|| comments closed||trackbacks off|
|The History and Possibilities of Tax and Destroy|
Oct. 15th, 2008 at 10:10 am
I heard this thing once to the effect that we don’t see the immediate bad (or good) effects of an adiminstration’s money policies—it’s the next administration that benefits or pays. I think it was in reference to Reagan’s supposedly good policies, which benefited Bill Clinton, who raised taxes.
That would mean that Bush inherited whatever good or bad Clinton did (and I loved getting that check in the mail at the beginning of his administration) and whoever is the next president will inherit Bush’s policy results.
It doesn’t quite make sense to me, except for the part where it takes a while to see results of a certain policy. I sort of get that a lot of our current problems are from the mortgage crisis and mishandling, but I also think it’s because we’ve poured money into Iraq, who HASN’T GIVEN US A DIME TO HELP PAY TO RESTORE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE (although I guess we ruined it). “I’m not happy” as my senile aged mother says when things aren’t going her way.
I have heard snippets about each candidates’ tax policies. If true, Obama is a taxing menace to society. It sounds like he wants to give money to people who haven’t even paid taxes, ie, the very poor—many who live in ghettos—and penalize the small business-owner. I think that reflects his personal experience of who needs money the most. If it’s true, of course.
I’ve heard that capital gains relief on big corporations, and maybe small ones, benefits society and I believe it. McCain offers that. Plus no tax raises for anybody. He gets slammed for favoring the rich.
I want somebody who favors the middle class. Based on my limited financial knowledge and political knowledge and candidate knowledge, it sounds like McCain has the better idea for the economy. I think Obama spells bad news for me and those like me.