Senator Edward Kennedy, gave presidential candidate Barack Obama an endorsement yesterday. Alongside her brother in his endorsement, Caroline Kennedy stated in a New York Times opinion piece that Obama would be a president like her father. The Washington Post, among other national publications, claims that this will give Obama a "key boost," necessary to win the primaries.
So are these endorsements really going to matter in the long run? Not really. Lets face it, this is a close race, its too late for endorsements of celebrities to make a difference. Besides, isn't comparing the candidate of change to a president from the 60s a little contradictory?
So what is my real point here? That we should stop focusing on the minor details of this election and get down to the raw issues. Forget about race, gender, religion, and endorsements, lets talk shop.
The website zazzle.com has released various pins, shirts, stickers, and mugs that take a powerful political stand, showcasing a variety of "homegirl" products.
So why is Barack Obama my favorite homegirl? Just look at
Education: an $18 billion plan for preschool, and a $4000 college tax credit for doing community service
Global Warming: Its time we do something for our planet, and Barack has got our back. A $150 billion plan for a 10 year program to fund research for "climate friendly" energy supplies.
Health Coverage: Barack cares about children, unlike George Bush, whose first reason for vetoing child health care was, and I quote, "poor kids." Barack would like to set aside $65 billion a year to make universal health coverage affordable, by raising taxes on the wealthy.
Immigration: A heated topic this last year in congress. Barack proposes a conditional plan for US citizenship for all illegal immigrants, but is also in support of a border fence.
Iraq: THE ISSUE. Barack said, "I opposed this war from the start. Because I anticipated that we would be creating the kind of sectarian violence that we've seen and that it would distract us from the war on terror. At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But we have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq. So we have to begin a phased withdrawal; have our combat troops out by March 31st of next year; and initiate the kind of diplomatic surge that is necessary in these surrounding regions to make sure that everybody is carrying their weight. And that is what I will do on day one, as president of the United States, if we have not done it in the intervening months." His plan is to withdraw all troops within 16 months of taking office.
Taxes: wants to raise income taxes on the wealthiest and their capital gains. Also proposes an annual $25 billion tax cut for non-wealthy.
Barack also favors abortion rights, gay rights, and relaxed restrictions on stem cell research.
Who is your homegirl? Have you decided yet? If not hurry up, the primaries are almost over! It is important to become aware of the facts and the issues, and vote with political awareness. If all else fails, vote Obama, it's what Kennedy would do :P
.png)
15 comments:
Why should the taxes on the wealthy be raised? Have the majority of them not worked just as hard as every other American citizen? The do not snivel when you put homegirl signs on your door, and as you are granted the right to put on your door what you choose, they should be granted the right to keep the money they earn. Poorer Americans have been receiving handouts for far too long. It is about time our country puts the responsibility in the hands of the citizens.
Our country has not always believed in fairness and equality. Racism, Sexism, and discrimination prevented many from gaining the rights that so many of us take for granted today. Our country has made numerous efforts to rectify these injustices of the past, and we continue to make strides towards a fair and equal society. Why is it that after all this we are working against ourselves and treating one faction so different from the rest?
Just some stats on taxes:
-The top 1% of income earners in the U.S. pay 29% of the income taxes. The top 20% pay 74%. This leaves less than 5% of the tax burden for the bottom 50% of income earners. Fair? I think not.
-Over the past 30 years, the increased welfare spending has done little to nothing to the poverty rate in the United States.
I can go on and on.
The point of this dissent is this. Raising taxes on the rich is not only an unfair practice, but it will do so little in the grand scheme of things that it should not even be considered. Instead of concentrating on the tax rate of a small group, why not look at ways to save money throughout government? So many ABC agencies that have their initial goals can be done away with. Our entire tax system can be reformed, reducing government expenditures by millions of dollars annually. Many of our most skilled economists have proposed programs to eliminate the IRS while preventing a loss of tax revenue.
As the great economist Adam Smith once said, “As soon as government management begins it upsets the natural equilibrium of industrial relations, and each interference only requires further bureaucratic control until the end is the tyranny of the totalitarian state.”
OneofMany, I appreciate your challenge to my opinions, so let me challenge yours.
Is it fair that the wealthiest 1% in America, share 40% of the wealth? I think not. So why shouldn't these people who are partaking such a vast majority of the total American net wealth, not pay a greater amount of taxes? I understand that there are some people who take advantage of welfare systems, and others who are just lazy, but there are some people who are just given a raw deal in life, and work their butts off trying to catch up with the rest of us. I think that they deserve a break, don't you?
