Please note: this paper is not meant to be an attack on Obama. The purpose was to closely examine proposed plans of politicians (in this case Obama) and note the actual outcomes of their proposed policies. Many politicians have made promises similar to those of Obama's. Obama's name was chosen solely because 1) I wrote about McCain on my last paper and needed a new person to write about 2) Obama proposed all the plans I wrote about, which allowed me to organize the paper more effectively. I am not, by any means, suggesting any other candidate is more competent than the current President-elect. When reading this paper, please focus on the issues, not the person who proposed them this past Presidential Election.
Jerry Xie
Mrs. Matthews
English 101
He appears to be the “dream president” that America has been waiting for. Barack Obama has elegance, composure, respectability, and the perfect plans to change the United States for the better—or does he? Barack Obama won the election by promising several plans and policies that would help the middle class “get back on their feet” and be able to afford basic needs in their lives. An old cliché states, “When something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” Many of Obama’s plans have major flaws that the general public is unaware of. If Barack Obama’s tax, healthcare, and economic plans ever get passed exactly as proposed, they will affect the United States of America in very negative ways.
One of Obama’s major appeals to the middle class was his determination to fix the tax code in America to make it fair for everyone. On his official campaign website, Obama presented his tax plans as “responsible, fair, empowering all Americans to achieve the American dream” (“Responsible Tax Cuts for Ordinary Americans”). Assuming that the Obama tax plan works perfectly and exactly as originally proposed, a few calculations will show that it is in fact completely unfair. Assume there are two male, heads of households who have a wife and two kids. The first (named Bob) makes $200,000, and the second (named Rich) makes $300,000. Under the Obama tax plan, Bob would be in the 28% income tax bracket, and Rich would be in the 35% income tax bracket. However, Bob would be eligible for additional tax cuts and childcare payments, but Rich would not be eligible (“Responsible Tax Cuts for Ordinary Americans” and “McCain and Obama Tax Plans 101”). After taxes, social security, childcare, and other credits and payments are factored in, Bob would have a net income of $136,600, while Rich would have a net income of $150,300 (“New tax brackets for all taxpayers”). The difference between the two incomes before taxes was $100,000, but after taxes and additional benefits, the margin is down to less than $14,000. Does that sound fair? Rich, like many Americans, may have an incentive based job and get paid more for doing more work. If he can make almost the same amount of money by working less, why would he possibly want to work more? Not only is Barack Obama’s tax plan unfair, but it also discourages people from working harder and trying to earn more money.
Aside from being unfair, Barack Obama’s tax plan will not work because of all the external factors that can affect it. The Obama tax plan includes a benchmark. If one makes below that amount, one would receive a tax cut along with several other benefits. If one makes above that amount, Obama believes that one “should give back a portion of the tax cuts received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness” (“Responsible Tax Cuts for Ordinary Americans”). During the debates and other public appearances Obama emphasized that he would cut taxes for 95% of all Americans. That percentage has never been accurate, but it could decrease drastically due to several factors. Obama originally set the income cap to receive his tax cut at $250,000 a year, which meant that 93%, not 95%, of Americans would receive the tax cut. Then, it became $200,000 (82%).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU0JTrJx-KY
Joe Biden hinted that it might be $150,000 (47.6%) (“A Tax Phantom is Stalking You” and “Obama’s tax-cut threshold shrinking?”). Finally, Obama blatantly stated that the middle class was anyone making less than $97,000 a year, and that this included 94% of the American population.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-SavgJlBLA
If Obama cannot even get the numbers straight on his own plan, how can he expect the plan to be successfully passed and enforced? Also, because the nation has never faced Obama’s type of tax cut (one that uses a benchmark), tax brackets will have to be redone. This could result in countless loopholes in the tax systems that individuals and companies will take advantage of. As a result, tax evasion will become an even bigger problem in the country. Finally, with the economy in distress and the national deficit increasing rapidly, the dollar will inevitably suffer from inflation. Obama has said, “the United States government should not worry about the deficit in the next few years” (“Obama says aiding economy trumps budget deficit”). If the national debt increases, the value of the dollar will obviously decrease. In a few years, $250,000 might only be worth $150,000 in today’s money. Overall, Obama’s tax plan is neither fair, responsible, nor realistic at all.
