Taxes are colossolly important when it comes to the world of politics and economics. Senator Obama's plan of the 'trillion dollar tax increase' shocked the entire nation but once he explained it, it made sense. His plan was to collect $1 trillion over the next 10 years and later use this money to improve the country by backing his other popular plans like doing all he can to minimize the impact on global warming. Obama wants to tax 6% of America's population, the upper-class, who make more than $97,000 a year. This is far from the middle class and because the middle class is the bigger percentage of people, Obama got the vote. Hilary Clinton said that his plan was ridiculous and many were lead to believe that Obama's plan would affect "firefighters.. and school supervisers" as Senator Clinton said she supported them. However, this is untrue as even the most elite firefighters would earn at the most $86,518 a year thus missing obama's mark by $10,000. On the other hand, Hiliary Clinton's economic tax plan was quite good on its own. Obama's tax plan might not cure the econimic crisis we are currently in. Hilary Clinton's would have been a better choice in this sense as it had a higer percentage of curing the crisis. Thus the opportunity cost.
Health care was a major issue during Senators Clinton and Obama's election. Hilary Clinton claimed that her new plan for America's health care system would be able to insure "everyone" local to America. She attacked Obama's health care plan by stating that his plan would leave 15 million Americans un-insured. This is about 6% of the population. Obama called his system the "universal" health care. He wants to tax the upper-classmen who can afford to pay a little more in order to improve the country's hospitals, similar to the tax plan. However according to some specialists, Obama's plan of 'generous subsidies' would soon lead to 82% of the currently un-insured to be insured for health. Also, if individual mandates were included in Obama's plan 100% of all the uninsured would be insured a few years after Obama wins the Presidential Election of 2009 (which he did). Hilary Clinton's plan would only leave out 1 million ++ people uninsured. This, compared to Obama's plan, would be a better choice. But, because of the possibility of individual mandates being included into Obama's plan the majority of the people rooted for Obama's health care system. In this case, the opportunity cost was Hilary Clinton's health care system plan.
Although plans for America's future is a top priority, the reason that this particular election attracted so much attention was because Hilary Clinton is a woman and Barack Obama is an African American. Either way, it would be the first time in American history that a woman or an african american would run for President. For woman's rights activists it would be a giant leap forward to have a female president as that would be hard core evidence of how much the female gender has risen to positions of power all over the world, not just America. As one of the biggest super power in the world, America's giant leaps affect the rest. When Obama became President, this also showed that the rascism in America definitely turned down although it by no means means that rascism will ever disappear. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan were definitely shocked but it does not mean that they will magically dissolve into the air. Still, the elections vaguely divided people into two different groups; those who wanted a woman president and those who wanted a black president. The Politics was just an add on as both candidates were equally powerful.
Opportunity costs can shape the entire world, especially a choice that is of a big a scale as the democratic party elections. In the end Hilary Clinton was the opportunity cost thus including her tax policies and her health care system. Barack Obama is now President and will soon show the world whether the cost of Hilary Clinton was worth it.
fukumi orikasa, 5v
Interesting topic and interesting point of view. Would have been more interesting to see a battle between Obama and Biden, but that's probably just me.
ReplyDelete- Jeff
I am personally a big follower of the presidential election so I was definitely particularly interested in this post. There are very interesting points being made and i think the contrast and the choice of comparison between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama was great because they were the ones in the running to be the democratic candidate and had it been between Biden and Obama, no real economic concept like opportunity cost could be made because Biden is Obama's chosen Vice President and Biden was not in the running so it would be difficult to give their different points
ReplyDeleteGreat topic indeed as i think it would attract many other readers like me, as the topic in itself is already a topic of interest and great research has clearly been done. As both candidates' different plans are being contrasted,such as their health plans and taxes, i think that the opportunity cost example being used here is very good. The fact that this election was a very big thing it is a very clear and real application of the economic concepts.
I am a big democrat fan so as long as a democrat is in the White House, I am happy, though i was rooting for Hilary Clinton a tiny bit more.
Now that Obama is the President, the opportunity cost of all his plans are Clinton's plans or McCain's and like you said, we will have to see whether the cost of Hilary was worth it. I assume that you are an Obama fan as you said "Although in my opinion Obama was definitely the right choice,..." i think it is great that you were not bias and look at both candidates equally when u evaluated them and even agreed that Clinton had some good plans going on when u said "On the other hand, Hiliary Clinton's economic tax plan was quite good on its own. Obama's tax plan might not cure the econimic crisis we are currently in. Hilary Clinton's would have been a better choice in this sense as it had a higer percentage of curing the crisis."
This post is really impressive, very entertaining and definitely worth the opportunity cost that could have been me reading another post and commenting on someone else's. :D
Fukumi, I think your post has struck a chord here! Well done! While the people's choice turned out to be Obama, the fact that Clinton continues to be active in the political scene is perhaps is a small consolation that the opportunity cost is not to unbearably high as she continues to make inroads though not as extensive had she won the Presidential Democratic Party elections.
ReplyDeleteIt's a wonderful topic cause i like politics and now, i can read a person's blog that brings economic concept, opportunity cost and choice into a political issue. However, for econ, we usually see opportunity cost only appears in scarcity but in this case, scarcity is not really indicated as an important point.I think it's a new idea that when we apply opportunity cost in real life, it is not always about scarcity, it is more than that. As anytime u compare between Obama and Clinton,u indicate how opportunity comes out and what people have to give up as well as why people choose it. It helps me to understand more clearly. And as u said, it's till unclear that the choice for electing Obama instead of Clinton is right or wrong as we can not really see how much Obama can do for he U.S during this hardest time. In addition, during the election, we can also see in the debates that Obame and Clinton both have good startegies and not really good ones, they can compensate for each other. But the problem is that U.S citizens can only choose one of them so that they must give up some good characteristics of one candidate and recieve imperfect ideas of the other. Honestly, I have to say that, eventhough it is economic blogpost but ur essay may carry higher political discussion, it's still a very nice post.
ReplyDeleteHello, Kai En here!
ReplyDeleteI liked your title since lots of people would automatically choose inanimate objects for opportunity cost, but you used a real life example for this, which has already reached the criteria for this blog post from the very beginning of the post.
I, myself, share the same views with you and think that Obama is a great man who can achieve a lot more, though Hilary Clinton would have probably also done the same thing. I also agree they were both strong candidates and were competitive.
I personally liked it that you kept the whole blog post dedicated to ONE example only, which prevents our mindsets from switching back and forth and some times getting lost in between.
Usage of statistics and numbers is really very useful and I think I could see the extent of what their plans are.
The best of all was the content, because you had to choose this topic, it's certain that you already know you have a good argument coming since it's such an attractive title. And you (spoke) typed with confidence!
A good job I'd say. It's better than mine...D: