Barack Obama is riding his string of about a dozen victories into the big day, spending money like crazy -- 2 to 1 on TV -- in an attempt to deliver a knock-out punch. Black superdelegates are experiencing tremendous pressure to support Obama's run as the first black President (although he's technical not black, nor would he be the first - remember Bill Clinton...?), illustrating just how divisive this primary process has been and could continue to be. The two candidates traded barbs as they campaigned in Ohio over the weekend:
Obama said Clinton argues that she has "all this vast foreign policy experience," but she did not read the National Intelligence Estimate before voting in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
Clinton's response:
"You know, for some people, this election is about how you feel. It's about speeches," Clinton said at a high school near where Obama spoke. "Well, that's not what it's about for me. It's about solutions."
Former presidential contender Gov. Bill Richardson foreshadowed the pressure Clinton may face if she loses Texas and Ohio:
"I just think that D-Day is Tuesday. We have to have a positive campaign after Tuesday. Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday, a clear lead, should be, in my judgment, the nominee."
A Clinton drop-out would fit Obama's history well, as Big Lizards reports that Obama has advanced his career by winning elections against his most difficult opponents only after they have dropped out due to sudden strange turns of the campaign.
For a humorous paid announcement by the front-runner, go here.
It appears that the 2008 primaries have experienced an exceptionally high young voter turnout, highlighting the battle between the establishment (Clinton) and the newcomer (Obama). If this trend holds in the general election, it could signal a new voting bloc to somewhat counteract the elderly population.
The last thing I wanted to relate to you comes from a pair of stories, one from Investor's Business Daily, the other from the Business & Media Institute. Both of these stories talk about how tax policies affect the U.S. economy, and both are critical for you to understand as we go into the general election.
IBD:
No disrespect to Obama or Clinton, but the central bank chief has had some pretty choice things to say about the economy in recent days. We think they bear directly on the election, and voters would be wise to pay attention.
Most significantly, Bernanke told Congress during his recent testimony that he expects "sluggish" growth at least until 2010. Let that sink in for a moment: Bernanke is basically saying that growth will be minimal and unemployment will rise for the next two years, possibly three, irrespective of who is elected this November.
That year — 2010 — is key. It's when the tax stimulus put in place by President Bush and packing a punch of nearly $1.2 trillion is set to expire. If that's allowed to happen, the slowdown the Fed sees to 2010 almost certainly will continue for years beyond.
Growth is expected to slow, and unemployment will rise slightly over the next couple years. Both Obama and Clinton are proposing letting the Bush tax cuts expire. If that happens, we can expect to see an instant $100 billion drop-off in our economy, with as many as 1 million jobs and $200 billion in personal income lost. Combine that with the Democrats' clear intent to raise taxes every chance they get, and we're looking at an enormous deficit and huge financial hardships just around the corner.
But hey, what does Bernanke know? He's just the head of the Central Bank...
B&MI:
In a segment titled, 'Econ 101: The Great Depression' and subtitled, 'Why we're not in another one ... but politicians could take us there', the Business & Media Institute shows you all the numbers you need to know about economic problems. This article is easy reading and very illuminating, so go check it out. There are two main things to take away from this: first, our economy is so much stronger than it was in 1929 that the comparison between then and now is like night and day. We're not in a recession, and although we're in a bit of a slump, this is nothing like the actual devastation that happened back then. Second, the Great Depression was caused in large part because the entire world hit a slump. But, in the U.S., government intervention actually made our depression longer and worse than it needed to be. How did that happen? Because the government made some really poor decisions on how to handle the world decline, and then they hiked taxes out the wazoo (the top income tax rate was 90% at one point). Their summary:
Today's candidates for the presidency are calling for tariffs on Chinese goods, repeal of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and raising income tax rates on the highest earners. These, along with unstable monetary policy, are policies that contributed to the Great Depression. Perhaps we should realize that our current situation is far from an economic disaster – but repeating old policies of inflation, trade barriers, and tax hikes are capable of leading us in that direction.
Look, if there's one thing to take away from history, economic basics, and the simple duh factor, it's the fact that higher taxes are always, always, ALWAYS bad! And, that is precisely what the Democrats are proposing. They'll let the Bush tax cuts expire, which will raise your taxes by a couple thousand dollars a year. They're both proposing about $1 trillion in new spending, which means much higher taxes on top of that. This is not speculation, it is what they've been pledging to do for years! And the effects are not speculation, either - they've been demonstrated to be disastrous over and over again throughout history!
If you want to kill the economy, vote Democrat.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment