addition, he has proposed the tort reform which helps decrease the number of,"endless,frivolous lawsuits" yet where do you draw the line? It is hard to say, because McCain seems to lack the actual steps of achieving his goals.

I am very happy that both candidates are spending time on the issue because I believe that it needs to be addressed, since 8 million American children are not safely insured. So with either candidate a positive outcome has to occur, as both are calling for "change."

As Insurance Premiums have risen four times as fast as average wages in the last six years, it seems only right for Obama to promise a "decrease in spending on pre-existing premiums." Although rising gas prices and economic prices seem to explain this promise to be unrealistic. People in the past, such as Hilary Clinton, have tried the "Every American with Health Care" goal, and failed miserably by creating a $110 billion plan that mandates coverage, and would then provide subsidies for those who can’t pay. The Gov. does not have extra revenues at this time, and if she used over one hundred billion dollars in her attempt and failed, how much would Obama have to utilize to have his reform be deemed successful?
Barack Obama, has stated that a mandate for all children to be covered should be administered, but does not include adults in this action. When it comes to Health Care it is hard for me to believe that a tax paying, loyal American could be denied such a "right to happiness." With his plan costing 65 billion, a proposed National Health Insurance Exchange would then be made with a better chance for companies to compete, for the average American to receive a better deal within the private sector. Yet isn't that what the companies are constantly doing right now?

Compared to ten years ago, today's proposed ideas on Health Care are increasingly incremental. I believe that with Obama's plan focusing more on mandates, that his goals would actually be put to use, while McCain's continuation of the current private market-based system has a mere amount of "change," but not enough evidence and steps to convince the American people that it can work.

The bottom line is that I would like to see everyone with equal coverage and the same ability to receive aid. However there are always going to be the people like Wharton health care systems professor, Guy David, who stated, "If we take 47 million people and give them an insurance card to walk into a hospital, the system will be more congested and more costly." As this will most likely be true, people such as our family friend's son would be saved....and the American Gov. needs to step in and protect it's citizens; in which Obama has clearly made the most thought -out plans.

 

After reviewing these articles, I must say that ICE's self-deportation program is quiteamusing. I don't want to sound condescending, but who does ICE think they're kidding? Lets take a look at some numbers. 6 out of 600,000 people (0.00001% effectiveness) have turned themselves in. ICE has spent over $100,000 to take care of these 6 people who've self deported themselves ($16,666 per person. Totally worth it!). Now, the ICE is obviously not offering this self-deportation program or spending $100k of their budget because of their respect of the "rights" of these illegal immigrants.

The way I see it is that ICE's new method (which, by the way, was very well advertised) is not there for the benefit of illegal immigrants. It's merely a “PR stunt” (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93301823) in which ICE can use as an excuse for use of violent force when deporting illegal immigrants, giving excuses such as "Oh, we gave them a chance to leave peacefully. We gave them our new ICE self-deportation program, but they didn't take that heavenly chance. Too bad, now we’re going to drag you off by force, and never mind the “unalienable” human rights (pursuit of happiness, anyone?), since they don’t apply to illegal immigrants” (this ring a bell? slavery? Jim Crowe laws? Fugitive Slave law?)

Not only that, but ICE's self-deportation program is frustratingly pointless. The program just gives illegal immigrants the illusion of a choice. It's like offering a person a choice between two evils which entail the exact same thing: leave, or else. (This eerily reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt’s Big Stick policy, where he asked ‘politely’ foreign countries to do as he wills, or else he’d smash them with the Big Stick that he carries in his back.)

PS: I do not support illegal immigration, but I am against deportation of illegal immigrants who already made it to the U.S. If you want to debate about this issue, I welcome you to do so, though it is kind of off topic.

Comment #2

Why am I not surprised by how the vast majority of people are dismissive about the illegal immigrant's stance?
Let me first ask you this: What is the United States of America? It is a nation built by immigrants, mostly "legal" immigrants, but also many illegal immigrants.

Immigration, be it legal or illegal, is good for EVERYBODY in the U.S. except for the low-skilled laborers.
Let me make reference to Tim Harford's analysis of why immigration is good for the U.S. from an economist's perspective: (from The Undercover Economist)
"...I dislike resistance to immigrants and would like to see more immigration. If you need skilled and unskilled labor together to get useful work done, then it is in my direct interests to see more unskilled workers come to the country...
People who are most harmed by new immigration are the previous group of immigrants, who find their wages nailed to the floor. Skilled immigrants lower the wages of skilled natives, and unskilled immigrants lower the wages of unskilled natives... "

Apart from these few reasons Harford gives us, there are others. By opening our arms to immigration (again, be it legal or illegal), production costs of labor-intensive products go down (all the way from pizza delivery to cab drivers). What does this mean? Every American, except for the unskilled workers win.
Immigration is essentially a win-win situation for everyone except for the unskilled native workers.

Michelle Beam (comment #2) said that “Another reason why I’m so against hiring illegal workers is because it only propagates the idea of the “lazy American.””
The concept of a “lazy American” is an oxymoron. If these immigrants were half as lazy as the slogan “lazy American” pretends it to be, then we wouldn’t be having this argument about immigration at all. The reason we are having this argument on immigration is because immigrants are giving tough competition to the supposedly “diligent Americans”. What does this say to us? That these immigrants in fact work harder for longer hours for less money. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have a competitive edge against the native workers.

Now, let me argue from the moral/philosophical perspective. When the first settlers arrived at Jamestown, I'll bet that these immigrants didn't have legal papers, much less permission from the native settlers (the native americans). 200 years after the first English settlers landed on Jamestown, the Native Americans were all but exterminated. Let me put it this way. Illegal immigrants are desperate to come to the U.S. because they live a dirt-poor life. They have no future in their countries. They come to seek the American dream that has attracted so many millions into the land of promise. I'll say that they are an improvement from the Irish immigrants of the 19th century who formed mobs and caused real riots (that would make the Lake Elsinore protest look like a joke). In turn, these Irish immigrants (who were "dirt-poor" as well) are an improvement from the English immigrants of the 16th century who virtually exterminated the native population.

I'd say, let's open our arms to these immigrants. Yes, I agree that it's a politically and logically foolish to actually allow illegal immigration. But then, that's not what I'm asking for. What I'm asking for is to be generous to the ones that already made it. Meanwhile, the consumers can keep on getting cheap pizza delivery and cheap cab rides.

Comment #1

The idea of the ICE is foolishness and a waste of money. Honestly, what illegal immigrant is going to be willingly deported? The NPR broadcast stated that people who self-deport through ICE are not to enter the United States for 10 years, and are highly unlikely to get a visitor visa or citizenship. That would constitute a lack of common sense on the part of illegal immigrants, since they really don't get any sort of reward for doing so. Perhaps a pat on the back, but that isn't worth the hassle. As statistics show, most illegals wishing to leave the country simply do it the old-fashioned way. I don't want to say swimming across the Rio Grande or hiding people in the dashboard of a car, because that might offend people despite the fact that IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. Anyhow, it doesn't really matter how they get back across the border to Mexico, but they do, and often without getting caught.

I agree with Tae-Yong Kwon when he says that the actions of the ICE are mostly part of a PR stunt. However, I do not agree with the sarcasm he adds about the means the ICE is forced to result to when the illegals refuse to leave peacefully. Although I do fully support humane treatment of all people regardless of race and color ect. sometimes violence is necessary. It's sad that some aren't wise enough to take an easy out and face the consequences of their actions. I’ve seen instances either on TV or myself where the illegals try to flee the authorities, who are forced to use violent means to apprehend the criminals. And yes, human rights do apply, but only to the law abiding citizens not committing criminal offenses. There is no way that you can compare slavery to illegal immigration. The illegals are here by their own choice and they can leave whenever they want. Most of the time they don’t even abide by our laws. I know this has been said a thousand times over, but if you don’t pay taxes, and you sap off of the public healthcare and education systems, you’re not abiding by the laws.

The ICE, overall, is a gross waste of funds and energy that could be better spent on other means to fix the problem of illegal immigration, like hiring more border patrol officers, or something useful. Giving illegal immigrants a choice in their future is better than giving them no other options at all, even if the majority refuses to take these opportunities.

As for the raid on the Lake Elsinore day laborer site, I fully support it. I believe that undocumented illegals should be deported back to their home country, whether it is Mexico or anywhere else in the world. First of all, the day laborer sites are against so many federal and state laws. Illegal citizens should not be allowed to work, because they often don’t speak English and they aren’t citizens and don’t pay taxes. It’s wrong on so many levels. Often, the laborers are willing to work for less than minimum wage, which is also illegal.

