So does eliminating the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy constitute "spreading the wealth around"?
Obama has proposed more social spending and an elimination of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. So do you think that is what he was referring to, just a little nudge in that direction? Or do you think he had a Freudian slip, and was letting his true intentions be known; ie, to institute a truly socialized society?
Do you think we would be better off with a Hoover administration, before the FDR New Deal programs?
Our social welfare system has caused some problems, but it seems the other side of that is not very desirable either. Do we want to go back to the disadvantaged depending only on the generosity of the wealthy, with no government intervention?
Is the education and health of this countries children worth a little investment, or should the wealthy instead have the right to another Caribbean cruise?
Where would you right wingers want to draw the line on social spending? Libraries? Social Security? Education grants for military service people? Medicaid? Social services? Do you know of anyone who at one time received a little help from the government, and used it to better their life?
Reagan said government just needed to get out of the way. With that philosophy, deregulation of the private sector begin in earnest, and continued through Bush 1, Clinton, and blossomed with Bush 2. We are now seeing the results of that in our economy.
I am not set in my ways, but as of now, a little government in peoples lives, a safety net so to speak, seems like a good thing to me. But I would like to hear from others. Just what should the role of government be?
thought this was a rather interesting article
From The TimesOctober 14, 2008
Before he was famous: the truth behind Obama’s meteoric ascent
The Democratic candidate has been linked to a former radical and the murky waters of Chicago politicsMartin Fletcher
Three decades after abandoning his life as a fugitive, Bill Ayers has gone underground again.
The co-founder of the Weathermen, the anti-Vietnam War group that bombed the Pentagon and US Capitol in the 1970s, has vanished as John McCain seeks to make his links to Barack Obama a central issue in the last weeks of the presidential campaign.
There was no one home when The Times visited Mr Ayers' house in a quiet street three blocks from Mr Obama's mansion in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The Education Department of the University of Illinois, where Mr Ayers works, said that he had gone on sabbatical. In response to an e-mail he stated: “I'm not available right now. Perhaps in the future. Best, Bill.” What The Times did find in Chicago, however, was widespread bemusement that Mr McCain should be putting so much emphasis on Mr Obama's tenuous links with Mr Ayers to revive his campaign.
Mr Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, another Weathermen leader, emerged from hiding in 1980 and the charges against them were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct.
Since then he has become a respected member of Chicago's intellectual Establishment: a professor of education, author and champion of school reform. Ms Dohrn, mother of his two grown children, is an associate professor at Northwestern University.
Mr McCain invokes the Ayers connection repeatedly. He claims that “Mr Obama's political career was launched in Mr Ayers' living room”, and is broadcasting a campaign advertisement to that effect. Sarah Palin, his running-mate, accuses Mr Obama of “palling around with terrorists”.
The truth appears rather more prosaic. In 1995, as Mr Obama was preparing to run for an Illinois state senate seat, Mr Ayers and Ms Dohrn hosted a gathering to introduce him to local Democrats. Later the two men sat on the boards of two non-profit foundations. Mr Ayers once gave Mr Obama a $200 campaign contribution. Mr Obama once praised one of Mr Ayers' books on education but has condemned his acts of 40 years ago. There is no evidence they are close.
“This is Red-baiting like we haven't seen since McCarthy in the Fifties,” declared Nan Freund, Mr Ayers' neighbour for 25 years. “He's done a lot of good for education and for kids. They are wonderful neighbours. It's a ploy and it's going to get dirtier and dirtier as [the Republicans] fall farther behind.” “If you're new in politics and someone agrees to host a 'coffee' in their house so the candidate can meet people, get some volunteers and maybe some money it's very rare you'd refuse,” said Toni Preckwinkle, a black Democratic alderman [city councillor] for Hyde Park, who in other respects is quite critical of her party's nominee.
A more promising avenue for Republican investigators might be Mr Obama's eight-year career as a state politician that began with that “coffee” in Mr Ayers' house. Mr Obama seldom talks about that period, perhaps because it sits awkwardly with his image as a political reformer.
Critics say that the ambitious young senator became an astute practitioner of old-style politics and that, far from opposing Chicago's political machine, notorious for corruption and patronage, he embraced it. “I have seen no proof in Barack Obama's past that he's an agent of change or that he's a reformer,” said Delmarie Cobb, a Democratic political strategist from Chicago.
Mr Obama won a seat in the state senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified. For Mr Obama's first six years as a senator the Democrats were the minority party, hampering his ability to push through legislation, but he learnt the political arts, joining a weekly poker school and took up golf as a means of networking. He collaborated in “redistricting” — the shameless redrawing of congressional districts for partisan advantage.
Critics suggest that political calculation may have influenced his decision to join the Trinity United Church of Christ, an African-American mega-church led by Jeremiah Wright, the fiery minister who subsequently married the Obamas, baptised their children and became his spiritual adviser. The church — 15 minutes south of Hyde Park — was favoured by the black intelligentsia. “It was a good church for an aspiring, upwardly mobile politician to join,” Ms Preckwinkle said.
If that was the reason, it backfired badly during this year's presidential primaries when a video showed Mr Wright accusing the US Government of creating Aids to kill blacks and shouting: “God damn America.” Mr Obama first stood by Mr Wright, then left the church. Mr Wright has also stood down.
The young senator also developed a close relationship with Tony Rezko, a Syrian-born property developer (and slum landlord) convicted in June on several corruption charges. The benefits were mutual. Mr Obama supported tax incentives for developers like Rezko to refurbish low-income housing. Rezko gave and raised money for Mr Obama's election campaigns. This friendship also backfired. In 2005 the Obamas bought their handsome Hyde Park home for $1.65 million — $300,000 less than the asking price — while Rezko's wife, Rita, simultaneously bought the vacant lot next to it from the same owner for the full price of $625,000. This raised suspicions that Rezko was either buying Mr Obama a bigger garden or helping to reduce the cost of the house. Even Mr Obama's supporters do not defend the malodorous arrangement. “He should never have allowed that to happen,” Barbara Flynn Currie, the local Democratic congresswoman, said. Mr Obama has admitted the deal was “boneheaded” and given Rezko's campaign contributions to charity.
In 2003 the Democrats won control of the Illinois senate and Emil Jones, a veteran of Chicago's political machine, became its president. Mr Obama courted him. Mr Jones was smitten. “Throughout 2003 and 2004 Jones offered Obama an array of high-profile Bills to shepherd through the senate,” David Mendell, a Chicago Tribune journalist, wrote in his biography of Mr Obama.
Those Bills gave Mr Obama a strong record on which to run for the US Senate in 2004. Mr Jones even scheduled legislative sessions around Mr Obama's campaign events. Critics contend that Mr Obama also avoided votes on controversial issues that might return to haunt him — “He was in the washroom on abortion votes,” commented a Democrat who requested anonymity.
The biggest disappointment for Hyde Park's liberal Democrats was Mr Obama's failure to oppose the political machine of Richard Daley, the powerful Mayor of Chicago, or to condemn its excesses and abuses. Indeed, he endorsed the mayor for re-election in 2007 even though Mr Daley's administration had suffered a string of indictments and corruption scandals. Weeks later Mr Daley reciprocated by backing Mr Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Nobody accuses Mr Obama of acting illegally or — with the possible exception of his house purchase — even improperly during his Illinois years. His defenders argue, with justification, that he did what was required of any aspiring young politician with few connections in Chicago to succeed. Some Chicagoans, however, find his present efforts to portray himself as a champion of political change a little rich. “If you fail to speak out on issues that affect people here in Chicago, what would make me feel you're going to speak out for the American people on issues of substance when you become president?”, asked Ms Cobb, the strategist. “He's a very pragmatic person,” Ms Preckwinkle said, choosing her words with care.
This message has been edited by Locklady on Oct 13, 2008 6:49 PM
RM, its a little (very?) fuzzy to me, but if I remember correctly, it was to secure our borders and regulate interstate (not intrastate) commerce. Is this correct? We've grown a little from there haven't we?
Stan, you ask some very good and pertinent questions that need to be considered. For the sake of argument let's say you and I are in the millionaire+ status and let's say we started a business when we were in our twenties and we have worked hard to make it profitable and put a lot of effort into it, worked late some evenings and Saturdays, forfeiting time with our families. We have taken a lot of risks and have finally gotten it to where it is today and saved a little nest egg for our retirement. We already feel like we have been paying more than our fair share of taxes being in the highest tax bracket. Now here's Obama sitting in the Oval Office trying to figure out a way to rob even more of our money. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html Now look at the top income earner(top 1%) and notice the difference between McCain and Obama's proposals. Which column would you rather be in? I will also point out that we don't mind paying our share and feel very blessed, but is it fair for the government to keep taking more and more of our money? At what point do we say enough is enough?
Personally, I am not against social programs, SS for the elderly that meet the requirements, the disabled, the poor and their children, and welfare for those that need a hand until they can get into better circumstances. What I AM against is runaway wasteful government spending, pork barrel projects that get added into every freakin' bill that passes through congress, billions that are sent to almost every nation under the sun, a lot of them that would just as soon see us dead,(we aren't the all in all to the world), but I think it's proper to help for humanitarian needs. I am also against welfare for the able-bodied that have the opportunity to get out and work to better their situation. If a person wants something bad enough you will usually find a way to get it. What this country needs is more education on how to become self-sufficient and less dependent on government aid. That's what I have against the democratic philosophy of giving more and more to the people so they are dependent on the government, primarily for the sake of getting their vote. We have become a me-me generation. Listen to the people out there and in the debates. Their main focus is, What are you going to do for ME, tell ME how you are going to help ME in every area of my life. Nobody wants to do anything for themselves anymore, they just want to be lazy and expect everyone(and government) to make their life easy.
Now Stan, if you and I could see our government being fiscally responsible and using some plain common sense then maybe we wouldn't have to give $700,000+ dollars of our money every year to the government.
Growth? yeah, I'd say we've become obese to the point of not being able to get up off the couch. And gov. thinks we need a couple thousand more calories to fix the prob. Obama's already making a list.
GM, thanks for your answer. I can pretty well agree with most of your arguments. I think the government needs to be fiscally responsible. But the fairness-of-taxation questions need to be asked in context of our current problems of spending way more than we are taking in. Given the huge amount of federal dollars spent on the war and bailouts, who should pay? This problem was created by a Republican administration. Money that could have been spent on schools, education and infrastructure was instead wasted on a disastrous foreign policy. Now our children, who represent the future of this country, need education and health care, and don’t have the money to pay for it.
We both agree that government assistance is a good thing for those who need it. But I can understand the difficulties of preventing those who are just feeding from it with no intentions of using it as a tool to become self-sufficient. To police this, we need more government employees on the payroll, which increases the bureaucracy. Solutions to problems such as these are usually complex and controversial.
<<What this country needs is more education on how to become self-sufficient and less dependent on government aid.>> I couldn’t agree more!
<<That's what I have against the democratic philosophy of giving more and more to the people so they are dependent on the government, primarily for the sake of getting their vote>> I have been listening quite a bit to the democratic philosophy, and I haven’t heard of any free hand-out proposals. I hear a lot about getting the economy moving and creating jobs, and repairing crumbling schools, and providing health care for children, our future generation. I certainly haven’t heard about any programs that are designed to make the poor dependant on the government. Perhaps that is what the poor think they are hearing, but I don’t believe that is what is being said. Can you reference any statements from Obama which imply hand-outs that cause dependency and destroy self-suffiency?
Cutting wasteful spending is something both candidates talk about a lot. I believe they both have honest intentions in this. The question is which one will better be able to accomplish it? Neither of them have a good record, so I really have no idea. Back in 2000, I would have thought Bush would be the most likely one to do so. Boy, was I wrong!
by Stan,
Reagan said government just needed to get out of the way. With that philosophy, deregulation of the private sector begin in earnest, and continued through Bush 1, Clinton, and blossomed with Bush 2. We are now seeing the results of that in our economy.<
What we are seeing today in the current financial crisis has very little to do with the policies of Reagan and Bush Sr.. Clinton was reaping the benefits of the tax cuts by the afore-mentioned although he kept government spending down and had a surplus, but he also raised taxes again which helped to give him a surplus. But that started to be a drag on the economy so W Bush lowered taxes again. But W isn't a true conservative and let spending get out of control, and thanks to the democratic-controlled congress that kept earmarking every bill that came across W's desk with pork barrel spending, he caved in and signed too many of them. That's one reason why he has such a low approval rating, along with the war.
Yes, let government get out of the way and let the free enterprize system work. Capitalism, supply and demand works best when the government doesn't get involved. That's exactly why we are in the shape we are today because government got involved. Clinton signed laws to force banks to make loans available to the unqualified(primarily for blacks), i. e. Freddie and Fannie were born to handle these accounts. Then these loans were packaged and re-packaged and sold as derivatives on the world market, leveraged up to thirty times. So when the housing bubble burst and all these loans became worthless, when we went down the whole world went down, figuratively speaking. So I hope they have learned their lesson well. Wall Sreet is largely to blame also.
Deregulation may have played a part somewhat, but greed set in and they just leveraged it up to the hilt. That's what made the banks fail.
Yes, the current crisis is on a Republican administration's watch, but it was not created by the Republicans per se,in fact, quite the contrary. If you will follow this whole housing loan fiasco through, it started in the Clinton administration, then when the democrats got control of the congress in '04, Frank Raines and Barney Frank took it to a whole new level. ACORN actually had a big hand in that too. But W played along with it and allowed it to happen.
President George W. Bush is far from my vision of an ideal president. We just need another Ronald Reagan. Without Iran- Contra of course!
The 11% increase for the top 0.1% percent seems like a lot, but I would like to know what the current lowered rate is, to determine if it seems fair. But I’m also wondering why you are worried about the top 0.1%, who make over 2.8 million per year. I don’t have anyone in my circles who makes that, and if they do, I certainly don’t think we need to worry about how they might make ends meet! That’s not saying it’s OK to rob them, but I’m only saying there should be a higher tax bracket for them. If someone has to pay the taxes, it only makes sense to have them pay more, rather than to tax the little guy who can’t hardly make it already. So an 11% increase from the decreased Bush rate is how much?
But I don’t think it is taxation you are worried about so much as irresponsible government spending. If we are going to spend it, obviously we need to collect it somehow, or pay a tremendous interest on the national debt. Bush has spent like a mad man, and it wasn’t even spending that benefited the American people!
But I want to explore something about these schools of thought for taxation. Who is really making this country run, making it productive? The person making 2.87 million annually is probably doing a lot of speculation, shuffling money from one account to another, stocks, and so on. The middle class are the ones who get out and really make this country run. They do the actual production work. The ones at the top, if there income is business related, are merely reaping the benefits of the actual doers and shakers. Maybe they own shares in the companies that produce the actual products. So you might say instead of the money trickling down, it instead trickles up from the lowly worker to the fat cats scooping the cream off the top.
So from that perspective, I wonder if it makes more sense to let the middle class (small business owners, professionals, and blue color workers) have the tax breaks instead. The extra spending they do will stimulate more business, and the accesses will trickle back to the top.
From what I understand, trickle down economics (supply side) has pretty well been debunked by all the top economic professionals. It has been given its fair run, and has failed.
This is the opening paragraph in this article in the Wall Street Journal.
Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.
