While some issue could have been explained better for you Barber there is some research that has to be done on your part. The most that can really be expected from a candidate is to inform, for him/her to clearly convey his/her policies and specific plans of action. The education part is largely left up to party affiliates or the voters themselves.
You may consider that I have bias, but I hope to present a fairly accurate viewpoint.
Quote:
For example, Obama mentioned the 300 Billion in tax cuts for business. How does the average person like me know if that 300 Billion in savings will cause a) efficiency in our big companies to go up, b) profits and therefore stock prices held by average americans to go up, c) domestic jobs to increase in those companies which will generate tax revenue, d) allow research and development to allow those companies to maintain leadership in a global market, etc.
"Trickle down" is a trick used by the rich to buy poor votes. What do rich people do with money? They invest it, and investing it helps the economy right? Well yes, so the business owners benefit directly and the low to mid income bracket benefits diffusely.
However consider the alternative. What do low and mid income families do with money? Invest it if they have anything left, but mostly they buy food, clothing, healthcare, and basic necessities. They don't hoard the money in a dark pit in the basement. The profits from the items they buy flow to business owners. It could jsut as easily be argued as a "trickle up" effect. The money they spend is reinvested by the buiness owners jsut as in the first situation. Low to mid income families benefit directly and business owners diffusely.
In either case it can be said that all benefit, but what you are affecting is the strength of the correlation of the benefit. Tax breaks for a specific bracket guarantee that everyone in that bracket sees a benefit, while others in other brackets might see some benefit, but it is not guaranteed. If you receive a tax break you know your bracket will have more spendable income, if another group receives a tax break then you have to hope they spend their dollars in a way that eventually reaches you.
If you want to look at it purely from a self interest point then the choice is clear. High income families should vote for regressive taxes and business tax cuts, while low to mid income families should vote for progressive taxes and tax cuts for their brackets.
If you want to broaden your perspective and look for creating the most good then the choice becomes less blatantly obvious, but I feel still quite clear. Who needs an assured gain more? I believe the gains in increased money available to spend on medical need,s food, and clothing for low income individuals outweigh the utility gained from high income families having that extra cash.
This is just one issue, but it might give you some ideas on how to proceed with evaluating the others. You should expect to do some of your own research. You probably will not find a completely accurate and clear source of information, but there is benefit in even examining potentially biased sources. When comparing two biased sources it is often clear that one seems to make more sense than the other. Are the reasons there because of the bias, or is the bias there because of the reasons? It never hurts to take it all in.
