Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Barack's examined Social Policy

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9234

In this article, written by Micheal D. Tanner, Obama's social issues towards taxes and Health care are being discussed. Tanner overlooks Obama's position on taxes and health care by evaluating Obama's promises on the issues of for taxation and health care. I disagree with Tanner, who thinks Sen. Obama represents less hope and change than a wish list for every conceivable liberal special interest group.

Firstly, the fact that Barack Obama is trying to fight global poverty should a more reasonable reason for his position on change. So rather than Tanner to be looking at the positvity of Obama's stand for a longterm change, he instead decides to overlook this issue on a negative point of view by saying that fighting global porverty shall only bring forth increase in taxes. Though he may be right to some extent, he bases his facts on information provided by a CNBC economic analyst; Larry Kudlow which I consider a False authority. Also, Tanner doesn't provide us evidence for his phrase "Obama is co-sponsor of a Senate bill to spend at least $845 billion over the next five years to fight global poverty". So Tanner should have told us where his exact data was gotten from maybe he would have been more convincing. But even so, we should be happy Obama is for global poverty and even willing to spend that much on it rather than stacking on the deck i.e. slanting facts in order to support his point that Obama is for greater taxes due to his plan of large funding towards global poverty. No matter how much is being used America is already loses billions right now on "Blood Money"-war, so diverting to a useful purpose of these funds should be overlooked as less hope and less change to America. Because right now, no other candidates policy stands better than his own.

Secondly, Tanner does a poor job in the his orderly arranged article, for he keeps on providing us with information about Obama which is either scarce or one has hardly heard of. With the use of credible data maybe he would have succeeded in convincing dummies. But by using the words such as "he would ...." to what Obama might do or not do, makes one to consider his argument as a hasty generalization. Instead of just stating what Obama will or will not do, Tanner should have done a beterr job fixing the readers skeptic doubt of "how do you know?" by providing useful evidence to each respective point made.

Finally after everything said and done, Tanner's logic in his paper was clear and brief but he failed in providing credible information for which before i belief i have to hear from the horses' mouth (from Obama himself).

No comments: