Monday, November 01, 2004
[433] Of November 2, 2004
[433] Of November 2, 2004
Kerry or Bush?
The latest Pew’s polling shows Bush should win by a small margin. However, the standard error is nowhere in sight (actually, I'm too lazy to calculate it) and therefore, I don’t know how well the poll goes in predicting the outcome for tomorrow. Furthermore, the survey seems to represent popular votes rather than predicting the electoral college result. If that is the case, then the poll is probably as useless as the popular votes that Al Gore received.
Regardless of the result, I am not sure if I strictly prefer Kerry to Bush anymore. I don’t like Bush but Kerry doesn’t seem to be sufficiently good.
One reason for this is that I do think Bush is doing a good job in some area.
I don’t like taxes and I do believe taxation is an excuse for the government to steal our money. However, I am content to concede the ideal of no taxation given that certain structure in the society stands protected. With this, it is only possible for me to agree with Bush’s tax cut. Moreover, Bush’s tax cut does stimulate the economy. The budget deficit however is another story – it is Bush’s failure, as was Reagan’s failure, to realize the notion of a limited government, of which, another thing that I believe in.
Bush however can’t be blamed too much for the deficit. When it comes to the question of cushioning the recession, an expansionary fiscal policy is a way to do it. Furthermore, nobody, neither Clinton nor Bush, is to be blamed for the recession. It was just unfortunate for Bush to come into office when the business cycle took a dip. But the unnecessary so-called war on terror does worsen the deficit and that is certainly Bush’s fault.
With the exception of Bush’s spending spree, I agree with most of Bush’s economic policy. In fact, this is the only thing I agree with Bush and as a graduating economic major, this counts a lot in shaping my opinion.
At the same time, I am not a citizen of the United States and I recognize myself as an environmentalist (In fact, I love to call myself as a libertarian green or maybe a green libertarian but I’m a green first and libertarian second. What does it mean? Frankly, I have no idea. I just like labels). Bush’s unilateral moves on many issues and his bad environmental record are enough to sway me into the anybody-but-Bush camp.
Kerry on the other hand, seems to be sitting well with the greens and the world community at large. And with him, it is easier to imagine the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the US somewhere in the future.
But then, his economic policy will probably not move towards more free-trade - already he promised to make outsourcing more costly. In the name of efficiency, capital and labor should be allowed to roam freely. Any friction towards free flow of trade should be eliminated, unless there is a very strong reason for some restriction.
More importantly, I think most of Kerry’s plans are almost impossible to be implemented without raising taxes. He is promising to do a lot of things and at the same time, promises to not raise taxes on the middle and lower classes. He probably realizes that he has to raise taxes on somebody and so he said he is going to raise the taxes on the higher income level earner. This kind of taxation is called progressive tax rate – the tax rate goes up as the income level goes up. I don’t know about most people but in my view, punishing somebody for being successful is wrong.
So, Kerry or Bush? I don’t know anymore.
Nader? He is hopeless unfortunately, as with other candidates.
So, if I could vote, who would I vote for?
The only real candidate, My Teddy Bear!
MTB for President of the World!
Whatever the outcome, the one quote to rule them all:
p/s - apart from the Presidential stuff, people in Michigan will be voting on at least two other issues. Proposal 1 is about gambling and Proposal 2, the highly debated issue of gay marriage.
I don't agree with gay marriage but at the same time, I don't feel the need for me to go against it. If they amend it, I'll feel good because I'm a Muslim (no matter how liberal I am). If they don't, I'll be fine too because I'm a libertarian - I respect personal freedom.
The latest Pew’s polling shows Bush should win by a small margin. However, the standard error is nowhere in sight (actually, I'm too lazy to calculate it) and therefore, I don’t know how well the poll goes in predicting the outcome for tomorrow. Furthermore, the survey seems to represent popular votes rather than predicting the electoral college result. If that is the case, then the poll is probably as useless as the popular votes that Al Gore received.
Regardless of the result, I am not sure if I strictly prefer Kerry to Bush anymore. I don’t like Bush but Kerry doesn’t seem to be sufficiently good.
One reason for this is that I do think Bush is doing a good job in some area.
I don’t like taxes and I do believe taxation is an excuse for the government to steal our money. However, I am content to concede the ideal of no taxation given that certain structure in the society stands protected. With this, it is only possible for me to agree with Bush’s tax cut. Moreover, Bush’s tax cut does stimulate the economy. The budget deficit however is another story – it is Bush’s failure, as was Reagan’s failure, to realize the notion of a limited government, of which, another thing that I believe in.
Bush however can’t be blamed too much for the deficit. When it comes to the question of cushioning the recession, an expansionary fiscal policy is a way to do it. Furthermore, nobody, neither Clinton nor Bush, is to be blamed for the recession. It was just unfortunate for Bush to come into office when the business cycle took a dip. But the unnecessary so-called war on terror does worsen the deficit and that is certainly Bush’s fault.
With the exception of Bush’s spending spree, I agree with most of Bush’s economic policy. In fact, this is the only thing I agree with Bush and as a graduating economic major, this counts a lot in shaping my opinion.
At the same time, I am not a citizen of the United States and I recognize myself as an environmentalist (In fact, I love to call myself as a libertarian green or maybe a green libertarian but I’m a green first and libertarian second. What does it mean? Frankly, I have no idea. I just like labels). Bush’s unilateral moves on many issues and his bad environmental record are enough to sway me into the anybody-but-Bush camp.
Kerry on the other hand, seems to be sitting well with the greens and the world community at large. And with him, it is easier to imagine the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the US somewhere in the future.
But then, his economic policy will probably not move towards more free-trade - already he promised to make outsourcing more costly. In the name of efficiency, capital and labor should be allowed to roam freely. Any friction towards free flow of trade should be eliminated, unless there is a very strong reason for some restriction.
More importantly, I think most of Kerry’s plans are almost impossible to be implemented without raising taxes. He is promising to do a lot of things and at the same time, promises to not raise taxes on the middle and lower classes. He probably realizes that he has to raise taxes on somebody and so he said he is going to raise the taxes on the higher income level earner. This kind of taxation is called progressive tax rate – the tax rate goes up as the income level goes up. I don’t know about most people but in my view, punishing somebody for being successful is wrong.
So, Kerry or Bush? I don’t know anymore.
Nader? He is hopeless unfortunately, as with other candidates.
So, if I could vote, who would I vote for?
The only real candidate, My Teddy Bear!
MTB for President of the World!
Whatever the outcome, the one quote to rule them all:
I voted for it before I voted against it.It couldn't get any better than that.
p/s - apart from the Presidential stuff, people in Michigan will be voting on at least two other issues. Proposal 1 is about gambling and Proposal 2, the highly debated issue of gay marriage.
I don't agree with gay marriage but at the same time, I don't feel the need for me to go against it. If they amend it, I'll feel good because I'm a Muslim (no matter how liberal I am). If they don't, I'll be fine too because I'm a libertarian - I respect personal freedom.
