Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘economic issues’

Why Donald Trump has a Snowball’s Chance in Hell of being Re-elected to the Presidency in 2020

 

Introduction

The above is certainly a catchy title for a Blog, wouldn’t you say? You may think I’m making a rhetorical pronouncement or that I’m expressing myself tongue-in- cheek. Actually no, I’m dead serious!

Donald Trump’s election was, in the first place, a social disgrace that lowered the stature of this country’s presidency by a thousand fold. This was perhaps the greatest mistake ever made by a voting public in the history of the United States. It was tantamount to committing an act of Treason against our country in all its foreign hidden influences as well as the subsequent overt attempts by the president to undermine our Constitution and the social, political, and economic institutions the American people value.

However, all voters have immunity in a democratic society from prosecution because no one can predict the unintended consequences of any act including the simple act of voting. Yet, although not in legal jeopardy, voters should nonetheless take personal responsibility for the outcome of their vote. Interesting enough some original Trump voters have already begun to see the light and to take responsibility for their failure and lack of good judgment in the 2016 election.

Within the first few months of his presidency Donald Trump lost a substantial amount of support among his original base. Among the people who voted him into office, a large percentage of independent voters and women have since abandoned him. This is why he is the least popular president in United States history. Some initial supporters saw early on the true nature of the man they had just elected to office: a con man, charlatan, bombastic egotistical pretentious pantywaist, a belligerent isolationist, a dogmatic racist that showed his true beliefs by housing discrimination against blacks in the 1970s, and who is also a degenerate chauvinist pig with a mafia-boss mentality.”

Four Factors of Importance

There are four factors in understanding how Donald Trump got elected and in understanding how Donald Trump will be removed from office..

Why Donald Trump Got Elected

At least two factors played a crucial role in getting Donald Trump elected: (1) some voters liked him because he appeared to be overly candid and a plain-speaking person, and (2) Rust Belt voters, particularly blue-collar white voters, in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia and rural parts of New York voted for him because of personal and economic reasons like unemployment.

  Factor 1—Plain-Talking Man    

Because one speaks his mind candidly doesn’t make one necessarily right. It could mean some people don’t engage their mind before they speak. Candid talk and talking with feelings doesn’t mean the talker is especially bright or insightful. Donald Trump isn’t especially bright or insightful. There are exceptions. President Harry S. Truman was a plain-speaking man who was bright and, at times, rather insightful (The Buck Stops Here!).

Harry S. Truman was a real President. Donald Trump is not. Choose your presidents carefully folks. Can you for one moment imagine Donald Trump saying “The Buck Stops Here!!!) He’s much more likely to tweet or say, “The Blame Goes Everywhere Else But Here!!!).

 Factor 2—Rust Belt Voters

Ironically, the unemployment rate in the country was already outstanding at the time of the election due in part to the economic policies of President Barrack Obama. The overall unemployment rate in the United States hovered around 5% in 2016 and  in many of the Rust Belt states that elected him.

However, within the Rust Belt states, he won primarily among blue-collar white voters because these voters, as a sub-group of each state’s population, had high unemployment rates throughout various industries,

Many economic and social reasons, going back to the 1950s, were responsible for the decline among Rust Belt blue-collar workers. One very important factor was population changes. Most notably population declines in the Rust Belt states went from 38% of the U.S. population in 1950 to just 28% by the year 2000.

By any standard economic prosperity requires at least an optimal level of growth in population. Rust Belt states have been in decline not just last year, or the year before, but closing in on more than 68 years since these population changes began to occur.

There are many other social and economic factors have been responsible for their decline. In effect, Blue-collar workers failed to adapt to a changing set of factors besides population changes. In an opinion piece January 6, 2017 in Forbes Magazine titled, “The Rust Belt Didn’t Adapt And It Paid The Price,” Talking about some of these other factors Adam Millsap reported, “the invention of air conditioning and people’s preference for milder winters and more sun, cheaper housing in the South and more market-friendly economic policies in other states are the most common.”

To paraphrase Adam Millsap, many other factors were involved in Rust Belt state declines including lack of innovation in various industries and ultimately overwhelming control  among unions, followed by loss of control (impacting wages) in such unions as the (USW) United Steel Workers and the United Auto Workers (UAW). These two unions were able to use threat of widespread strikes to obtain higher wages, which increased production costs for Rust-Belt firms. When you combine lack of innovation, union control and then emasculation and the lack of ability to change with the times, you’ve just created a recipe for disaster. The problems confronting the Rust Belt States didn’t start in 2016. The problems have been around for nearly seven decades. Donald Trump won’t really solve their problems but he saw an opportunity to exploit Rust Belt voters with his rhetoric and campaign promises. On March 26, 2018 Eugene Robinson published an opinion piece for the Washington Post. This is what he said,” Washington • President Donald Trump’s most urgent political problem doesn’t involve Robert Mueller, Stormy Daniels, Vladimir Putin or the hundreds of thousands of voters who marched for gun control. Rather, it’s that his diehard supporters might be starting to realize how thoroughly he has played them for suckers.”

Why Donald Trump will be removed from Office

Factor 3—The Criminal Indictments

Factors three and four relate to why Donald Trump will not be re-elected to a second term as President. This is aside from him quitting in the interim, or being overthrown at a 2020 Republican Convention by another candidate, or removed because of increasing dementia.

One would have to be totally naïve or engage in wishful-thinking not to see the writing on the wall.

Donald Trump is going to be impeached after the 2018 mid-term elections. It won’t be done by Republicans as they are doomed anyway whether they impeach Trump or not. It is the classic Catch-22 for Republicans in Congress.

 

In addition, hard core Freedom Caucus members have their own set of problems to worry about.  These ultra-conservative types are running scared when it comes to the Mid-term election in 2018.

In addition, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Freedom Caucus legislators (they only vote against people and programs never for them) who do nothing to earn their pay except engage in malicious behavior might soon be a target for criminal investigation in Mueller’s investigation.

Behind the scenes this wayward group of malcontents is guilty of Obstruction of Justice when they overtly as well as surreptitiously attempt to derail Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian involvement and influence in the 2016 election. Only time will tell whether this group is deserving of not only not being re-elected to public office, but also whether they deserve to be indicted and sent to prison.

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller certainly has his work cut out for him. Like all good prosecutors there can be no doubt he is doing a diligent job putting a case together in his search for the truth. Wherever this case takes him, his process will continue to be the relentless pursuit of all facts and any evidence of wrong-doing.

Until Mueller reveals what he knows and how he is going to proceed after indictments, all of us can only speculate beyond the indictments already handed down.

Intuitively, my suspicion is that the President of the United States is going to be indicted criminally for: Money Laundering, Obstruction of Justice, and violation of the Emolument Clause under the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in addition to his violating any other campaign finance laws.

Factor 4—Public Rejection of Donald Trump

The last factor is about the rejection of Donald Trump at the upcoming 2018 Mid-term elections across the country. This will be measured by whether the democrats retake the House of Representatives and the United Senate. Newsweek recently reported on the Trump presidency in 2020.

“Most voters are not thrilled by the prospect of eight years of President Donald Trump, with a new poll showing the majority of Americans would like to see a different candidate in 2020.

A November 2017 survey conducted for the University of Delaware’s Center for Political Communication by RABA Research found that 54 percent of respondents do not feel Trump should run again in 2020, with almost a quarter of Republicans (23 percent) believing their party should pick another presidential hopeful.

Unsurprisingly, a vast majority of Democrats do not want to see a Trump 2020 bid, Some 84 percent of Democrats oppose any Trump attempt to run in 2020. with just 16 percent backing a run for a second term for the incumbent president.

“Not many polls have historically asked about re-election so early in a President’s term, as favorability tends to drop over time,” said University of Delaware’s Lindsay Hoffman, director of the National Agenda Series in a statement on Tuesday.”

Conclusion

Since the scandal news on Donald Trump is such a daily event these days across the country, I think it is incumbent on every voter to explore other options. Everyone has their own ideas about this, but I’d like to have people consider two or three excellent scenarios.

The first is a Joe Biden/Corey Booker ticket and secondly, a Joe Biden/Kamala Harris ticket. In the event Joe Biden does not wish to run for President, I think a Corey Booker/Kamala Harris ticket would work very well for the country.

Change is always difficult for many people including when they go to the poles every two to four years. But the political changes presented above represent something that would not only be good for the country; it would be great for the country. Likewise removal of the Republican Freedom caucus and most other Republicans would not only be good for the country; it too would be great for the country.

Read Full Post »

The Political, Social, and Economic Issues in 2012:

How Do the President and Mitt Romney Stack Up?

 

 

Introduction

There is perhaps no better way to clarify how you should vote in 2012 than to lay out the plan and beliefs of each candidate regarding the critical issues of our time. As we get closer to Election Day, I hope you keep these differences between the candidates in mind. Initially, I had planned to discuss the fine points and relative value of Supply Side Economics (Republican approach to the economy) versus Demand Side Economics (Democratic approach to the economy). Instead, I have decided to cover a broader set of issues.

Back in March 2012 I began writing a six part series on Election Year Politics and the Economy. There, in the broadest sense, I covered the basics of economics and I would encourage you to review them once again. We are told incessantly by the media and party leaders that the crucial issue in 2012 is the economy. However, many many other issues are important to various segments of the population, as well as important to the voting public as a whole.

Consequently, I have layed out how each candidate views a variety of social, political, and economic issues. In this way, the larger broader view of election year politics will be covered. With this broader view, coupled with the specifics of economic theory covered in the six part series, each reader should be adequately prepared with knowledge to vote for the candidate of his or her choice on November 6, 2012.

In a final Conclusions Section I will tell my cyberspace audience how I will vote this fall and my reasons for doing so.

 

Critical Issues of Our Time

 

 The following shows how Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney stand on a selection of issues. This information comes mostly from the Associated Press but also from this Blogger.

 ABORTION & BIRTH CONTROL

OBAMA: Supports abortion rights Health care law that requires contraceptives to be available for free for women enrolled in workplace health plans.

ROMNEY: Opposes abortion rights. He previously supported them. Says state law should guide abortion rights, and Roe v. Wade should be reversed by a future Supreme Court ruling. Said he would end federal aid to Planned Parenthood.

WAR

OBAMA: Ended the Iraq war. He increased U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan then began drawing down the force with a plan to have all out by the end of 2014. He approved U.S. air power in NATO-led campaign that helped Libyan opposition topple government. There are major cuts coming in the size of the Army and Marine Corps as part of agreement with congressional Republicans to cut $487 billion in military spending over a decade.

ROMNEY: Endorses 2014 end to U.S. combat in Afghanistan, subject to conditions at the time. He would increase strength of armed forces, including number of troops and warships, adding almost $100 billion to the Pentagon budget in 2016.

TERRORISM

OBAMA: Approved the raid that found and killed Osama bin Laden and set policy that U.S. would no longer use harsh interrogation techniques, a practice that had essentially ended later in George W. Bush’s presidency. He largely carried forward Bush’s key anti-terrorism policies, including detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay despite promise to close the prison. Expanded use of unmanned drone strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan and Yemen.

ROMNEY: No constitutional rights for foreign terrorism suspects. In 2007, Romney refused to rule out use of waterboarding torture to interrogate terrorist suspects. Despite the fact the war crimes tribunal executed Japanese soldiers for waterboarding following the ending of WWII, Mitt Romney in 2011, said he does not consider waterboarding to be torture. The fact that the United States itself strongly supported all of the Geneva Convention laws prior to the Bush administration, Mitt Romney ignores the fact that the use of torture by the Bush administration dishonored and disgraced our country. Evidently, Mitt Romney would do the same by ignoring both national and international laws that forbid it.

IMMIGRATION

OBAMA: Issued directive in June that immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children be exempted from deportation and granted work permits if they apply. He took the temporary step after failing to deliver on promised immigration overhaul, with the defeat of legislation that would have created a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants enrolled in college or enlisted in the armed forces. Says he is still committed to it. Government has deported a record number of illegal immigrants under Obama.

ROMNEY: Favors U.S.-Mexico border fence and opposes education benefits to illegal immigrants. He opposes offering legal status to illegal immigrants who attend college, but would do so for those who serve in the armed forces. Establish an immigration-status verification system for employers and punish them if they hire non-citizens who do not prove their legal status. He would end immigration caps for spouses and minor children of legal immigrants.

GUNS

OBAMA: Has not pushed for stricter gun laws as president. Signed laws letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks and in checked bags on Amtrak trains. Favors “robust steps, within existing law” to address gun issues, White House says. He voices support for renewed ban on assault-type weapons but has not tried to get that done. He previously backed stronger gun controls.

ROMNEY: Opposes stricter gun control laws. He suggested after the shooting in a Colorado theater that he favors tougher enforcement of existing gun laws. As Massachusetts governor, he vowed in 2002 to protect the state’s “tough gun laws,” and in 2004 signed a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons.

FOREIGN POLICY

OBAMA: Opposes near-term military strike on Iran but holds that option open if it proves the only way to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. He declined to repeat the Libya air power commitment for Syrian opposition. Instead Obama seeks international pressure against the Syrian government. Chastised Israel for continuing to build housing settlements in disputed areas and pressed both sides to begin a new round of peace talks based on the land borders established after the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict. He signed into law to expand military and civilian cooperation with Israel. Sought penalties against China for unfair trade but opposes branding China a currency manipulator.

ROMNEY: Appears to present a clearer U.S. military threat to Iran and has spoken in more permissive terms about Israel’s right to act against Iran’s nuclear facilities, without explicitly approving of such a step. “Of course you take military action” if sanctions and internal opposition fail to dissuade Tehran from making a nuclear weapon, he has said. Has spoken in favor of covert action by the U.S. and regional allies in Syria but “the right course is not military” intervention by the U.S. Associates himself more closely with hardline Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pledges more military assistance to Israel and agreed with Israel’s position that Jerusalem is the capital, disregarding the Palestinians’ claim to the eastern sector. Branded Russia the “No. 1 geopolitical foe” of the U.S. and threatened to label China a currency manipulator in a move that could lead to broad trade sanctions.

DEBT

OBAMA: Fourth-straight year of trillion-dollar deficits is projected. He won approval to raise debt limit to avoid default. He calls for tackling the debt with a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases. Central to Obama’s plan is to let Bush-era tax cuts expire for couples making more than $250,000.

ROMNEY: Defended 2008 bailout of financial institutions as a necessary step to avoid the system’s collapse, but opposed the auto bailout. He would cap federal spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product by end of his first term, down from 23.5 percent now, with largely unspecified spending cuts. He favors a constitutional balanced budget amendment.

ECONOMY

OBAMA: Term marked by high unemployment, a deep recession that began in previous administration and has created a sustained gradual recovery. Responded to recession with a roughly $800 billion stimulus plan. Continued implementation of Wall Street and auto industry bailouts begun under George W. Bush. Proposes tax breaks for U.S. manufacturers producing domestically or repatriating jobs from abroad, and tax penalties for U.S. companies outsourcing jobs.

ROMNEY: He advocates lower taxes, less regulation, balanced budget, more trade deals to spur growth. He would replace jobless benefits with unemployment savings accounts. He proposes repeal of the law toughening financial-industry regulations after the meltdown in that sector, and the law tightening accounting regulations in response to corporate scandals.

EDUCATION

OBAMA: Has approved waivers freeing states from the most onerous requirements of the Bush-era No Child Left Behind law. “Race to the Top” competition has rewarded winning states with billions of dollars for pursuing education policies Obama supports.

ROMNEY: Supported the federal accountability standards of No Child Left Behind law. He has said that student testing, charter-school incentives and teacher evaluation standards of Obama’s “Race to the Top” competition “make sense” although the federal government should have less control of education.

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

 OBAMA: He ordered temporary moratorium on deep-water drilling after the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico but has pushed for more oil and gas drilling overall. He achieved historic increases in fuel economy standards that will save money at the pump while raising the cost of new vehicles.

He achieved first-ever regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming and on toxic mercury pollution from power plants. Spent heavily on green energy and has embraced nuclear power as a clean source. Failed to persuade a Democratic Congress to pass limits he promised on carbon emissions.

ROMNEY: He supports opening the Atlantic and Pacific outer continental shelves to drilling, as well as Western lands, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore Alaska.

Wants to reduce obstacles to coal, natural gas and nuclear energy development, and accelerate drilling permits in areas where exploration has already been approved for developers with good safety records. Says green power has yet to become viable and the causes of climate change are unknown.

GAY RIGHTS

 OBAMA: Supports legal recognition of same-sex marriage, a matter decided by states. He opposed that recognition in his 2008 presidential campaign, and in 2004 Senate campaign, while supporting the extension of legal rights and benefits to same-sex couples in civil unions. He achieved repeal of the military ban on openly gay members. He has not achieved repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and affirms the right of states to refuse to recognize such marriages. His administration has ceased defending the law in court but it remains on the books.

ROMNEY: Opposes legal recognition of same-sex marriage and says it should be banned with a constitutional amendment, not left to states. “Marriage is not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state.” He also opposes civil unions “if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” but says states should be left to decide what rights and benefits should be allowed under those unions. Says certain domestic partnership benefits —largely unspecified — as well as hospital visitation rights are appropriate but “others are not.” Says he would not seek to restore the ban on openly gay military members.

HEALTH CARE

 OBAMA: Achieved landmark overhaul putting U.S. on path to universal coverage now that Supreme Court has upheld the law’s mandate for almost everyone to obtain insurance.

Under the law, insurers will be banned from denying coverage to people with pre-existing illness, tax credits will subsidize premiums, people without work-based insurance will have access to new markets, small business gets help for offering insurance and Medicaid will expand.

ROMNEY: Promises to work for repeal of the law modeled largely after his universal health care achievement in Massachusetts because he says states, not Washington, should drive policy on the uninsured.

Proposes to guarantee that people who are “continuously covered” for a certain period be protected against losing insurance if they get sick, leave their job and need another policy. Would expand individual tax-advantaged medical savings accounts and let savings be used for insurance premiums as well as personal medical costs.

SOCIAL SECURITY

OBAMA: Has not proposed a comprehensive plan to address Social Security’s long-term financial problems. In 2011, he proposed a new measure of inflation that would reduce annual increases in Social Security benefits. The proposal would reduce the long-term financing shortfall by about 25 percent, according to the Social Security actuaries.

ROMNEY: Protect the status quo for people 55 and over but, for the next generation of retirees, raise the retirement age for full benefits by one or two years and reduce inflation increases in benefits for wealthier recipients.

TAXES

 OBAMA: He wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and ensure they pay 30 percent of their income at minimum. He supports extending Bush-era tax cuts for everyone making under $200,000, or $250,000 for couples. But in 2010, agreed to a two-year extension of the lower rates for all.

He wants to let the top two tax rates go back up 3 to 4 percentage points to 39.6 percent and 36 percent, and raise rates on capital gains and dividends for the wealthy. Health care law provides for tax on highest-value health insurance plans. Together with Congress, he built a first-term record of significant tax cuts, some temporary.

ROMNEY: He would keep Bush-era tax cuts for all incomes and drop all tax rates further, by 20 percent, bringing the top rate, for example, down to 28 percent from 35 percent and the lowest rate to 8 percent instead of 10 percent. Curtail deductions, credits and exemptions for the wealthiest.

He would end Alternative Minimum Tax for individuals, eliminate capital gains tax for families making below $200,000 and cut corporate tax to 25 percent from 35 percent. Does not specify which tax breaks or programs he would curtail to help cover costs.

  

Conclusions

Mitt Romney as a Choice in 2012:

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more: it is a tale
told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Shakespear’s MacBeth

 

This fall I’m voting to re-elect President Barack Obama to a second term as our president. While Mitt Romney appears to be a good and decent man, he does not have the experience, attitudes, or mental acuity to convince me he is more qualified to be the President of the United States.

I don’t like President Obama’s 2011 measure to eliminate inflationary increases for Social Secuirty recipients, and I do like Mitt Romney’s plan to eliminate Capital Gains taxes on those making $200,000 or less. I also don’t think the President was aggressive enough on banning assault rifles, while Romney succeeded in getting assualt rifles banned in his state of Massachusetts.

That’s it folks. The President, on balance, is still the right choice this fall because of all his tremendous accomplishments while in office.

The Accomplishments of President Barack Obama

By some accounts (Florida Professor of American Studies Robert P. Watson of Lynn University) President Obama’s accomplishments now total 244 since he took office. Here are just a few of the significant accomplishments of the president during his first term in the White House.

  • Overhauled the food safety system;
  • Approved the Lily Ledbetter ”Equal Pay” for women rule;
  • Ended “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” discrimination in the military;
  • Passed the Hate Crimes bill in Congress;
  • Saved the auto industry from bankruptcy which included General Motors and Chrysler;
  • Appointed two progressive women to the U.S. Supreme Court including the first Latina;
  • Pushed through the Affordable Health Care Act, outlawing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, extending until age 26 health care coverage of children under parent’s plans, steps toward “Medicare for All;”
  • Expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) health care for children. This helped to cover 4 million more lower-income children;
  • Pushed through a $789 Billion economic stimulus bill that saved or created 3 million jobs and began task of repairing the nation’s infrastructure;
  • Overhauled the credit card industry, making it more consumer friendly;
  • Established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and used a recess appointment to keep it on track in the face of  GOP attempts to derail it;
  • Also outmaneuvered GOP in naming two members of the National Labor Relations Board blocked by the Republicans in their attempt to shut down the NLRB;
  • Won two extensions of the debt ceiling and extensions of unemployment compensation in the face of Republican threats to shut down the U.S. government;
  • Pulled troops out of Iraq and began drawing down of troops in Afghanistan;
  • Signed an omnibus public lands bill that allowed for 2 million more acres to be declared wilderness. It added 1,000 miles designated for scenic rivers, and added lands for national trails;
  • Signed into law the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act;
  • Signed into law the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which expanded the scope of AmeriCorps;
  • Signed an executive order easing restrictions on the use of federal money for embryonic stem cell research;
  • Created greater transparency in government by creation of White House visitor logs, a ban on lobbyist gifts, or allowing lobbyists from serving on advisory boards, and restrictions on the hiring of lobbyists.
  • Obama persuaded BP to put up $20 billion as a guarantee that the Gulf Coast residents whose livelihoods were damaged or destroyed by the spill would be compensated.
  • In 2011 President Barack Obama gave the order for Navy Seals commandos to take out Osama Bin Laden, the architect of 911. They were successful and Osama Bin Laden is dead.
  • President Barack Obama achieved, as of October 2012, the lowest unemployment rate (7.8%) since he took office. Remember folks, the unemployment rate during the recession, which the President inherited, reached a peak of (10.0%) on October, 2009. C’mon Man, give credit where credit is due! We’re now in an expansionary economic cycle. Guess what economic cycle comes after the expansinary one? That’s right genius—you guessed it—PROSPERITY!

At the value judgment level, I simply prefer the values of the democratic party than I do those of the Republican party. It seems to the objective observer that Republicans are always playing “catch-up” to the rest of society. Problem is “the Party of No” never really seems to catch-up. In addition,“Trickle Down (Supply Side Economics)” just doesn’t work because tax cuts for high income individuals, corporations, and large businesses don’t necessarily lead to economic expansion thereby creating jobs and lowering unemployment.

Why? Because there are other choices for using tax cut windfalls besides reinvestment in one’s business that might lead to job creation. One can simply save the money for a reserve or a rainy day. Or, one can invest their tax windfall in the stock market or other investments. Or, one can spend the tax windfall on hefty bonuses for executives, and salary increases for managers or staff, or one can actually plow the tax windfall back into the business.

Point is—there are many choices for what to do with a tax cut windfall. Current Republican rhetoric would have you believe that tax cuts always lead to job creation and lowering unemployment. It can, but what Republicans try to hide from the public and the voter is that, in reality, there are many other choices for spending a tax cut windfall, not just job creation.

For all these reasons around economics and taxes, as well as the President’ many other significant achievements while in office, I’m giving my support and vote in the coming election to the President of the United States—Barack Obama.

Read Full Post »