Obama: My Plan Will 'Spread The Wealth Around'

[chumdawg]

UL...the scenario where someone's take-home pay is reduced from 300K to 250K is nowhere near what Obama is talking about. He's talking about something more like going from 300K to 297K.

[Underdog]

Just wondering - does anyone around here make over $250K?

(because I see a lot of talk about an income bracket that only 1% of this country belongs to...)

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The graphic doesn't address $250k at all.

Obama explaining that it is $200,000. This ad looks like it was from earlier this week, so it's very recent (and that's probably why older quotes by Obama say "tax cuts for $250,000"). Biden saying $150,000. Now, Biden probably goofed cause he was answering a question live. But $200,000 looks like the official line now.

[rabbitproof]

I believe it is >250k up will see tax increase so <250k will NOT see an increase while <200k will see a decrease. 200-250k is basically flat. That's the distinction I had of cutoffs in his tax plan.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I also see basically the same numbers on McCain's plan at $200k: (4676), (6357), (6474). My understanding is that McCain wants to keep the tax rates where they are now. So how is Obama's plan a tax cut?

mccain's plan extends the temporary tax cuts that expire in 2010 and does not change any of those cuts in the 2001 and 2003 acts, obama's plan changes the way the cuts are applied.

in the obama plan more cuts are given to those under $250k for married/filing jointly and $200 filing individually, while not providing the same cuts to those with incomes greater than that (removing the cuts for those income groups).

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

That (perhaps over-) simplification by DirkFTW is just what I needed - it seems to sum up how I'm thinking of things. Talk of reductions in tax deductions, and different types of incentives and different types of corporations is over my head. I'm stuck in econ101 and the graphs DirkFTW posted, but I think it's a personal decision model as well as a corporate business model. If I'm making 250,000+ at Ford, I probably have some power to influence my salary in relation to whatever corporate costs there are. If my post-tax income has been 300,000 and that's the way I've budgeted, then when the government says my new post-tax income is going to be 250,000, then I will immediately try to work the corporation (salaries of those below me, prices I control, etc.) to give me my 50,000 back.

In a nutshell, I think the rat-bastards at the top of corporate ladders have enough tools to redirect to themselves whatever amount of money the government wants to redirect away from them.

you may be right, but my guess is the ability of senior execs to get increases in salaries is tied to the cos profitability.

not to pick with your example, but the exec at $300k will see their tax bill go up about $5-6k.

Joe the Plumber, if he buys his business will be faced with a set of options 1) accept the loss of potential income, 2) hiring fewer workers, or 3) raising his prices (or whatever else, but again, I'm econ101, if that). He'll face these decisions as a person as well as as a business. Obama seems to hope that he will choose option number 1, and maybe Joe will be likely to do that, I have no idea. But the higher someone is in a company, the easier it becomes to choose options 2 or 3. This, I think, would be super-true in any of the seemingly countless industries that will be bailed out of bad business decisions in a few years.

it depends on how large joe's business is by revenue and employees, and how the ownership is structured.

if joe's business is a small business (generally under 100 employees/less than $6m in revenue) neither candidate's tax proposals will increase the tax liability.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Just wondering - does anyone around here make over $250K?

(because I see a lot of talk about an income bracket that only 1% of this country belongs to...)

The answer to that question is yes.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

I believe it is >250k up will see tax increase so <250k will NOT see an increase while <200k will see a decrease. 200-250k is basically flat. That's the distinction I had of cutoffs in his tax plan.

That's what I understand to be the case, too, except that it should be, "<200k will see a decrease and/or pay negative taxes (that is, get money from the government)."

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

That's what I understand to be the case, too, except that it should be, "<200k will see a decrease and/or pay negative taxes (that is, get money from the government)."

could you support your assertion that people earning under $200k will get more money returned than they pay in taxes?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you may be right, but my guess is the ability of senior execs to get increases in salaries is tied to the cos profitability.

not to pick with your example, but the exec at $300k will see their tax bill go up about $5-6k.

Which sucks hard if that's 1 months mortgage, or half or all of childcare for the year.

if joe's business is a small business (generally under 100 employees/less than $6m in revenue) neither candidate's tax proposals will increase the tax liability.

I don't know the truth of the matter, but the real joe said that if he bought the plumbing company, he'd be taxed more under Obama, and he took it to be some kind of disincentive to ownership.
The question about car-makers (in joe's case plumb-makers) is whether making it harder for the maker will make it harder for people to pay for the makers goods and services.
- I assume this is what people refer to as 'trickle down' economics or whatever, I just don't know arguments for and against.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Which sucks hard if that's 1 months mortgage, or half or all of childcare for the year.

or about one weeks salary.

of course, the family who only makes $75k will get about two weeks wages returned to them thru less taxes they have to pay, it "sucks hard" that they have had to pay so much more as a % of their earnings than the guy pulling down $300k does.

I don't know the truth of the matter, but the real joe said that if he bought the plumbing company, he'd be taxed more under Obama, and he took it to be some kind of disincentive to ownership.
The question about car-makers (in joe's case plumb-makers) is whether making it harder for the maker will make it harder for people to pay for the makers goods and services.
- I assume this is what people refer to as 'trickle down' economics or whatever, I just don't know arguments for and against.

all I can say is there is a reason he is "joe the plumber" rather than "joe the accountant".....he's wrong, unless his business pays him over $250k/year.

"trickle down" is the idea that the well off will lift up the less well off due to the investments the well off would make (creating job opportunities) with all their free income if the government reduced their tax levels. it is a phrase made by those who do not agree with the concept and want a more progressive (ie higher taxes on the more wealthy, less taxes on the less wealthy) tax structure.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

or about one weeks salary.

of course, the family who only makes $75k will get about two weeks wages returned to them thru less taxes they have to pay, it "sucks hard" that they have had to pay so much more as a % of their earnings than the guy pulling down $300k does.

In that sense, it sucks hard that any of us are already paying some % higher than we would be paying if our taxes were reduced by that %.

Still, a week's salary is a week's salary in anyone's budget. Should we take another week from your salary and give it to someone for whom it would be 2 weeks salary?

all I can say is there is a reason he is "joe the plumber" rather than "joe the accountant".....he's wrong, unless his business pays him over $250k/year.[/QUOTE]
I think that was the idea - if he bought his own business, he'd be making more than 250000 (or would potentially, I guess, depending on what the business made).


is "trickle down" applied only to gradients of wealth? Or is it applied in the sense of making it easier on producers in general?

[mary]

Current CBO estimates of the effectiveness of the Laffer curve

In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates" that casts doubt on the idea that tax cuts ultimately improve the government's fiscal situation. Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, i.e., it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. The paper's author forecasts the effects using various assumptions (e.g., people's foresight, the mobility of capital, and the ways in which the federal government might make up for a lower percentage revenue). Even in the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lower tax revenue would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by his analysis.[8]
Critics at the libertarian Cato Institute have charged that to support these calculations, the paper assumes that the 10% reduction in individual tax rates would only result in a 1% increase in gross national product, a figure they consider too low for current marginal tax rates in the United States.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_...e_Laffer_curve

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

In that sense, it sucks hard that any of us are already paying some % higher than we would be paying if our taxes were reduced by that %.

Still, a week's salary is a week's salary in anyone's budget. Should we take another week from your salary and give it to someone for whom it would be 2 weeks salary?

sure, it would be wonderful if all of us would not pay as much taxes as we do.

but the fact of the matter is tax must be paid, and some are able to pay more than others.

I think that was the idea - if he bought his own business, he'd be making more than 250000 (or would potentially, I guess, depending on what the business made).

is "trickle down" applied only to gradients of wealth? Or is it applied in the sense of making it easier on producers in general?

that plumbing business would need to do a large sales volume to get that level of income. it probably wouldn't be a small business.

if I recall correctly, joe admitted he wouldn't make $250k if he owned that business.

wiki article on trickle down economics

[chumdawg]

If the business could reliably earn 250K a year...Joe's biggest problem is going to be finding the money to buy it with, not the marginal tax rate. Whoever owns it won't be letting it go easy.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

could you support your assertion that people earning under $200k will get more money returned than they pay in taxes?

I didn't say that. I said "and/or".

[kg_veteran]

I remain fully convinced that if Bush had been able to control the growth of government and government spending, everyone would be singing the praises of his tax cuts.

Tax cuts + reduced spending = sound fiscal policy
Tax cuts + increased spending = a recipe for a big mess

[wmbwinn]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081030/cm_csm/yboudreaux

Is Barack Obama really a socialist?

Fairfax, Va
Since telling Joe the Plumber of his wish to "spread the wealth around," Barack Obama is being called a socialist. Is he one?

No. At least not in the classic sense of the term. "Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks.

A principal promise of socialism was to replace the alleged uncertainty of markets with the comforting certainty of a central economic plan. No more guessing what consumers will buy next year and how suppliers and rival firms will behave: everyone will be led by government's visible hand to play his and her role in an all-encompassing central plan. The "wastes" of competition, cycles of booms and busts, and the "unfairness" of unequal incomes would be tossed into history's dustbin.

Of course, socialism utterly failed. But it wasn't just a failure of organization or efficiency. By making the state the arbiter of economic value and social justice, as well as the source of rights, it deprived individuals of their liberty – and tragically, often their lives.

The late Robert Heilbroner – a socialist for most of his life – admitted after the collapse of the Iron Curtain that socialism "was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty."

This failure was unavoidable. It was predicted from the start by wise economists, such as F.A. Hayek, who understood that no government agency can gather and process all the knowledge necessary to plan the productive allocation of millions of different resources.

Likewise, socialism's requirement that each person behave in ways prescribed by government planners is a recipe for tyranny. A central plan, by its nature, denies to individuals the right to choose and to innovate. It replaces a multitude of individual plans – each of which can be relatively easily adjusted in light of competitive market feedback – with one gigantic, monopolistic, and politically favored plan.

A happy difference separating today from the 1930s is that, unlike back then, no serious thinkers or groups in America now push for this kind of full-throttle socialism.

But what about a milder form of socialism? If reckoned as an attitude rather than a set of guidelines for running an economy, socialism might well describe Senator Obama's economics. Anyone who speaks glibly of "spreading the wealth around" sees wealth not as resulting chiefly from individual effort, initiative, and risk-taking, but from great social forces beyond any private producer's control. If, say, the low cost of Dell computers comes mostly from government policies (such as government schooling for an educated workforce) and from culture (such as Americans' work ethic) then Michael Dell's wealth is due less to his own efforts and more to the features of the society that he luckily inhabits.

Wealth, in this view, is produced principally by society. So society's claim on it is at least as strong as that of any of the individuals in whose bank accounts it appears. More important, because wealth is produced mostly by society (rather than by individuals), taxing high-income earners more heavily will do little to reduce total wealth production.

This notion of wealth certainly warrants the name "socialism," for it gives the abstraction "society" pride of place over flesh-and-blood individuals. If taxes are reduced on Joe the Plumber's income, the rationale must be that Joe deserves a larger share of society's collectively baked pie and not that Joe earned his income or that lower taxes will inspire Joe to work harder.

This "socialism-lite," however, is as specious as is classic socialism. And its insidious nature makes it even more dangerous. Across Europe, this "mild" form of socialism acts as a parasitic ideology that has slowly drained entrepreneurial energy – and freedoms – from its free-market host.

Could it happen in America? Consider the words of longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." In addition to Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare – which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal – shows the prescience of Thomas's words.

The fact that each of us depends upon the efforts of millions of others does not mean that some "society" transcending individuals produces our prosperity. Rather, it means that the vast system of voluntary market exchange coordinates remarkably well the efforts of millions of individuals into a productive whole. For Obama to suggest that government interfere in this process more than it already does – to "spread" wealth from Joe to Bill, or vice versa – overlooks not only the voluntary and individual origins of wealth, but the dampening of the incentives for people to contribute energetically to wealth's continued production.

• Donald J. Boudreaux is professor of economics at George Mason University. He is the author of "Globalization."

[wmbwinn]

Per Wikipedia, a small business is defined as having under 100 employees. This is why it is common for many to say that small business is the most significant source of employment in the country...

++++++++++
A small business is a business that is independently owned and operated, with a small number of employees and relatively low volume of sales. The legal definition of "small" often varies by country and industry, but is generally under 100 employees in the United States and under 50 employees in the European Union. In comparison, the definition of mid-sized business by the number of employees is generally under 500 in the U.S. and 250 for the European Union. Small businesses are normally privately owned corporations, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. In Australia, small business is defined as 1-19 employees and medium businesses have 20-200 employees.

In addition to number of employees, other methods used to classify small companies include annual sales (turnover), value of assets and net profit (balance sheet), alone or in a mixed definition. These criteria are followed by the European Union, for instance (headcount, turnover and balance sheet totals). Small businesses are usually not dominant in their field of operation.

Small businesses are common in many countries, depending on the economic system in operation. Typical examples include: convenience stores, other small shops (such as a bakery or delicatessen), hairdressers, tradesmen, lawyers, accountants, restaurants, guest houses, photographers, small-scale manufacturing etc.

The smallest businesses, often located in private homes, are called microbusinesses (term used by international organizations such as the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation) or SoHos. The term "mom and pop business" is a common colloquial expression for a single-family operated business with few (or no) employees other than the owners. When judged by the number of employees, the American and the European definitions are the same: under 10 employees.

+++++++++++++++++

If you want a much more technical list of exact information, here it is:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.1.15.1.264.9

Some of the industries make 750K up to 17.5 million and employ up to 500 people and are legally considered small businesses and affected by small business laws in the USA.

[wmbwinn]

does anyone really have any clue what Obama's tax strategy is?

The complicating issues to my mind are the following:
1)whenever the Obama campaign discusses tax structures and tax cuts for all under the 250K window, they don't discuss: A)the fact that he intends to cancel the Bush tax cuts
B)the issue of increasing capital gains taxes C) the issue of increasing death/inheritance taxes D)other taxes that are not precisely the income tax

2)No one from the Obama campaign talks about the social security tax that will changed so that those making 250K or more start once again paying social security tax (remember with this one that a person with his own business has to pay the same FICA tax that the employee pays, ie the employee pays just under 7% and the employer pays the same just under 7% as another payroll tax)

My main question is what happens when:
1)Bush tax cuts are repealed.
2)Obama "tax cuts" are in place

Another question:
About 40% of Americans pay absolutely no income tax. So, how are 95% of the people going to get a tax break???? If only 60% pay in the first place, how do 95% get a tax break? The only way I can make any sense out of that is that Obama intends to turn the IRS into a welfare agency to give money to people (credits) who didn't pay taxes (which is frequently what the child credit is).

[92bDad]

I believe I finally get why I don't care for Obama.

He has been thrust onto us with no history, no substance...the Media has simply touted him as this next "Great" thing, yet none of us, truly know anything about the guy.

Sure he talks a good talk and says the things that some people want to hear...but none of us know his character, his heart the real him.

So when we hear this talk we are looking at the cover of a book and I believe we are not suppose to judge a book by its cover. When we open the book, for some of us, we see nothing there...just empty pages, empty promises.

It's like the sports media having a lovefest with certain players...I would list examples but I'm concerned that this debate would lose focus, as my interpretation of overrated may not fit y'alls. Suffice it to say, that we see very little to any criticism of Obama, outside of McCain supporters.

Are we ready to trust a rookie with the nation...it's like handing the keys to the Cowboys over to Quincy Carter as a rookie...it's like finding fools gold, it will come back to bite us in then end.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Sure he talks a good talk and says the things that some people want to hear...but none of us know his character, his heart the real him.

I think you do know his character. He tells it to you by the company he keeps, by the mentors he's had and by the campaign's he's run.

[Flacolaco]

So he's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then lower them again?

So when he says* my taxes are going to go down, does he mean they'll go lower than their current levels? Or that after the Bush tax cuts expire he'll lower them again some amount, whatever he feels like I shouldn't have at the time?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

I believe I finally get why I don't care for Obama.

He has been thrust onto us with no history, no substance...the Media has simply touted him as this next "Great" thing, yet none of us, truly know anything about the guy.

Sure he talks a good talk and says the things that some people want to hear...but none of us know his character, his heart the real him.

So when we hear this talk we are looking at the cover of a book and I believe we are not suppose to judge a book by its cover. When we open the book, for some of us, we see nothing there...just empty pages, empty promises.

It's like the sports media having a lovefest with certain players...I would list examples but I'm concerned that this debate would lose focus, as my interpretation of overrated may not fit y'alls. Suffice it to say, that we see very little to any criticism of Obama, outside of McCain supporters.

Are we ready to trust a rookie with the nation...it's like handing the keys to the Cowboys over to Quincy Carter as a rookie...it's like finding fools gold, it will come back to bite us in then end.

frankly, if you truly think that people "truly know anything about the guy" after all the time spent by obama in the public eye, after all the policy statements and policy proposals, after all the interviews and speeches, well, you just don't want to know.

there is so much to see one has to be blind to not "know".

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think you do know his character. He tells it to you by the company he keeps, by the mentors he's had and by the campaign's he's run.

anybody who had been a student of politics, no matter which side of the ideological divide you sit, must give obama credit for a very, very well run campaign.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

So he's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then lower them again?

no, they will not expire until 2010, the proposal is to make a permanent change to the existing cuts with increased relief for the middle and lower groups and no cuts (a return to the previous rates) for the higher income groups.

So when he says* my taxes are going to go down, does he mean they'll go lower than their current levels? Or that after the Bush tax cuts expire he'll lower them again some amount, whatever he feels like I shouldn't have at the time?

the answer depends on what income group. for the middle and lower, increased cuts, for the upper middle (around $150-$250k) pretty much the same cuts as currently applied.

btw the president doesn't establish the rates, they just recommend the structure and congress enacts whatever rates they see fit to apply. just because obama or mccain for that matter makes a proposal it isn't their decision.

[Flacolaco]

btw the president doesn't establish the rates, they just recommend the structure and congress enacts whatever rates they see fit to apply. just because obama or mccain for that matter makes a proposal it isn't their decision.

You mean the president doesn't act in a vacuum?????

After 8 years of (not from you) Bush this and Bush that I'd thought people have completely forgotten that point.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I remain fully convinced that if Bush had been able to control the growth of government and government spending, everyone would be singing the praises of his tax cuts.

Tax cuts + reduced spending = sound fiscal policy
Tax cuts + increased spending = a recipe for a big mess

Completely agree.

Now, do you think McCain will offer that? Read his program he wants to help people stay in their home, he wants the 700 billion bailout, I could go on and on. But even though I gave my answer already, this is not a rhetoric question.

[DirkFTW]

Bill Richardson says the threshold number for middle class tax cuts is now $120,000.

How many households are above that mark? I know my parents were and they aren't exactly rolling in it after they put my brother and I through college and my dad's 401(k) got wiped out.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Bill Richardson says the threshold number for middle class tax cuts is now $120,000.

How many households are above that mark? I know my parents were and they aren't exactly rolling in it after they put my brother and I through college and my dad's 401(k) got wiped out.

Here is an ad that discusses the changing threshold lately...


http://election.newsmax.com/rnc_slip...mo_code=6F75-1

I had assumed when I heard Obama and Biden changing their numbers in the middle of debates and in other settings that they were just slipping and a making a verbal gaffe. Maybe, they were re-thinking the threshold to raise taxes...

Maybe they are re-thinking which parts of the Bush taxes to keep and which parts to eliminate?

who knows. As Mavdog said, the Congress makes this decision anyway. Of course, weeks ago when I last posted, Mavdog was quite sure that the executive branch was all powerful in setting economic policy and that everything was GW Bush's fault. Nice to have it both ways.

[wmbwinn]

If Barack Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one I've ever seen.

Under his tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks.

If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it?

A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

The Obama tax plan is pure Robin Hood class warfare: Use the tax power of the state to rob the successful and reward the faithful. Only in Sherwood Forest it was assumed the Sheriff of Nottingham and his crowd had garnered their wealth by other than honest labor.

"Spread the wealth," Barack admonished Joe the Plumber.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," said old Karl in 1875. When Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, Fla., put the Marx quote to Biden, however, Joe recoiled in spluttering disbelief.

West: "You may recognize this famous quote: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' That's from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Biden: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

Biden's better defense, however, might have be the "Tu quoque!" retort: "You, too!" -- the time-honored counter-charge of hypocrisy.

Indeed, how do Republicans who call Obama a socialist explain their support for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit? What are these if not government-mandated transfers of wealth to the middle and working class, and the indigent and working poor?

Since August, the Bush-Paulson team has seized our biggest S&L, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG. It has nationalized Fannie and Freddie, pumped scores of billions into our banks, bailed out GM, Ford and Chrysler, and paid the $29 billion dowry for Bear Stearns to enter its shotgun marriage with JPMorgan Chase.

And with federal, state and local taxes taking a third of gross domestic product, and government regulating businesses with wage-and-hour laws, civil rights laws, environmental laws, and occupational health and safety laws, what are we living under, if not a mixed socialist-capitalist system?

Norman Thomas is said to have quit running for president on the Socialist ticket after six campaigns because the Democratic Party had stolen all his ideas and written them into its platforms.

Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared. Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

Is the old republic then dead and gone, in the irretrievable past? Are we engaged in an argument settled before we were born?

In his 1938 essay "The Revolution Was," Garet Garrett wrote:

"There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of the Depression, singing songs to freedom."

Nevertheless, there is a difference not just of degree but of kind between unemployment compensation for jobless workers, welfare for destitute families, and confiscating the income of taxpayers who earned it -- to hand out to chronic tax consumers who did not.

This last is the socialism Winston Churchill called "the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed." And it is this suggestion of socialist ideology in Obama's words that has produced the belated pause by a nation that seemed to be moving into his camp. What did Barack say in 2001?

He spoke of the inadequacy of the courts as institutions to bring about "redistributive change" in society, of the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement in losing sight of the "political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Normal people don't talk like that. Socialists do.

This is ideology speaking. This is the redistributionist drivel one hears from cosseted college radicals and the "Marxist professors" Obama says in his memoir he sought out at the university. It is the language of social parasites like William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Father Pfleger.

Enforced egalitarianism entails the death of excellence. For it seizes the rewards that excellence earns and turns them over to politicians and bureaucrats for distribution to the mediocrities upon whose votes they depend. One need not be Ayn Rand to see that Barack has picked up from past associates utopian notions that have ever produced nightmare states.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29302

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

I said a long time ago that Obama was a socialist and many of you argued with me although you eventually dropped the arguement. I have now dropped two articles in here of others who agree with me.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

who knows. As Mavdog said, the Congress makes this decision anyway. Of course, weeks ago when I last posted, Mavdog was quite sure that the executive branch was all powerful in setting economic policy and that everything was GW Bush's fault. Nice to have it both ways.

'm sure you understand the difference between "economic policy" and tax rates, but anyhoo, just what posts from "weeks ago" are you alluding to?

and btw bill richardson, while campaigning for obama/biden, is not setting any policy for that ticket. also his comments didn't say that the tax cuts were not going to extend above $120k either.

[Mavdog]

the sign of a dying campaign is when the charges osf"socialist" and quotes of marx start ringing out. yes, desperation is not a very pretty thing to watch.

first comes the class warfare by the mentioning of the ficticous "40% not paying any income tax". that figure would include all filers making up to around $40,000 in yearly income. do these filers all not pay any income taxes? hardly.

of course, there is no mention of the billions paid by these filers in employment taxes in addition to the income taxes.

the accusation of obama's tax proposal being a 'redistribution of wealth" is laughable. the proposal calls for about a 10% increase in the tax levy for those making more than $250K. ten percent!

now we read comments of how the nation's civil rights laws, our laws protecting abuse and soiling of our environment, even workplace regulations such as those protecting children are "socialist" and right out of karl marx writings.

yes, if you have a big bag of nothing you start with the scare tactics to deflect.

rather than a meaningful comparison of the candidates proposals, attempts to elicit emotion are sprung with catch phrases such as 'socialist" and "class warfare".

nevermind obama's healthcare platform that calls for private insurance groups providing coverage. don't examine the tax relief offered to businesses for hiring more american workers, or to provide tax credits for investing in new technologies. ignore the tax benefits obama proposes to the auto industry if they develop fuel efficient vehicles that are made in america. yeah, it's "socialism" taxation by god!

just the cries from the right who are void of any factual way to respond to the obama campaign's acceptance by the electorate.

sad really that the right has come to this point.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the sign of a dying campaign is when the charges osf"socialist" and quotes of marx start ringing out. yes, desperation is not a very pretty thing to watch.

first comes the class warfare by the mentioning of the ficticous "40% not paying any income tax". that figure would include all filers making up to around $40,000 in yearly income. do these filers all not pay any income taxes? hardly.

of course, there is no mention of the billions paid by these filers in employment taxes in addition to the income taxes.

the accusation of obama's tax proposal being a 'redistribution of wealth" is laughable. the proposal calls for about a 10% increase in the tax levy for those making more than $250K. ten percent!

now we read comments of how the nation's civil rights laws, our laws protecting abuse and soiling of our environment, even workplace regulations such as those protecting children are "socialist" and right out of karl marx writings.

yes, if you have a big bag of nothing you start with the scare tactics to deflect.

rather than a meaningful comparison of the candidates proposals, attempts to elicit emotion are sprung with catch phrases such as 'socialist" and "class warfare".

nevermind obama's healthcare platform that calls for private insurance groups providing coverage. don't examine the tax relief offered to businesses for hiring more american workers, or to provide tax credits for investing in new technologies. ignore the tax benefits obama proposes to the auto industry if they develop fuel efficient vehicles that are made in america. yeah, it's "socialism" taxation by god!

just the cries from the right who are void of any factual way to respond to the obama campaign's acceptance by the electorate.

sad really that the right has come to this point.

it is dishonest to pretend that we have not been debating everything above in great detail for a year at least. Now, if I remember right, you were missing in action for some of that time frame. To pretend that the GOP is putting up 'crap' without substance and using 'fear' as a last ditch effort is funny.

A long time ago, I posted a warning of the pending economic collapse. I spelled out what was about to happen and many said that I was over reacting.

A long time ago, I pointed out the issues of Obama's gameplan that were socialistic.
A long time ago, I pointed out the class warfare issue and the similarities to Marxist theory. I have been debating all of these things for a long time. So have other Republicans.

These are not last ditch efforts of desperation. The cry is louder due to the time frame. The content has not changed.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

'm sure you understand the difference between "economic policy" and tax rates, but anyhoo, just what posts from "weeks ago" are you alluding to?

and btw bill richardson, while campaigning for obama/biden, is not setting any policy for that ticket. also his comments didn't say that the tax cuts were not going to extend above $120k either.

Go to this thread:

http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showth...ecutive+branch

posts 12 and on to the end detail a conversation between Dalmations, you, and I about the role of the executive branch and what the executive branch really does and does not do. If I understood your statements the way you intended me to understand them, you determined that the President controls the various executive branch departments such as the IRS by appointing the leadership. Beyond that, you were unable to point out any evidence that Presidents ever really do a darn thing with those semiautonomous departments that were created and funded by Congress.

So, I'd start there to address your recent statement that taxation is a Congressional power. I agree with your more recent statements that taxation policy is a power of Congress and all the Prez can do is propose and complain/celebrate.

But, Presidents don't dictate policy at the Federal Reserve or any other semiautonomous dept that may fall under the Executive Branch.

With the recent issues of the bailout, Congress is squarely in charge. Bush is not directing the bailout money. he just begged for it and got it although he got it in a form determined by Congress.

Anyway, the above thread linked is an example of our prior conversations about the role of a President.

I'll look for some more examples. You and I and others have had many discussions related to similar issues in the past.

[Mavdog]

that response could be summed up in these few words: "because I told you so"

pretty void of substance to say the least.....just like the proposals of the right in this election.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Go to this thread:

http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showth...ecutive+branch

posts 12 and on to the end detail a conversation between Dalmations, you, and I about the role of the executive branch and what the executive branch really does and does not do. If I understood your statements the way you intended me to understand them, you determined that the President controls the various executive branch departments such as the IRS by appointing the leadership. Beyond that, you were unable to point out any evidence that Presidents ever really do a darn thing with those semiautonomous departments that were created and funded by Congress.

did you miss the disucssion about environmental laws and civil right laws?

So, I'd start there to address your recent statement that taxation is a Congressional power. I agree with your more recent statements that taxation policy is a power of Congress and all the Prez can do is propose and complain/celebrate.

But, Presidents don't dictate policy at the Federal Reserve or any other semiautonomous dept that may fall under the Executive Branch.

With the recent issues of the bailout, Congress is squarely in charge. Bush is not directing the bailout money. he just begged for it and got it although he got it in a form determined by Congress.

Anyway, the above thread linked is an example of our prior conversations about the role of a President.

I'll look for some more examples. You and I and others have had many discussions related to similar issues in the past.

the rescue package is being administered by the department of the treasury......that is not run by congress but through the executive branch.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

that response could be summed up in these few words: "because I told you so"

pretty void of substance to say the least.....just like the proposals of the right in this election.

Presidential proposals for economic change are a lot of hot air. Congress is in charge and has always been.

But, put Obama in the White House and load up Congress with a heavy Dem majority in both houses, and the Dems will make the same mistake the Republicans made when they had power in both branches.

The Dems will over reach, over extend, and force their views. They will fail like the Republicans failed.

The nation works better in the middle.

Unfortunately, the middle has slowly moved further and further left. The nation has moved closer and closer to socialism and even GW Bush is at fault in that shift.

So,
1) Who cares what McCain and Obama say about economic affairs? They don't control anything.
2)Who wants one party in charge of everything?

And,
1)The issues that the President does control to a great degree (military, national security, foreign policy, foreign affairs, etc.) are McCain's strong point.

[wmbwinn]

"the rescue package is being administered by the department of the treasury......that is not run by congress but through the executive branch" -Mavdog

The president is not controlling that. The president doesn't do a darn thing with the IRS or the Federal Reserve either.

The closest that a president gets is to 'control' is appointing people to these semiautonomous departments.

Do you not recall the bitter debates in Congress about how to use the money? It is Congress that is involved with the matter of appropriating the monies and dictating how they are to be used.

Granted, the Treasury Dept. is another semiautonomous department and works on its own to a large degree. But, the Congress has worked with that process. The President has not.

heck, GW Bush couldn't figure any of that out anyway. I don't think Obama could either.

[Mavdog]

yes, congress is in control unless the president decides to exercise his right to veto and use the "bully pulpit" by submitting budgets that are balanced.

the current president failed on both counts.