I'M CRAZY DEE, GOOGLE ME! MOVEMENT

THE ECONOMIC PLANS: MCCAIN vs. OBAMA

First I must open up with a true fact, I vote democrat.  I've been registered to vote since I was 18 years old, and my first opportunity to vote in a Presidential Election I voted for Bill Clinton!  There is nothing, in my opinion, which would make me vote for any Republican at any time for any reason.  This is not for some simple party loyalty, cause or principle, but I do have principles, so I do not vote for Republicans.

So, if it is not due to party loyalty, what is it that would make me make an unweaving statement like I have just done.  The answer is-- I have learned over the years by experience and observation.  That is it; that is my answer.

This is why I say, when it comes to John McCain vs. Barack Obama, President Obama all the way!  His plan for moving the country forward is well defined, and his dedication to the American People is unquestionable.

Before I speak on the economic plans of either candidate, lets look at the history of both parties, where it concerns economics, and then you decide which candidate is best for your pocketbook or wallet.

In an article for The Herald Tribune (the global edition of the New York Times) dated August 31st, 2008, Alan S. Blinder compares the differences between John McCain's and Barack Obama's economic plans.  He writes, "Clearly, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class."   Blinder goes on to write, "Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans."

What are those differences, and how do those differences affect your pocket?  Blinder a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve writes, "Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, "Unequal Democracy," by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton University. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November. 

"I call the first fact," Blinder writes, "the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans."

The economy grows faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.  To test this statement, I have a question for you.  Is your money stretching further under Bush, or did it stretch further under Clinton?  Blinder conveys what should be your answer when he states, "The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats."  This fact alone means Barack Obama gets my vote!

Blinder continues, "That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut."  A tax cut!  I remember how some people felt when President Bill Clinton's presidency was coming to an end.  I believe people had more money in their pockets, and many felt they were moving into a higher tax bracket; so when at the time Candidate Bush spoke of tax cuts, too many took to those words like a fish to a hook line and sinker!

My mother always told me-- "the worst Democrat was better than the best Republican."  These worlds were most likely, no doubt uttered in house holds, throughout America, showing support for the democrats.  But for some, once Clinton made pockets fatter with his economic policy put into action, the greed set in.  I had a conversation with a person who had big plans; he planned to move back down south, had the house, the money, and though a democrat usually, he planned to vote for Bush because, I quote, "I need my tax cut!"

"The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels's work," Blinder writes, and continues, "It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now ? an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America's poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980."

Blinder speaks to what I speak of when I said people felt they were moving into a higher tax bracket when he writes, "It (Professor Bartels' research) shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families ? which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House ? thus widening the gap in income."

"The table (from Professor Bartels' research) also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family's income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent," Blinder writes.

Oh yeah, the person I spoke of who planned to move down south with the house, the money and the tax cut, I saw him a year into the Bush Presidency, and his plans did not materialize.  He said it fell through (did not go through), money was tight.  I thought to myself, "I bet he wished he had gone with Al Gore's lock box and not George W. Bush's tax cuts."

Alan Blinder closes with, "The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don't you like?"

Let's look at John McCain's plan.  In an article written by John Harwood on September 8th, 2008 in The New York Times entitled Weighing Economic Plans to Attract Swing Voters, Harwood writes, "the principal elements of Mr. McCain's economic agenda on taxes, trade, regulation and health care follow the philosophic outlines of a deeply unpopular Bush administration. 

Harwood goes on to write, "That hardly precludes Mr. McCain from attracting enough blue-collar votes to win in swing states like Michigan, Ohio, PennsylvaniaVirginia. He can appeal to those voters on issues of national security and cultural values, as well as by reviving traditional Republican attacks against tax-and-spend liberalism."

My question is, how long will the American People fall for the same non-message from a republican candidate?  History shows us a few things about the Republican attacks on Democrats.  And, with the strong media coverage and research going on during this campaign, we can see the accuracy of the attacks maybe boarding on, if not already boldface lies! 

If voters in the rural areas of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and my home state of Ohio fall for more of the Republican rhetoric, then those who vote for McCain deserve everything he will do to them for voting for him.  Like how Bush thanked all of the factory workers.  McCain is a Republican.  In my opinion, he is not for the farmer, the working man or woman, the middle class or the poor; now the well-to-do they're his buddies.

Now, let's look at Barack Obama's plan.  "In offering new, immediate economic benefits, Mr. Obama has far outbid his Republican adversary," Harwood writes.

Haywood continues, "Mr. Obama and his aides cite this yardstick: Adjusted for inflation, the median income of working-age households has declined by about $2,000 since 2000. Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has offered an ambitious range of proposals to arrest that decline and help average workers compete in a global economy.

Those proposals include a new tax credit of $500 per worker, or $1,000 for two-worker households; a new mortgage interest credit, valued at an average of $500, for homeowners who do not itemize their tax deductions; and a college tuition subsidy of $4,000 per year for students who agree to perform community service. Mr. Obama would wipe out income taxes for older Americans earning $50,000 or less, saving some 7 million households an average of $1,400 apiece.

That's on top of the still-unspecified subsidies Mr. Obama would provide for the purchase of health insurance for those who don't now have it, the elimination of capital gains taxes for small start-up businesses and an increase in the existing dependent care tax credit that could save $1,100 for a single parent of two children who earns $40,000. To help finance these benefits, Mr. Obama has proposed tax increases on those earning more than $250,000, including on personal income, capital gains and dividends.

Like I stated at the top, Barack Obama's plan is well defined, it moves the country forward, and there is no doubt about Obama's dedication to the American People!  With the facts on the table concerning the established differences between the two political parties, and the defined policy proposals of Barack Obama, there is only one choice for President of The United States of American.  Barack Obama all the way!!

Crazy Dee is a retailer from Cleveland Ohio.  He registers people to vote at his Warrensville Heights location.  Crazy Dee's Muzic Palace is located at 20003 Harvard Ave. Warrensville Heights, Ohio 44122.

Crazy Dee is hosting a big registration party at his store on Saturday September 27th, 2008!  Come out, register and celebrate your registration with Crazy Dee.

Then on November 4th, 2008 vote Barack Obama President of The United States!!