Mark, interesting article. It is frustrating to receive conflicting information. The Wall Street Journal is a fairly reputable publication, but is hardly non-partisan. I can just imagine reading some left leaning article who argues these figures are misleading because so-and-so was not taken into account, and has a completely different set of figures that support their platform. I wish there was a place we could all go to just get the facts. The problem is that the facts are usually so complex one would have to read a dry boring book to understand it all.
In a college economics class we learned about the Laufer curve. It basically lays out the relationship of total tax revenue versus percentage of income taxed. At 0%, there is no revenue, but at 100% there is also no revenue because the incentive to earn is destroyed. The curve reaches it’s highest point somewhere towards the middle, but the exact optimum percentage point is debatable, and is probably determined only by trial and error.
I guess I have no problem with tax cuts for the rich if that indeed does increase the total revenue, and the country as a whole benefits. I do have a problem with the large disparity between the rich and poor in this country. It seems like a travesty to claim that those making over 2.8 million annually are somehow doing the country a favor because their spending on a lavish lifestyle somehow trickles down.
Stan,
I don't know of this makes sense or not but I don't worry about a person making 2.8M and if his spending has a trickle down effect or not. Life has a way of redistributing the wealth if there if greed attached to it. Those kingdoms fall in on themselves.
I was talking with a Russian last night that came to the USA 17 years ago. He said I wish everyone who thinks the government can do a better job of redistribution would be able to live in a country like that for several years because they would change their minds. He said redistribution of wealth always pulls everyone down lower a lower level...no one is elevated. He said this is always accomplished through class envy.
Mark, it’s all a matter of degree. The very fact the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor is a form of redistribution to start with. Nobody is suggesting a major redistribution, but only a little tweaking to the redistribution that already exists. I think we can all agree a small amount of redistribution could be a good thing. And I think we can all agree that an old style soviet redistribution sucks big time.
The argument in the past for lower taxes for the wealthy is that a rising tide will lift all boats. That seemed to work for awhile in the 90’s, but seems to have run its course lately.
Being the architect of the “tweaking” would be a daunting task, and I’m glad it doesn’t fall on my shoulders.
Well, it was very clear in the debate last night that Obama makes no apologies for his intentions to take Joe the plumber's money and spread it around as Obama sees fit. Why can't people see him for the Marxist that he is? Joe the plumber has every right to be infuriated at Obama.
<<The argument in the past for lower taxes for the wealthy is that a rising tide will lift all boats. That seemed to work for awhile in the 90’s, but seems to have run its course lately.>>
Right Stan, it did work until Clinton's tax increases started to have their devastating effect on us. We simply cannot tax our way out of this mess. We already have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Is it any wonder that so much manufacturing has left our country? We ran them out! Obama wants to "tweak" the system so even more leave. All so HE can practice marxism and "spread the wealth around". That way he can write an annual check to people who pay no taxes. This is his idea of a great country.
We must be awful close to Marxism right now if a little tweaking of our tax code puts us squarly there. A tax cut for 99% of the people and a slight increase for Joe is Marxism?
Obama can't cut the taxes for 95% of the people as he claims. Already 40% don't pay any income tax at all.
Obama has clearly said that he wants government to spread the wealth around. That's a Marxist idea. Why should he be able to pick a number and decide that everybody above that income has too much and that he somehow has the right to take some of that money and dole it out?
This message has been edited by RM_ on Oct 16, 2008 3:24 PM
RM, you have chosen to take a literal and exagerated meaning to that little statement, even though the facts don't support it. Tweaking the tax code to very modestly "spread the wealth" slightly more than what is already being done is hardly Marxism. (In my opinion).
Like, McCain, your desperation is showing.
One thing you gotta admit after watching that debate last night, Obama is one smart and smooth cookie, with an admirable temperment. But those qualities alone do not prove his intentions are good. You gotta dig a little deeper to find out if you can trust him.
Obama can't cut the taxes for 95% of the people as he claims. Already 40% don't pay any income tax at all.
Here's the thing,,I kept hearing that the top 3% of americans pay most of the taxes and then the next 47% paid the rest and the lower 47% don't pay any taxes,,don't quote my percents,,they have been different each time I hear them..
So I asked my husband,,because it didn't' compute,,I said "who doesn't pay taxes".. He said "The people who don't pay taxes are the people who make under a certain amount of money a year and they are the people who get all their taxes back at the end of the year" They are the people who pay taxes in their wage during the year but because of the tax tables they also get it all back at tax time..
So these are also the people who are going to get a tax check at the end of the year from the Obama president..It will ADD to their income without them producing anything or working for it..These people are also, in some cases the people who are in a tax bracket that already get government funded benefits in the use of government programs designed for "lower income" people.
When I was younger I used to look forward to tax time when I would get back everything that I had paid in. And I can't remember what that number was, I think it was anything under 3,000.00 dollars a year I would get it all back. I think that minimum number has grown quite a bit and now and maybe under Obama's tax plan that number will be raised. It has raised over the years,,but I don't know what that number is now.
I'm not quite sure but this is how I have come to understand Obama's taxing the rich to give to the poor. And the checks he plans on distributing are not a one time thing like an incentive check and it will be more then they paid in taxes I think they will get their taxes back plus more, it will be written into the budget so that they and whoever fits into that minimum number will get that check every year.
And how he plans on paying for that re-distribution of wealth is to raise the taxes of the upper 47% and the upper 3%...
Am I wrong? I didn't read this whole thread maybe someone already said that.
While I'm not getting in to this presidential debate...
I will say this, I know from past experience that if I make around 16k in a year, and don't pay a dime in estimated income taxes, as a sole proprieter, I will get a check from the government for about $3,700.
I was definitely working at that point. I was trying to get my little boat off the ground, and was putting 65-70 hours a week on average for my little business, and just barely able (sometimes I wasn't) to make ends meet.
I don't work those kinds of hours on average now, and I'm back to paying some income tax.
Stan, I'm not getting desparate. I'm getting frustrated that not more Americans are seeing through Obama. The man envisions a vastly different America than what our founding father envisioned. Vastly different I would say. I would say the same would go for you. You don't seem to be someone who appreciates a limited government that is limited by the enumerated powers set forth in the Constitution. That is why you question whether a little tweaking here and there to redistribute wealth is really all that bad. Why it's just a little bit you say. Yes, that is how we are losing our freedoms...one little tweak at a time. A little here, a little there. It's impossible to point to a specific gov. intervention and say right there we ceased to be a free people. Especially when the people responsible look so bright, intelligent and smiling as they reassure you that they are only wanting to do what is right...they want to just tweak things a little to make it easier for the underpriviliged....nothing major...oh no!...why we must be desparate to even question their motives! Obama is a Marxist and so are many of his supporters. America cannot afford even 4 years of the damage this man would do to the country.
This message has been edited by RM_ on Oct 16, 2008 8:31 PM
A few facts to refute your demagoguery courtesy of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. You may be naturally inclined toward mathematics but your mastery of the facts over who carries the burden of taxation in the U.S. is somewhat lacking.
The top 1% of taxpayers earn 19% of total income reported in the U.S., but their share of the U.S. federal income tax burden accounts for 37% of the total annual income tax received by the federal government.
The top 5% of taxpayers earn 33% of total income reported in the U.S., but their share of the U.S. federal income tax burden accounts for 57% of the total annual income tax received by the federal government.
The top 10% of taxpayers earn 44% of total income in the U.S., but their share of the U.S. federal income tax burden accounts for 68% of the total annual income tax received by the federal government.
The top 25% of taxpayers earn 68% of total income in the U.S., but their share of the U.S. federal income tax burden accounts for 85% of the total annual income tax received by the federal government.
