McCain versus Obama
The 2008 election is less than a month away and if you haven’t decided who to vote for, this excellent article from Trong Do, a Visualgui.com reader, can help you select the candidate that can best serve you. Mr. Do has done a great job of breaking down the fundamental differences of each party on the issues. Highly recommended if you haven’t have time to do the research.
Many Americans—about half of the people who could—did not vote in recent presidential elections. Perhaps, they did not care enough, or were turned off by the political process and the perceived sleaziness of politicians. Unfortunately, by not voting, they are not exercising their right to support the kind of government they want. Please do vote and select leaders who will fight for your rights and build a better future for your children. Voting is a privilege and a moral obligation.
In a few weeks you will be able to elect either McCain or Obama as the next president of the USA. This election has polarized the country as never before, because the two candidates provide a stark contrast in style, personality and espoused policies. To help myself decide which candidate to support, I have analyzed their positions which can be summarized as following:
McCain plans to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. These tax cuts benefit mostly the wealthiest 1% Americans. In addition, McCain will cut corporate taxes and support not regulating businesses. However, McCain is against raising the minimum wage and does not support universal health care. He supports reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits to make up for budget shortfalls. McCain will deal with the energy crisis and the US dependence on foreign oil by allowing more offshore drilling and building 45 new nuclear reactors. He is against gun control and is against the right of women to have legal abortion—he wants “Roe v. Wade” overturned. He supports the war in Iraq and will keep US troops there indefinitely, despite the staggering costs in money and human lives. And he has selected Sarah Palin, a young inexperienced politician, as vice-president.
Obama plans to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, effectively increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% Americans. However, he will give tax cuts to more than 90% of taxpayers. Obama will ensure corporations pay their fair share of taxes by closing many tax loopholes. He will use tax credits to entice American companies to keep jobs in the US, instead of outsourcing them to other countries. Obama will push for a higher minimum wage and enable everybody to have health care. He will try to protect Social Security and Medicare benefits by raising the limits on taxes. Obama will deal with the energy crisis by pushing for targeted conservation and investing $150 billion in renewable sources of energy like solar and wind. Obama is for gun control and supports women’s right to legal abortion—he does not want “Roe v. Wade” overturned. He thinks the war in Iraq cannot be justified and costs too much. Obama has selected Joseph Biden, a veteran US senator, to be his vice-president.
Neither McCain nor Obama can do everything they promise. That is to be expected. Nevertheless, McCain, despite his proclamation of being a maverick, indicates he will continue W Bush’s economic and foreign policies. McCain enthusiastically endorses Bush’s tax cuts and Iraq war, and voted more than 90% of the time for legislation championed by the Bush administration. If McCain were to be president, US unilateralism in foreign affairs will continue to be promoted, ensuring that our allies will distance themselves from us while our enemies multiply. Internally, with McCain, the wealth gap between rich and poor will grow, yet benefits to the retired, the sick and the weak will be cut. McCain wants to see “Roe v. Wade” overturned, thus making abortions illegal once again. This turns the clock back 35 years for women’s rights. Last but not least, after proclaiming himself a patriot who puts his country first, he picks as running mate an inexperienced young woman, whose job seems mainly to win the women’s vote and the Republican conservative support. If McCain truly cares more about his country than his ambition, he would not select Sarah Palin as the next in line for the US presidency. His decision to pick Sarah Palin as VP is selfishly calculated and reckless. This decision does not reflect patriotism, it is political expediency at its worst.
In contrast to McCain, Obama’s push to promote cooperation rather than confrontation, and negotiation instead of conflict in foreign affairs will likely win over many allies. Internally, his priority to assist our poor, sick, retired or unemployed can make this country once again decent and fair. For these reasons, I will vote for Obama.
For more details on the candidates’ positions, please read on.
Income Taxes
McCain believes everybody should pay less tax, especially people who make more than $603,000 a year. Meanwhile, Obama plans to give tax cuts to people making less than $227,000 a year, and raise the taxes of people making more than $603,000 a year.
| Income | McCain avg. tax bill | Obama Avg. tax bill |
| Over $2.9M | -$269,364 | $701,885 |
| $603K and up | -$45, 361 | $115,974 |
| $227K-$603K | -$7,871 | $12 |
| $161K-$227K | -$4,380 | -$2,789 |
| $112K-$161K | -$2,614 | -$2,204 |
| $66K-$112K | -$1,009 | -$1,290 |
| $38K-$66K | -$319 | -$1,042 |
| $19K-$38K | -$113 | -$892 |
| Under $19K | -$19 | -$567 |
The table above (with data from Money magazine) shows the detailed difference between the two tax plans. If your household is like the average American household that makes between $38,000 and $66,000 a year, you would get tax cut of $319 under McCain, and $1,042 under Obama. If you are barely scraping by on less than $19,000 a year, McCain would give you $19 whereas the Obama plan would give you $567.
Republicans since Ronald Reagan have championed the trickle down theory which postulates that big tax cuts given to corporations and rich Americans will result in prosperity and more employment for the average Americans, because companies with higher profits from reduced taxes will hire more people—and perhaps richer Americans will hire more servants? However, it is dubious whether the trickle down theory works at all, yet the Reagan and George W Bush tax cuts had created enormous deficits (the national debt increased from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion under Reagan, and from $5.6 to $10 trillion under Bush), while the fortune of the average Americans as measured by savings and salary has regressed.
McCain who has seven houses and 13 cars wants tax cuts for the rich. Is this self-serving or coincidence?
Ironically, Clinton, the Democratic president who raised taxes on the rich, managed to balance the federal budget; something the recent Republican presidents have not been able to achieve.
Business
McCain wants to reduce corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, and accelerate business expense deductions.
Obama will consider reducing the corporate tax rate in conjunction with closing corporate tax loopholes. Obama will use tax credits to reward companies that keep jobs in the US instead of moving them overseas.
Republicans also love deregulation. This means they do not want to put in rules and regulations to control what business does. They believe doing so will help business flourish and more jobs will be created as the result. Unfortunately, deregulation caused the savings and loans crisis in the 80’s when 747 S&L associations (half of the number of S&L in the USA) failed, costing taxpayers $125 billion. Now deregulation causes the current mortgage crisis which might cost taxpayers upward to $1 trillion.
Jobs & Wages
McCain wants to cut taxes for corporations and high-income individuals thus allowing them to make more money, yet he does not want to raise the minimum wage. McCain wants to leave minimum wage at $7.25 an hour, which is where current law will take it by 2009. He is opposed to tying future hikes of the minimum wage to inflation rate.
Obama wants to raise minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and tie future rises to inflation.
Why are Republicans–who believe rich people deserve to have bigger tax cuts and thus be even richer–so parsimonious when it comes to the minimum wage? Theoretically, they subscribe to the old economic theory that a higher minimum wage causes higher unemployment, especially among the poor. But if the minimum wage is so low that poor people get more money via food stamps, welfare, and federal and state child support, they will not try to get a minimum wage job and achieve financial independence. There is also the issue of basic decency. As a civilized society, we should pay our lowest wage-earners wages they can actually live on (living wages). This will help many of them from turning to crime or public assistance just to get by.
Health Care
McCain is against universal health care (providing government mandated or subsidized health care for every citizen).
Obama wants to the government to implement universal health care.
Among developed countries, the US is the only one without universal health care. There are close to 50 million uninsured Americans. Many of the uninsured are fully employed but too poor to afford health insurance. It is for this reason that the US, though known as the wealthiest country on earth, ranks 29th in the world in life expectancy. People in the following countries live longer than Americans: Andorra, Japan, San Marino, Sweden, Australia, Switzerland, France, Iceland, Canada, Italy, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Spain, Norway, Israel, Greece, Austria, Malta, Netherlands, South Korea, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Germany, Belgium, Finland, Jordan, and Bosnia & Herzegovina.
Social Security
The US government has been borrowing money from the Social Security fund to spend on other things. By 2017, if the government does not start to pay back its debt to Social Security, retirees will start getting smaller Social Security checks. Even if the government does repay its debt on time (which is not likely, especially if the Republicans go ahead with their tax cuts), by 2041 Social Security will be short of funds again and will have to start reducing benefits.
McCain will simply pay retirees less and less as Social Security slowly runs out of money. He does not want to raise Social Security taxes for higher income wage earners. He prefers to supplement Social Security benefits with individual investment accounts, which means advocating people to do more saving on their own to replace the reduced benefits of Social Security.
Obama opposes individual investment accounts and is against raising retirement age. He will increase the Social Security taxes of people making more than $250,000 a year to shore up Social Security.
Energy
McCain will lift ban on offshore drilling, commit $2 billion annually to advance clean coal technologies, construct 45 new reactors by 2030 as part of a push to expand nuclear power production.
Obama will invest $150 billion in renewable energy over the next 10 years, allow limited amount of offshore drilling, require that 10% of nation’s energy comes from renewable sources by 2013, and aim to reduce nation’s demand for electricity 15% by 2020.
McCain solves the energy crisis by drilling more for oil, and expand the use of coal and nuclear power. McCain’s plan is not earth-friendly as his emphasis is still on burning fossil fuel (oil and coal). McCain proposed expansion of the use of nuclear power is also controversial given that the US has not developed an acceptable plan to dispose of nuclear waste. Obama’s plan is big on renewable energy such as solar and wind power, and has specific target for conservation (cars with higher gas mileage and reduced use of electricity).
Budget Deficit
The US cumulative budget deficit will exceed $10 trillion at the end of the W Bush presidency. As most of this debt is financed by foreign countries (especially China) which may balk at loaning the US much more money, the next president will have to try to balance the budget to shrink the deficit or at least slow its growth.
McCain will try to balance the budget by slowing growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending, and eliminate funds for pet projects, known as earmarks. However, earmarks only account for $18 billion in the federal budget that has an annual deficit of about $500 billion. Therefore, even if we can eliminate all earmarks, we can’t even make a dent in our debts. Under the McCain plan, most of the savings will have to come from cutting benefits like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Obama will reduce spending on earmarks to no greater than 2001 levels and require more transparency on such spending, and help pay for new proposals by drawing down troops in Iraq, raising taxes on high-income filers and cutting certain corporate loopholes.
McCain, while proposing big tax cuts for the wealthy, will try to reduce the budget deficit by cutting benefits to the most vulnerable citizens: poor people, retirees and senior citizens. Obama plans to balance the budget by stopping the expensive war in Iraq, increase taxes on the wealthy and reduce corporate loopholes.
Gun Control
McCain supports assault weapons and concealed weapons and has voted consistently against their bans or restrictions. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics. McCain praised the June 2008 Supreme Court decision striking down the District of Columbia’s gun ban.
Obama has a history of supporting gun control. He supports a ban on assault weapons and concealed weapons. He supports cracking down on unscrupulous gun dealers, and voted against prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Each year, more than 40,000 Americans die from guns. Of these, fewer than 2,000 deaths are from suicide, the rest (more than 38,000) is from murder and accident. (About 58,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam during this 21-year conflict, which works out to about 3,000 deaths a year.) Gun deaths have to be linked to the massive amount of firearms owned by Americans, and this is made possible due to the lax gun laws. The following statistics are from medicinenet.com:
Gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country
U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
N. Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05
Japan has the lowest gun-related deaths thanks to very strict gun control, and it is hard to claim that Japanese democracy suffers because of this.
Iraq
McCain has always supported the war in Iraq. He supports the present troop increase and favors maintaining troop levels. He has also defended moral justifications for the war.
Obama has always been against the war in Iraq and supports a phased withdrawal of the troops from this country. Even with our budget deficit, we continue spending $10 billion a month in Iraq (while Iraq enjoys a $79 billion budget surplus). Obama would demand Iraq uses their budget surplus to pay for the rebuilding of their infrastructure.
The US invaded Iraq because the Bush administration claimed that Iraq had helped the 9/11 terrorists and owned weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It has now been proven that Iraq did not help the 9/11 terrorists and no WMD has been found in Iraq. So, American waged a destructive war against another sovereign country based on two false premises. Yet, Republicans and McCain still claim moral justification to have caused thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis to die in this unnecessary war. The war’s economic cost is also staggering. By September 2008, the US has spent more than $500 billion on the war in Iraq. This does not include the medical and economic costs needed to rehabilitate tens of thousands of injured Iraq war veterans.
Iran
McCain believes that Iran’s nuclear proliferation is a serious risk and could further destabilize the region. He would use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Obama would engage in direct talks with Tehran including offering some economic incentives if Iran stopped operations in Iraq and cooperated on nuclear issues. He has refused to say if he would consider military action if Iran were not to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
McCain joked about bombing Iran. We cannot have a president who is so casual about wars. McCain famous bad temper and impulsiveness also makes it dangerous for him to be the US armed forces commander in chief.
Vice-President Choice
Sarah Palin, McCain’s choice to be his Vice-President, is young and inexperienced. She has been governor of Alaska for two years. Alaska has a population of 670,000 people, about a quarter of the population size of Houston, Texas. Prior to this job, Palin was mayor of Wasilla, a small Alaskan town of 5,000. Palin is a devout Christian and holds many views that are popular with Republicans:
- People like her (i.e., conservative Republicans) understand God’s intent—she stated that our troops in Iraq are carrying out “a task that is from God”.
- Adamantly against gun control
- Cut corporate taxes—in Alaska, she lowered taxes for businesses and increased tax burden on residents
- Against sex education—ironically, her teenage daughter got pregnant.
- Pro-creationism—many fundamental Christians believe humans were created by God and did not evolve from lower species; they also want this Christian dogma taught in school as science, even to children of other faiths.
- Anti-abortion, no abortion even in case of rape and incest. (At least McCain and his wife would permit abortion in case of rape and incest—but not Ms. Palin.)
People are worried about Palin’s inexperience because of McCain’s age and health (he is a cancer survivor). If elected, McCain would be the oldest American president ever. If his health fails him, Palin would become president and will have to manage the cabinet, watch over the economy, lead the armed forces, and deal with foreign leaders. She does not have the experience to do so.
Biden, Obama’s Vice-President choice, has been a US senator for 36 years. He was the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and is the current Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. He appears to have the experience to be a competent vice president. There seems to be an attempt to discredit Biden with the Vietnamese community. I have looked for tangible proof that Biden is anti-Vietnamese. I have found nothing credible.
Abortion & Women’s Rights
McCain is anti-abortion. On February 2007, in South Carolina McCain said, “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.” McCain also voted NO to an amendment of the Senate’s 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million in funding to reduce teen pregnancy by education and contraceptives.
Obama strongly supports a woman’s right to have an abortion as protected by the Constitution and stated in May 2007, “A woman’s ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women.”
If McCain and the Republicans have their way, abortion will once again become illegal in the USA, perhaps even in case of rape and incest (though this is not McCain’s position, it is that of Sarah Palin and many Republicans). (Sarah Palin even made rape victims in her town pay for the medical kits & forensic exams used in investigating the rapes.) Imagine Vietnamese boat people raped by pirates or African civil war rape victims being told they must keep the babies of their rapists. How cruel is that?
-Trong Do
As a Buddhist, I believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution instead of the Creation Theory the way Muslims, Christians and Jews do, but that is beside the point. The point is Public School is not a place for preaching. Go to Sunday Private School and do what you want to do. If they want to preach for one religion, how about others?
During an interview with Couric, Sarah Palin said one of her best friends is a lesbian who “made a choice that I (S.Palin) wouldn’t personally make”. There is a danger in this propaganda, because sexual orientation is not a choice, just like people can’t choose their skin color.
The Right Wing Religious preach that gays and lesbians are corrupt and want to promote their “sinful” lifestyles to future generations. This notion is not far removed from what the Nazis and the Talibans in Afganistan beliefs. It leads to the idea that gays and lesbians (who made up at least 20% of the world’s population) should be corrected if not through torture or medical experiments then prayers and that they are society’s moral liability!
Enough with the Republican’s hypocrisy and anti-Science, anti-intellectual direction! Keep America America and vote for CHANGE!
“the Talibans in Afganistan beliefs” should be “the Talibans in Afganistan believe”
Hated it when my brain moved faster than my fingers LOL
hello!
first off, Donny, I love reading your blogs ‘cuz they’re so insightful and I’ve actually learned a lot from your blog. (i’ve actually become a fan hehe). thanks for teaching me the things we don’t learn in school anymore.
second, Trong Do, can i get permission to repost this to all my peers who are refusing to vote in this election? i’ve been trying so hard to motivate people (especially my parents) to vote for Obama and not McCain because of the reasons listed, but you say it so much more eloquently and with so much more authority and info. it’s the best composite i’ve read so far! thanks so much!
-TM
TM, please feel free to repost the article. Anh Trong gave me permission as well as anyone else who would like to share.
Great write-up! I wish this was available in Vietnamse so I can send to all my Viet relatives who do not care enough or understand the importance of this election.
If anyone has a good sources of articles like this, but in Vietnamese, please let me know.
Thank you.
Please go here for additional Vietnamese language policy documents for Obama. http://www.asianamericansforobama.com/supporter-toolkit/asian-language-fliers
I was just in VA this weekend volunteering for Obama and talking to our VN people. They still need more VN speaking volunteers to help turn VA blue! Please join the effort in any way you can. Find an event near you http://www.asianamericansforobama.com/calendar. Let’s all hope for a better future.
I just read over Mr. Do’s voter guide and while I see he has gone to great lengths to present his reader with a concise portrait of the would-be policies of McCain and Obama, I am hardly conviced to vote for either party on the basis of this writing. The unspoken premise in this guide is by not voting you are not making any statement and so if you do vote you must pick the lesser of two pathetic choices [sometimes 'evil' is said here instead but that is a play on emotion and its meaning not as clear]. But I am not surprised that Mr. Do has created his guide on such a premise because he follows the popular language that I hear in the mainstream media that there are ONLY two choices, like it or not. Sometimes I find myself disappointed in the vietnamese-american media in particular for also espousing such a dichotomy by playing along with the big-boy media.
Before I offer a few constructive criticisms, I wil say this as a service to those who feel disenfranchised by the political system in America (and elsewhere) that you should not feel coerced into picking between red or blue. Of course you can vote Republican or Democrat if that truly reflects your interests completely though I can hardly imagine that to be true for anyone. Or you can choose to vote “none of the above” (look at the latest Times cover) and randomly pick another name on the ballot that is more aesthetically sounding, or go the anti-logical approach suggested by the late George Carlin of wuwei or ‘do nothing’. By voting for one of the two big parties that do not serve your interests, you help sustain a political apathy on their part to choose superficial stances that ultimately help them stay in office while leaving you to foot the bill. What I mean here is the two major parties are entirely comfortable with maintaining the status quo and content to play with sensationalism (read: McCain’s pick of VP) to gloss over the hard hitting issues. With the presence of a third, fourth voice… issues such as social security, national security, personal liberties etc. will see answers, not bandages… will come from a genuine desire for solution and not a product of political maneuvering. I believe the statistic for voting for the last presidential election was 60.93%. If you really break this statistic down, you notice a few things. Since the last election was seemingly really close, you maybe led to believe the republicans won with less than a third of the vote. But if you factor in those that voted on the premise of “the lesser of two undesirables” than the actual support for a “Republican” president was much much less. The same could be said for a “Democratic” nominee. The only reason the two parties can sustain the political support they have is by playing on the weakness of the other major party and curtailing any voice from an outside party. This is why of course the debates are a sham. This is also why if you base your vote solely on their arguments for superficial change and resigned to the supposition that you must choose this or that, you get less of a Democracy and more of the same. I can assure Mr. Do that if Obama and McCain gets less votes as a result of people voting for a third party, it will not be because they do not see the urgency of this election but because they see urgency in fixing a broken political system and being true to their conscience.
But i must conceed one indisputable trend. I walked around the “Main St.” of the vietnamese community (aka Little Saigon) and one of the remarks i heard seem to sum the tone of the people… ‘what are they going to give me [for voting].’
So i cannot deny that the premise Mr. Do has constructed his argument on is not without any pull. It is tailored to show you this guy will give you more than that guy. And so I’ll start my comments here.
income taxes:
most vietnamese-americans do not even realize that America, land of opportunity and freedom, was once free of an income tax. the principle underneath the income tax is that we, the govn’t, own the fruits of your labor and we allow you to have a portion of it back. how generous. lets ignore principle for a moment and play into the tax structure game. the numbers that obama and mccain present are fluff: they will adjust as necessary to respond to “financial” or “security” crisises and have the people ‘just’ understand. in direct response to the perceived advantage for the working and the middle class vietnamese, though this on the surface may receive a “plus” from a cost-benefit vantage (zero cost, immediate benefit) the insidious nature of the ploy is the fact you still are paying an income tax. while the certain things in life may still be death and taxes, taxes shouldn’t be on our personal livelihood; rather, it can be raised through ‘use’ taxes (if you use something, you help pay for it) or if unavoidable, corporate taxes. In such a scheme, the tax structure is zero for low, middle, and high income. High income people will surely pay taxes through sales tax but if you’re broke, having to pay no taxes means you can rise out of poverty faster if you save and don’t waste money. Given your current pick of McBama, the argument will always be framed as ‘lower taxes’ and never ‘no taxes’. This is why a vote for ‘other’ counts.
business:
when some disaster happens, we are tempted to see it as a consequence of just the previous actions preceeding it—which is logical. but sometimes we do not consider all the possibilities. while the s&l crash and our current financial mess may have been triggered by unchecked greed, i see the underlying cause is not deregulation but the fractional reserve system and the artificial wealth that changes hands without the people knowing. The perpetuator of this system of course is the privately-operated Federal Reserve Bank which manipulates the money supply and wreaks havoc on our financial system. They employ the Mandrake Mechanism which if you think about it is not sustainable and destined to fail. The failures of banks we have seen are much easier to comprehend in this light rather than the notion of a deregulation culprit. We saw from both McCain and Obama their contributions to solving the financial mess; that is, we saw no answers and no semblance of a clue to ailments of the financial system. This is why we need to get them to debate other candidates that will offer real ’straight talk’ about financial mess so that they can’t avoid the hard issues.
jobs & wages:
Mr. Do mentions inflation here but treats it for its face value as some uncontrollable phenonmenon and continues as though it was a passing thought. The key in dealing with this issue of jobs & wages is addressing the root cause of inflation. Yes it occurs as a natural consequence of a growing economy but the major contributor is the monetization of debt by the Federal Reserve bank. In otherwords, they can make money out of nothing and so the existing money supply’s value is diluted or another way to say it is your purchasing power is weakened. This is the so called ‘hidden tax’ because it affects rich and poor since they use the same currency but the poor is hurt more because as a group they do not invest the money as well as the rich. So if you’re one to keep your money under the bed, the purchasing power of that money is weakening, not naturally, but mischievously by the govn’t printing new money to finance new programs or campaigns. Programs require debt, debt implies money, and hence monetizing debt. So if you talk about raising the minimum wage, you must also address the purchasing power of that wage. If the underlying system is not fixed, you will have a greater disparity between the minimum wage and the living wage. What good is $9 when the cost increases to $10 by inflation through government manipulation? Of course the two candidates do not talk about the issue of inflation because the current system supports their agendas. Also, psychologically if you are ‘made’ poorer and someone makes you feel richer aren’t you more inclined to feel beholden to them? Regarding the vietnamese community in particular, on the mean i don’t think we benefit from a minimum wage increase as our mean income is higher relative to other ethnic groups. in fact, i would suggest that more vietnamese are affected as small business operators than minimum wage earners and so would feel a negative impact by an increase. i have no facts on this point but its a hunch.
health care:
there’s no doubt that health care needs fixing and i’m not able to provide a solution to this problem. but i’m not in a rush to embrace socialized medicine. what america has been known for is it’s top notch medicine and so while we endeavor to help those in need of help, we do not want to lose what makes america great. the greatest pitfall of socialized medicine is lesser choices (although michael moore would have you believe otherwise). would we see the greatest minds and most capable people want to become doctors if they see less income as compared to being a lawyer or web designer? would there be more waste if government manages health care (i’m really begging the question here)? of course if you have a mccain v obama debate, your choices are either a more broken system or socialized medicine. but i wonder if there could be another possibility… suggested by a third party? i guess my point is if health care is something that can be perpetually pollitically leveraged, you will not get an answer anytime soon.
social security:
what right does the government have to force the current generation to pay into a system that is broken and where they will see no benefit? that was a question Ron Paul posed to all the republican nominees during the primaries and i can’t help but feel someone should ask that same question to McBama. Most likely, they will gloss over the topic while we contemplate that chunk of cash being withdrawn from the ATM of our paychecks. social security is the worst investment plan that was ever thought up and yet we embrace it as a vehicle for retirement. Again, a vote for either red or blue here will continue to put us all in the red.
energy:
America is in a position of privilege. we have a choice of whether we want more oil or more cleaner energy. the mccain position is if you need oil then by golly i’ll get you that oil if i have to cross into iran to get it. at least to my mind it seems the case.. he is the extension of the Bush foreign policy. But this need for oil simply reflects the appetite Americans have for it; afterall, it is politically unsavvy for the politicians to pursue unpopular policies. If Americans could live with smaller cars or accept the notion of public transit then there would be little attention paid to the middle east or the alaska reserve. Also, if we are still apt to look to other countries as examples then take a look at Japan and France who have embraced nuclear energy mostly because they had no other choice. While we are always reminded of the potential dangers of nuclear power we must allow for the possibility if it can be done safely. So in this regard, both candidates would be well schooled by a third party candidate who could balance all concerns not just arbitrarily promote one position at the expense of what is best for the country.
budget deficit:
a talk about the national debt cannot again unless we are willing to address the classic economic model of guns vs. butter. in simple terms, this means in a closed economic system we can either have guns (military funding) OR butter (social programs) but not both. This is because the productivity of a nation is usually just enough to support one or the other. Throughout American history of the 20th century, there was a notion that you could somehow have both guns and butter. Actually, this is the notion today. But because we cannot finance it all solely on the productivity of the country we must borrow from foreign creditors like China or print money and pass on the cost to the people through inflation. For foreign investors, they still accept US money because they can exchange it for something of worth namely US real estate. For the American people, the value of their savings is eaten up by the decreasing of their purchasing power and the instability in the investment markets created by military campaigns abroad. both obama and mccain are the same in this regard as they want to both appease the people with social programs and continue American military operations abroad, differing in the application of those ends at any one time. We need a voice that will be honest with the people and who will ask the people, “do you want guns OR butter?”
gun control:
the gun issue is an emotionally charged issue because it is intricately tied to the history America and to her people’s distrust for the government. however, everytime it is mentioned we are reminded of some fatal shooting on tv. it has also been argued though that if people had a right to a gun, 9/11 could have been prevented by the passengers on board acting as unofficial air marshalls. personally i could live without them. but how would donny get to review new albums if the performers couldn’t brag about ‘poppin a cap in someone’s ass’ (i jest here). Mr. Do also mentions Japan as a prime example of the cause and effect of strict gun control however i can’t help but think that their statistics could be skewed from death by samurai swords.
iraq & iran:
this is a reflection of america’s foreign policy of preemptive strikes and securing strategic resources. neither has backed away from the precedent set into motion of Congress laying too much unconstitutional powers in the office of the president and one must imagine they like the idea of having it there just in case. mccain would just go all crazy in the middle east and so i would have to give obama a plus in this regard but i do not have confidence that he will restore the balance of powers in the government so that the emphasis is given back to the legislative branch. the patriot act and the military commissions act leave the window open for the government(the president) to label potentially anyone an enemy combatant and send them to gitmo without cause or reason and without trial or access to legal counsel. while he voted against the military commissions act, unlike mccain who did, he has not made the point of seeking to correct the balance of power in government as a goal because, i suspect, he’d like to have the power just in case. but in terms of a sensible foreign policy, we need an outside voice that will call America out on it’s unrealistic fantasy of guns and butter by considering recalling troops stationed in places like the Philippines and redirect the resources to more urgent domestic concerns.
vp-choice:
biden… entirely political
palin… omg
abortion:
this is another emotionally charged issue that cannot be easily resolved. the fact that the two sides have adopted inflammatory banners for their sides do not help resolve the issue: pro-life tends to suggest the other side is pro-death while pro-choice tends to suggest that the other side infringes on freedom that is not characteristic of a free society. these labels have served their political ends in creating great tension, creating the illusion of your either with us or with them and ultimately creating the two bandwagons of ‘the great democratic party of pro-choice not proselytize’ and ‘the gop of pro-life not pro-death’. by accepting the premise the two parties, one might feel compelled to identify with one of the two parties and n’er consider a third option. i myself disparage the label pro-life and would rather discuss the matter in manner that is non-accusatory because we are affected by experiences that lead us to hold the convictions we hold. in contrast to Mr. Do’s argument for Obama and the democratic party, i submit to you Dr. Ron Paul OB/GYN who is now an advocate for the third party vote and had a few words to say on this topic. McCain may call himself pro-life but it is an inherent contradiction to his aggressive foreign policy and I believe that he has made this his political vehicle to the presidency.
i just hope that people will start to form principles from what their experience and commmon sense tells them and vote based on that and not go the route of adopting just any party and adhering to the platform they offer. the idea that people will succumb to party pressure and not act in good faith and conscience bothers me. let me end by saying that if you do decide to vote be it for obama, mccain, none of the above or abstention, let it reflect the principles you hold dear and not let fear(the lesser of two unknown outcomes) or ridicule(a ‘wasted’ vote) steal your voice away.
Very nice write-up of the differences between the candidates. The differences can’t be more obvious in this election. Obama will do more good for the Vietnamese community than McCain who supports the top 5%. McCain is identical to Bush who has squandered all the opportunites and have driven the US to the ground. I just hope Vietnamese don’t let the issue of race becomes their stumbling block in voting for Obama. We need real change. Let’s also hope something bad doesn’t happen to Obama like it did for Bobby, Martin, and John.
Joseph, I feel you man. I’ve done enough research to conclude that a third party will not have a chance in this election. That’s the problem with the democrat party. We have a lot of independent (In a sense this is a good thing). But sometimes we need to work with what we got. By not voting we might give away the election to the Republican party and this is unacceptable by any standard… Maybe in the next election. If you are really interest in a third party like I am we can start building up our base now. But remember this one important thing, Obama/Biden still represent the democratic party which mean it’ll be a fair game for all. We all see what happen under the Bush’s administration. We don’t need to let it happen again… Don’t give your vote away… make it worth something…
Joseph, I feel your sentiment, but I am also in the same boat as Hoang. Unless the independents have a chance, I am not going to waste my vote on them and at the same token risking to put McCain in the white house. At first, I was also skeptical about Obama’s experience, but he has shown tremendous improvement just from the primary to now. He’s intelligent and has the characters of a decent leader.
This is my response to Joseph. The lesser of the two evils is perfectly legitimate. There’s nothing wrong with it when you are facing two candidates neither of whom is a cure all fix all so you need to go for the one who is less dangerous. Of course in this election we know who that is – Obama. Going for an independent party is a terrible waste of your vote.
For those of you who want to be principled and vote for a third party candidate: A few friends of mine voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Mr. Nader got about 2.74% of the popular vote, and likely caused Gore to lose to W Bush. And we know how terrible the W Bush presidency has been.
So, you still want to be principled, vote for a 3rd party candidate and put Palin in the White House? (McCain may not last four years–remember that).
DO YOU LOVE YOUR PRINCIPLES MORE THAN YOUR COUNTRY?
If you agree with Republican policies, by all means vote for McCain. Nobody can fault you.
However, if you happen to believe an Obama administration will be better for Americans and America than a McCain one, I beg you to vote for Obama, even if you don’t like him as much as your third party candidate. Obama is going to need every single vote he can get, even if the polls have him favorably ahead. I am concerned that some people (don’t know how many), when alone in the voting booth, will not be able to overcome their reluctance to vote for a black man, even if they are dead set against Republican policies. That’s why I think Obama’s poll numbers are higher than what he might actually get. This happens to Bradley, the LA black mayor, when he ran for re-election. Bradley led in the polls till the last minute and… surprisingly lost the election. Post-election research showed that quite a few people made an emotional race-based last-minute decision in the booth.
Do we trust McCain? Check this out.
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/
I think neither of the candidate can deliver all of his promises once elected. There will be excuses and distractions to blame on, and one or more certain classes of citizen will feel used, left-out, and betrayed.
While it’s natual to vote for the candidate who would stand up for your rights and interests, it’s also heart-wrenching to know others, esp. your relatives or your loved-ones being treated differently because they happen to be in “categories” different than that of yours. It’s too bad that we have to choose the lesser of the two evils here (metaphorically).
I’m impressed by the researches, the details, the passion, and most of all, the devotion of all people in this forum when it comes to persuading others make up their mind in this election season. Thanks to Trong for your research and Donny for hosting this blog and all others’ insights and thoughts (it’s rare to see good topics with people who open up and discuss with genuine concern and fairness)
Speaking of devotion, I hope we all find what we are negotiating for:
“Get selfish before it’s too late. The financial crisis is horrible news for everyone—rich and poor, young and old. But the fact that it coincides with the presidential debates—the last gasp of substance in the campaign—provides a unique opportunity for you to ask Obama to choose you. With the new fiscal reality, neither he nor John McCain should get away with promising everyone what he or she wants. In debates they will be pressed to explain their priorities. Seize this opportunity. To get the best of Obama, young people, cut out the blind devotion. Get off the Huffington Post. Stop the Facebook blasts. If you really want to be the change you’ve been waiting for, start holding Obama to some of his promises to our generation. In these waning days of the campaign, ask not what you can do for Barack Obama, ask what Barack Obama can do for you…”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/161210/page/1
Legitimacy is the idea that a given course of action is proper and valid according to the rules that govern it. Of course there is nothing illegitimate for voting for either obama or mcbush if they represent your interest truly. What is disconcerting is the idea that people continue to shoot themselves in the foot because they are duped into subscribing to the praxis of the lesser of two whilst they know the implications of either action. The question here is are you so naive as to think the democratic party will rescue this country when they are complicit in bringing us into this mess? Or the republican party for that matter. An apt analogy would be a civil war where brother fights against brother. Must the father support one over the other when he knows their quarrel is petty; can he not choose to be the peacemaker? I use this analogy because that is what we have… not a civil war but a petty quarrel between two parties not unlike the “100 year war” in europe. If this is what you see our current political landscape to be, as I have, then going the route of fourth party (since some equate the third party label as inherently wasteful) is legitimate as it remains a recourse people can still take in the American political system barring a coup d’etat. Vote Nader if you want. Vote Barr, McKinley or Baldwin if that floats your boat. If I wanted to be principled, i’d be inclined to write-in Ron Paul as he best represents me. But I can’t imagine a principled vote could be blamed for ruining an election when historically the non-voting bloc overshadows the results. So apathy is your culprit not well-intention activism. Mr. Do, you would like to redirect the energies of the apathetic to vote for the best of what we got. I, on the otherhand, would like to redirect those votes break the two-party political infrastructure that have commited America down a predictably bleak road..
Joseph, I think you should go look in the mirror and slap yourself a few times :)
But seriously let look at a few thing together and make sure we are on the same page. First do you know what you want? Do you want political reform? Or do you want to do what’s best for your country?
I think the answer is clear that a third party will have no chance in this election, I am aware of the movement, but they just haven’t gain enough steam. If you do not agree then make your point clear on this so we aren’t just trading words back and forth. Secondly I think we can also agree that McCain and Palin is a joke. You know it, I know it and so does the Republican party. Whenever we have an idiot in a leadership position they’ll try to create a very secretive administration to cover up their incompetence. Rather than focus on issue it’ll be focus on attack. Rather than focus on the economy it’ll be focus on war. Because war get people rally behind the flag. American as a nation are powerful enough as a nation that we can fend off any immediate attack. The reason that we stuck in Iraq now is because we have to fix a problem that the Bush administration started. Obama oppose this from the very start for that very same reason. Obama is not just the lesser evil, he got potential. How far he can take this country? That we don’t know. But he’ll take this country in the right direction and it is a good start. Not only that McCain will not take the country in the right direction he and his running mate will put it in a state where it might not ever recover.
With that in mind, if you got a problem with the current political climate in our country then you are not alone. But how are we going to fix it is another… if we want political reform then Obama is a good start because McCain and Palin will jeopardize that chance even further for all of us. Think of the Patriot Act, those are the little thing that will slowly strip away our freedom.
Secondly it seem that your principle stem from the love of your country. Is this not so? There is nothing wrong with being principle. But do you know where you are going? And do you think your plan of execution is truly inline with your principle?
At this moment we can’t forget the party because it’s part of the game. Do you really think our third party candidate can really make a different without the backing of the party? There is still the check and balance and that check and balance exist for a reason. So a political reform start further than just the president, it start with the political party, it even start within each of us (if you want to get all philosophical).
If we want a political reform we need to start with Obama. Like Donny said, “He’s intelligent and has the characters of a decent leader.”
I don’t have a problem with your principle. But just please take one step back and see where you are going… Don’t start on the wrong foot because we might never get back on track.
Let’s put it this way, Joseph: hate the game, not the players :)
yeah donny.. one-liners can sum it up well
i wish i could make position clear as crystal but i think my posts are going over the word count limit for wordpress.
but i will say ‘reform’ & ‘best aspirations’ are not mutually exclusive.
take a look at what an insider had to say. the blame is not all on bush.. the two parties use fear tactics to push the agenda.
Joseph, speaking of one liner, to beat the game we must first learn the rules… Somehow I believe in Obama and his character :)
But I agree with everything you said. Of course Bush is not the only one to blame.
