Whew, I knocked on about 40 doors this afternoon campaigning for Obama in a middle class neighborhood in central Florida. There were lots of McCain signs out; this is a conservative little town and that apparently was a conservative little neighborhood. Which is odd because it wasn't a wealthy neighborhood: small, modest houses, lots of late model cars in driveways. Not people who looked like they made more than a quarter of a million dollars a year. Unless they do, Obama's tax plan would benefit them way more than McCain's would. And yet they are voting for McCain. Why?
George Lakoff, author of Don't think of an Elephant, would say it's because the Republicans are good at framing their party platform in terms of values that people identify with that they've convinced them the Democrats are against: Family, Religion, Freedom. Democrats are doing well this year for a variety of reasons but one of them is that they've heard Lakoff and have learned how to frame their platform in terms of valuest. This election is about Responsibility, Community, Unity, Hope and, of course, Change. Those are the values resonating with people this year and that's why Obama's going to win next Tuesday.
But still. I'm amazed that some non-rich people support McCain. Eight years of Bush's economic policies have devastated this country. Greenspan has admitted deregulation may not have been such a great idea. I heard today that the jobless rate might go as high as 8.5% soon. People who had their retirement funds in 401K plans right now are screwed (btw, aren't 401K plans a great idea -- convince people that they don't need pensions but should instead gamble on the stock market for their retirement!) Experts are talking long term recession and still --still!-- some people are thinking yeah, let's keep doing what we're doing!? I don't get it.
Ok, so some people are always going to vote against their own economic interests no matter what. Maybe for the same reason poor people buy lottery tickets. They're about as likely to ever be rich enough to benefit from Republicans' fiscal policies as they are to hit the jackpot but there's always the hope. Joe the Plumber (who apparently doesn't make more than $250K/yr) hopes that some day he will be rich and when that day comes he wants to pay lower taxes. hmmm...
I can understand when I pass a McMansion with a McCain/Palin sign out front but I don't understand when I see McCain signs in yards of people in the middle to lower economic classes.
Explanation anyone?
I humbly disagree.
While I am not voting for Obama, I am not voting for McCain as well. The way I look at it, they are the same party, a few (and I do stress few) differences between them.
Since you subscribe to the Marxist ideology, I can bet we will have severely different options.
I personally don't want any tax benefits/breaks. I want to pay the same as everyone else. I am in favor of a flat tax. Everyone is equal, period. I have no problem giving up a percentage of my salary as long as everyone else is paying the same. I do think that food, clothing and shelter should be exempt from the tax as these are the basic needs of people. This also could stop this stupid class warfare crap. If everyone is paying the same, there is none of this "there paying more/less than me". It's childish non-sense. Hating rich people because they have money is stupid. Most of them had to work hard to get it.
Second, while I am far from a Bush supporter, his administration was not the cause of the Frannie/Freddie crisis. Banks were giving out loans to people that didn't have the means to pay for them. One of the perpetrators of this was the Community Reinvestment Act (altruist name, horrible policy). The act put pressure on the banks to make these bad loans, and then Fannie/Freddie were making investment derivatives out of them. This was a case of the government allowing businesses to do this. Businesses, mostly, follow the law and live within it. So if the government allowed them to dismiss basic economic principles, its partly the governments fault. There are over 10,000 companies in the US, you shouldn't blame them all for the problem of a few.
You are being short-sighted with the 401(k) issue. Money earned in social security almost never beats inflation (hence no added purchasing power). Another point to make is, how do you think the money in pensions increases? The pension managers place that money in the stock market, treasuries and bonds (some have more exotic investment options). So even if everyone had a pension the whole pension fund would have lost money as well. The reason why I am opposed to pensions is that I want to assess my level of risk. What if I want to take more or less risk than the pension manager. People that placed all their 401(K) money in high-flying stocks during this shaky period (it was shaky pre-crisis), should have expected a downside. The people that have most of their money in bonds, faired better (if not made money).
401(k)'s are great savings vehicles for people. People control their own retirement. They own the account, not some corporation that can cut them out or reduce payments. Smart investors know to diversify and not keep all your eggs in one basket. There are also financial planners to help people assess their risk level as well as proper laws to make sure planners act in good faith with their clients, or they could lose their careers.
So pensions and 401(k)'s are still being invested in Wall Street, the main difference is the company owns the pension and you own your 401(k).
I also disagree with the notion that people shouldn't even try to become wealthy. What rubbish. The point of living in the U.S is if you work hard (as well as smart), the sky is the limit. While granted most people will not make it into the top 5% of the bracket, it is possible to move through the income brackets if you have the persistence and determination to do so.
The idea that since joining the top 5% is unlikely, we should be content with stealing from the rich to give to the poor. While you might not make it to the top 5%, with hard work, you could make it to the top 20%, 15% or 10%.
This is usually the mantra of government employees. Since there is a wage cap on how much they can make, they don't like people in the private sector earning 2x,5x,10x their salary. They feel that their work is productive and good for society, so they see no reason for the claimed "excesses" in private sector pay.
Each job is paid based on the type of work. Private sector will more often than not beat the public sector in any time of job or field. The government is not in the business of making money (maybe not after the nailout), just taking (in my case stealing) it.
As you can tell my viewpoints are most likely different than yours. I see government as a necessary evil. An institution that takes money from the populace and doles out ineffective services.
Posted by: SomePoster | Monday, November 03, 2008 at 05:51 AM