Another reason why I’m so against hiring illegal workers is because it only propagates the idea of the “lazy American.” Think about it, before we had the huge problem of immigration like we do now, who held all of the “Mexican jobs”, as people refer to them as? Hard working, legal American citizens. I have personally experienced the change! My father has been a construction worker his whole life, and I hear stories of how an American worker could make a decent living building houses or doing landscaping. Now, the Americans who used to do those jobs, like my dad, get paid dirt cheap wages, simply because the illegals they bring in are willing to work for minimum wage. American citizens get pushed out of jobs they have been doing their whole lives in order to make room for illegals who will work for lower wages than the Americans will. This has affected my family so much over the span of my life, and I know it too. All I’m saying is that if we deport the illegals who are taking jobs Americans once did, the unemployed will quickly fill in all the gaps left by then. In order to get America back to what it needs to be, we as a people need to take back the jobs and get rid of the “lazy American” attitude.

To wrap this all up, I really think the ICE is making a mistake with the self-deportation program, but if they’re going to go on with it, I suppose it’s better than giving the illegals no options. As for the deportation of illegal day-laborers, I’m for it and I’m glad the local government is taking a role in fixing the problem of illegal immigration. By no means am I racist against Mexicans or Hispanics, I believe that illegals from ALL countries should face the same penalties.

Comment #2

Tae-Young Kwon,

When I refer to the stereotype of a “lazy American”, I’m not referring to the illegal immigrants. I’m referring to the Americans who are more than willing to sit on the couch watching TV instead of doing housework. These type of people are perfectly content to let illegals mow their lawn, wash their car, do their landscaping or building, and clean their house. I personally think this is a bit unpatriotic. Hiring legal American citizens for a little more money is a heck of a lot more patriotic than hiring some illegal for dirt cheap. That’s just my perspective though.

As for the competitive edge of the immigrants, I believe that they have a reason to work under the circumstances that we’ve been talking about. The reason they come here in the first place, most of the time, is to make money to send home to their families who live in poverty in Mexico. They obviously have a drive to work. That doesn’t mean Americans don’t have that same drive. There are people in our country living in poverty too, and those people are willing/do work just as hard for the same wages and hours as illegals.

In response to your moral/philosophical viewpoint, it’s an interesting perspective. However, you miss the point when you refer to the Jamestown issue. It was the 1600’s. There was no system of laws or government set up. If you count the laws of the Native Americans, even those had no rules on immigrants. That’s besides the point though. The Englishmen and women who came to Jamestown were colonists on the English governments funding who came to America to set up a colony for England. The reason they were there is so they could harvest raw materials. They didn’t know that Native Americans resided on the continent, for all they knew it was an uninhabited no mans land. Comparing colonization to illegal immigration is an interesting idea, although it is invalid. I appreciate your unique viewpoints on the issue.

I completely agree with you in regards to the reasons people immigrate illegally to America, from ANY country. “Give us your poor, your tired, your hungry” is what immigrants were greeted with at Ellis Island. I fully support legal immigration, it adds diversity and culture to our population and it allows people to pursue their idea of the American dream. However, I only support this if the means are within the laws. And while it’s true that the people in some nations have no future, they still must abide by legal process if they want to become a part of our country. More than that, I support people trying to better their country, rather than running away from the problem to somewhere else. Anyways, that’s beside the point. When you compare Irish immigrants of the 19th century to illegal immigrants now, you miss a huge point. The Irish immigrants were legal, and they rioted because they were facing unfair labor conditions, horrid living conditions, and they were starving. I really don’t think you can draw a logical parallel there, although I much appreciate your historical perspective.

Feel free to respond, I hope you do. Debating with you is interesting.

 

As the presidential elections in November are rapidly approaching, several instances of controversy illustrate the strikingly different views of McCain and Obama. Foreign policy will be an extremely significant factor in the decision for commander-in-chief. In addition, to make the campaign even more entertaining, McCain and Obama directly disagree on the steps needed to be taken in the Middle East.

Although Barack Obama has been criticized for lacking adequate experience in foreign policy, several leaders in Iraq have created a similar plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Obama, if elected to the presidency, would remove one to two brigades of troops each month. After sixteen months, or the summer of 2010, all U.S. troops would be returned to the country they have patriotically defended. Obama claims that he will not allow for permanent bases to remain in Iraq, but will continue to train and support Iraqi security forces, under the condition that they pursue political reconciliation, not sectarianism. I believe that this is the most proper way to deal with an enemy: leave them alone, but offer to help those in need who are seeking democratic institutions. The Democratic candidate ‘had the judgment and courage to speak out against going to war.’ I agree that America should not have gone to war with Iraq in an effort to destroy an ideal that cannot be contained. At the same time, if America was attacked by hostile terrorists, and did not fight back in any way, the tradition of our country would be destroyed. Throughout history, the United States has taken great pride in offering its citizens a sense of protection and security. A terrorist attack, if not countered by the victim, could have the potential to expand into a series of attacks and threats, thus weakening national security as a whole. I feel that aggressive action certainly should have been taken, but not to the extent of going to war. This September 11 marks the seventh anniversary of the assault on the United States, and still, no sufficient political progress has been made in Iraq. I do agree strongly with Barack Obama’s plan to remove U.S. troops from Iraq on an orderly timed schedule, although his plan of sixteen months may be a far reach. I believe that indeed, a new strategy for dealing with Iraq is necessary; over 60,000 troops have been injured and wounded, while compiling a deficit of $2.7 trillion. Obama is correct when he says that our nation is more divided at home, and still less safe. I do not see any validity in fighting a war that technically cannot be won. In today’s nuclear-accessible world, a nation as powerful as Iraq cannot be forced to do anything they do not desire. I believe that the agreement between Obama and Iraq to remove troops is absolutely necessary to begin to establish any sort of diplomatic relationship. Obama states, “Fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future.” This is absolutely true. I feel that it was correct to attempt to establish a stable, prosperous, democracy in Iraq, but no power can coerce them into accepting our traditions. The line needs to be drawn at some point, and troops need to withdraw.

On the contrary, John McCain strongly believes that it is ‘morally and strategically essential to support the government of Iraq.’ He feels that U.S. troops cannot leave Iraq while the Taliban is strong in southern Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda is preparing plans for future attacks on the U.S. McCain’s prospects for Iraq are ridiculously unreachable, as the United States has been struggling to bring the nation free elections and to rekindle the economy for years now. I find that it is quite pointless to continue in such a fight that is only draining legitimate sums of money from the United States, while killing and injuring handfuls of our soldiers per month. John McCain overly focuses on his military background in his campaign, and claims he has superior knowledge on the topic. However, he should be a primary source of discernment when dealing with a nation who does not take interest in what is offered them. In the Vietnam War, America came to the aid of South Vietnam in an effort to ward off the communist forces of the North. The U.S. and South Vietnam were militarily stronger in the war, yet still were forced to withdraw, due to the fact that the Vietcong’s resources were far more vast. I see several similarities and parallels between this unpopular war and the War in Iraq. If anyone should know about the failures in Vietnam and how they effected the American public, it should be John McCain.

Although McCain is praised -- rightfully so -- for his services in the military, I believe Barack Obama has the most beneficial plan for a timeline in Iraq. I cannot help but laugh at the irony of this.

 

As a young girl, I always fantasized of what my wedding day will be like, what my dress will look like, and even little details like what kind of cake I want. Even now, being seventeen years old, I still have those fantasies. Because I will be a woman marrying a man, one day my dreams will hopefully be a reality, but whether or not I find the perfect man to marry is not of importance; one day I have the freedom to be married because I am straight.

If every person is guarenteed the same rights under the American Consititution, then why is it fair that I can get married, and a gay or lesbian person cannot? I think that people in America are afraid of same-sex marriages. The issue is most certainly not a legal issue, it is a matter concerning peoples morals, and more importantly, religion. Therefore, how can the government make a decision based soley on moral and religious views when it says so clearly that we have the freedom of religion?

Some might argue that no, I am wrong, this issue is definitely a legal issue, and the definition of marriage as said in our legal system is what makes people disagree with same-sex marriages. I do not agree. When the constitution was first created, Thomas Jefferson said himself that the "consititution belongs to the living, not the dead" and that each generation would need a new consititution because of this. We have yet had to chance our consititution because informal changes have been made to allow the consititution to adapt to changing times.

This is very relevant to same sex marriages because the idea of two men or two women marrying is new to our society. We need to evolve our legality to fit society, just as Jefferson says, and so this issue is not an issue because of its tradititional definition. It is an issue because people are uncomfortable around homosexual people.

I believe that everyone should have the freedom to happiness, as long as it does not hurt anybody else, and gays marrying does not effect me or my life by any form of harm.

I would vote against banning same sex marriages.

 The Economy

Kristen Woodward

This election SHOULD give a lot of focus to our failing economy. The candidates need to inform the American people of how we are going to get out of this hole that we've been stuck in due to the last 8 years.