Another one of Obama’s strong appeals to middle class voters was his healthcare plan. Obama claims his healthcare plan will “increase quality, provide coverage for everyone, and save money” (“Plan for a Healthy America). Again, Obama’s plan sounds, for lack of a better term, amazing. But how exactly is Obama planning on following through on all these claims, and what will the long-term effects be? As for increasing quality, Obama is planning on requiring doctors and hospitals to prove they provide quality care. To implement this plan, an army of new officials will be hired by the government to keep a watchful eye on doctors and hospitals and collect information from them to insure that they are providing quality care for their patients. As a result, doctors and hospitals will have to spend money to hire staff that will collect and report this information to the government. Obama has also called for $10 billion in new healthcare information technology spending (“Obama’s Healthcare Plan”). First of all, how can doctors and hospitals provide better care for their patients when they have to spend so much money proving it to the government? Hiring staff to collect information will no doubt increase costs of operations for them. In order to keep their income the same, doctors will have no choice but to see more patients daily than they do at the current time. This means that there will be less time that can be spent on each patient. One does not have to be a doctor to see how this will actually decrease the quality of care for patients. Going back to the $10 billion on information technology spending, a study (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/167/13/1400) published in the Archives of Internal Medicine showed that information technology did not make a difference in healthcare quality. Comparing practices that used an electronic medical record with those that did not, researchers found no difference in 14 quality measures, improvement in 2 outcome measures, and a worse outcome on 1 measure. $10 billion is a lot of money. It is neither smart nor good for the country to spend that much money on something that has proven to be ineffective.
As for providing coverage for everyone, Obama’s plan is to shift the cost of insurance to the government. Basically, anyone that is unable to afford private health insurance can sign up to be part of a government health insurance program at a reduced cost. Supporters of the plan claim that this is the fair, affordable healthcare plan that will finally allow struggling immigrants and other middle class Americans to get the medical care they are entitled to (“Plan for a Healthy America”). Those supporters could not be more wrong. First, “struggling immigrants” are not the ones that “cannot afford” healthcare. Of the 47 million uninsured residents in America in 2007, 38.8% (18.236 million) were White, 37.2% (17.484 million) were African American, 17.8% (8.366 million) were Hispanic, 2.8% (1.316 million) were Asian, and 3.4% (1.598 million) were classified as “Other” (“Argument”). The U.S. population’s distribution by race in 2007 was White 67.5% (202.5 million), Hispanic 14% (42 million), African American 12.1% (36.3 million), and Asian 6.4% (19.2 million) (“US Census Bureau”). So with simple division (number without insurance/total population of race), one can come up with the results that 9.01% of Whites, 48.17% of African Americans, 19.92% of Hispanics, and 6.85% of Asians were uninsured in 2007. The percentage of uninsured Hispanics and Asians (the two most likely to be immigrants) is less than half of the percentage of Whites and African Americans (the two most likely to be American citizens). Although not all Hispanics and Asians are immigrants, and not all Whites and African Americans are US citizens, the percentages vary widely enough to conclude that immigrants do not make up the majority of Americans who cannot afford health insurance. Also, simple calculations will show that there should be almost no one in America who cannot afford health insurance. For individuals working a minimum wage job, the net income after taxes, fees, and benefits is a little over $21,000 (“Wage and Hour Division”). The average annual cost of living for an individual (including food, water, shelter, and necessary supplies) is around $14,000 (“Cost of Living Adjustments”). Therefore, the individual has about $7,000 to spend on items and services of his