Biden and Palen Debate

Thursday, October 02, 2008
The debate and the pundits' spin has been interesting. I'm not sure that we learned a lot we didn't already know. I've been reading up a bit on economic philosophies and Obama and McCain take two very different tacks. All men (and woman) claim to be "for the little guy." Yet, they approach how to be "for the little guy" in very different ways.

Obama stresses re-distributing wealth through the way taxation is applied to those with salaries over $42,000 - according to the debates. The philosophy is that increasing taxes on higher incomes will pay for services (social welfare, health care) for those with lower incomes.

McCain stresses reducing taxes, apparently especially with businesses, according to the debates. This philosophy believes that by decreasing taxes, businesses have more capital to put into producing product, and therefore work for workers.

There are problems with both of these philosophies, as I understand them. I am not an "economics person."

With Obama's, critics will say that by increasing taxes and redistributing wealth you will essentially do something similar to the economics of Marx. In other words, you take away the "will of the worker" to create more wealth - because it's taken away in taxes anyway. There is little reward "for doing well." The reliance is upon the government to play judge and jury over who should get money rather than workers who made it.

With McCain, the critics will point to the "rich are benefiting while the middle class suffer" thought. Does giving the rich the tools to do well in business really mean they will do well in business and trickle down that "wellness" to other workers? How much a part does greed come into play? If the government doesn't 'regulate' will people play fair? Current history (loan shysters) has proven that they don't necessarily deal honestly and fairly with others.

Commentary on the Denver Post explains our current economic quandary: "It's the fault of those on the left who pushed the seductive idea that everyone should own a home whether or not they could afford it. And it's the fault of those on the right who didn't care that people were losing their homes until the dominoes fell all the way to Wall Street." (from http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_10539732, accessed on 10/3/08)

Doesn't anyone have a third way?

No comments: