This is a list that I personally have compiled over the course of the last couple of weeks. It is not complete by any means, but I think it does give a sampling of my concerns as well as the concerns of many. Due to the length of the posting, I have not included links but have included the dates if one wanted to look it up.
ABORTION:
1.Voted against partial birth abortion ban- October 2007
2.He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive
3.Voted no on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP- March 2008
4.Voted no on prohibiting minors from crossing state lines for abortions- March 2008
5.Voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out of state abortions- July 2006
6.Voted against restrictions on public funding of abortion.- 2000
ECONOMIC ISSUES
7.Voted no on $40B in reduced overall federal spending- December 2005
8.Sponsored tax credit bill for providing 85% ethanol gas- April 2005
9.Voted no on CAFTA, Central America Free trade- July 2005
10.Mandates health care- February 2008
11.Voted to end $300 million worth of tax breaks for businesses.- 2004 (anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics understands that restrictive policy results in a reduction, not increase)
12.Believes that tax cuts on rich does not create jobs- May 2004
13.Voted to raise the minimum wage in Illinois from $5.15 an hour to $6.50 an hour over two years. – 2003 ( again, anyone with the slightest understanding of economics realizes that those adversely affected by such actions, are the individuals this measure is meant to help)
14.Favored single payer health care despite denial- January 2008
15.Successfully sponsored the Health Care Justice Act, a study of ways to implement a universal health care system statewide.- 2004
16.Free public college for any student with B average- July 1998
17.Voted against making permanent the repeal of the state’s 5 percent sales tax on gasoline.- 2000
CRIME/ GUNS
18.Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. -2001
19.Deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair- October 2006
20.Death penalty should not discriminate by gang membership- October 2004
21.Questions harsh penalties for drug dealing- October 2007
22.Endorsed Illinois handgun ban- April 2008
23.Respects 2nd amendment, but local gun bans ok- February 2008
24.Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. -2004
25.Voted no on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers- July 2005
26.In 1999, Obama voted against a bill barring early release for (criminal) sex offenders
27.He unsuccessfully sponsored limit of one handgun purchase per month. – 200
28.Unsuccessfully sponsored measure to expunge some criminal records and create an employment grant program for ex-criminals.- 2002
WAR ON TERROR
29.Restore habeas corpus for detainees in War on Terror- June 2007
30.Close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus- June 2007
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
31.Supports granting drivers license to illegal immigrants- November 2007
32.Voted yes on continued federal funds for ‘sanctuary cities’- March 2008
33.Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants- July 1998
34.Voted yes to allow illegal aliens to participate in social security- May 2008
35.Voted no on terminating legal challenges to English only job rules- March 2008
DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
36.Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill- March 2007
37.Opposes CA Prop. 8 define marriage as one man one woman- July 2008
MORAL AND COMMON SENSE ISSUES
38.Sponsored resolution rejecting photo ID for voting- September 2005
39.Obama voted “present” on a bill to keep pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 1,000 feet of schools and churches- 2001
40.Obama voted against filtering pornography on school and library computers
41.Obama voted for sex education for kindergarten children through the 5th grade
42.Include class based affirmative action with race based- October 2007
43.Supreme court was wrong on school anti-integration ruling- July 2007
44.Supports affirmative action in colleges and government- July 1998
45.National smoking bans only after trying local bans- September 2007
46.Voted no on declaring English as the official language of US government- June 2007
47.Voted against giving tax credits to parents who send their children to private school. – 1999
48.Jerusalem as joint Palestinian- Israeli capitol ok- July 2008
POLITICS
49.Statement: owes unions who endorse him, that’s why he’s in politics- October 2006
50.No money from lobbyist, but money from bundlers who lobby ok- July 2007
51.No money from lobbyist, but money from spouse of lobbyist ok- April 2007
52.Nearly $200,000,000 in unreported campaign contributions
Regarding numbers 42-44, there have been many studies that have clearly shown quota systems and specifically in the higher educational institutions have created undue hardship on those who are supposed to benefit from such programs.
Richard- I appreciate your openess, thank you. As far as points 11 and 12, research macroeconomic theory and you will find what it is that I am speaking of. There was however an attempt in relatively recent history to implement the same type of policies – commonly called restrictive- the individual at the helm at that point was Pres. Carter. Prior to that, we have another example for which the similarities are striking- we affectionately know this period as ‘The Great Depression’. Though there are some, few, that would argue, it is generally accepted that the depression was prolonged due to the restrictive policies followed by FDR.
Richard- just an additional side note regarding number 13. I have to assume that since you are in disagreement with 11 and 12, 13 would pose a problem as well. To understand the implications of number 13 you would need to look up microeconomic theory.
Richard- your link is in regards to deficit spending. I would argue as would most economists, that there are some inherent benefits in regards to deficit spending, but yes, there are limitations as well. Points 11, 12, and conversely 13 are in respect to restrictive policies. Let’s put it this way; if you as an individual have just found out that your taxes are going to increase lets say 10%- the monies that you take in are going to decrease as well right? OK, so if you have 10% less money coming in, then it would be reasonable to expect that you would reduce the money going out on items not necessary right? Well, business is the same way. If business tax goes up then business is required to reduce costs to maintain profitability. Reducing costs for business may entail; reduced work force, less investment (infrastructure). This reduction results in reduced revenue (tax), higher unemployment.