On Personal Taxes: If any taxpayer gets a tax cut, that would lead to a bigger deficit. Both McCain and Obama's plan, will lead to greater debt. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion”(http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm)
But as brought up in the MSNBC article, can't America handle a bigger debt if our GDP is higher? Cutting taxes [temporarily] right now is a step forward in our helping the economy, it will open up higher incomes, new jobs, and it will lessen poverty. The more the government taxes, the more is slows the economy.

Barack Obama is cutting taxes of those families making less than $75,000 a year, he will not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year, and is leaving tax cuts in place for those making above $250,000. Which seems reasonable to me, considering most of America is ambiguously, in the middle class. More of Barack Obama's plan is to provide a $1,000 Emergency energy rebate to American families, to help pay for costly bills. Relief to the economy would include a “$25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees”(http://www.barackobama.com/issues/econo
my/#jumpstart).
I'm definitely for Barack Obama's plan to jump start the economy, it will provide Americans more jobs and after 10 years, America's debt increase is still lower than McCain's. Let's look deeper into McCain's plan.

It says for McCain's side that he will· Permanently reduce the reach of Alternative Minimum Tax, the so-called "wealth tax" that threatens the middle class. But if you click on the link “reduce the reach of Alternative Minimum Tax, it shows that he now supports something different. Getting rid of AMT would cost up to $2 trillion over 10 years according to Tax Policy Center calculations. McCain will not be able to get rid of the AMT even being elected for two terms."Getting to that [$143,000 exemption] level takes much longer than 10 years," said Roberton Williams, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center report. And even then, Williams said, "the AMT would definitely still exist for some taxpayers"(http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/13/news/economy/mccain_amt_phaseout/index.htm).

Which leads to the conclusion that McCain cannot get far with his personal tax plan, and he wouldn't even be able to complete this plan while he is in office (if elected). Barack Obama's plan is overall better for the economy, and it will give tax relief to middle class and lower families.

Steffany Flook

Everyday, as the minute hand moves constantly on your watch, so does the statistic of National Debt of the United States of America. An issue that has been present, not only this past decade, but even under the Articles of Confederation. As the candidates for president 2008, when Obama and McCain take the stand, they should both refer and clearly explain their plans of execution when it comes to the economy. As national debt may be defined in a dictionary by owed money by any level of government, it is defined to the United States as $8.7 trillion dollars. A number constantly increasing by $2 billion dollars everyday as the sun rises into the sky and sets down behind the mountains. As Eric J. Melbourne mentions in the article, the U.S can depend on that number increasing rapidly as Busch is asking for billions of dollars to continue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent defeat. This constant number rising to over $9 trillion dollars.

Such a great deal of debt does not only weigh on the treasuries mind, but affects the citizens living in the country. Interest rates are high, ensuing that 9 cents of a dollar goes to pay interest. The relationship between interest and debt is positively proportioned, meaning that as debt increases so will the interest. Interest which many Americans are unwilling or unable to pay; Interest which affects how much money is brought home to live on and how much food is put on the dinner table. The candidates must refer to the economy because as the “peoples” it clearly affects the people daily lives.

During World War II the Gross Domestic product was at 120%. However, as the years have gone by, Gross Domestic Product has reduced significantly to a 33%. Clearly shown, war can boost such numbers up double or triple times the original percent, and with the request from President Bush, if granted, will happen once more. Also the plan to have tax revenue, in my opinion, would be a failure. The United States is in favor of this due to the fact that the believe if GDP rises or grows the economy will be able to sustain a heavier debt. However, I don’t understand why the U.S would conform themselves to later have more complications in the future. Solve a problem today, yet dread the moment their eyes open tomorrow. Rates are not as high presently since the US is the safest place to stash cash but as the war raises and baby boomers hit their peak the treasury is in for a long bill as a surprise. A subject that is being avoided by the white house and congress. Some say the best time to address this matter was “10 years ago”, although, I believe it should of never happened. A nation labeled as one of the most powerful in the world, should not also have a higher number of debt reaching over $8 million dollars.

When it comes to economy, it is clear that it is not priority on their list. When confronted with a $2 million dollar bill from Massachusetts concerning the bomb scare in Boston, they replied not with an appeal but the statement “this wouldn’t buy you 30 seconds spot on the super bowl.”However, $2 million dollars will buy food for thousands of kids in Africa on the verge of dying due to malnutrition. $2 million dollars will buy a comfortable mattress for those who sleep on concrete roads with no other place to go. $2 million dollars can give life to so many, and yet analysts of the United States did not appreciate it.

When it comes down to personal taxes, Obama has the most ideal plan. McCain plans to phase out on an alternative minimum plan that has been present to the United States for many years. Phasing out a plan, which consisted on preventing people with very high incomes from using special tax benefits to pay little or no tax? McCain claimed, “I am committed to repeal tax before millions of American families are forced to devote more hard owned money to paying for spending in Washington.” However, by taking away this plan, how does McCain plan to restore the $8.7 trillion of dollars in debt? For a few years he might successfully fade away this plan, but what about when it gets to too much debt for the treasury to handle, what then? McCain said that he devised a plan where it would enable him to gain $2,000 dollars a day, but then compare it to the $2 billion dollars of loss a day. The figures will never catch up.

Obama has a more ideal vision on the tax cuts in which I agree with. Obama decided on leaving all the tax cuts in place. Not removing the plan, however, he plans on modifying it to benefit the United States. He will leave the tax cuts, except on those who are making more than $250,000 or $200,000 a year. These American citizens would then pay from 33% to 35%, and in Obama’s plan that number would change to range from 36% to 39%. This will introduce a break for lower and middle class but will also bring a significantly more amount of money to begin to shy away from debt.

 

Domestic oil production would definitely help the energy and fuel problem in America. However, there is only so much oil in the earth and sooner or later everyone-not just the U.S., but other countries as well-are going to run out of that source.

As for the time being, I believe that Bush's plans would be effective for the immediate problem at hand. With the failing economy and the numerous vehicles, machinery, and other appliances that require gasoline, high oil prices are doing nothing to help the situation. With Bush's plan, billions of gallons and barrels of oil could be harvested over an extended period of time. Furthermore, this would help the U.S. move away from being so oil dependent on other countires-especially countries in a certain part of the world where we have armed forces fighting terrorist organizations that could very well be funded by those same countries. Probably not a good idea to be dependent on them for fuel. Drilling in the OCS and the ANWR would bring forth enough fuel to start to get the economy back on track, as well as gradually lower the prices at the pumps. With the new advancements of technology and methods, the chances of risk would be small.
The oil shale idea is so far from my perspective a great idea. Rocks that 'bleed' oil after being exposed to heat or other methods is an excellent resource to have. The technological advances from previous years would make it more affordable to perform these operations; and even then, the cost to perform said operations is still less than the market price of oil now. Oil shale could be a very useful fuel source.......

.....until we run out. While President Bush's plans have some positives, there are also negatives to the propositions. Oil shale runs into the same problem as oil now: sooner or later, it's going to run out. It would sate our fuel craving for now, but farther along the years, that source is also going to start to vanish, leaving the country with the same problem that we are facing now. The other plans, which involve drilling in environmental zones and expanding the refineries, may help for a while but would eventually run into the same problem: oil is slowly being used up. Also, the proposals to drill in the OCS and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would also leave great risks to the ecosystem. While technology has improved, there are still chances that a pipe may leak, or a tank may rupture. What would happen then? People rely on the 'bounty of the sea' for food, income, and even the occasional fun in the sun. Now let's dump some unleaded 'Texas tea' into the mix; now we have people getting sick, fishermen being unable to make a living, and a massive food shortage for towns and cities that depend on seafood and tourists to survive. Needless to say, the ocean wildlife and ecosystem would be reeling from the damage done for years upon years. Likewise, drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge would be endangering species that are almost on the brink of extinction to pollution and total extinction. Finally, the refinery expansion would do little as is. If there is no more oil, then there is no point of having a refinery. Even if another one was built, it still wouldn't solve the issue of a dying resource.

And yet, the Democratic Congress must make a decision now. The state of America and its energy pandemic cannot be overlooked. The truth is we need oil. We need gas. We need energy And we need it now. Bush's plans would lower gas prices and bring some energy back to a fuel depraved nation. However, it shouldn't be for the long term, and in the period that we have some stability, a new energy resource should be found. Let us take a look at Brazil. The use of ethanol as a fuel source has made Brazil almost self-dependent for its fuel. It wouldn't be using just corn and other food sources, but it could be using wood chips and all the cut-grass and other biodegradible mass that Americans produce or waste each day. It could theoretically be the 6-pack you pick up in the store. Brazilian scientists stated in an article even that ethanol alcohol yields almost 8 times more energy than corn-based operations. With the money saved from the plans that Bush makes, more research could be put into finding alternate energy sources such as this.

Finally, I say that I believe that Congress should go with Bush's plans to help the economy now, and so that we can switch focuses from where we are going to get more oil for the short-term, to what new energy sources are out there. For now though, start melting that shale, Congress; I got an empty tank to feed and a road trip to plan.