I actually do believe it is fair that the wealth is distributed how it is. The majority of those 1% have worked very hard, but more importantly, they have made smart decisions which have paid off in the end. Big rewards require big risk. Plenty those individuals who are in the top 1% have risked everything they have to get to where they are today. And with some luck, and loads of perseverance, they made it to the top. So why should we punish those who risk it all by requiring them to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?
Also, you said "why shouldn't these people who are partaking such a vast majority of the total American net wealth, not pay a greater amount of taxes?" Let me tell you, they do pay more in taxes....much more. If everyone paid the same percentage of their income in taxes, these people would be paying more, it would be proportional to their income. But that doesn’t happen, the wealthy also pay a higher percentage than those of us who make very little. This means they are paying much much more than the non-wealthy. That is evident by the statistics provided in my first comment.
I believe those who take the most risks and work the hardest should be rewarded. While I am opposed to raising the income tax, I believe raising inheritance, capital gains, and other taxes that are not directly correlated to effort, will be beneficial and much more fair than raising the tax rate for wealthy individuals.
Ms. Worm, I respect your opinion, and can see where you are coming from. The shrinking middle class of America is not something we can afford to take lightly. However, I do believe there needs to be a lot more thought into solving this problem than just raising the income (and capital gains) taxes of the wealthy. Thank you for expressing your views while respecting mine.
oneofmany, you have very good points on your side, I would be interested in seeing the statistical evidence you have on the rate the wealthy are taxed in comparison with middle and lower socioeconomic classes.
I have one more comment to pick your brain. Class systems. You can not have wealthy without poor, correct? If this is a true statement, then we have to assume that even if everyone put in the same amount of effort, there is some luck attributed as well as to who would make it on top and who would stay below. Now assuming that this philosophy is without flaw, and we apply it to our class system today, then why should we not reward those who worked just as hard, but unfortunately failed to make it on top?
Ms Worm, great to hear from you again. I am very glad that you have asked for evidence, you shouldn't trust just anyone. I am more than willing to do that to prove these are not just my opinions, but are actually based in fact. Why don't you take a peek at this site.
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html
Just so you wouldn't doubt the validity of it, I made sure I pulled it directly from the IRS website. The chart clearly shows that individuals making more money pay a higher tax rate, it is referred to as one's tax bracket. This can also be found in almost any economics book, I will be more than happy to sit down and show you sometime.
Now on to the picking of my brain. Your comment about not having wealthy without having poor is not necessarily true. It depends on how you describe poor. Unless you are living in a communist society, you will always have people who are "less fortunate" than others. While the lower class may be "poor" when compared to the wealthy, their standard of living may not be poor. So if you consider someone to be poor when they are not as well off as the wealthy, then you are correct. The American Heritage Dictionary defines poor as, "Having little or no wealth and few or no possessions." By this definition your assumption is incorrect.
Even though I find your statement to be untrue, I will humor you by answering the rest of your question. As I said in my post, some luck is required in making it to the top. However, Luck is typically not the driving force. As I discussed in my last post, risk and perseverance should be rewarded, not just how hard one works. Although some people may work just as hard as others, they may not be willing to risk everything they have in order to make it to the top. A question you may ask is, what if someone does work just as hard, and is willing to take the risks, but somehow they still fail, is that fair? Although I would be sympathetic towards them, I do believe that is fair. We live in a capitalist system where some things beyond our control are rewarded, one of which is timing. That is where the perseverance comes in, you must be willing to get up when you fall and try something new when you miss a window of opportunity. Most of all I believe capitalism rewards intelligence. It doesn’t matter how persistent you are if you are not intelligent enough to realize when you need to adapt, and how to do it. So do I think a hard working, intelligent, persistent, risk taker should be rewarded more than someone who is not on the same level? You are darn right I do. That is why I love America, the land of opportunity.
God Bless The USA!
I tried to go to your link, it said the page did not exist, would you mind double checking and posting it again? I went to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00
and then
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.
neither one worked.
Here is a link to some of my evidence:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y3lawGKZWhcC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=the+american+dream+sociology&source=web&ots=eYnanfQZjR&sig=bNy3TvVkNCERTePsFVHhf7fmiKI#PPA156,M1
I know what happened, the page cuts off links....sooo... here is mine again in a new format:
Sociology
The tax rate jumps from 10% to 35%. That is an additional 1/4 of someone's income we are taking.
