I feel weird talking politics on my blog. Partly because I do not know anything. And partly because most people who do know something still look like they know nothing. People throw out stuff that seems like a good point, but then they have no actual information to back it up. It just sounds like a good point.
One such point was the idea that large companies should pay higher taxes because of shared resources. The example my friend gave was roads. Since a company would have more vehicles using those roads and would be making more money from the use of those roads than the common man, they should have to pay more taxes. Some of the things left out of this argument were actual numbers. Are there taxes being applied to businesses who use these roads excessively? I know that my Grandfather, who had a trucking business, paid a ton of taxes in California. And, I know that he did not make very much money. Are the two related? I don't have the actual numbers though.
So, I do not understand how people can argue for points when they do not have facts. Speculation seems like the best they can do. And, of course, this brings us to the debates. I really do not understand the debate process. Why are we watching these things? I know what the candidate stands for. Is it all about the show? They do not seem to have their facts straight either. The Palin-Biden debate was interesting. She never answered any questions and Biden repeated a bunch of stuff. And then, some debate expert has to come along and say: It was a draw!
Isn't every debate a draw really?
When a person is being a huge jerk and gets angry and throws a tantrum, the winner is the other person, right? Person B expressed himself better. Person A had no composure. Person A had more facts, but apparently could not handle being referred to as someone who just doesn't get it. So, even though Person B resorted to name-calling, Person A is the one who deserves to lose.
Another funny thing happened recently. A McCain supporter railed against Obama and McCain came out in defense of Obama, saying that Obama would make a fine president. McCain is running for president, right? He does believe that he would make the best president, does he not? If McCain and Obama are really not much different, why is McCain in there? People have sunk millions of dollars into this candidate and he gets out there and tells his supporters that his competition will be a fine president? I understand that McCain wants to be fair and to give credit to Obama, but there would seem to be a lot at stake here. That does not sound like someone who thinks his ideas are all that great. That does not sound like someone who feels he has to be in there for the country to be where it needs to be. It does not sound like McCain is a leader.
I know that the candidates are doing their best to distance themselves from Bush. I hate that the country hates Bush so much. We elected him. We knew who he was after four years. It is not like we had no idea where he was coming from. We put him in office. Are we going to elect McCain and gripe about him for the next four years?
2 comments:
I have to agree about the debates. I think Saturday Night Live depiction of the Vice-Presidential Debate (www.rightpundits.com/?p=2161) answered more of my questions than the actual debate.
Debates suck on TV because the networks want the ratings, but the candidates will not come on (both sides negotiate huge terms sheets prior to agreeing) if the networks do not toss them softball questions with no real facts behind them. If we want it to be real, we would need a "Jeopardy" panel of experts that could provide instantaneous fact checking and opinion in between each question set and have follow up questions that further defined their answers and positions. The candidates would never agree to that.
On corporate taxes:
One candidate wants to do two things, raise their taxes, and also prevent them from taking their businesses overseas. What do you think drives them to go out of the US? What do you think forces businesses (like movie productions) to go outside California? IF you want to raise corporate taxes AND keep them here, the only way you can do that is via protectionist tariffs...that never works...especially not now in our more global economy.
Higher corporate taxes will mean less jobs created by consumer demand (corporations will pass the costs onto consumers who will consume less) and more jobs created by the government (road projects, aid projects, help for the poor, etc.) this is a death spiral.
Post a Comment