or her choice. The average health care plan is only $4,400 annually meaning that the individual should easily be able to afford health insurance. For families of four, with two adults working minimum wage jobs, the net income after taxes, fees, and benefits is a little over $44,000 (“Wage and Hour Division”). The average annual cost of living is $23,00, and the average family healthcare plan is $12,100 annually (“The Cost of Raising Children”). Again there should be no reason that healthcare coverage is not attained easily for every member of the family. As for unfortunate circumstances such as single parent working a minimum wage job or handicapped family members, it would be much harder, if not impossible, to afford healthcare. However, only 10.1% of those who could not afford healthcare fall under those categories. The majority of the remaining 89.9% listed “inability to find a job” as the reason for not purchasing health insurance. There are more than 150 million available jobs in the Unites States today. 65 million of them are listed as requiring no prior training or experience (“Employment Situation Summary”). Allowing those that do not make a reasonable effort to get a job to enroll into a government sponsored healthcare program is irresponsible and unfair to those that have worked hard to attain it. Under Obama’s plan, the government will spend $130 billion a year to help make sure that everyone who wants health insurance can purchase it at a price that is affordable to them (“A Detailed Analysis of Barack Obama’s Healthcare Reform Plan”). Where is this $100 billion coming from? The answer is from taxpayers who have worked hard to earn money to provide for themselves and their families, yet are now forced to provide for those who simply sit back and wait for free aid (“Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?”).
In addition to being unfair to hard workers, Obama’s healthcare plan could also devastate the medical field. Look at it from a doctor’s point of view. The government is saying that one must provide quality care to everyone who seeks it because they are “entitled” to it. The doctor must hire staff to record data to report to the government. Because of this, he/she must see more patients everyday and work even longer hours. Now, the government will pay the expenses for those that “cannot afford” to cover medical expenses. Government payments never favor the doctor. A private insurance claim can bring in an average of $60 a patient. Medicare brings in around $40 a patient. Medicaid brings in, at the most, $35 a patient. Insurance payments to doctors under the Obama healthcare plan will be similar to those of Medicaid because both are paying for patients whose incomes do not allow them pay full price for medical insurance. Medicare and Medicaid payment have been on a steep decline ever since the late 90’s. Also, Obama has promised to cut the cost for American using private insurance plans. The insurance industry is a business. If the government forces them to lower their premiums, they will have no choice but to do so. However, there is nothing stopping them from reducing the amount they pay doctors so that they make the same profit. Doctors today must now see twice the amount of patients per day in order to receive the same income. As a result, they are often overworked and most lose their motivation. In a recent survey by The Physician’s Foundation, 60% of doctors said that they would not recommend medicine as a career. 90% have said the time they devote to non-clinical paperwork has increased, forcing them to spend less time with each patient. More than 55% say that they will retire, remove themselves from active patient care, or seek a new profession (“Many doctors plan to quit or cut back: survey”). Who can blame them? It takes at least seven years, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars and intense studying to become a primary care doctor. Specialists require even more time, money, and work. If the salary is not worth the schooling expense, time, and effort, the number of doctors will decrease. As a result, the quality of care will also decrease due to doctors having to see more patients in less time. Universal healthcare sounds very good to the untrained ear, but as one can clearly see, it is unfair to the majority of the people, including the doctors who work countless hours to provide patients with the best treatment possible.
