Discriminatory Tax Cuts

If I were to vote solely on the basis of who gave me a larger tax cut, I would vote for Barack Obama. The Washington Post article Obama and McCain Tax Proposals shows us something of politics and media. John McCain caters to the capitalists; Obama caters to the populace (or at least 60% of taxpayers). So who wins out?

McCain gets the backing of the wealthy; money is necessary to a campaign and the backing of those with money. Obama gets the backing of a large voting block; votes are necessary to a campaign and the accompanying charisma. Will money and advertising sway the voting public or will popularity and the vague doctrine of "change" rue the day?

We also see what the Washington Post wants us to see. "Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy." This appeal to emotion fails the test of logic. Is it right or better to give tax cuts to those who make the least? Is it right that those who work harder/smarter bears the larger burden because they make more money?

This is a case of "politics of envy." Show me someone who votes to raise the taxes on America's wealthiest and I'll show you a hypocrite who would vote the contrary if his economic position improved to the point where he was in the top 1% of wage earners. Is Obama supposed to be some kind of "Robin Hood" because he "steals from the rich to give to the poor?" The reality is that he will "rob Peter to pay Paul."

Under Obama's plan capital is transferred from the few experienced and knowledgeable investor to themany fractious and divided mass of consumers who spend what they do not have, do not save money and do not know how to successfully invest their money. This is not a good economic plan. This is a good political ploy. This country needs sound money not political pandering.

My view is that our current state of taxation is unethically high for everyone. Although McCain is giving back more than Obama by an average of almost 7X as much. This would benefit the economy more if that is what your aiming for in the tax cut.

Comparatively Obama will be far more ruinous to this country's economy than McCain will. But McCain will not provide a means of restoring sound money either. I vote for the clssic liberal who promotes freedom and liberty. For that is what this country needs (meanwhile I will concurrently promote attending to the deplorable spiritual state of this country as well).

But what about throwing your vote away when you could have a Republican with some adherence to the conservative agenda? This country needs long term vision. Short term gains and long term losses are unacceptable. I cannot in good conscience vote for the "lesser of two evils." You cannot split rotting wood (Gresham Machen). The war must be over the long run and short run battles must be in the direction of less not more government. Tactics must be consistent with strategy.

Both candidates will bring more government, not because they personally will seek its augmentation but because they will not resist those who do. We need a president who is keenly aware of the unwritted alliances and seek their abolishment. It is common knowledge that "politics is dirty." Then why are we upset by those who act in terms of that thinking? The policy setters are not the same people who are the policy makers. Who then set policy? Follow the money.

Why the title Discriminatory Tax Cuts? Because our entire tax structure is currently discriminatory and to give so little back (both candidates stop far too short) is discriminatory. Taxes discriminate against Americans. We fought for our indeppendence under a system of taxes lower than today's...Where have we gone wrong?

We need to get rid of income taxes altogether and support our fiscal needs on something like an excise tax(es). We need people like Ron Paul (R) and Chuck Baldwin (CP). But we need them all over this country and in every level of politics from the "dog catcher" to the president.