I have read reports regarding Senator Obama’s tax proposal and barring any unknown disclosures; the top 5% of earners would be taxed at a rate of 49-50%. In economic speak, this incentivizes that these earners would now transfer earnings to localities where penalties are not as great- in English, these people/ businesses would move their operations to countries that would allow them to keep as much of their profits as possible. Look at auto manufacturing as an example, the rustbelt states were taxing at such a high rate, that many manufacturers have moved to states or even countries with lower tax rates.
Richard- I’m not making the claim that these individuals will move residence, but merely the home country of said business entity. Now this may entail a physical move or a paper move. Recently Senator Obama has referred to 1000 corporations having headquarters in one building in the Bahamas- I believe. This example is exactly what I am referring too. If the fed increases the incentive for businesses to move off-shore or even relocate, then tax revenue does in fact decrease. There is an overwhelming amount of historical data supporting this assertion and no, that I am aware of, data that would disprove it. I have been in the business world for twenty years and have watched the ebb and flow of business practice. The one constant has been that a correctly run business will by whatever means possible, try to remain profitable.
One last bit of data, and this being purely anecdotal; During the 80’s Michigan state and local governments began raising taxes. The assumption was increased tax revenue. What actually happened was that many businesses found that even with the loss of existing facilities, it was more beneficial for them to relocate and sell assets in Michigan. Many other businesses didn’t have that opportunity and went into foreclosure. I, like many Michiganders, was forced by taxation and loss of jobs to move from my home. Prior to all of this, many Michigan communities were experiencing revitalization. Policies however quashed this growth. In fact, Michael Moore got his start there because of a film he did called "Me and Roger". Though a purely one sided view, it was the story of the death of Flint Michigan- and yes, I did live there at the time. If memory serves me correctly, Flint held the record for per capita murders during that time. So increased taxes do have affects- but are we ready for them?
Well done. At least you’ve researched it. Many of the items you list are the reasons I do support Obama – so we’ll agree to differ.
However, I will question your assumptions in point 11 and 12.
There’s so much info here on this link – you’ll have a field day – but it’s quite interesting ( for example it has the national debt and inflation recorded year by year by President since 1780 ish on the spreadsheet at the bottom under sources – you need to select the worksheet).
You’ll figure it out – but look at Fig 1 which shows the climb in National Debt. And look at Fig 3 together with the narrative underneath which shows the "change" by President for the last 50 years.
You will see that Democrat policies have been more successful (Clinton, Carter and Johnson) and that tax decreases have not had the anticipated effect.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
.EDIT: Point 13 – The minimum wage is arguable. First should there be a minm wage? And then what level is it set.
It’s a matter of judgement. I have a view that says it should be set in areas wider than one state.
Generally – I have to say it’s difficult to compare the pre war period with the post war period – because so much has changed. The lessons are different – the balance is different.
I’ll come back and give you a counter argument for Point 12 shortly. I have to attend to something briefly.
OK POINT 12 – I say increasing tax on rich does not affect jobs. The higher the income the more their money is spent outside their domicile country – holidays, overseas property. Taxation takes the money into "federal" control. That is then spent within the US – on infrastructure, on defence – or even as lower tax for low earners who spend on local goods and services. So taxing the rich helps the economy more than not taxing them.
A counter argument to this is that the rich move out – but thats a matter of balance again when compared to other countries. But bear in m ind – most choose to remain in the US and enjoy the benefits it offers . Lower tax countries are low for a reason – they don’t offer the same environment or other benefits.
EDIT: Just read your updates. Regarding business tax. Businesses are in the the US because thats where their market is. It’ not just about tax rates. Businesses also consider the benefits of a legislative framework – what redress they have on unpaid debts for example. One of the central planks of Obamas policy is to tax the many US companies who continiue to do business in the US but have chosen to register their business outside US to avoid paying US taxes. For example, over 12000 US companies are now registered in the Cayman Islands yet 99% of their market is in US. They are simply re-registering their office, tax advisors told them to. They still do the same business in the US -but pay their tax to Cayman Is not US. Obama is going to close that loophole. The money will be taxed from where it is earned – not where it is accounted. All these companies are doing is aviding the tax they should legally pay. That puts them back on equal status with their competitors – often smaller companies – who have been unfairly put at a disadvantage. It doesn’t mean jobs are lost. It actually encourages more investment – because only profits are taxed. If they re-invest – they avoid tax. .
I’ve got to go out soon. I’ll check this page later.
EDIT: Yes – a "paper office " as you call it. Thats whats been happening. You can keep lowering taxes – but if they find a country with a lower tax – they move – or re-register. They can hop from the Bahamas to somehwere else for a 1% difference. Obama plans to change the tax point. If they’ve done the business in the US they’ll pay US taxes. They can keep their paper office – but there will be no point. It’s been done in Europe where they had the same problem. Some of the finace companies still amnage to get round it – because they can "earn" moeny in the paper office. But manufacturing industries, service industries, distributive industries, retail businesses will no longer be able to avoid paying their legal tax contribution.
BTW I also have been in business, corporate and private for 33 years – and points 29 and 30 we could never agree.
Must go. Thanks..
Recent Comments