Obama or McCain?

i was doing my economic class's newspaper analysis (at last minute again), and i thought this week's piece of work was somewhat worth sharing. so here goes my humble little piece:

It could probably not have been a better time for the Presidential campaign. The recent development of events present before the final two hopefuls a real-life issue awaiting promising answers. And at stake is the very well-being of the future of Americans and very much of the world, as Americans cast their vote of confidence on the leader they believe will steer their economy out of the present storm.

I tend to believe that McCain's campaign had quoted the issue (of 'Joe the plumber' - which was at the heart of the matter of the article i picked) 'out of context' to favor his popularity. Clearly, Obama is not intending to trade capitalism in America for a welfare state at any price, hence my analysis here shall be based on this first assumption.

Central to the real issue being debated here is the difference in the extent of progressiveness both President potentials believe in concerning taxes. Obviously, Obama's proposed package is more progressively skewed than McCain's. He believes in placing a heavier burden on those who have more, while McCain prefers to leave them very much alone.

And there are merits to Obama's advocate.

Equity cannot be brushed off lightly as a less important economic goal of the government; in fact, some attention should be given to it in downswings of the economic cycle. There is a legitimate cause to tax away 'excessive profits' from those who appear far better off especially when everybody else seems to only be worse off. The social issue of an increasing income gap should not be addressed only at better times - this is in effect probably a better time than ever to take some corrective actions!

'Creating opportunities for all', in the very words of McCain, would probably not be an end to the attempt of not taxing away excessive profits in bad economic times. We must remember that firms would probably only increase investments only when there is a positive outlook to businesses, which could not be the case for now. Hence, leaving more (excessive) cash assets in their hands would probably not give them an incentive to release them back into the economy. Rather, they would still be held back conservatively, and it can be argued that the government hence plays a more effective role to 'spread the wealth around' if they could get a hold on it.

Moreover, implied in McCain's promise is yet another increasing government budget deficit; as Obama recognized, little could be done to make more benefit without causing some others to lose, unless the means come from borrowed dollars again. This was the mistake of the Bush administration, which was one of the reasons which led to this crisis, and should not be repeated by the next President. If any sustainable approach is to be taken towards the management of the government's budget, it would not be McCain's.

ok im done. i wish i could vote. and you know who i'll vote for. i'll probably even be an active supporter and volunteer to be at the front of the campaign i support. haha.

but, since im still here, it's back to my studying for tomorrow's test. :)