The bottoms 50% of taxpayers earn 13% of the income but their share of the U.S. federal income tax burden is only 3%.
In a nutshell, we currently have 25% of the wage earners in the U.S. carrying the rest of the country. This doesn’t seem equitable to me, but maybe I am not as smart as you are and just don’t get it.
I have read my history and the second plank of the Communist Manifesto as promulgated by Karl Marx was to establish a “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax”. While I don’t believe we live in a communist state we have adopted some on the tenants via socialist ideals that has crept in over the years. I personally think the “rich” are already paying their fair share as evidenced above.
Obama and his cohorts do not, as he often talks about expanding the redistribution of wealth in his campaign speeches.
TU,
In an ideal democracy we would have fair wages and everyone would pay a fixed percentage of taxes. Those essential workers who build our roads, cook our foods, and clean up our motel rooms would earn a wage that would allow them to live without government assistance and pay for affordable health care, and still pay the same percentage tax as the wealthy. The CEO would only earn 50 times as much as the janitor, instead of 500. This kind of fair distribution would allow for a flat tax rate, or even the elimination of an income tax, to be replaced with a national sales tax.
But that is not the way our current economy works now, for whatever reason. There is no way a low wage earner could pay the same percentage of tax as the millionaire and make it, if the government is to climb out of the huge debt it is in. So if we aren’t able or willing to reform our system from the bottom up, then some redistributing of the tax code seems to be necessary.
So according to some of you, any shifting of the burden of taxation to the rich is Marxism. If that is true, we have been living under Marxism all of our lives. This country has some socialized way of governing at least since FDR’s programs in the 30’s.
You point out that the top 25% of the wage earners earn 68% of the total income, but pay 85% of the taxes. Under a flat fair tax rate, they would pay 68% of the taxes. I don’t see this as being that huge of a shift, and really don’t have any statistics to compare with earlier times. Under Obama’s plan, taxes would increase only for the top 1%, those who are quite wealthy and quite able to pay more taxes without jepordizing their businesses or crimping their lifestyle.
I realize it is politically expedient for Republicans to make a big deal out of Obama’s one statement about “share the wealth”. CNN calls McCains charges “misleading”, and says, “McCain's remark was an oversimplification of a five-minute-long conversation. Obama replied in great detail about his tax plan, and the "spread the wealth" remark was one small part of the conversation.” He explained that his tax would increase from 36 to 39 percent, but there would be credits for employee health insurance and a proposal to eliminate capitol gains tax for small businesses.
But distortion is the game both sides play at this time in the election cycle. Grab any thing that can be exaggerated and presented in the worst possible way. I jumped into this debate, not because I support Obama’s tax plan (although it sound pretty reasonable given our dire economic times), but because I felt the attacks against him are a little hypocritical. To pretend we do not currently have elements of a Marxist system, and that Obama will somehow cross that line with his little tax tweak, is just not paying attention to the facts, in my opinion.
These are desperate times, and desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures. I do think some of our domestic issues such as education and infrastructure and science need some major attention, if we care about our future. So with a huge national debt, and the economy going to hell, do you have any better ideas?
I found this chart the other day and saved it to my hard drive. I'm not sure where it came from or which year it is represents, but it gives an approx idea of where our tax dollars are going. I labelled the biggest slices of the pie to make it more readable. Social Security, Medicare, Welfare & Medicaid combined make up 53% of the budget! If gov. had not become involved in these programs we would not be spending another 9% on interest. Imagine how prosperous this nation could be if we would have zero national debt and our federal budget would be less than 40% of what it is now! The poor in this country as well as the rest of us would be much, much better off and we would not be in the mess we find ourselves in today. Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they sought to create a limited government. Too bad we didn't follow through.
Current Topic - Obama wants to "spread the wealth around"
Caution: This forum may contain statements and comments that are offensive. If you are easily offended, please exit this forum now.
By using this forum you agree to be accountable and liable for your post's. All postings are the responsibility of the posting participant. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the management.
