Below is the opinion piece we read in class:
Exclusive: Multicultural History: Playing in a Classroom Near You
Tom McLaughlin
Every week I'm reminded of my love/hate relationship with the U.S. history textbook (The American Nation, written by James West Davidson and Michael Stoff in association with American Heritage, published by Prentice Hall) used in my class. It blatantly panders to America's public school teachers who favor politically-correct interpretations of history. That's what I hate about it - and it's also what I love about it. The book's bias is easy for my students to recognize, and I can contrast it to my own conservative bias which I acknowledge very early in the school year. The book does not acknowledge its bias, purporting to be an objective account of events. It's an easy foil.I use the text mostly for students to read and answer discussion questions as homework, which we correct in class. In its coverage of the Vietnam War, one two-part question asks: "Why did civil war break out in [neighboring] Cambodia?" and "What were the results of the war?" As I walk around the room checking homework, a student volunteer acts as "assistant teacher" using the teachers' edition to go over the questions and answers. He or she will read a question, listen to various answers from students, and then read the "correct" answer. As for what caused the Cambodian Civil War, the teachers' edition gave the answer as: "U.S./South Vietnamese forces bombed and attacked Cambodia's bases; as Cambodians took sides, civil war erupted." The clear implication is that America started it.And the results of the war? The "correct" answer was: "Communist Khmer Rouge won; more than a million Cambodians died." They weren't worked to death or murdered by the communists. They just "died."The first time I heard that I was appalled and I asked the student to repeat what the teachers' edition said. President Nixon was no prize, but he didn't start the Cambodian Civil War when he ordered U.S. forces into North Vietnamese and Viet Cong sanctuaries there, and he didn't cause the Khmer Rouge to murder millions of Cambodians either. Communists own that. It's part of their dismal legacy around the world in the 20th Century, but the historians who wrote my textbook seem deliberately blind about the evil effects of communism wherever it has been applied. They define it as: "an economic system is which all wealth and property is owned by the community as a whole." Sounds fine when put in those terms, no? Contrast the text's definition with Random House's (2006) definition: "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party." Based on about 90 years of applied communism around the world and tens of millions dead as a result, which definition is most accurate?Communism's first application was in Russia after Bolsheviks took control of the revolution and instituted the Soviet Union. The text's harshest criticism of their depredations is a description of how Americans were shocked "when the Soviet government did away with private property and attacked religion." Then it covers the first Ukrainian famine saying: "Despite disapproval of the Soviet government, Congress voted $20 million in aid when famine threatened Russia in 1921. American aid may have saved as many as 10 million Russians from starvation."The text doesn't speculate about why the Soviet government would "disapprove" aid to its own starving people. Neither does it mention that Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin engineered a "famine" in Ukraine ten years later to purposefully starve 7 million Ukrainians when they resisted "community ownership" of their farmland.What about the Soviet Union's military repression of Eastern Europe after World War II? When the text begins its coverage of the Cold War, students are asked: "Why did tensions develop among the Allied Powers?" The "correct" answer is: "The U.S. and Britain distrusted the Soviet Union's communist government; the Soviets, also distrustful, feared invasion." There's no moral superiority in America's $12 billion rebuilding of western Europe under the Marshal Plan compared to the Soviet Union's virtual enslavement of eastern Europe.Like it or not, that's the multicultural, morally equivalent theme permeating nearly every textbook used in America's public schools. No culture may be depicted as superior to any other culture, even when it is.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
ClappityClap: Election Views
Math is a type of subject that has only one solution, and only one certain answer (2+2=4, never 2+2=L). The subject of the economy is different. There is no certain answer, and the answer you make might get could possibly not work out in the end. Both presidential candidates have a plan to steer us away from a bigger economic crisis, and both just happen to be different approaches to the same solution: Intergalactic peace to your wallets.
John McCain, the Republican candidate, proposes to buy home loans, and reverse the decline on loans throughout the nation. He also promises affordable health care and a 52 billion dollar cut on Seniors (including him?) on the topic of business, he wants to encourage jobs by cutting business taxes and no tax increase on small businesses. All this could help the economy greatly by increasing product exporting, and making the dollar affordable.
Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, wants to fix the Energy policy and Health Care policy, and get it right. He also wants tax-payers to eventually get their money back, and proposes tax-cuts for people making under 250,000 a year. That’s 95% of the people in the U.S.! But, the ‘downside’ is that it is basically take from the ‘rich’, and give to the ‘poor’ (remind you of anybody?). In terms of businesses, he also wants to create more jobs, create more product exports, and save the world, but he includes in his speech that he wants to give tax credit to U.S. companies, which is good for us.
I, Clappity-Clap, prefer Obama’s plan. He wants to take away what we as Americans do not want (taxes), and give us the chance to revive the American dollar by exports and jobs. Also, his plan to take from the rich and give to the poor, while many would mentally oppose it, will create equilibrium to our country. McCain’s plan does have its ups and downs, but overall, I believe that Barack Obama can really pull this nation back together.
Basically, both candidates have solutions, and they are both possible, but which could work? Which will get the chance to work? Which can save the United States from the Great Depression V2?
John McCain, the Republican candidate, proposes to buy home loans, and reverse the decline on loans throughout the nation. He also promises affordable health care and a 52 billion dollar cut on Seniors (including him?) on the topic of business, he wants to encourage jobs by cutting business taxes and no tax increase on small businesses. All this could help the economy greatly by increasing product exporting, and making the dollar affordable.
Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, wants to fix the Energy policy and Health Care policy, and get it right. He also wants tax-payers to eventually get their money back, and proposes tax-cuts for people making under 250,000 a year. That’s 95% of the people in the U.S.! But, the ‘downside’ is that it is basically take from the ‘rich’, and give to the ‘poor’ (remind you of anybody?). In terms of businesses, he also wants to create more jobs, create more product exports, and save the world, but he includes in his speech that he wants to give tax credit to U.S. companies, which is good for us.
I, Clappity-Clap, prefer Obama’s plan. He wants to take away what we as Americans do not want (taxes), and give us the chance to revive the American dollar by exports and jobs. Also, his plan to take from the rich and give to the poor, while many would mentally oppose it, will create equilibrium to our country. McCain’s plan does have its ups and downs, but overall, I believe that Barack Obama can really pull this nation back together.
Basically, both candidates have solutions, and they are both possible, but which could work? Which will get the chance to work? Which can save the United States from the Great Depression V2?
BaseballProdigy04: Election Views
The time to choose a new leader for our country is nearly upon us, and as the two candidates, Obama and McCain, continue to debate on the several issues regarding our country’s well-being, we notice several differences in their political views on how our economy should be run. As you probably know, our economy is at rock bottom. The stock market, once a great watermelon, has shriveled up to nothing but a tiny grape, and it has negatively affected our society in a domino effect; a majority of the people in our once glorious nation are now facing foreclosure situations on their homes, with very little money in the bank, if any money at all. Even some banks no longer have money! Well, the time has come for a new president, and with a new president comes new change. And hopefully, that change will send our economy shooting to the stars, as it once was…a very long time ago, or so it seems.
Very recently, the views of each candidate on economy, more specifically tax cuts, reached the eager ears of our society. The beliefs of Obama and McCain turned out to be completely opposite. Both have plans to save our economy, but it’s strange how very different from each other they are. For instance, McCain proposed a 52 Billion Dollar plan to save the economy, while Obama announced a 60 Billion Dollar plan. Obama declared that he wanted to focus primarily on making tax cuts from the normal class people, stating that he wanted to “save the middle class Americans” from debt. McCain announced that he on the other hand wanted to make tax cuts for the upper class Americans. However, he also spoke about how this would allow more small businesses to be opened, thus healing the economy.
“The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.” McCain said in the debate. He believes that if we cut the upper class people’s taxes, we will be permitting those people to “spread the wealth” by pouring their money back into the economy, therefore allowing all kinds of businesses and companies to prosper during these hard times.
In response, Obama stated that “high-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.” Obama believes that if we cut the taxes of the less wealthy, we will allow them to prosper and continue their successful lives. He also said this because let’s face it; there are many more middle and lower class people in the nation as opposed to upper class people, and Obama wants to ensure that the majority of our nation is happy with him and his tax cuts. I apologize for tipping the scale more towards McCain, but he, in my opinion, is the ideal candidate in this year’s presidential election. But that’s just me.
So to sum up both of their political views on tax cuts, Obama believes that we should lower taxes for middle and lower class Americans, so more people in America can be successful. McCain believes that we should cut the taxes of upper class Americans, despite the fact that more people in America will be paying high taxes. However, if McCain became president and did this, it would allow more American businesses to flourish, thus allowing the economy to ascend. If Obama became president and did what he said he would regarding taxes, less Americans would be paying high taxes, and he believes that this will allow the economy to rise. In the words of McCain: “Obama wants to take America’s tax money and spread the wealth around America himself. I want to decrease the upper class people’s taxes, thus allowing the more wealthy people to spread the wealth around by themselves.
In my personal opinion, McCain has the better plan for America, but I shan’t get into that in this particular essay. Feel free to challenge me though. I’d be glad to debate anyone on any topic regarding McCain’s plans for tax cuts versus Obama’s.
Very recently, the views of each candidate on economy, more specifically tax cuts, reached the eager ears of our society. The beliefs of Obama and McCain turned out to be completely opposite. Both have plans to save our economy, but it’s strange how very different from each other they are. For instance, McCain proposed a 52 Billion Dollar plan to save the economy, while Obama announced a 60 Billion Dollar plan. Obama declared that he wanted to focus primarily on making tax cuts from the normal class people, stating that he wanted to “save the middle class Americans” from debt. McCain announced that he on the other hand wanted to make tax cuts for the upper class Americans. However, he also spoke about how this would allow more small businesses to be opened, thus healing the economy.
“The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.” McCain said in the debate. He believes that if we cut the upper class people’s taxes, we will be permitting those people to “spread the wealth” by pouring their money back into the economy, therefore allowing all kinds of businesses and companies to prosper during these hard times.
In response, Obama stated that “high-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.” Obama believes that if we cut the taxes of the less wealthy, we will allow them to prosper and continue their successful lives. He also said this because let’s face it; there are many more middle and lower class people in the nation as opposed to upper class people, and Obama wants to ensure that the majority of our nation is happy with him and his tax cuts. I apologize for tipping the scale more towards McCain, but he, in my opinion, is the ideal candidate in this year’s presidential election. But that’s just me.
So to sum up both of their political views on tax cuts, Obama believes that we should lower taxes for middle and lower class Americans, so more people in America can be successful. McCain believes that we should cut the taxes of upper class Americans, despite the fact that more people in America will be paying high taxes. However, if McCain became president and did this, it would allow more American businesses to flourish, thus allowing the economy to ascend. If Obama became president and did what he said he would regarding taxes, less Americans would be paying high taxes, and he believes that this will allow the economy to rise. In the words of McCain: “Obama wants to take America’s tax money and spread the wealth around America himself. I want to decrease the upper class people’s taxes, thus allowing the more wealthy people to spread the wealth around by themselves.
In my personal opinion, McCain has the better plan for America, but I shan’t get into that in this particular essay. Feel free to challenge me though. I’d be glad to debate anyone on any topic regarding McCain’s plans for tax cuts versus Obama’s.
Monday, October 20, 2008
From Curly: Election Views
To vote or not to vote, that is the question.
The decision of who to vote for this year is a big time “I don’t know”. Obama wants to make a lot of ‘big plans’ to help our country. The plans are great, except for the fact that they cost billions and billions of dollars that we don’t have. Our country is already in debt and all Obama wants to do is spend, spend, spend. Where is the money coming from? McCain wants to rebuild our country economically. Though he is extremely old (There is a chance that he will die during his first term. In this case, Sarah Palin would be president. Many people in our country don’t trust her with this task.) and he is not strong in debates, his plan for our economy would ‘rebuild’ our country and improve our global status.
Obama has BIG plans for office. Four years will not be enough for him to get very far with those plans. Even eight years is not enough time. The next president in office would be left with a tremendous amount of debt and a ton of unfinished work that he/she might not want to deal with. The building debt is setting the stage for a second Holocaust. At this point, the only way to get billions, maybe even trillions of dollars back into our country’s economy would be to take it from somewhere; people in our country are too lazy to work for it.
Of course McCain will have to spend money. He should spend a fair amount of money in his term without over-spending. His plan is to rebuild our economy by bringing reform, prosperity and peace to America. His plan will provide workplace flexibility, relief for families, government reform, support for small businesses, cheaper and cleaner forms of energy, better healthcare, simpler and fairer taxes, and lower trade barriers.
Both Obama and McCain have plans that would help our economy, but McCain’s plan will bring prosperity to our country. The next president needs to take the US to rehab, and get her through it. Only then can we make ‘big plans’- only then will we be able to afford them. Obama’s time to shine as our country’s president will come. We just aren’t quite ready for him.
The decision of who to vote for this year is a big time “I don’t know”. Obama wants to make a lot of ‘big plans’ to help our country. The plans are great, except for the fact that they cost billions and billions of dollars that we don’t have. Our country is already in debt and all Obama wants to do is spend, spend, spend. Where is the money coming from? McCain wants to rebuild our country economically. Though he is extremely old (There is a chance that he will die during his first term. In this case, Sarah Palin would be president. Many people in our country don’t trust her with this task.) and he is not strong in debates, his plan for our economy would ‘rebuild’ our country and improve our global status.
Obama has BIG plans for office. Four years will not be enough for him to get very far with those plans. Even eight years is not enough time. The next president in office would be left with a tremendous amount of debt and a ton of unfinished work that he/she might not want to deal with. The building debt is setting the stage for a second Holocaust. At this point, the only way to get billions, maybe even trillions of dollars back into our country’s economy would be to take it from somewhere; people in our country are too lazy to work for it.
Of course McCain will have to spend money. He should spend a fair amount of money in his term without over-spending. His plan is to rebuild our economy by bringing reform, prosperity and peace to America. His plan will provide workplace flexibility, relief for families, government reform, support for small businesses, cheaper and cleaner forms of energy, better healthcare, simpler and fairer taxes, and lower trade barriers.
Both Obama and McCain have plans that would help our economy, but McCain’s plan will bring prosperity to our country. The next president needs to take the US to rehab, and get her through it. Only then can we make ‘big plans’- only then will we be able to afford them. Obama’s time to shine as our country’s president will come. We just aren’t quite ready for him.
From Breath: Election Views
Life isn’t fair.
Simply put: the cold, hard truth. Most of us know it by now, and it’s a decidedly blatant fact even to those who don’t. We can rail about a certain something called the “economy,” for instance—and how it also happens to be crashing and burning this generation, courtesy of mistakes that began cropping two generations ago—but there is little that people can do to drastically change it. Things began snowballing decades ago. This is today. Not yesterday.
To get on to my actual point, the two candidates in the coming presidential election both show merits—one cannot deny that. Each candidate has his pros and his cons. The problem would be identifying them. It’s all a matter of perspective as to just what is a pro and what is a con. And to be perfectly honest, if one asked me which candidate I would prefer as president, I wouldn’t quite know for sure.
From what I’ve heard, Barack Obama has not disparaged his opponent—or, if he has, the amount is moderate to minimal. That speaks a lot about his morals. On the other hand, John McCain, Obama’s said opponent, has distorted truth before. On the campaign trail in Concord, North Carolina, McCain quoted Obama as saying that he wished to “spread the wealth around.” According to an article on the CNN website, this was, in fact, a misleading statement. McCain distorted Obama’s point and oversimplified a five-minute-long conversation. “Obama replied in great detail about his tax plan, and the ‘spread the wealth’ remark was one small part of the conversation.“ [1] This already speaks a bit about McCain’s person. He’s willing to distort the facts in order to throw doubt at his opponent? Well. There’s something.
But I digress.
“Obama explained his tax plan during the roughly five-minute exchange — telling Wurzelbacher that the tax rate on the portion of his income that was more than $250,000 would be increased from 36 percent to 39 percent. But he also mentioned that his plan includes a 50 percent small-business tax credit for health care and a proposal to eliminate the capital-gains tax for small businesses that increase in value. Obama said his tax plan, which he said focuses on bigger breaks for people making lower incomes, would be good for the economy. ‘If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you,’ he said. ‘Right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.’” [1]
I do agree with and find advantages in Obama’s plan. While people making over $250,000 would be subjected to a tax increase, they also receive a benefit. Compensation, in a way—a means of balancing things so that the bad does not outweigh the good. In the quote, Obama said that his plan also “includes a 50 percent small-business tax credit for health care and a proposal to eliminate the capital-gains tax for small businesses that increase in value.” Additionally, it is likely that the amount of people who make less than $200,000 each year (and thus people who would benefit from the tax cuts in Obama’s plan) outnumber the amount of people who would receive fewer benefits. Often times, it is better to tend to the majority because the majority consists of more people—thus, more people would benefit. However, this is just a thought, not a “be all and end all” kind of thing.
On the other hand, take McCain’s plan. He plans to have no raising taxes and create more jobs. Which probably means giving money to larger businesses in some way so that they have the budget to create more jobs and thus hire more employees, which decreases the amount of jobless people. There’s merit in that, too. However, why is it that I can see people… oh, say, use that money improperly? It has happened before in the past. People have used money for the wrong purposes before. History repeats itself constantly, whether in minor or major ways. It happens. (See the word “corruption” if the dictionary if you need a better idea of what I’m getting at.)
My next point. Capitalism or socialism?
Whereas one gives equal opportunity, the other gives equal outcome.
They both have their flaws. I could probably nitpick at the negatives for hours if I felt like it. Both have pitfalls that people are bound to dislike.
Capitalism is what we have now—and also what brought us to the economy’s current state. Which is decidedly worsening, mind you. Equal opportunity, while nice, causes problems for the economy in general. You have those who can pay for things and those who cannot, each with circumstances behind why they don’t or do. Some people endured poor schooling as children. Can you really blame them for something they had no true part in? I don’t think so. Nonetheless, people, as kids, tend to be unable to choose the quality of their education. They generally deal with what they get, particularly if they aren’t so well off. However, this doesn’t change the point that, later on, this lack of decent education impacts their future lives. And this also throws a wedge into things. Because of a certain law, banks must give loans to anyone, not just people with good credit, background, and whatnot. When those people fail to pay back, the entire economy goes down. Pretty much everything in life is a cycle. Once one thing stops, everything else does. Or, at least, one thing affects another. A domino or ripple effect, if you will.
On the other hand: socialism. Hmm. Sounds familiar.
There are pitfalls in this, too. Equal outcome. Socialism “seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control.” [2] I place emphasis on the word, “control.” This sounds almost like a dictatorship of sorts, which means essentially throwing away democracy. Bummer. Additionally, “property and wealth are shared, and their distribution are subject to the control of the people, who exert equal control of the government.” Because everything is shared, this method sounds all the more easy to manipulate. And there’s also that point that “all can expect a fairly even distribution of wealth from what is produced, so all live at approximately the same income level.” [3] This reeks of unfairness. If you pour more effort in, you still end up with the same as another person. Well. Equivalence that isn’t quite equivalence at all.
Simply put: the cold, hard truth. Most of us know it by now, and it’s a decidedly blatant fact even to those who don’t. We can rail about a certain something called the “economy,” for instance—and how it also happens to be crashing and burning this generation, courtesy of mistakes that began cropping two generations ago—but there is little that people can do to drastically change it. Things began snowballing decades ago. This is today. Not yesterday.
To get on to my actual point, the two candidates in the coming presidential election both show merits—one cannot deny that. Each candidate has his pros and his cons. The problem would be identifying them. It’s all a matter of perspective as to just what is a pro and what is a con. And to be perfectly honest, if one asked me which candidate I would prefer as president, I wouldn’t quite know for sure.
From what I’ve heard, Barack Obama has not disparaged his opponent—or, if he has, the amount is moderate to minimal. That speaks a lot about his morals. On the other hand, John McCain, Obama’s said opponent, has distorted truth before. On the campaign trail in Concord, North Carolina, McCain quoted Obama as saying that he wished to “spread the wealth around.” According to an article on the CNN website, this was, in fact, a misleading statement. McCain distorted Obama’s point and oversimplified a five-minute-long conversation. “Obama replied in great detail about his tax plan, and the ‘spread the wealth’ remark was one small part of the conversation.“ [1] This already speaks a bit about McCain’s person. He’s willing to distort the facts in order to throw doubt at his opponent? Well. There’s something.
But I digress.
“Obama explained his tax plan during the roughly five-minute exchange — telling Wurzelbacher that the tax rate on the portion of his income that was more than $250,000 would be increased from 36 percent to 39 percent. But he also mentioned that his plan includes a 50 percent small-business tax credit for health care and a proposal to eliminate the capital-gains tax for small businesses that increase in value. Obama said his tax plan, which he said focuses on bigger breaks for people making lower incomes, would be good for the economy. ‘If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you,’ he said. ‘Right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.’” [1]
I do agree with and find advantages in Obama’s plan. While people making over $250,000 would be subjected to a tax increase, they also receive a benefit. Compensation, in a way—a means of balancing things so that the bad does not outweigh the good. In the quote, Obama said that his plan also “includes a 50 percent small-business tax credit for health care and a proposal to eliminate the capital-gains tax for small businesses that increase in value.” Additionally, it is likely that the amount of people who make less than $200,000 each year (and thus people who would benefit from the tax cuts in Obama’s plan) outnumber the amount of people who would receive fewer benefits. Often times, it is better to tend to the majority because the majority consists of more people—thus, more people would benefit. However, this is just a thought, not a “be all and end all” kind of thing.
On the other hand, take McCain’s plan. He plans to have no raising taxes and create more jobs. Which probably means giving money to larger businesses in some way so that they have the budget to create more jobs and thus hire more employees, which decreases the amount of jobless people. There’s merit in that, too. However, why is it that I can see people… oh, say, use that money improperly? It has happened before in the past. People have used money for the wrong purposes before. History repeats itself constantly, whether in minor or major ways. It happens. (See the word “corruption” if the dictionary if you need a better idea of what I’m getting at.)
My next point. Capitalism or socialism?
Whereas one gives equal opportunity, the other gives equal outcome.
They both have their flaws. I could probably nitpick at the negatives for hours if I felt like it. Both have pitfalls that people are bound to dislike.
Capitalism is what we have now—and also what brought us to the economy’s current state. Which is decidedly worsening, mind you. Equal opportunity, while nice, causes problems for the economy in general. You have those who can pay for things and those who cannot, each with circumstances behind why they don’t or do. Some people endured poor schooling as children. Can you really blame them for something they had no true part in? I don’t think so. Nonetheless, people, as kids, tend to be unable to choose the quality of their education. They generally deal with what they get, particularly if they aren’t so well off. However, this doesn’t change the point that, later on, this lack of decent education impacts their future lives. And this also throws a wedge into things. Because of a certain law, banks must give loans to anyone, not just people with good credit, background, and whatnot. When those people fail to pay back, the entire economy goes down. Pretty much everything in life is a cycle. Once one thing stops, everything else does. Or, at least, one thing affects another. A domino or ripple effect, if you will.
On the other hand: socialism. Hmm. Sounds familiar.
There are pitfalls in this, too. Equal outcome. Socialism “seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control.” [2] I place emphasis on the word, “control.” This sounds almost like a dictatorship of sorts, which means essentially throwing away democracy. Bummer. Additionally, “property and wealth are shared, and their distribution are subject to the control of the people, who exert equal control of the government.” Because everything is shared, this method sounds all the more easy to manipulate. And there’s also that point that “all can expect a fairly even distribution of wealth from what is produced, so all live at approximately the same income level.” [3] This reeks of unfairness. If you pour more effort in, you still end up with the same as another person. Well. Equivalence that isn’t quite equivalence at all.
havesomecookies: Election views
Once upon a time, a girl had 5 cookies. She had worked extremely hard to earn these cookies, and they were her lunch for the day. Her task was to give 2 dogs a bath and wash a car. Her labor had paid off because now she would not be hungry.
But there was another little boy who had to water the plants and scrub the floors but got only 1 cookie. He had some food, but not nearly enough to satisfy his hunger.
According to Senator Barrack Obama, the little girl should give some of her cookies to the boy so they can “share the wealth.” Senator John McCain would give the little boy more cookies so that they could be equal.
Obama’s plan to help the U.S. economy is to lower taxes on lower and middle income workers, but raise them on upper class citizens. But why should the wealthier people who got an education and found a job have to pay for other people’s mistakes? Some citizens choose to drop out of school, or have kids when they’re not making a living yet. If they don’t get a good education, they won’t be able to get a good job. It’s not the upper class’s job to use up their energy and effort to help other people when they’re the one who should be getting the money. Everyone has a choice, and the lower income workers made mistakes. The upper class workers shouldn’t have to suffer for their problems. Sure, donating a few dollars to a charity once in a while is fine. But the money they would lose is a lot more than a few dollars, and it’s not fair that they have to support others too.
McCain’s plan seems fair, but where will all the cookies come from? There are only so many cookies in the cookie jar. Giving money to the poor will result in other problems because there is not enough money in the government to spare. However, at least with McCain’s plan everybody will be receiving the same tax cuts.
There is not an easy answer to this economic crisis.
But there was another little boy who had to water the plants and scrub the floors but got only 1 cookie. He had some food, but not nearly enough to satisfy his hunger.
According to Senator Barrack Obama, the little girl should give some of her cookies to the boy so they can “share the wealth.” Senator John McCain would give the little boy more cookies so that they could be equal.
Obama’s plan to help the U.S. economy is to lower taxes on lower and middle income workers, but raise them on upper class citizens. But why should the wealthier people who got an education and found a job have to pay for other people’s mistakes? Some citizens choose to drop out of school, or have kids when they’re not making a living yet. If they don’t get a good education, they won’t be able to get a good job. It’s not the upper class’s job to use up their energy and effort to help other people when they’re the one who should be getting the money. Everyone has a choice, and the lower income workers made mistakes. The upper class workers shouldn’t have to suffer for their problems. Sure, donating a few dollars to a charity once in a while is fine. But the money they would lose is a lot more than a few dollars, and it’s not fair that they have to support others too.
McCain’s plan seems fair, but where will all the cookies come from? There are only so many cookies in the cookie jar. Giving money to the poor will result in other problems because there is not enough money in the government to spare. However, at least with McCain’s plan everybody will be receiving the same tax cuts.
There is not an easy answer to this economic crisis.
Slater: Election Views
It’s kind of funny how a short discussion that was supposed to last ten minutes ended up forty-five minutes long. In class, we watched two short segments of the third and final presidential debate about the Senators’ plans for the economy. We discussed them afterwards a bit, which is to say we attacked Senator Obama for having a socialistic plan to help our economy gain way again. I personally spoke out against it, being greedy enough to admit that I would rather keep my money and have some family thousands of miles away from me that I don’t even know starve than give it to them to buy meals at McDonalds.
After watching two short segments in class of the third and final presidential debate between Senator Obama and Senator McCain, I have come to a simple conclusion of the mates’ economic plans.
They are making us choose the better of two evils.
Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s economic plan to get us out of the mess we are currently in is to have tax breaks for working families that make under a quarter of a million dollars a year, returning their taxes to how they originally were, and then raise taxes to those making over two hundred fifty thousand dollars a year. Which is great and everything if you fall under the cut, but what if you were someone who was successful, made the right decisions, and honestly earned that money? It is unfair for a person with a thriving career to have to make up for the stupid mistakes of others. I mean, sure, there’s never a bad idea of “spreading the wealth around” but that doesn’t make it immune from having a bad way of doing so. Socialism is not the way, Senator.
John McCain, the Republican nominee, on the other hand, offered a different plan. Instead, he suggested, as a short-term fix, of taking three hundred billion dollars to buy the home loan mortgages to let the people keep their houses and have the banks get the money they normally would. He is suggesting giving tax breaks to corporate companies and to senior citizens. My problem with him is that if he is planning to give tax breaks to such large groups of people, I would like to know where exactly he is planning to get the money to do some of the short-term things he planned, the three hundred billion dollars he wanted to use to buy mortgages, to be exact.
Where’s Hilary when you need her?
After watching two short segments in class of the third and final presidential debate between Senator Obama and Senator McCain, I have come to a simple conclusion of the mates’ economic plans.
They are making us choose the better of two evils.
Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s economic plan to get us out of the mess we are currently in is to have tax breaks for working families that make under a quarter of a million dollars a year, returning their taxes to how they originally were, and then raise taxes to those making over two hundred fifty thousand dollars a year. Which is great and everything if you fall under the cut, but what if you were someone who was successful, made the right decisions, and honestly earned that money? It is unfair for a person with a thriving career to have to make up for the stupid mistakes of others. I mean, sure, there’s never a bad idea of “spreading the wealth around” but that doesn’t make it immune from having a bad way of doing so. Socialism is not the way, Senator.
John McCain, the Republican nominee, on the other hand, offered a different plan. Instead, he suggested, as a short-term fix, of taking three hundred billion dollars to buy the home loan mortgages to let the people keep their houses and have the banks get the money they normally would. He is suggesting giving tax breaks to corporate companies and to senior citizens. My problem with him is that if he is planning to give tax breaks to such large groups of people, I would like to know where exactly he is planning to get the money to do some of the short-term things he planned, the three hundred billion dollars he wanted to use to buy mortgages, to be exact.
Where’s Hilary when you need her?
k57: Election View
With nothing but a couple of weeks left till the election, I deem that it’s very important for people to understand which president is more availing towards this economic debacle we are currently in. Personally, I agree more towards Obama than McCain. This is predominantly because of Obama’s tax relief plan. Obama is providing 95% of working families that make less than $200,000 per year with tax relief. Quite the contrary, McCain plans to help the upper class, people getting more than the average income. Obama believes, and I certainly agree with him, that people who get more money can afford to pay more taxes, which will allow people of not such wealth to get tax cuts. Though I believe that it’s important to help everyone out, in this instance, wouldn’t it be better to help the more overbearing population, as opposed to just the elite class? Besides, we need someone to pay the taxes, everyone just can’t get tax cuts; how would the government run without tax? We definitely need a balance, and Barack Obama understands his priorities, to get this country out of this economic crisis. By helping rich people who are already in good condition, McCain will be missing out on the rest of the American population. This is what discerns Obama’s plan from McCain’s plan and what certainly puts it above it. In fact, research shows that Obama’s rescue plan will provide 3 times more tax relief to the middle class than McCain’s plan does. As Obama’s tax cut will be $60 billion and geared towards 95% of the working population, I deem that it will provide the U.S. with a significant step in getting our country out of the economic crisis we are currently in.
mdgt0fdrknsz: Election Views
While both John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s plans to help the economy have their advantages and disadvantages, Obama’s plan will end up on top. Obama’s plan involves cutting taxes for the working families of the middle class that are struggling with the recent economic recession. His proposal to fix energy policies and promote new, clean energy sources will not only result in reduced pollution, but will create jobs for the millions of Americans losing their jobs with the economic crisis. McCain, however, wants to keep struggling families paying their taxes and support businesses with giving them tax breaks. While this may provide relief for the many business out there losing money and slowing the market down, it won’t account for the millions of families who also need money – not just for making profit and making the market run, but for their basic needs such as food, healthcare, and even their own homes. Unlike Obama, McCain hasn’t laid much out for America’s education system. Education will also play a role in solving the economic crisis, because the next generation will have to be well educated to keep the economy running in the future.
Barack Obama has laid out how to pull America away from her excessive dependence on old, inefficient, and unclean energy sources. They have been polluting the planet for long enough, and we are using them excessively. When America finally starts settling on new, more efficient and clean energy sources, global pollution will stop increasing so drastically, we won’t have to pay so much to buy our energy, and millions of new jobs will be created. New business will be created as a result, which will contribute to the struggling economy. The struggling families that have lost their jobs will have new jobs that will help them earn enough money to live well and at the same time will power America without harming the environment. With less money having to be used to pay for oil, gasoline, and all the other old energy sources, America will get some money back. This money will end up being put into the market, allowing for business to grow and help the corporations that are struggling with their own problems.
The common arguments against Obama’s plan to provide tax breaks for the middle class and keep businesses and the upper class paying higher taxes is that the businesses need the money to let the economy run again and that America would start leaning toward a socialist system rather than the capitalist system of opportunity. First of all, if John McCain’s plan went into action, the struggling families that are quickly losing money for food and healthcare wouldn’t have any tax breaks to relieve them of their financial problems. The businesses may need the money to keep the market active, but families need the money to stay alive and pay for a roof over their heads and feed themselves. Second, making people with higher salaries pay higher taxes and people with lower salaries pay lower taxes doesn’t necessarily make America a socialist country. It may have socialist qualities, but it won’t keep the capitalist market from functioning. Businesses and the upper class will still have the opportunities to make large profits. The main purpose of this is not to keep people from getting too rich, but to make sure that the lower classes don’t have to suffer so much. McCain may be more supportive of the capitalist economy with less regulation that has built America’s fundamentals over the years. However, it is the risk, greed, and unfairness of this system that has knocked down domino after domino and resulted in the financial crisis the world is in right now. This just shows that both socialist and capitalist systems have their drawbacks.
Barack Obama has laid out how to pull America away from her excessive dependence on old, inefficient, and unclean energy sources. They have been polluting the planet for long enough, and we are using them excessively. When America finally starts settling on new, more efficient and clean energy sources, global pollution will stop increasing so drastically, we won’t have to pay so much to buy our energy, and millions of new jobs will be created. New business will be created as a result, which will contribute to the struggling economy. The struggling families that have lost their jobs will have new jobs that will help them earn enough money to live well and at the same time will power America without harming the environment. With less money having to be used to pay for oil, gasoline, and all the other old energy sources, America will get some money back. This money will end up being put into the market, allowing for business to grow and help the corporations that are struggling with their own problems.
The common arguments against Obama’s plan to provide tax breaks for the middle class and keep businesses and the upper class paying higher taxes is that the businesses need the money to let the economy run again and that America would start leaning toward a socialist system rather than the capitalist system of opportunity. First of all, if John McCain’s plan went into action, the struggling families that are quickly losing money for food and healthcare wouldn’t have any tax breaks to relieve them of their financial problems. The businesses may need the money to keep the market active, but families need the money to stay alive and pay for a roof over their heads and feed themselves. Second, making people with higher salaries pay higher taxes and people with lower salaries pay lower taxes doesn’t necessarily make America a socialist country. It may have socialist qualities, but it won’t keep the capitalist market from functioning. Businesses and the upper class will still have the opportunities to make large profits. The main purpose of this is not to keep people from getting too rich, but to make sure that the lower classes don’t have to suffer so much. McCain may be more supportive of the capitalist economy with less regulation that has built America’s fundamentals over the years. However, it is the risk, greed, and unfairness of this system that has knocked down domino after domino and resulted in the financial crisis the world is in right now. This just shows that both socialist and capitalist systems have their drawbacks.
dpmk24:election views
Obama or McCain? That will be the question on every voterʼs mind. Both have ideas that may benefit or hinder the economy. Frankly, I believe that none of the candidates have a perfect plan. Both economic plans have flawed aspects though. As of right now, both plans need some revisions.
For Obamaʼs economic plan, he has proposed to provide $60 billion dollars to give tax breaks to the middle class. According to him, 95% of working families or people who earn less than $250,000 a year will get tax breaks. However, the government still needs money to operate. Otherwise, it will crumble under the strain of the crisis. Therefore, Senator Obama has suggested that the government not give tax cuts to the upper class. In fact, he wants to tax them more in order to make up the money lost while supplying tax cuts to the middle class. Of course, the upper class probably would protest to this action and that would be a dark direction for the economy to turn. He proposes to give tax breaks to companies creating jobs in the US so as to try and bolster Americaʼs economy. He has offered to create public works projects to supply more jobs to the unemployed (which is reminiscent of President Harry Trumanʼs plan which eventually led to the construction of the Hoover Dam). The downside of his policy, which Senator McCain constantly points out, is that no one should get higher taxes and that itʼs unethical.
