I was just done watching the first U.S. presidential debate yesterday night, and am yet to watch the second. It was more interesting than I at first thought, and it is also a good way to get a clue on the possible policies, directions, and strategies of the U.S. in the next four years.

I do not really catch up with the political situation and issues in the U.S. most of the time, unless they are related to other countries. Somehow I think the political scenarios in Malaysia are far more attention-grabbing, with all the dramas going on everyday. Anyway, I feel like giving some thoughts in regards to the issues and policies I saw/heard in the debate.

Obama and McCain have a lot of differences in their approaches and policies, whether it is homeland issue or global one. Let us put aside the financial crisis the whole world is facing and the bailout plan; I believe they had more to talk about in the second debate, which I have not watched yet. Let us focus on other issues.

As president, Obama and McCain will resort to different ways to boost the economy and/or relieve the burden of the people. McCain wants to cut down the business tax (which is like 35%, the second highest in the world) to attract more investors to do business here, leading to the creation of more jobs, thus benefits the ordinary people like you and me. In contrast, Obama wants to cut taxes for the middle class people. Both approaches seem to be able to benefit the people, either directly or indirectly.

I have no doubt that both presidential nominees intend to help the middle class people, but I reckon there lies a fundamental difference in thinking. By cutting business tax, Wall Street, the richest corporations and individuals in the U.S., will benefit. They will enjoy a huge amount of tax savings. The philosophy is what is good for the Wall Street is also good for the Main Street. This is a more indirect way to help the people, and it does make sense. Compared to McCain’s approach, Obama’s is a more direct and faster way. By reducing taxes for the ordinary people, they will have the money with them that they can spend or save. The argument is which approach is more effective.

By adopting McCain’s approach, the U.S. government will get less tax revenues in the coming years. In this critical time and with the $700 billion bailout plan passed in the Congress recently, the government in no doubt needs money, a lot of money. If the government did get less from the taxpayers, I bet it would increase the pressure on China to solve the trade deficit problem. According to McCain, cutting down business tax will lead to more job opportunities eventually as it lures investors and encourages new business setups. However, business tax is not the only factor that influences entrepreneurs’ decision on where to set up a new business; a healthy economy, stable political environment, and low crime rates play an crucial role, too. Low business tax, as far as I know, is used by developing countries.

In comparison to McCain’s approach, I personally prefer Obama’s. Undoubtedly, tax cut for middle class people will reduce the government’s tax revenues as well. But, with the extra money on hand, the people will have the ability to purchase more stuff for themselves. Economics 101: An increase in demand will result in an increase in supply. Hence, plants increase production, which in turn increases labor demand. You might ask whether or not tax cut in business tax will result in increase in supply. My understanding is rich people have a whole lot of money and that tax cut will not significantly influence their buying behavior, unless it was down from 35% to 10% (unlikely to occur)!

Another interesting topic was policy regarding nuclear nonproliferation, particularly towards Iran and North Korea. McCain emphasizes precondition before talks, while Obama does not. I have been having doubt with regards to the U.S. approach on this issue when the six-party talk began years ago. When dealing with nuclear weapon issues (whether with Iran or North Korea), the U.S. has been insisting to have some so-called precondition like halting uranium enrichment or so before sitting down at the round-table, or it (Iran or North Korea) will face certain punishments, like economic sanctions. All I can say is this has not worked and it will never work. By placing such precondition, it is like saying “hey dude, what you are doing is wrong, illegitimate and unacceptable!” and forgetting the fact that the U.S. itself possesses more than enough nuclear warheads to destroy the whole Earth. This is indeed resulted from the notion, whether implicitly or not, that the U.S. is far superior to third-world countries like Iran and North Korea. And, according to McCain, talking to Iran and North Korea without precondition will legitimate their illegal behavior. Frankly speaking, they do not care what the U.S. thinks, what the U.S. does, and how the U.S. reacts (in an informal language, they do not give a damn to the U.S.).

It is already proven that precondition will not be accepted by these countries. The economic sanctions on North Korea have not worked for years. Any unilateral moves will not solve the problems. The best way to deal with nuclear weapon issues is diplomacy – treating these countries as equal parties and having talks at round-table with them. On this issue, I stand firmly behind Obama.

Another hot topic in the debate was Iraq. Obama calls for a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, which McCain disagrees with. I certainly do not have a solution to the problem (who has one anyway?), but I do not think setting a timetable for the withdrawal is a good idea. It seems to me that the difficult and complicated situation in Iraq is a hole that will take billions of dollars, thousands of soldiers, and years of efforts to get filled up. By “filled up” I mean implementing democracy, getting rid of insurgency, and restoring peace and harmony (at least to some extent) in the country. I am not being pessimistic, but it might never be able to be filled up. I have doubt in regards to how well a timetable will work. The situation in Iraq is complicated due to the presence of many powers, parties, and entities. The conflicts between the authorities and insurgents; the conflicts between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds; the conflicts between different political parties representing different sects and powers; the conflicts between neighboring countries; and the intervention of developed countries for petrodollars, have all made the situation deteriorate moment by moment. A timetable can be made based on the current circumstances and anticipated future, but any change or move made by a certain power will change the whole thing, making the timetable not effective. If there happened to be a timetable and I were an insurgent, I would decrease the fire day by day making an illusion that the situation is getting better and let the U.S. troops leave happily, then I would strike back making chaos once they go back home. It might sound evil, but there stands the possibility that this will happen, and the U.S. certainly cannot take this risk!

I am not a scholar or political analyst, but nothing more than an ordinary student. There might be some fallacies in my arguments, false facts in my writing, or even bias in my stand, so everyone is welcome to leave a comment. We can have a discussion in a civilized way, i.e. no foul language.

I am yet to read some analyses on the first presidential debate and watch the second one. You can expect to see another post on the second debate by the end of this week.