Finally, Barack Obama has made it appear as if he has the perfect plans to fix the economy. A closer look will reveal just how unrealistic and dangerous some of his proposed plans are. Going back to tax cuts, Obama plans on raising taxes on “companies that ship jobs overseas”, yet not on “firms that create jobs here in the US” (“Responsible Tax Cuts for Ordinary Americans. What happens if a company ships a few jobs overseas but creates a few more here in the United States? Only Obama might know the answer to that question. But assuming everything goes as planned, corporations would have their taxes raised from 35% to 39.6%. Sole proprietors and partnerships (mostly small businesses) would have their taxes raised from 37.9% all the way to 50.3% due to the fact that they must also pay the Medicare component of the payroll tax. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all corporations also pay this 50-plus percent rate (“An argument against Obama’s tax plan”). Since corporations make billions of dollars a year, Obama believes that taxing them can bring in addition funds for the government to use. This is where he is wrong. It’s true that major corporation make big money, but taking away half of their income can be devastating for the economy. Corporations and other businesses create the majority of the jobs in America. If their income is cut, they will also cut the number of people they employ. Even Obama will agree that unemployment is a bad thing, but unemployment will be exactly what results if he decides to pass a major tax hike on corporations and other businesses. Obama also claims that his tax raise on the “wealthy” will help balance out the billions of dollars he has in proposed spending. That would be true if he did not cut taxes for the “middle class” and provide them with additional credits such as childcare benefits and employment bonuses. A study conducted by the Tax Policy Center found that Obama’s “tax plan will cost the United States treasury $6 billion a year not including tax evasion and fraud” (“Tax plan face off: Obama vs. McCain). Once again, Barack Obama’s tax plans have proven to be detrimental to the well being of the United States.
Another one of Obama’s plans to improve the economy is to raise the minimum wage. He claims that by raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour, “full time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing” (“Plan to Combat Poverty”). First of all, most minimum wage workers are not “full time workers.” 75% of minimum wage workers are college students or teenagers, and 23% are seniors age 65 and over (“Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers”). And in order to “help” the 2% that is remaining, Obama is risking greatly inflating the value of the dollar. It does not take statistics to figure out why raising the minimum wage is actually a useless if not bad thing to do. If the minimum wage is raised, the salaries of migrant workers and other agricultural workers will go up. As a result, the farmer or factory owner must pay a larger amount in salaries. This will result in prices of the finished product going up due to the increased cost that is needed to produce them. $9.50 may sound like a good amount of money right now. But how good would it sound if a gallon of milk or a pound of tomatoes cost $9.50? With the economy in the condition it is in at the current time, America cannot afford having the value of the dollar decrease even further.
Obama has also made a naïve claim about how he will restrict trade with China until they improve human rights in the country. Instead of looking to the economic powerhouse for help like the rest of the world, Obama is willing to risk the well being of the US economy to combat an issue he knows nothing about, cannot do anything about, and has no business doing anything about. At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, Chinese President Hu Jintao told the conference of world leaders that China “would work alongside the international community to strengthen cooperation and protect international markets” (“Obama sees long haul ahead, China offers help”). Dozens of world leaders have signed a global free trade deal to offset the economic crisis, but Obama wants to restrict trade with a country that exports $260 billion of goods to the United States every year (“Foreign Trade Statistics”). Just to prove how devastating this trade restriction can be, 80% of American flags are imported from China. The flags alone bring in $60 million annually in revenue for the companies selling them (“Even when Old Glory is Made in China”). Obama restricting trade with China will not only hurt the US economy, but maybe also damage the patriotism of millions of Americans.
Last, Obama promised countless times during his campaign that he would balance the budget. It does not take a genius to figure out that there is no possible way to do that with his proposed plans and programs. Obama’s major spending plans include $150 billion for energy efficiency research and $130 billion for healthcare. Yet his proposed plan for paying for the new spending, raising taxes on businesses and the “wealthy”, has already been shown to decrease the deficit even more. In fact, a study done by an independent agency shows that Obama’s plans will increase the national debt by over $3.7 trillion over the next four years (“Tax plan face off: Obama vs. McCain”). Again, increasing the national debt will not help the economy. The value of the dollar will inevitably decrease, and people will find that they need more and more money to buy the same goods and services.
The United States of America claims to be the richest country in the world. The American dream is all abut working hard and using the country’s abundant resources to accomplish one’s goals. Barack Obama’s tax proposals will not help deserving people achieve their dreams, but instead punish those who seek to better their lives through hard work and sacrifice. Barack Obama’s healthcare plan will not improve the quality and cost of healthcare, but instead cost taxpayers and doctors billions of dollars. Barack Obama’s proposed economic policies and plans will not help the country out of the recession, but instead put the country in risk of a serious depression. Barack Obama’s campaign emphasized the optimistic message of hope for America. Now the only thing one can hope for is that his proposed plans and policies never get passed.
Posts
19 comments:
Jerry made a lot of logical appeals in the research paper with the presentation of many numbers from different sources. Although I would have liked to see more pictures/graphs/charts that organize the data in a more understandable manner. It is interesting that Jerry goes in an opposite direction to point out the faults of Obama's policies after the election. However, since Obama has already been elected, Americans as a whole should look to the future more with optimism rather than through a partisan eye. While I also disagree with some of Obama's economic policies, no one really knows what will happen until it actually does happen. This paper is largely based on the analytical economics of the situation, but the problem with the study is that it is just too theoretical, and almost nothing can be made certain by economists who constantly debate about the different types of existing models. Economics is not a single facet study and just because something does not look promising in theory does not mean that it has no chance of working. Supply-side economics has not worked very well in the last 8 years, so maybe we do need something different to instill consumer confidence in the future. While the numbers can be strictly stated as Jerry did in his paper, no one can really predict the human element in the nature of the economy. Nevertheless, because this essay deals with a different prospective from what college students usually think about when it comes to politics, the argument is very commendable.
If you are going to set up the debate with one side as "Barack Obama is the messiah," and the other side as "no he is not," then obviously you have a pretty clear advantage disproving the first side. Yes, like all political plans, Obama's will not work out flawlessly, exactly as he has promised. But they will provide help to a large number of Americans who dearly need help.
First of all, it is true that in your presented scenario, Obama's tax plan seems unfair. But this is one scenario that falsely represents how Obama's tax plan works. A line has to be drawn in a progressive tax system, and there will always be some unfairness in the small income gaps above and below the line. But for the majority of cases, those Americans not close to the drawn line, it is not unfair and poorer Americans who desperately need there money in these times will be able to retain some hope of putting food on the table. It is not too much to ask that those who have been fortunate and are well-off take up more of the tax burden in order to help out the less fortunate. Its not unfair and it is compassionate.
It is a gross misrepresentation of the social construction of capitalist society to attribute all success and all failure to working hard. People are born into unequal circumstances in our society and strong correlation is seen between the status one person is born into along with the corresponding opportunities presented to them and their economic success. It is also ridiculous to simply brush off poor people's plight as just "oh, they are just lazy." There are fewer jobs than there are people who want jobs. Unemployment is unavoidable. Because we live in a society where some people are favored over others in the capitalist system, it is appropriate that those people give back a little more so that the system that has given them so much continue to work and provide help for those less fortunate.
Good article relating to this in the New Yorker. Warren Buffet says it better than I can.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/10/obama-and-luck.html
Although I agree with Jake when arguing against the "Obama is a Messiah" claim. I feel that this essay is several steps above that argument. Obama has, in the simplest of terms, received a lot of hype. He has been the world's biggest celebrity for several months, since before he won the election. The point that I believe Jerry is making is that not all of this hype is warranted. A close look at Obama's economic plan, for example, will show that it is one of the most closed trade policies implemented in the last hundred years. The last time a trade policy similar to Obama's was implemented in America, Hoover was in office, and we all know how that turned out.
However, I would agree with Jake in that Obama, through his calm and collected speeches, gave the American people an optimism that has not been seen in several years. As any economist would say, optimism is essential to a nation's economic well being. In this respect, Obama is on par with Franklin Roosevelt. His election set off parties in the streets both at home and abroad, and if this enthusiasm continues, then he is already halfway to fixing the economy. Not to mention that such enthusiasm is contagious, and it will be easier for Obama to start working on his other proposed plans.