On the hand, McCain has suggested a $52 billion dollar plan to provide everyone will tax cuts. He believes that everyone should be treated equally, no matter how much money they make, whether $1 million or $1. No one should have higher taxes, he says. The major problem with this is: whereʼs the governmentʼs money going to come from. Unless he is able to think of a rational solution, the national debt will continue to grow exponentially. He says that he supports small businesses and accuses Senator Obama of going against small businesses (though Senator Obama has repeatedly denied this). He plans to use $300 billion dollars to buy home loan mortgages, though a problem with this is again: where is the money going to come from?
As one can clearly see, both plans have serious flaws and drawbacks to them. Unless one of the candidates can think of an acceptable and reasonable solution, the economy is going to continue to have a crisis.
For Obamaʼs economic plan, he has proposed to provide $60 billion dollars to give tax breaks to the middle class. According to him, 95% of working families or people who earn less than $250,000 a year will get tax breaks. However, the government still needs money to operate. Otherwise, it will crumble under the strain of the crisis. Therefore, Senator Obama has suggested that the government not give tax cuts to the upper class. In fact, he wants to tax them more in order to make up the money lost while supplying tax cuts to the middle class. Of course, the upper class probably would protest to this action and that would be a dark direction for the economy to turn. He proposes to give tax breaks to companies creating jobs in the US so as to try and bolster Americaʼs economy. He has offered to create public works projects to supply more jobs to the unemployed (which is reminiscent of President Harry Trumanʼs plan which eventually led to the construction of the Hoover Dam). The downside of his policy, which Senator McCain constantly points out, is that no one should get higher taxes and that itʼs unethical.
On the hand, McCain has suggested a $52 billion dollar plan to provide everyone will tax cuts. He believes that everyone should be treated equally, no matter how much money they make, whether $1 million or $1. No one should have higher taxes, he says. The major problem with this is: whereʼs the governmentʼs money going to come from. Unless he is able to think of a rational solution, the national debt will continue to grow exponentially. He says that he supports small businesses and accuses Senator Obama of going against small businesses (though Senator Obama has repeatedly denied this). He plans to use $300 billion dollars to buy home loan mortgages, though a problem with this is again: where is the money going to come from?
As one can clearly see, both plans have serious flaws and drawbacks to them. Unless one of the candidates can think of an acceptable and reasonable solution, the economy is going to continue to have a crisis.
I <3 Transylvania: election views
One out of three American students are high-school dropouts. These types of people are clearly not going to get high paying jobs, nor get enough income to spend to help the economy thrive (consumer). Ninety-five percent of Americans do not make over 250,000 annually. They need the money they have to feed, house, and clothe their families, and some cannot pay their taxes. So the question remains, to give tax breaks to that ninety-five percent and make the other five percent pay for them, or to give equal tax breaks to all and let some struggle to make ends meet.
Barack Obama suggests “spreading the wealth around.” But doesn’t that sound like something else we’ve heard? That something is socialism. People do not work the same amount or have the same skills or ability, and therefore should not be paid the same amount of money. As mentioned before, 95% or Americans earn less than 250,000 annually, and will be getting tax breaks if Obama wins. This means that those who earn higher than that have to pay for the others. Those who earn above 250,000 a year worked hard to earn that amount, and should not have to pay for a high school dropout who did not really care about their education. It wasn’t their mistake, so why should they pay for it? All this does is encourage Americans by saying, “Oh, it’s ok, if you don’t finish high school or get a job, the ‘rich’ people will take care of you.”
John McCain, on the other hand, is opposed to Obama’s
Barack Obama suggests “spreading the wealth around.” But doesn’t that sound like something else we’ve heard? That something is socialism. People do not work the same amount or have the same skills or ability, and therefore should not be paid the same amount of money. As mentioned before, 95% or Americans earn less than 250,000 annually, and will be getting tax breaks if Obama wins. This means that those who earn higher than that have to pay for the others. Those who earn above 250,000 a year worked hard to earn that amount, and should not have to pay for a high school dropout who did not really care about their education. It wasn’t their mistake, so why should they pay for it? All this does is encourage Americans by saying, “Oh, it’s ok, if you don’t finish high school or get a job, the ‘rich’ people will take care of you.”
John McCain, on the other hand, is opposed to Obama’s
lvdrlvdr55: Election Views
After a long year, Obama and McCain have endured a grueling struggle, fighting neck to neck to win favor in the public’s eye. Through hours of watching the two candidates debate and reading about them in magazines and newspapers, we’ve pored over every single little detail about them in the quest to elect the best person to represent the US and its citizens. However, in the light of recent events (namely, the Wall Street crisis), it’s reasonable to assume that whichever candidate can better convince people that their economic plan is the better of the two may have the advantage in the November elections. McCain’s focus is mainly on lowering corporate tax on small businesses on Main Street and requiring a 3/5 majority vote in Congress in order to raise taxes. On the other hand, Barack Obama’s focus is redistributing tax burden so that people earning a yearly income of $250,000 or more a year are forced to pay higher taxes to compensate for tax cuts on middle to lower class citizens who can’t afford to pay higher taxes.
If you’re part of the middle to upper class who earn $250,000 or higher per year, you’ll immediately realize the impact of Barack Obama’s economic plan upon your finances. Unfortunately, at least a third of US citizens are in this category, and will have to pay higher taxes along with rising overall prices on gas, food, etc. The only choice they have in this is to vote against him; however, in the case that Obama does become President of the US, the middle to upper class would have to pay for somebody else’s mistakes. Not only this, but Obama’s plan may not necessarily help very much in the long run. Even wealthy people can’t make their money last forever, especially with the increasing prices and plummeting stock market. Where will Obama get his money from once even the wealthy people have lost most of their money? On the other hand, if McCain were to become President, his economic plan would be to cut taxes on businesses so that they would be able to do a little better without having to worry about excessive taxes. When companies do well, the stock market rises, and thus the economy also does well. In addition, McCain’s plan ensures evenly distributed taxes, as he plans on requiring a 3/5 majority vote in Congress in order to raise taxes. In my opinion, this will provide for a better and more stabilized economy
If you’re part of the middle to upper class who earn $250,000 or higher per year, you’ll immediately realize the impact of Barack Obama’s economic plan upon your finances. Unfortunately, at least a third of US citizens are in this category, and will have to pay higher taxes along with rising overall prices on gas, food, etc. The only choice they have in this is to vote against him; however, in the case that Obama does become President of the US, the middle to upper class would have to pay for somebody else’s mistakes. Not only this, but Obama’s plan may not necessarily help very much in the long run. Even wealthy people can’t make their money last forever, especially with the increasing prices and plummeting stock market. Where will Obama get his money from once even the wealthy people have lost most of their money? On the other hand, if McCain were to become President, his economic plan would be to cut taxes on businesses so that they would be able to do a little better without having to worry about excessive taxes. When companies do well, the stock market rises, and thus the economy also does well. In addition, McCain’s plan ensures evenly distributed taxes, as he plans on requiring a 3/5 majority vote in Congress in order to raise taxes. In my opinion, this will provide for a better and more stabilized economy
VivianThomas: Election Views
The third Presidential Debate was held on October 15. One of the main things that Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain challenged each other on was the economy. Currently, the United States is in an economic recession - the mortgage industry has collapsed, and people are not investing in our economy because they are afraid that they will lose their money. Both senators have come up with their own solutions that will supposedly pull our economy out of the crisis that we are in now.