Interesting data.
Here are some interesting articles:
Tax cut Statistics
State of Union Commentary
I suppose that you have fantastic evidence, and I will have to say that the tax rates seem fair for the time being. However, I still have a problem with tax cuts...what do you think?
I think 7:30 Saturday works great for me. I also think you may be surprised to find out I am not as conservative as you likely believe. I can't really get into whether or not I support tax cuts because I don't support how our government is run. I think spending needs to be cut drastically. Our government is becoming too big for its own good. With the current situation I am not crazy about tax cuts, but we could easily cut taxes if we weren't wasting as much money as we are in Iraq (Or The Iraq as miss teen North Carolina would say). In case you never saw it So the main reason I do not support cutting taxes at this point is because our government currently needs the money. In general, I do support tax cuts. The reason most liberals don't support them is who they benefit. They do not benefit the poor as much as the wealthy because the poor already pay so little in taxes. A straight 1% tax cut would obviously benefit someone who makes $1,000,000 much more than someone who makes $20K. All the cuts do is try to make up for the disparity in tax rates by usually making even cuts instead of adjusting by income. Our country is in bad shape and it isn't getting better with our current situation, we need drastic changes in order to prevent further problems. Although I am not surprised you used an article from the old Gray Lady, you may find articles from more conservative papers to be intellectually stimulating as well. Sometimes a change of pace can work wonders.
Are you referring to the Largest syndicated, and most credited newspaper as the Grey Lady? ha ha ha ha ha, oh my.
Okay, I am so delighted you lightened the mood with the YouTube video, and yes I saw that, and it doesn't shock me, ha ha.
I do agree there needs to be major revamping done of the system, but from studying the system, that seems nearly impossible.
Saturday 7:30... a. I am visiting my grandparents this weekend, so I am busy and b. I am very wary of meeting a complete stranger.
Syndicated schmindicated.....what paper has the largest circulation? Unfortunately it's not the Gray Lady...and yes, I am referring to one of the nation’s most liberal sources of biased news as "Gray Lady" because that is a name she earned. The Times has plenty of news, but doesn't show both sides to every situation which I feel a great story should. Mr. Blair can tell you all about that. All that aside, I will admit the Times is one of the best papers around, and I do enjoy reading it.
Shoot, I thought the mood was pretty light. I am unaware of how you are taking all this. You could see it as a personal attack, someone lunatic’s opinion, or just another prospective on situations. I do not intend for this to be offensive to you whatsoever. I respect your opinions and take them to heart in order to be sure I am seeing the whole situation. I am not writing this in an attempt to get you to come to the dark side. The funny thing is, fiscal matters are some of the only issues where I agree with the Conservative thought. Because of that, I see this discussion as a healthy way of exchanging opinions and consider the mood to be very light. I hope you are not taking this to be anything more than an interesting discussion.
Maybe you are using the wrong approach to studying the system. Imagine this "system" did not exist, how would you do things? Would your system work? Could it be implemented? If so, what can we do to begin moving towards that system? There are some great politicians who disagree with the current system.
A. That is great! B. Good, strangers are dangerous. C. Isn't everyone a stranger at first?
I had a good talk today with my roommate about her opinions on this, she is somewhere in the middle of us. I have to say you have persuaded me a little bit, and I thank you for that. My roommate has some very good opinions, as far as you go and your annonymity, she said I should be wary and that you sound creepy...I have to say that it does freak me out that I dont know who you are or how you found your way to my blog.
I love the creepy comment. I have conservative view points on some issues, that creeps a lot of people out. =0 I am kidding, I know what you meant. The only reason I have not divulged my identity is due to the fact that I don't think I would be able to speak as open and freely. Many people in your position would have a problem with someone who has the viewpoints that I do. I believe you are more open minded than most and you may be fine with these opinions. I respect you for that. If you would really like to know who I am and how I happened to find your blog, I could probably tell you. Maybe your blog is just fascination and everyone is reading it but not responding because they are afraid.
You are wise to be wary of strangers. You shouldn't trust just anyone. Your decisions are up to you, but sometimes you must take a chance to advance. Don't think you ever have to meet me, or even continue responding to me. I am just here to open your mind, not control it. Take a look at Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 Enjoy your grandparents
I really would like to know who you are and how you found my blog, it would make me feel a whole lot better.
Post a Comment