Jerry's paper is ultimately an attack on socialism because it examines the worst case scenario of Obama's presidency, which occording to this paper, is Obama passing all of his proposed social programs. The argument is a solid one, but at the same time, the United States didn't get out of the Great Depression without social programs, and like Nico said, Obama is very similar to FDR. Not only is his policy similar to that of FDR, but his inspiration of the people. If these programs do turn out to be as horrifying as Jerry says, then in four years, we can go back to capitolism, and if anyone ever complains again about the unfairness of capitolism, then we can say you had your chance during Obama's presidency, you should have done something with it. I say this lightly, because it's very unlikely that things will become that bad, but like Atticus said, no one can predict what will happen, so we'll just have to wait and see.
I see a lot of good points made. The paper was heavily enforced with a lot of data and facts. As I finished reading this paper, I felt a bit worried about my future career to come. hahaha.
Obama's healthcare plan for the future is more than daunting and focuses on aspects that may not work entirely to America's favor. Nevertheless, these tasks are difficult to prepare and instill and will therefore take a while to complete. Perhaps, along the way, Obama will listen to what the populous has to say about his plans and maybe he will change his plan as he continues to fix it. If he really is looking for the "change that we need" he will accept the faults in his plan and improve upon them.
I agree with both Nico and Jake in regards to Obama's optimism. UNlike past elections or even campaigns, Obama was able to give Americans hope as they stepped into the voting booths. Although the country was left in quite a mess with PResident Bush, we wait with hope that Obama will bring the change that Americans are anxious to see.
Jerry's paper gave thorough examples and he really held his argument throughout the paper. As for the next four years, we can only hope that Obama will turn things around.
It is interesting to another opinion on Obama for once. Many people were so blinding by his immense presence and call for "change" that many did not realize what they voted for. Yes, Obama's tax plan does seem quite radical, yo made some good points about how unfair it is. I like how you should concrete evidence and numerical data (logical appeal?) The only thing I would say is that everything you voiced about Obama seemed to be about the economy. I wonder is that the only thing that is "too good to be true?" Are there more issues at hand here?
nice job on really analyzing obama's policies. however your whole equal opportunity argument was extremely flawed. America education is no where near equal. you cant look me in the eye and tell me you would have a drive to study and do school work if you have not eaten in three days and your mother does not care enough to find you something to eat. tell me that you would study knowing that your sister sales her body every night in the next room while your mother pops pills. your environment has a HEAVY effect on how you act. though everybody's life is not this dismal, their are many Americans who have are living through hell. (partly based on what the government's role)
1) what type of public schooling did you receive
2) how would you propose revamping Obama's polices to make them more equal
What you've stated is a worst-case scenario. What do you believe will actually happen during Obama's presidency?
You seem to be a large supporter of capitolism and the oppurtunities of America, but is there ever a circumstance in which social policies would be the best option?
I like the approach that Jerry took on this argument and i think that he represents the ideals of a lot of people in America today thinking the same thing he is about Obama and his execution. I agree with the notion that Obama has the right ideas, however; may not be able to implement them due to impracticality.
A couple thoughts i had while listening to Jerry's presentation are: Do you really think that the poor cannot fend for themselves due to the fact that they lack motivation to succeed? or is it more so due to their inherently decrepit circumstances? Additionally, richer people should give back some more to the government, but how much is enough?
I understand that there is currently a tax cut in effect for the wealthiest of Americans, but for those who make above whatever the benchmark Obama may set, they too earned their money under difficult circumstances, why should the be penalized for earning more money? I think that the waters become very murky regarding this point. no one wants to pay more taxes.
Also, during times of recession, the solution is not to tax more, it is to increase spending and keep spending. if you begin to heavily tax the rich then the economy will take much longer to bounce back. this is something that Obama has clearly recognized over the past few weeks after his election, and perhaps may be reconsidering. it does not make sense to do such a thing, and he knows it.
I thought the first part of your paper was engaging and supported by a lot of statistical evidence. However, I have to disagree with some of your arguments in the latter half of the paper. Your dismissal of those without health and insurance as well as the unemployed seems hasty and purely statistical. It is easy to point out the fact that providing healthcare to all citizens will most lead to more government spending and, as a result, taxing. It is also easy to tell the unemployed that there is work available for them in newspapers, and that they should take advantage of such opportunities instead of collecting welfare or “making bad decisions”. However, both of these issues are much more complicated than that these simple solutions.
Healthcare is not simply a “cost” to the government. Access to quality healthcare should be a right for all citizens, just as both presidential candidates stated during the 2008 Presidential debates. Dismissing basic, universal healthcare for those who can’t afford because it will decrease wages for a largely affluent class of doctors ignores that right. Also, stating that the unemployed should just get jobs is oversimplification. Due to circumstances they can’t control (such as inequality in education, lack of proper materials, racism, sexism and urban decay) many Americans simply can’t find reliable work. Even if they can, most minimum wage jobs fail to keep citizens above the poverty line. Many people can make more money collecting welfare than working these jobs.
I think your arguments in these sections have a solid base and there is support available for them. However, a more researched and supported argument that could refute the points above would make it much stronger.
Despite my critique of those two sections, I found your paper as a whole enjoyable and interesting. Though you take some controversial stances, you provide support throughout your work and a refreshing perspective for these issues.
Jerry has written an applaudable critique of Barrack Obama. His arguments seem valid in that they are each supported with many menial facts and that when put together, help to diminish the effectiveness Obama's idealistic policies. The logistical approach that Jerry utilizes works rather effectively and helps to fabricate Obama as a man with good intentions but poor means. Jerry's one downfall is his lack of acknowledging Obama's beneficial aspects such as his therapeutic handling of a sickly America. Ultimately, Jerry's arguments deserve some respect in an environment of so many uninformed Obama fans.
I had a couple of questions for Jerry. I agree with Atticus in that, a more reader-friendly way of presenting your logical appeals would be, instead of listing numbers, making charts or graphs. Was there any specific reason that you chose to just list the statistics? I believe in some cases it can be very effective to list stats rather than present them in pictures and was wondering if that was what you were going for here.
Also, with regards to your criticism on Obama's tax system, do you think that a progressive system is inefficient? I think that the wealthier can afford to pay more taxes so they should. What do you think would be a better tax system?
Jerry, I commend the extensive level of research you did in order to ensure maxime evidence to support your argument. I was intrigued by your "domino effect" argument concerning Obama's health care plan. Why would doctors have to hire an entire staff to prove their quality of care to the government? Surely there are more practical methods, (patient reports, etc.) Also if they do need additional staff, how expensive could it be to hire one person to report to the government? One only needs one accountant to do the tax returns right?
As Katherine said, reading the findings of this paper has also made me think about the future of my career. But hopefully as Obama has promised, he should work across party lines and reach out to the populace for ideas that could improve his policies defined during his campaign.
The imagined look into the future is part of an escalation in rhetoric from Christian right activists who are trying to paint Obama in the worst possible terms as the campaign heads into the final stretch and polls show the Democrat ahead.
----------
smithsan
social advertising
My Questions to you would be:
What do you think, realistically, that Obama can accomplish?
In your presentation, you mentioned that a reform of the tax code would result in more tax evasion and a new group of "losers". Would you argue, then, that our current tax code does not need to be adjusted?
My missing questions:
Even if everyone were born with equal opportunity and into equal circumstances, is it not our duty as just and compassionate human beings to sacrifice to help out our fellow man? Capitalism is a system where there will always be winners and losers. It is the nature of the system. So even if there were a level playing field there would still inevitably be people who get pushed to the bottom even if everyone worked hard.
Even if the plans are not perfect, is that grounds for tossing them out since they still will help millions of Americans?
Post a Comment