Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Massive bailouts, foreclosed homes, jaw-dropping gas prices, chaos on Wall Street. These are just a few signs of the U.S.'s struggling economy. As America enters the next chapter of its history, what impact will an Obama administration have on our economic future?
See his FHA HOME plan to fund subprime borrowers who will be getting a free ride at the taxpayers' expense. Talk about a blackhole for tax dollars. McCain will literally funnel Small Town Values(tm) tax payers' money into Orange County, CA mansions whose owners got smart and realized the government will save them from having to make their full mortgage payments.
Separately, doesn't Obama propose eliminating capital gains taxes on small businesses? And an employer tax credit for offering health insurance (to encourage them to hire more people)?
- nbkwx55
September 7, 2008 10:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
I actually read McCain's FHA HOME plan in its entireity, which apparently nbkwx55 did not do. His plan has common-sense eligibility guidelines which are tied to incomes and home values. To qualify you must fall BELOW a certain income level, show you COULD afford the mortgage when you applied for it, and show you CAN'T afford the variable mortgage rate change. Once you qualify, you still have to pay back the loan. It's not a perfect plan, but it's better than anything else that's on the table!
Obviously, nbkwx55 never ran a small business! You pay capital gains when you cash in. Once you cash in, someone else is running the business, OR the business is defunct! So eliminateing the capital gains tax for small businesses, actualy DEincentivises the continued growth of small businesses. This fits Barry's vision for centralized government control of all facets of our lives. With less small business competition, the axis of control shifts to the cozy relationship between big union bosses and big government.
The health insurance tax credit is just sugar for the laced big-government health care cool-aide. You can drink it if you want...not me. I'm staying alive!
- ScottyNow October 17, 2008 9:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
I actually also read the FHA Home plan in its entirety as well. Kudos to us both for reading! Yay!
The plan has "squishy" guidelines to allow FHA to approve or deny applications as public policy sees fit. Borrowers' documentation amounts to an attestation that they can afford the new mortgage which the FHA will approve or deny based on some unpublished guideline. Sounds very similar to the "no doc" / "liar loans" that are defaulting in massive numbers these days. So all of your all cap "COULD afford, "CAN'T afford" tests amount to an "honor system" test. As for repaying the loan - read it again. The borrower will not repay FHA directly - the FHA will get paid back through some kind of convoluted equity certificate that amounts to a cap on the borrower's price appreciation - a good disincentive to sell the house for maximum price down the road. In the end, it's not better than anything else on the table. Apparently the Congress, Senate and President all agreed when they passed TARP which is focused either on buying up securitized mortgages or investing directly in banks. It's not a borrower outreach program and it makes no claims to specifically modify delinquent loans via the FHA. Thank goodness McCain suspended all campaigning to swoop in and save this plan - just in time to have it fail to pass the House and send the stock market into a nosedive. Way to assert your leadership, Senator!
Point 2 - thanks for the assumption but I do run a small business. Your assertion is ridiculous. I'm building my business to sell one day - as does almost every other small business owner I know - so cap gains is a big issue to me. If a business goes defunct, cap gains has no impact. If you are running a small business, make an appointment with your accountant to discuss this if you believe otherwise.
There is no central government control when cap gains tax on the sale of a small business is eliminated. You look like a right wing nut job when you claim it does. Union bosses? Have you looked at union enrollment numbers lately? They're in huge decline. Now you're approaching ill informed wacko nut job. Congrats! That's a tough level of nuttiness to achieve on this website but you have done it.
The health insurance benefit taxation that McCain proposes is being masked by his tax credit for use towards insurance premiums. The US has never taxed an employer benefit like health insurance before. It's crazy to think this is a good move for anyone at any tax bracket. This does nothing to stop health insurance costs from escalating at 2-5x the rate of inflation. Barack's plan actually puts a cap on insurance costs and starts to cram down the providers' costs as well. Since the opinion of small business owners is so important to you, you'll be happy to know that they favor this plan over McCain's overwhelmingly.
So thanks for your informed response. Your misspelled reference to the Jonestown mass suicide event is a classy one (it's Kool Aid, not cool aid - didn't years of watching a pitcher jump through walls yelling "oh yeah!" teach you anything?). I reitereate my congratulations on your achieving ill informed wacko nut job status.
- nbkwx55 October 20, 2008 7:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
Obama proposes increasing capital gains taxes. Also, he is proposing to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, something no one talks about. Once that happens, even the people in the lowest tax bracket (not just people making more than $250,000) will see their taxes increase. So, EVERYONE who pays taxes will have to pay more with Obama's plan.
- jross72 October 18, 2008 7:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: John McCain
Just as the lowered demand for oil has resulted in lower fuel prices, the laws of supply and demand and many other basic economic principles support exactly what you're saying. This is why I'm terrified of an Obama presidency. Like the man just fine, don't get me wrong - in fact, I think he would have made a great president a decade or so ago. But unfortunately what people have to realize is that Obama is a day late and a dollar short - literally - in proposing the kind of idealistic plans he has for our nation, including in terms of foreign policy.
We all need to face the fact that we are far too deep into a capitalistic approach to make any drastic about-face into a more socialistic approach now. Before all is said and done we are irrevocably faced with more government involvement because of the criminal, greedy, and devil-may-care actions of the few. On top of that, ANYTHING that resembles the government's issuance of a tsk-tsk to big and small businesses when businesses are already terrified about what will happen next will surely result in the consequences that you outline here. In fact, I think those consequences will be more dire than you predict.
Our dog-eat-dog business style and need for greed in this nation is what drives our economy, like it or not. If you take that away, the inevitable shrinkage leaves us in a "like taking candy from a baby" situation. Business in the US does not know how to operate with reasonable profit margins anymore. Rather than scaling back to less obscene CEO packages, engaging in better corporate governance, and modifying our raging need to profit at others' expense, Obama's plan would surely backfire. He doesn't realize that he's not dealing with adults here - he's dealing with spoiled children at their worst.
The economic cycle you outline is an obvious cause and effect if Obama's policies were to be implemented. Kondratiev's principle that says we will experience an economic depression every 67 years doesn't seem to have been borne out - well at least not exactly. I believe if you reset the clock to 1942, the year after the end of WWII, you'll find that 67 years results in NEXT YEAR. THAT is why Obama's policies terrify me.
I wish I believed otherwise. And I actually do believe in capitalism. The problem is that the system is so dysfunctional now, it's like watching Jerry Springer on acid when you follow the daily developments in our economy. Here's what everyone seems to be forgetting - the reason terrorists targeted the World Trade Center over and over again was this: they knew that our greed was our Achilles heel. See any relationship between Sept 11, 2001 and the targets and what is happening now? The terrorists are winning and they are winning on our own soil. They are right - our greed is our Achilles heel. And unfortunately, while probably motivated by the best of intentions, President Bush's actions in the wake of Sept 11 is EXACTLY what the terrorists counted on. Because our other Achilles heel, second only to our greed, is our need to preserve that greed at any cost. The US can be counted on to protect her interests at ANY cost. The whole world knows that. And the terrorists' plans worked like a charm.
So the bottom line is that as Americans we are our own worst enemy. Obama trying to get us to take proper care of ourselves now is a day late and a dollar short. Trying to reason with countries whose mission is the demise of the United States is like trying to negotiate a 16 oz steak away from a pit bull. The "steaks" we are dealing with now require an admission about the way things really are. And John McCain is a realist who sees the way things really are. He knows the terrorists will not stop in their desire to destroy us. He knows that we are facing some of the worst times of our country's relatively short history. And he understands that we are our own worst enemies. He is the only one whose plans are steeped in the reality that only someone who has looked into the eyes of those who would destroy him can see.
McCain's plans work WITH the system the way it is now. They deal with the core causes, such as the housing industry. He has the real understanding about what's going on. Obama is simply latching onto people's hope and their rose-colored glasses. That's the bottom line. People want to believe that you can just wholesale blame a political party and everything will be alright. But this time that just isn't true. Now, I fear, we will be our own worst enemies yet again.
- ReformtheEstablishment October 19, 2008 7:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: John McCain
Sorry - I meant to say our year of entry into WWII (technically I know it was December 11, 1941, but for all practical purposes it began in 1942). Guess this issue really gets my brain scrambled!
- ReformtheEstablishment October 19, 2008 9:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: John McCain
Obama's tax plan is more complex than this. The small business cap gains tax elimination _is_ part of it. He is also planning to allow cap gains taxes on other investments to go back to where they were before the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts are temporary as written in law, so allowing them to expire could be viewed as "raising" or could be viewed as "status quo". His income tax plan, however, is - as he has described it a number of times - not going to raise taxes on those that make less than $250k in income - including the impact of letting the Bush tax cuts expire as the law currently calls for.
If you want to get even more complex, noone's addressed the alternative minimum tax (AMT). The AMT currently affects many people that Bush targeted to have lower taxes, including those that sell their businesses. I haven't heard either candidate address it so I have no clue which side will do what. But it's a boring topic most voters can't follow so we probably won't hear much about it. Take a look at your tax return - especially if you make over $200k as a household or plan to sell a business - and you'll see AMT popping up to trump whatever Bush tax cut you thought you would enjoy.
Finally, I'd argue that our ballooning deficit is proof that the current tax revenues are insufficient for the future. After TARP passed, we have a huge new future obligation to support (on top of Medicaid, Social Security and Defense) and borrowing more and running up a larger deficit won't work. We can argue about why trickle down economics should work, but the last 8 years shows it doesn't. Real wage growth has been terrible, the number of uninsured and underinsured has grown rapidly and all other measures of economic prosperity are indicating it was a squandered opportunity to grow the whole country versus the top 5%.
- nbkwx55 October 20, 2008 8:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
These are some of the spending plans you don't hear about on TV. Most of these are planned by the Democrats in Congress, which is why you don't see them directly associated with Obama; however, if Obama is president, they will pass without resistance.
1. $1.5 billion in tax relief for trial lawyers by encouraging more risky but more rewarding lawsuits.
2. Global Poverty Act - spend $845 billion in U.S. money to eradicate world hunger and ensure foreign environmental sustainability. Oh, but Obama won't spend a dime of his own money to help his poor brother.
3. My personal favorite: Wage Insurance - this is a new federal payroll tax (which will be paid by ALL workers along with social security and medicare taxes) which would provide a check for people who get a new job that pays less than their prior job. It will be worth half the difference. This means if your neighbor decides to quit his 40 hour/week job for a 30 hour/week job, the government will pay him 50% of the difference (or 5 hours of pay per week)!
So, despite all of you who are CERTAIN that taxes will not be raised for anyone making less than $250,000, you are wrong. Sure, Obama may not be proposing it directly, but his Democrat colleagues are, and only McCain will veto it.
Vote for Obama and watch your pay check fall, leading to less shopping, and resulting in an economic depression like we have never seen.
- jross72 October 25, 2008 1:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: John McCain
I believe the SNAFU on Wallstreet is sufficient to conclude that people with self interest will ultimately lead to the downfall of our economic system
- AlGray September 24, 2008 1:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
The culpability of Wall Street is to be assumed! It is supposed to be a mechanism to harness greed for productivity, but as usual, corrupt government regulation used the irresistible power of coersion to enforce an insatiable desire for personla profit!
AlGray's accurate insight is proof that MORE government regulation CANNOT unravel this SNAFU! Plenty of government regulations were in place to prevent this economic meltdown, but the self-interest of the politicians who were supposed to enforce them got in the way. Don't you find it strange that the most rewarded Senator Chris Dodd, who received almost $1 Million from Fannie and Freddie (in addition to his great Mortgage deals frome Country Wide, and whatever inside trading tips floated by),has the audacity to "investigate" the abuses? It makes sense that as the second most rewarded, with $500K from Fannie and Freddie, Barry has been very quiet about the culpability of Congress. That's a spotlight that might embarrass him, and darken his rising star status.
I'd like to see someone commit to knock heads together (so to speak) up there on Capital Hill! A couple of times during the debates I thought McCain might make it public, and that would have sealed his deal with me, but at least he mentions it directly in his proposal.
More importantly, The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which got steroid treatments in 1999, introduced government regulation that FORCED banks to write the stupid mortgages that have tied the market up in knots! It also required Fannie and Freddie to buy those mortgages from private banks, with implicit government guarantees. The opaque mortgage based securities that Fannie and Freddie have been using to cook their books are the beginning and the end of this mess!
- ScottyNow October 17, 2008 10:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The heart of America has always been the people. The people run this country. In the past when there were issues we used our Creative ingenuity to come up with the best solutions. Giving Government the power to make decisions for us is not the right move. What is freedom when someone else says what you can and cant have and do with your life. Taxing the rich will decrease the amount of business and corp. owners and cause us to loose even more jobs. I personally just got laid off and it had nothing to do with the economy. When you work with the criminal justice department then less work actually is a good thing. Now I can sleep better and teach students who are eager to learn. Again I say let the constitution reign, let the people run this country.
- rkiser October 12, 2008 10:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: John McCain
My vote is not for sale, Mr. Furman, but thank you for the offer. I would like the government to get out of direct economy manipulation altogether! I'm not sure that anyone can do that for me, but at least Senator McCain is not trying to bribe me with a post-election check.
The economy is not broken down; it is in a traffic jam, and an insane "spread the wealth around" strategy is the primary obstacle! The Reinvestment Act of 1977, with its 1999 steroid treatments, FORCED banks to write mortgages to patently unqualified home-buyers, designatedFannie and Freddie to buy those loans with implicit government guarantees. The real estate market flooded with unqualified customers. With higher demand prices began to rise and speculators stepped right in! Because of inflated home values, Fannie and Freddie can cook the books with these opaque mortgage backed securities, but last month the s*** hit the fan. Now the credit market is legitimately clogged with distrust and fear, and we taxpayers are on the hook for $1 Trillion in bailouts. Did I here someone say "implicit guarantee for mandated sub-prime loans purchased by Fannie and Freddie"?
Simple solution collect less taxes all around, and Americans will have more wealth to "spread around" on their own. Private Americans are the most generous people on the planet! Next, accept resignations from all members of the Banking and Finance Committees in the House and Senate. Then, lay off 30% of the Washington-based bureaucrats, which produces two good results. First, the deficit will go down when they stop working on their boondoggle projects. Second they can get a job working at something productive rather than thinking up ways to regulate our lives.
Truly, the contrast between my views and Barry's could not be much clearer.
- ScottyNow October 17, 2008 11:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
It is always a simple matter to check history when comparing options. Stimulus plan: tried it, the economy got worse. $500-$1200 does not a spending spree create as a one time shot. History does show that continuing the stimulus for several cycle, say yearly has an agragate affect to positively influence the economy. Additionally, the concept of stimulus being repeated: well that's a tax break, for everyone. Now we are actually discribing McCain's plan. Ironic.
Job creation: spend taxpayor money to invest in job creation, green or otherwise. This can work, but takes years to make an impact. A quicker path is to open up the restrictions on the jobs we could already have. Drilling for example, ON SHORE, could have additional oil on the market in under a year, not the 3-4 years for offshore drilling. This is more jobs, more wealth creation, and we use the money from the oil rights to invest in the longer term green job creation. Now we are tax neutral to boot. Now we have gravatated to the McCain plan.
- bobberaaaaa October 19, 2008 11:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Jumpstart the Economy
- From Obama Campaign
By Obama Campaign - Jason Furman, Economic Advisor
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jumpstart is Right On: This Point Must be Pounded Home
The American and global economies are so immensely complicated we lose sight of the person and the family. We must recognize that the economy needs jumpstarts-- exactly as said in this Argument --but the ordinary jumpstart gets an engine running and one jumpstart is enough. Not so with the national economy or a family's economic security.
We must have continuous follow up to make sure the cycle of "investment, job, pay, output, sales, consumption, profit, investment", has begun and is running smooth enough for the results we're after.
Too many Educated People believe the cycle is private and automatic. And for some it is.
But for nations and the planet the cycle needs a SYSTEM of continuous jumpstarts whenever the engine quits.
Too many EP's believe we needs high taxes. We don't. We need MONEY-- to be saved until output is affordable for the pay received. Keynes' general theory of money must be simplified and pounded in, in argument.
- john gelles
July 24, 2008 7:18AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Government is not a good investor, neither morally nor practically.
First, I dont think that the government can make better investment decisions than the free market. Government institutions dont have same incentives and disincentives as the free market institution. Experience proves over and over again, that when governments do something, they do it with a lower quality and a higher price, than private institutions. Furthermore, every government intervention in the marketplace distorts its even more, and makes problems in the long run worse.
Government spending and market intervention is part of the problem, not its solution! Every reputable economist knows that.
From where does the government gets its money in the first place? In a consumer driven economy, every tax is paid in the end by the consumer. Stealing money to spend it supposedly better, is wrong.
2 Is it really a sane idea to destroy the rewards and punishments of the market, by punishing highly successful people with higher taxes, and rewarding highly unsuccessful with a "safety net?
- eXtremeLogic July 25, 2008 10:53AM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Amen!
Amen!
- Georgia Sunshine
October 1, 2008 7:05AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's just the Republican version of Washington
that can't be trusted with our economic future. We've had 19 years of Republican administrations to show us firsthand that "trickle down" just destroys the economy by eliminating the buying potential of people in the lower brackets of the economy. Why was the economy so robust during Clinton's administration? Because lower income folks didn't feel on the verge of financial destitution at every turn. Throw in corporate greed combined with complete lack of government oversight and it's clear that "the Rich Get Richer" is a doomed strategy for long-term economic health.
Economies that have a strong base that can afford to spend money can afford to nurture wider and more tiers above the lowest levels. Is a pyramid that's a mile high by a foot wide at its base going to stand for long? Or is a better stability model a pyramid that's a mile wide by a foot high?
No question. Trickle Up is far more sensible.
- veetwo July 25, 2008 8:31PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Barack Obama
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
19 years?
Good try veetwo. Over the last 19 years, between the THREE branches of government, we have experineced an even balance of democratic and republican influence, so trying to pin our problems on republicans is disingenuous at best! If we extend our analysis to thirty years, we see the greatest contrast between Jimmy Carter's "spread the wealth" plan in cooperation with his tax and spend congress, and Ronald Reagan's "get government off our backs" plan in spite of a liberal congress. I still remember the misery of the first plan and the relief of the latter.
Cutting slices off of one person's big piece of pie to "spread the wealth around" just makes more crums, and don't forget the bureaucrats eat most of the slices they cut off, so very littel actually gets "spread around." Can you name one pie slicing program that ever made someone rich (other than a politician that is)? Social Security? We pay 15% a year for 50 years and get poverty benefits for 5, but it's going bankrupt! Welfare? The choice of inner city baby mills or abortion! Education? The more they spend the worse it gets!
Barry experimented with his "spread the wealth around" philosophy in Chicago. The folks on the South Side are as poor as ever. Barry and his frineds are filthy rich (but some of them will have to wait until they get out of jail to spend it all), and the political machine is bigger than ever. Is he coming to Washington to find more wealth to spread around in Chicago or to impose that failed plan on the rest of the nation?
If everyone wants a bigger piece of pie, and we all do, the only way to do that is to bake more pies. The private citizens of America are the most industious, igenious, and generous people on the planet. Most of them love to bake pies, and they even enjoy sharing the pie--unless some big government regulator is taking it by force. If we keep more money in the hands of entrepreneurs, and less in bloated bureaucracies we'll bake more pies than we can eat. Besides "trickle-up" is a defective metaphore!
We surely had lack of oversight, and that should be punished, but the regulations are on the books. The corruption of personal greed within government is just another reason to keep government small. If greed has eight sharp teeth, then corrupt governemtn has 32! By the way Barry would have had plenty of opportunity to pull some corrupt government teeth while he was in Chicago; does he have any trophies?
- ScottyNow
October 18, 2008 12:01AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
vote the bums out
Neither one of them desirves to be President. Because they are both congressmen and congress is the problem.
It is time to form a new government.
Only way to get the greed out of Washington D.C.
- ronbat July 28, 2008 10:59AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Taking from Jack to Pay Barack
This idea of the government shifting funds from this to that....
Taking from this and putting it into that...
It's like shifting eggs in a basket. Every step of the way it's taxed, a portion is wasted and the government takes a cut to run... more government.
Lets look at what this Democrat Congress has done:
Bailouts for banks. Bailouts for home lenders. Bailouts for people who took/recieved loans they could not afford because of "Equal Opportunity Lending". Bailouts for Bear Sterns. Bailouts for people who built thier houses under sea level with no insurance. Bailouts for telecoms who commited crimes aginst my constitutional rights (for which Barack Hussein Obama voted for). Now they want to put us hard-working tax payers who are responsible and pay our bills to be on the hook for those who took money they could not pay back, in the context of going after "Predatory Lenders" who gave THIER money to people with lousy credit under the guidance of THIS government.
- NFurno August 1, 2008 11:09AM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Use your brain not your party
I don't think you have to vote for a candidate just because you are a democrat or a republican. I think you need to use your brain and research the candidates. There is numerous web sites to go to for information and not just to the candidates site. I am a 70 year old female and did just that. I think Senator McCain has the best economy plan. I am a retired policewoman and draw social security. I want that protected. I think Senator McCain can do that for me and all Americans. I also think his experience in government and foreign policy is greater, therefore Senator McCain has my vote.
- justme
October 12, 2008 10:44AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Another Jolt?
I'm not sure I could handle another hit from big government. A jump start implies the economy is sitting still and the battery is dead, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
We are in the process of navigating SLOWLY around a huge obstacle--worthless sub-prime mortgages bundled in opaque packages called mortgage backed securities. These sub-prime mortgages were mandated by big government "spread the wealth" regulations. Please, Mr. Obama, if you could step to the side of the road and distract 20,000 bureaucrats with with a speech, we'll take care of the economy on our own.
- ScottyNow
October 17, 2008 11:13PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Obama plan will lead to economic depression, and here's why
The economic ramifications of Obama's economic plan couldn't be more clear. His plan relies on raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 and all businesses and corporations. Most people think they aren't affected by this because they don't make more than $250,000. But, those of us making less than $250,000 are the ones affected more by this. Businesses won't just accept a tax increase leading to a profit reduction. Instead, they will maintain their profits by increasing the costs of the goods and services they provide, cutting salaries of the people who work for them, and cutting jobs within their companies. So, everything we buy (food, fuel, clothes, electronics, etc.) and all the services we utilize will cost us more, way more than the proposed tax break he promises. Also, the extremely wealthy will decide not to buy their yachts and extra mansions, and not to go to the most expensive restaurants. In the end, Obama's plan will lead to less money being put into the economy (leading to fewer sales tax payers), increased unemployment (leading to fewer income tax payers), and an economic depression like we have never seen.
- jross72
October 18, 2008 7:33PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: John McCain
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.