I live in Australia, and hate politics.
Damn, that’s some hardcore discussions.
The financial crisis from another perspective
Sick in the head
Most of you are young and probably are American Born Children or had left VN at a very young age. You have not lived thru the changing of the guards to realize that Freedom and the rights to live your lives without government interventions are something that your parents or grandparents had to fight for or had left all they know and love to seek them.
The more I listen to Obama’s speeches, ideas and plans the more they remind me of the Socialist ideas of Karl Maxx (This is one of the required subject that we had to learn in middle school after the Communist party took over South VN) and it sends chills down my spine. Socialist ideas and theologies sound very convincing and very earth moving in words but they do not apply well to real life situations especially in America when FREEDOM is what this country represents. Do you want the government to run everything in your life? Ask the Canadians how their Socialist HealthCare system work? How long do they have to wait at a medical clinic to see a doctor? Why do I want to punish a person who is smarter or has worked harder than me that he/she is better off than myself? This country is all about encouraging entrepreneurship, not about punishing successful individuals. Why should there be distribution of wealth? Are we so incompetent to advance ourselves that we need handouts from the government? Please travel the world on backpacks and see how others fair under a socialist or communist regime and you will think twice before voting for Obama.
Do not let the words of an eloquent theologist influent your thoughts and fuel your emotion? I understand that young people are very passionate and love to serve a good cause and that is the main reason why the socialist and communist parties have always been able to get support from the younger generation.
“…the rights to live your lives without government interventions are something that your parents or grandparents had to fight for or had left all they know and love to seek them…” You are correct but this has already been discuss multiple time. The Obama administration will be more transparent than the Bush or McCain ever be. If you don’t want government intervention then we definitely get rid of McCain and Bush. Think about the Patriot Act…
“Why do I want to punish a person who is smarter or has worked harder than me that he/she is better off than myself?” You are right we shouldn’t, like Nhien had already pointed out in another post here is an excerpt from it,
“I think there are part of us deep down that we all want to believe that America is a true meritocratist society. That is if you work hard, you will be rewarded for the merit of your work. The reality is this is not true. Will you be guaranteed a better job next time or even be paid fairly if you work as hard as an engineer, or as a clerk, or serving at MacDonald? Not necessary. You can’t tell me that the Wamu CEO deserves the 13 millions dollars or so for 2 weeks of work before the collapse of the company and or that CEO on Wallstreet deserves billions and billions in compensations while workers get pennies. If one flips burgers really well, one will probably do that for the rest of his/her life making less then $8/hour. Unfortunately, that is the compensation system we currently have.” (Nhien)
Truth of the matter is it’s not about equal distribution of wealth, it’s about equal opportunity.
This is not to mention that McCain is a war monger. He still think that the Iraq invasion is a success. It’s not, it has cost us almost a trillion dollar, the estimate cost is about 5 trillion dollar after adjusted for inflation. So it doesn’t matter if you are rich or pool, you are getting punish by a factor of multitude.
Furthermore, He picked Sarah Palin to be vice president. Palin doesn’t have any experience or character to be a leader. No offense but McCain is old and sentinel. The guy can barely breath in his last debate, so umm… I think you get the point…
Clearly we can’t agree 100% with any candidate. But if you are truly concern about our freedom then you would understand why we need to election Obama/Biden for this election!
Deeply concern,
I suggest you do a little more investigation
into Obama’s plans.
I find this article to be incredibly biased and frankly, disgusting. It’s fine to spread Obama propaganda on the internet, not even looking at the positives on McCain’s views and opinions, but you cannot do it, claiming that it’s a look at the two mens’ opinions on all of the issues. If I’m a voter who has no idea who I’ll vote for, after reading this, I would definitely go Obama.
I don’t know, it just seems immoral to be campaigning for Obama as if it’s a fact
Deeply concern,
Yes, I have traveled through more than 20 countries in the world, and countries like France, Spain, the Netherlands, etc have way more comprehensive health care than the US. I guess by your standard, those countries are considered communist that we should be afraid of? No worries, the French, Spanish, Dutch live happily and peacefully like we do, if not more. The phobia you are trying to spread here came from your negative experience living with certain communist countries that in no way resemble the European nations I just mentioned. Anyway, I didn’t mean to say that the US under Obama will necessarily become another France,Spain or Holland; I only brought them up because you were running a scare tactic just like McCain and Bush have been doing. I you were in middle school when the communist took over then I was in highschool back then. That would make me a little older than you, and perhaps a little wiser too, based on your logic, no?
I also don’t know why people say that Obama’s policy will punish those who are successful? In a civilized society, the top 5% should be expected to contribute financially to the society which allowed them to be so successful. What is so “punishing” about that? This is the 21st century, and we are not a “everyman for himself” society like mainland China or Russia.
And for those who think there should be no government in our life, they should take one more look at what happened in Wall St in the last few weeks! That is what happened when we want to live in a “free for all” society without any kind of regulations or protections (the Republicans have even advocated for the privatization of our Social Security funds, that is how stupid they could get!)
Speaking of giving up our freedom, try to imagine life under McBush with women losing their reproductive rights, or having Creationism shoved in your children’s faces at school, or another Patriot Act that would allow you to be kidnapped and thrown into jail, raped by their “privatized torturers” or murdered without trials. I don’t know if that is what you saw while “traveling the world” or not, but may be you don’t have to travel to see all those; they happened right here in the US. I am surprised you haven’t noticed that, perhaps because you have been busy living in the past?