Revised Post with Links

I read about McCain's stance on taxes in the link that you included-- what is so dreadful about asking the rich to pull their weight in taxes? You're absolutely right, Rachael, when you say that of the two things certain in life, taxes are one of them; so why do the Republicans persist in the myth that taxes can be abolished?

I don't understand McCain's rational in thinking that when the country is 9 trillion dollars in debt http://www.ontheissues.org/Background_Budget_+_Economy.htm he should give tax cuts to the rich. Tax cuts are detrimental to the economy, not beneficial, as John E. Schwarz points out in his article "Tax, spend, and create more jobs" http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080901/news_mz1e1schwarz.html. You can't expect a government that is steadily losing money and bringing nothing in to compensate to boost the economy.

Obama's plan to raise taxes is not radical or, as McCain claims, detrimental at a time when people can ill afford a tax raise. The wealthier households can certainly afford to pay for the greater share of energy and material products that they consume. I know that we are not-- yet-- talking about raising taxes on electricity and heating, but in principle the rich consume more, so they should pay more.

According to Obama's statement on tax cuts supported by the bush administration http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/barack-obama/ he only intends only to cut taxes for the middle and lower classes. If at the very least he cuts taxes for the middle and lower classes and maintains the tax rate on the wealthy, wouldn't that have a positive effect on the economy by redistributing resources fairly?

Taxes: One of the Certain Things in Life

"No country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human resources.  Demoralization caused by vast unemployment is our greatest extravagance.  Morally, it is the greatest menace to our social order." ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt

In light of the recent economic struggle that has been plaguing America, it is not hard to imagine that we may be heading towards a second Great Depression.  Unemployment rates are at a reported four year high and to make matters worse, the United States government has had to step in and bail out several billion dollar companies such as Bear Sterns and AIG.  With the 2008 Presidential election just months away, one thing that is on every body's mind is: what are they going to do about it? With they being Presidential nominees John McCain and Barack Obama.

Both McCain and Obama have addressed the current economic crisis in myriad ways that focus on different ways to balance the budget and keep the country afloat.  One of the issues they address in their discussions is taxes.

John McCain's main stance is against raising taxes and, in his most recent T.V. ad, McCain attacks Obama saying that Obama wants us to pay "painful taxes" on income, electricity and heating oil.  Seems a bit extreme, right?  Actually, it is.  In regards to income, Obama says that he would only increase the tax for those households who make over $250,000 annually.  As for taxing electricity and heating oil, Obama has not proposed anything of the sort.  So why the false ads?

It could be that McCain is relying on the usual political stereotype where, based on history, Republicans are usually in favor of tax cuts whereas Democrats are usually in favor of tax increases.  But, here's what it boils down to.  Who's tax plan is better for the future of America? Do we go with McCain's do nothing plan where in order for it to work federal spending would be reduced by %25?  Or do we go with Obama's plan which, despite its merits, is so complex that Fox News has dubbed that it will "make a complex system worse"?

The choice is yours.  Just remember that out of the two certain things in life, taxes is one of them.

Have the culture wars returned?

If your email exercise responses are any indication, the overwhelming majority of you believe more Americans identify with Barack Obama's story of multiculturalism, compromise, and change than with John McCain's story of duty, heroism, and tradition. But I wonder how people who live in small towns across the United States, towns with populations that share the same race and religion, might have responded. Do you think they would agree with your opinion?

Reconsider your response. How much of it was influenced by your personal history and by living in a multicultural, largely urban region? Sarah Palin's acceptance speech last night offered a lively and determined defense of small-town conservative values, and the buzz in the media hints that she may have ignited a culture war between liberal, urban cosmopolitanism and conservative, rural conservatism. Given the positive reaction to her speech, can we continue to argue that her embrace of tradition, duty, and heroism represents only a minority of Americans?