The likely prospect of being led by President Obama come 2009 ignites excitement in many. For me, though, it is a cause for fear - especially in light of the current economic crisis. My household doesn't make $250,000 per year, so according to the Obama camp, I should have no taxation worries. But what does it really mean to " spread the wealth "?
Heads up: I'm about to make reference to ACORN. And while it's not pretty, it's certainly not swiftboating, in part because I'm not going to try to connect the disturbing wave of recent voter fraud to Obama. I'm going to assume that he not only knew nothing about it , but also that he does not endorse it . No, I'm going to bring up ACORN because it can tell us a lot about what Obama stands for . In his words, " I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. "
Among the issues ACORN fights for is one that has contributed to the current dreary economic landscape. According to ACORN's housing website , it has previously been involved in projects in which "homebuyers have qualified for loans as low as $82,000 and payments as low as $850 per month," with claims that "families with incomes as low as $26,000/year have already purchased homes." Essentially, ACORN (in support of the Community Reinvestment Act ) puts extreme pressure on banking institutions in an effort to secure loans for persons who are typically unqualified for such mortgages by normal bank standards. Sound like the type of irresponsible policy that could later backfire with detrimental economic repercussions, including perhaps massive subprime debt and mortgage foreclosures resulting from banks lending recklessly ? Well, it's only the tip of the iceberg of harmful economic action that Obama would engage in.
Chris McConnell
October 16, 2008 at 06:25 PM
Jessica -
Facts are important. Acorn employees are accused of voter REGISTRATION fraud - not Voting Fraud. The liklihood that registered voters like "Mickey Mouse" - as registered by an Acorn employee - will show up on November 4th is slim. Whereas Voter Fraud perpetuated in Ohio by elected Republican officials during the last general election denies the will of the electorate. The mechanisms to catch fraudulent registration are working - individual greed is not limited to Wall Street, everyday folks tried to pad their wallets by filling out bogus registration forms.
I agree that bringing this up is not swiftboaty - but why is it that so many McCain supporters define their positions in contrast to Obama's ideas and policies? I would like to be refreshed with an opinion that argues in favor of specific McCain policies on their own merits.
aaryn b.
October 16, 2008 at 09:35 PM
Spending money we don't have? What do you think Republicans have been doing the past 8 years, exactly? How do you think we've paid for two wars? With cash on hand? Given the recent history of your party, accusing Obama of some theoretical irresponsible spending is ironic.
We are in a situation that is going to require some sacrifice from all Americans, a sacrifice that will be painful since we've become such gluttonous, instant gratification culture. It's a sacrifice we have not once been asked to give under the current administration. Might I remind you that the wealthiest people in this country have been living extra-large these past 8 years, enjoying the fruits of the Bush tax cuts. Why you--as a person who isn't in the income bracket that has benefited from them--would endorse a man who would extend them to your detriment (and to the detriment of many of the families who's children you teach), is perplexing. One might conclude that you're voting against your self-interest. In the meantime, the 95% of us who don't make $250,000 annually have seen our wages flatten and our taxes go up. Even if it's not necessarily on our IRS forms, we pay them every single day as we live our lives. Just look at your water bill this month compared to the same time last year, if you don't believe me.
I also take issue with this "disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year" as you quoted from the WSJ. First of all, what is this annual raise that you're referring to? You're actually arguing with a straight face that there will be an annual raise of up to $2,000 for low-income people over the next four years? C'mon. That's twisting information. And secondly, I would argue that the "lower-income" couple to which your are applying this theory of not having the incentive to work harder, are probably already working harder (for minimum wage, no less) than you or I have to work. They're likely working their tails off at two or three jobs just to make ends meet and let's be honest, there's only so much hard-work to be done in a24-hour period. The non-hard worker types are, in my opinion, the outliers of our society and not the norm.
As for your tax dollars going to organizations that you do not endorse, I'd like to respectfully suggest you get in line. I certainly haven't been thrilled that my dollars go to the military industrial complex, abstinence-only education (around the globe), or Bush's Faith-Based Initiative, for example.
Now, ACORN may not be a perfect institution but government funding goes to many imperfect organizations. And identifying ACORN as some sort of duplicitous entity is just parroting those on the right who lay blame for the current economic crisis on poor minorities. Sure, there's plenty of blame to go around at all levels of our society (I happen to know several higher-income earning professional types who got in over their heads), but there are also many low-income people who were purposefully taken advantage of in this crisis. (Incidentally, an $850 mortgage is only 3% of a $26,000 annual income; why should a person with this salary not be able to own a home if they legitimately qualify for a loan? It's almost as if Republicans think that poor people shouldn't have the same right to the American Dream that the rest of us have.)
Dare I say that what we're witnessing in this argument (amid other dangerous statements and volatile outbursts made recently by McCain supporters) is a deep-seated fear harbored by some white people that they are somehow losing power. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of this, but I do think the implicit argument combined with the other hair-raising types of comments we've been hearing these past weeks are at the very least thought-provoking.
michael valentine
from spring Valley
October 17, 2008 at 04:05 AM
Why fear the next eight years when the last eight years have doubled the national debt in an immoral and unjustified war of preemption that the country was misled and lied into? How could the country be anymore misled then by the pair of adults, Bush and Cheney?
The country now is spending ten billion dollars a month in Iraq (over $560,000,000,000.00 so far). McCain would have us in the country for the next 100 years, why not he ask. Because it is fiscally irresponsible maybe? Because it is sucking the life out of our all 'volunteer' uniformed service? Take your pick.
The Republican class-war on working people includes a tax on employer provided health care benefits. How is this not an assault on the working people of America? How will this brand new, never before levied tax going to keep middle-class working people from foreclosure?