Senator McCain has created a 52 billion dollar plan to save our economy. He believes that we should give tax cuts to everybody - seniors, homeowners, small business, even the richest companies in the country. He wants to create jobs and encourage business in our country.
Senator Obama, however, has created a 60 billion dollar plan that will provide tax cuts to only middle class people who earn less than $200,000 a year. He wants to give tax credits to businesses that are creating jobs, and focus primarily on families and small businesses. Senator Obama wants to provide tax cuts to 95% of working Americans. He believes that the richer people should have a tax increase while the more middle class receive tax cuts.
I agree with Senator McCain's plan to save our economy. The rich should not have to pay extra to support the middle class. The richer people have this money because they worked hard to get. They shouldn't have to work even harder and have to pay more. What we need to do is create more jobs and encourage small business growth by cutting small business taxes. With more jobs, more people will be making money, the economy will thrive and we won't have to worry about the government's losing money from the tax cuts. More working people means more taxes to the government and the economy will be back on balance.
Hopefully, both plans would be a boost our economy. Whoever is the president must do something to halt this downward spiral that our country is in.
Senator McCain has created a 52 billion dollar plan to save our economy. He believes that we should give tax cuts to everybody - seniors, homeowners, small business, even the richest companies in the country. He wants to create jobs and encourage business in our country.
Senator Obama, however, has created a 60 billion dollar plan that will provide tax cuts to only middle class people who earn less than $200,000 a year. He wants to give tax credits to businesses that are creating jobs, and focus primarily on families and small businesses. Senator Obama wants to provide tax cuts to 95% of working Americans. He believes that the richer people should have a tax increase while the more middle class receive tax cuts.
I agree with Senator McCain's plan to save our economy. The rich should not have to pay extra to support the middle class. The richer people have this money because they worked hard to get. They shouldn't have to work even harder and have to pay more. What we need to do is create more jobs and encourage small business growth by cutting small business taxes. With more jobs, more people will be making money, the economy will thrive and we won't have to worry about the government's losing money from the tax cuts. More working people means more taxes to the government and the economy will be back on balance.
Hopefully, both plans would be a boost our economy. Whoever is the president must do something to halt this downward spiral that our country is in.
The Modinator: Election Views
On the issue of economy, Barack Obama said that we should “spread the wealth around, while John McCain said that whoever works hard should go ahead in life. Obama’s idea of spreading the wealth is socialism, in which everyone is equal by the end of the day, no matter what job you have. McCain’s idea of working for success is capitalism, which has an equality of opportunity. I disagree with Barack Obama in that I believe that the person who works the hardest should succeed. For example, if two gymnasts are competing, the gymnast who practices seven days a week should not get the same scores as the gymnasts who practices once a week. It is unjust and definitely not how our economy should be run. Just work hard and believe that they can go far, just as a normal, middle class citizen must do to excel in a capitalist society. Equality of opportunity, the right way to run our economy.
What Rubbish: Election Views
I think Obama has a better economic plan than McCain. Obama’s plan includes cutting taxes for 95% Americans. This large number is the majority of Americans, middle class working families. This will enable struggling families to put food on their table, educate their children and so much more. His plan also involves raising taxes for the other 5% of Americans, people who make over $250,000. I think it is definitely fair. If a WORKING middle class American cannot make ends meet, why shouldn’t a well-off American help their fellow American by paying higher taxes? McCain on the other hand wants to cut taxes across the board. Won’t this boost our country’s deficit? He also wants to increase the tax breaks for larger corporations. He is convinced that this will make big corporations hire more employees, generally helping everyone. But let’s face it, America isn’t perfect and neither are its companies. Look at current Wall Street, for example. AIG, an insurance company, just received a major bailout from the government. Days after the bailout the company spent $440,000 on a retreat for executives. Big, corrupted companies like these, will take this huge tax break as a reason to splurge---on themselves. Who exactly does this help? Absolutely no one.
Q: Election Views
I agree with Senator McCain’s Economic plan. It will effectively help the economy without raising taxes.
John McCain’s first act to help the economy is his Lexington Project. The Lexington Project is an effort to employ people while developing clean and renewable energy. He plans to build 45 nuclear power plants by 2030. These power plants will provide jobs to more than 700,000 people. Not only will this plan employ people, it will provide cheap and clean energy to further help the economy and free our oil addiction.
Secondly John McCain will not raise taxes. Barrack Obama is planning to tax the top 5% of our country without realizing that these top 5% generate the most jobs in America. These entrepreneurs own businesses that employ a large percentage of the economy. Taxing them could directly affect the middle class that Senator Obama is trying so desperately to help.
McCain also wants to cut the Corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. Instead of strangling businesses with taxes to pay for the lower and middle class, McCain will allow business to thrive which will in turn generate jobs and revenue.
In addition, Senator McCain would like to draft more free trade agreements in order to maximize our trading partners and help us contend with competing countries. Global trade would maximize sales and possibly help us get out of this recession. He would also to like to raise unemployment insurance, strengthen community colleges and expand the educational opportunities for less privileged students.
For immediate relief, Senator McCain would like to take a “tax holiday” at the pump from Memorial Day to Labor Day. His plan is to cut Federal taxes on gas during the summer to help families that are spending too much at the pump.
On the other hand, Obama plans on raising taxes anybody who makes more than $250,000 a year, that despite the fact that some of these people own businesses that employ a large percentage of America. McCain does plans to give equal opportunity by increasing educational programs and outlets instead of taking money from those that earned it rightfully.
In conclusion, I believe that Senator John McCain’s plan is better for small business, employment, and America.
John McCain’s first act to help the economy is his Lexington Project. The Lexington Project is an effort to employ people while developing clean and renewable energy. He plans to build 45 nuclear power plants by 2030. These power plants will provide jobs to more than 700,000 people. Not only will this plan employ people, it will provide cheap and clean energy to further help the economy and free our oil addiction.
Secondly John McCain will not raise taxes. Barrack Obama is planning to tax the top 5% of our country without realizing that these top 5% generate the most jobs in America. These entrepreneurs own businesses that employ a large percentage of the economy. Taxing them could directly affect the middle class that Senator Obama is trying so desperately to help.
McCain also wants to cut the Corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. Instead of strangling businesses with taxes to pay for the lower and middle class, McCain will allow business to thrive which will in turn generate jobs and revenue.
In addition, Senator McCain would like to draft more free trade agreements in order to maximize our trading partners and help us contend with competing countries. Global trade would maximize sales and possibly help us get out of this recession. He would also to like to raise unemployment insurance, strengthen community colleges and expand the educational opportunities for less privileged students.
For immediate relief, Senator McCain would like to take a “tax holiday” at the pump from Memorial Day to Labor Day. His plan is to cut Federal taxes on gas during the summer to help families that are spending too much at the pump.
On the other hand, Obama plans on raising taxes anybody who makes more than $250,000 a year, that despite the fact that some of these people own businesses that employ a large percentage of America. McCain does plans to give equal opportunity by increasing educational programs and outlets instead of taking money from those that earned it rightfully.
In conclusion, I believe that Senator John McCain’s plan is better for small business, employment, and America.
Mr. Communist: Election Views
Let me just say a few things about my history. Back in the 1400’s my family lived in Spain. We were advisors to the king in Spain, advisors to the k-i-n-g. But, after a few decades we got kicked out of Spain, why? Well, my family was Jewish. They were Spanish, but they happened to be Jews. So, we packed our bags, and ended up in Italy, which at the time had a flourishing Jewish community. My family lived in Florence and Ferrara, but we were still Jewish. Over decades my family became prestigious and extremely wealthy, selling wine. But, the King needed money, and since we were Jewish, took our hard earned money, and kicked us out. That’s how the Ferraras (at the time), ended up in Lithuania. We sold our goods, making by, nothing like when we were in Italy (we were simply middle-class). Guess what happened? We got booted out, so next stop Russia. As we get into Russia, they are taking thousands of boys for their army. Afraid and in distress, our family gives a small family the Bankas’ money, that we hid in Spain over the years (our family though it was a myth, until a family we knew told us it was true.) and adopts their name (for only one boy per family was taken). The small family was a group of doctors, and over the years the Ferraras became known as the Bankas’. Yet, through all the hardships, my family kept a few things, the heritage, religion and ambitiousness. The Tsars began to raid Jewish villages and kill any Jew they wanted to. And one day little Shara, runs into their small, humble house, and is killed on her way into the door. The Bankas’, with hate and tears in their eyes, simply left. They went to Germany (they made such great choices of location). And their Miriam was born. The family knows no home, no sturdy history, no foundation, only their Jewish pride. So, this small family packed their bags for the hundredth time. Miriam was the only one that escaped the German Anti-Semitic wrath and made it to the true Promised Land… “America.”
Today, my name is (blank), and for the first time in my family’s story, we have a sturdy house to live in, and a good life. We came here for education and opportunity- socially, religiously, economically. My dad works for UBS for 25 years now, and makes above what is considered “middle class.” Yet, once again, my family’s money might be taken away from us, sullying one of the only reasons why my family came here. My father works extremely hard, wakes up at 5 am, goes to NYC, and works from 7am-7 to 9pm. But, if Obama (the opportunity destroyer) is elected my father’s money is stolen and given to Joe the plumber’s cousin, who dropped out of high school, and is now a McDonald’s worker and 45. And, yes, this man’s family may have come through hardships, but he ruined it, he had a nice future, an A+ student, but gave it up, gave up the American dream. Why should my father be forced give up his opportunity to some one who chose to give up his opportunity? Why should my father’s sweat and hard work be spread out, to people some of who have never worked a day in their life? Answer my question, why? Why because someone is poor and made bad decisions? Why should someone who may work hard, but not nearly as hard as my father, who happened to make great decisions sacrifice his family’s heritage and values for someone like Joe the plumber cousin? Well, I’ll tell you why, because if Obama is elected then the hard workers will work less hard, because they have less to work for. And then the worker who never worked hard, will work even less hard, because he get a portion of my Dad’s hard earned salary every month, because the Democrats are taking away that opportunity, and giving it away to the people who take their money for granted, and never worked a day in their life. THAT IS WHY! McCain’s plan encourages Joe the plumber’s cousin to work hard and start a small business, which will one day be a huge business. That is the American dream that made the millions of people step in Ellis Island. My goal in life is be successful, to be an American, and to fulfill the values and wishes of my family so long ago when we left Spain, no one, NO ONE, will take that away from me, no one.
Today, my name is (blank), and for the first time in my family’s story, we have a sturdy house to live in, and a good life. We came here for education and opportunity- socially, religiously, economically. My dad works for UBS for 25 years now, and makes above what is considered “middle class.” Yet, once again, my family’s money might be taken away from us, sullying one of the only reasons why my family came here. My father works extremely hard, wakes up at 5 am, goes to NYC, and works from 7am-7 to 9pm. But, if Obama (the opportunity destroyer) is elected my father’s money is stolen and given to Joe the plumber’s cousin, who dropped out of high school, and is now a McDonald’s worker and 45. And, yes, this man’s family may have come through hardships, but he ruined it, he had a nice future, an A+ student, but gave it up, gave up the American dream. Why should my father be forced give up his opportunity to some one who chose to give up his opportunity? Why should my father’s sweat and hard work be spread out, to people some of who have never worked a day in their life? Answer my question, why? Why because someone is poor and made bad decisions? Why should someone who may work hard, but not nearly as hard as my father, who happened to make great decisions sacrifice his family’s heritage and values for someone like Joe the plumber cousin? Well, I’ll tell you why, because if Obama is elected then the hard workers will work less hard, because they have less to work for. And then the worker who never worked hard, will work even less hard, because he get a portion of my Dad’s hard earned salary every month, because the Democrats are taking away that opportunity, and giving it away to the people who take their money for granted, and never worked a day in their life. THAT IS WHY! McCain’s plan encourages Joe the plumber’s cousin to work hard and start a small business, which will one day be a huge business. That is the American dream that made the millions of people step in Ellis Island. My goal in life is be successful, to be an American, and to fulfill the values and wishes of my family so long ago when we left Spain, no one, NO ONE, will take that away from me, no one.
Cheez: Election Views
For the 2008 Presidential Elections, I believe that John McCain’s ideas will win. He wants to keep businesses in the U.S.A., and make sure that enough jobs will be available to sustain the people in the country. Because of how high the taxes are for the companies, they have started to move to other countries. The US has 35% of taxes, whereas places like Ireland have 11%. Obama, however wishes to tax these rich companies that will provide jobs, but then take the money to give to the poor. These immense businesses have worked for the money. Money means a lot to them, and to have even more of a tax on their income would cause them to abandon the US altogether. McCain also wishes to stop the fast decline in home ownership by “providing a floor”. In other words, he wishes to take 300 billion dollars and help pay off the home loan mortgages of 11 million homes or more. This will help not only the people who weren’t able to pay off the mortgages, but also to allow the people who were able to pay it, whose neighbors have moved out and caused their home value to decline. Another problem is that Obama, who wishes to cut taxes for people with an income of less than 250,000 a year, will also raise it for those above it. Not everyone above that is rich, is wealthy. For them to keep going, they wouldn’t want to pay more just because they are in the middle. Obama’s views don’t help their businesses or jobs, and they would have to just pay more taxes, which is unfair. Hence, McCain’s ideas for the US after the economic crisis will help the people throughout, and help create the stable country we were before.
Egg's Election Views
I believe that Barack Obama’s plan for taxes is the best possible way to go. His plan, in short, states that he would provide tax cuts for workers and families making less than $250,000. John McCain’s plan states that he would extend George Bush’s tax cuts and lower the tax rate for big corporate businesses. Under Obama’s plan, 95% of workers and families would receive tax cuts. I know that many wonder, what about the other 5%? Well, Obama actually states that wealthier families making over $250,000 would have to pay the same tax rate, or lower, than they did in 1990, before Bush’s tax cuts. This seems reasonable for the families who are more fortunate, and it is just simple fairness. McCain’s plan is simply a slight modification of George Bush’s plan, and how great has that been working for America? McCain is going to extend George Bush’s tax cuts for everyone, but everything is proportionate as I have stated in class. So if people have more money to spend, businesses would raise prices knowing that people could afford it, leaving us in the same situation we are in now. Also, McCain stated that he would cut the corporate tax rate to 25%, helping big businesses. This wouldn’t help the 95% of Americans that Obama’s plan would. So in summary, I believe that Barack Obama’s plan for taxes would bring change; it would bring positive change, and it would benefit America greatly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