More trickle down? How has that worked for the middle class?
Jessica Jondle
October 17, 2008 at 05:50 AM
Interesting, how my criticism of one (presumptive) administration is taken as whole-hearted support for another.
Maybe there's a third option. It certainly is quite an inference to assume that my criticisms of economic policies that led to such situations as the current subprime crisis somehow equate to my support for an administration that is one of the most unpopular, ever. It is true that I do not always go with the most "popular" of opinions, but nonetheless, I did not make mention of our current president, except to say that I see bailouts as too much government involvement. Crazy that someone who fears Obama would also disagree with another politician, huh?
Chris: thanks for the correction. It is true that many news stories that have "voter fraud" in the headline go on to clarify it as "voter registration fraud", and that's an important distinction. Let's just hope the voter registration fraud does not translate into actual fraudulent votes.
Your justification reminds me of my frustration in hearing people refer to embryonic stem cell research as simply, "stem cell research", when the qualifier is actually quite important and necessary for many of us who support many types of stem cell research, but not all.
Jessica Jondle
October 17, 2008 at 04:38 PM
Although I realize there were no specific accusations of racism aimed directly at me, it is disheartening to hear reference to the lack of concern the Republican Party has for the poor and for minorities. This is no doubt rooted in mistakes the party has made, but I do hope I speak for some of my fellow party members when I say that the disregard is not universal.
Something I noted in the City Journal's article (http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html) about the Community Reinvestment Act is that it often does not benefit the people it seeks to help. Read particularly the second paragraph, which mentions how the act can stagnate the efforts of its recipients to achieve upward mobility.
That aside, one of my main concerns these days is the academic achievement gap in U.S. schools - African American and Latino students have higher drop-out rates and lower test scores than their white and Asian counterparts, and this should not be the case. Rather than a "trickle-down" mentality, I am optimistic about an early-intervention approach to making sure that socioeconomic status doesn't fall along racial lines. Programs that foster achievement - by addressing academic shortcomings, such as reading problems, early - will lead to a closing of the gap and ensure that students from all social and racial backgrounds are college-ready. Economic assistance for those financially unable to go to college, but academically able, is certainly appropriate. This is a worthwhile place for some of my tax money, as well as non-profit organization money and private donations and educational institution scholarships, to go. When we have college graduates that proportionately represent our society as a whole, we'll have more upward mobility.
I feel the frustration of the woman who authored the CS Monitor article on pro-life feminism that I linked to (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1015/p09s02-coop.html). Seemingly unrelated to the post, it actually speaks to this very issue. She mentions that she appreciates the Republican Party's opposition to abortion, but is dismayed that the party doesn't offer the social assistance that would benefit those brave women who go through with pregnancies. Although I'm sure I wouldn't agree with this author on everything and actually we probably disagree on much, it is this kind of dilemma that I see in party politics today. I imagine there are very few people who love everything about their party. It'd be nice to be able to pick and choose the best pieces of each - but perhaps a two-party system is the most efficient. I think many social programs need reforming - but many, some of which I financially support, have genuine intentions. As stated, there are plenty of organizations that are unfit and unworthy of the government money they receive - but I mention ACORN in particular because some of its detrimental practices have gone unknown by many for so long and it is now in the news due to voter registration fraud.
I believe in capitalism and a free market system. I also believe that all men are created equal and that the "American Dream" should not be limited to one race over another. There are organizations and policies that can help remedy a wealth distribution situation that shows minorities disproportionately represented in the lower-income brackets. But I'm daring to say that ACORN isn't one of them, and welfare is often abused, so expanding it rather than reforming it is something I see as a serious error.
michael valentine
from spring Valley
October 18, 2008 at 06:46 PM
I believe in Democracy.
michael valentine
from spring Valley
October 19, 2008 at 12:59 AM
This is class warfare right? All those little people getting together to vote?
That is more dangerous then the politicized Department of Justice that is bringing these charges in violation of it's own policies? The same DoJ that fired AAG's who didn't pursue these cases in NM and other states? More dangerous then the evisceration of our rights?
Perhaps it's will be a bigger threat to the middle class then a new McCain tax on our health care benefits that will put a lot more working class people out of a home due to foreclosure?
Please the Acorn program aims to help the poor to vote as is their right as Americans. Does that threaten you in anyway?
Have you heard about the Camber of Commerce?
Jessica Jondle
October 20, 2008 at 04:27 PM
Michael,
I am so grateful to live in a country where every citizen has the right to vote - rich or poor. I myself would not have been allowed to vote a hundred years ago, but fortunately it is recognized now that every citizen (even us lowly women - imagine that!) can make an informed decision (and I hope this is the case).
Voter registration is important and should be encouraged regardless of what political party a person might decide to identify with. Perhaps, though, ACORN may NOT have voter registration down...just a thought (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/news/politics/acorn_instilled_fear__workers_134390.htm). I recognize that many low-income citizens tend to vote Democrat - and I don't fear that. It points to some needs within the Republican Party. But it is rather disturbing that you believe my affiliation with one party would give me a desire to prevent others from exercising their rights, since this could give the opposing party more votes.
But actually, the focus of my post was not keeping the poor from voting. (Nor was that even implied.) I will suggest, again, that a reading of the City Journal article may be in order. This is hardly class warfare - this is a desire to see policies that ultimately benefit all segments of society and reduce poverty. Although the Communist Manifesto may have been my favorite piece of political writing in college, I feel it has been well proven that in the real world, socialist and communist societies - societies in which usually, by the way, the poor have no (legitmate) vote - fail.
I shouldn't waste my time defending my belief in democracy, a political system I do not, remarkably, feel threatened by.
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate the feedback.
