Did Barack "Spread the Wealth" Obama Just Blow the Election?

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Another lame post by projo...

Anyhow, "redistribution of wealth" is not exactly whats going on here... We are talking about lowering taxes slightly on those that make less than 250k per year and raising tax slightly on those that make more than 250k, back to the levels they were at during the Clinton years. Its hardly a major move, much less a game changer.

Obama makes those gains in the working poor by offering refundable work credits. That means if somebody pays 0 dollars in federal income taxes this year. Under an Obama plan he gets 500. It is redistribution of wealth by taxing the rich to pay the working poor.

Unless Obama has another plan I havent read from his website. All he plans to do is leave the current tax break in place for couples making under 250K while raising the rates on those above 250K to pre-bush tax cuts. Then add in his refundable make work credits for those under 250K. Those credits are paid for by the revenue generated from the tax increase on the top 5%.

I wasnt aware of the details thanks... I like that plan, all the more reason to vote for Obama! =)

On the surface I agree. It does look like a decent way to move the progressiveness of our tax system. My main worries are do we want to hook the middle class onto a govt handout? And what happens when the rich start exclusively paying for govt and give the rest of us small handouts to keep us at bay. Did we just create a small elite with a huge underclass?

Only time will tell. 500 bucks here and there isnt anything. But I have a feeling this is only the beginning as we near a point in our income tax system where a tax cut applies to ~50% of working people. Cant give a cut to people who dont pay.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: darincm

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: darincm

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Helping your brother = gov't taking from some and giving to others?

Unless you have a better way to do it...i'm all ears

Uhhh... redistribution is not "helping your brother". It's the gov't taking from some and giving to others.

its the same thing if the system is designed to help all.....wow

But the system is not supposed to be the Federal gov't doing that. Where is the gov't charged with redistributing wealth? It's no where to be found except in the heads of the class warfare "robin hood" people.

Try looking up the phrase "to promote the general welfare"

Try looking up the historical definition of "general welfare" as it existed when the Constitution was written.

Let me give you a hint. "Welfare" as we know it did not exist until the 1800s.
In the late 1700s welfare would have fit this definition: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.

If you want I can provide several quotes by our founding fathers that show them being against the idea of taking from one and giving to another.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: sandorski
Go ahead. That's exactly what needs to be done to bolster the Middle Class.

We need socialism? Move to Venezuela. I'll buy the ticket.

Progressive taxation is not socialism.

And of course all patriotic Americans are anti-socialism, which is why we hear so many conservatives endlessly complaining that our government is forcing a partial ownership position on the banks. Or why conservatives are now complaining so loudly about that new levels of regulation that will be imposed on the financial sector.

We've seen the irrefutable proof that an atmosphere of deregulation leads to financial heaven for all. How dare those dirty lefties try to turn us all into commies.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
On the surface I agree. It does look like a decent way to move the progressiveness of our tax system. My main worries are do we want to hook the middle class onto a govt handout? And what happens when the rich start exclusively paying for govt and give the rest of us small handouts to keep us at bay. Did we just create a small elite with a huge underclass?

Only time will tell. 500 bucks here and there isnt anything. But I have a feeling this is only the beginning as we near a point in our income tax system where a tax cut applies to ~50% of working people. Cant give a cut to people who dont pay.

Yes you can.

It is called a tax credit where the government sends you a check.
A better term is tax welfare.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: darincm

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: darincm

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Helping your brother = gov't taking from some and giving to others?

Unless you have a better way to do it...i'm all ears

Uhhh... redistribution is not "helping your brother". It's the gov't taking from some and giving to others.

its the same thing if the system is designed to help all.....wow

But the system is not supposed to be the Federal gov't doing that. Where is the gov't charged with redistributing wealth? It's no where to be found except in the heads of the class warfare "robin hood" people.

Try looking up the phrase "to promote the general welfare"

Try looking up the historical definition of "general welfare" as it existed when the Constitution was written.

Let me give you a hint. "Welfare" as we know it did not exist until the 1800s.
In the late 1700s welfare would have fit this definition: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.
If you want I can provide several quotes by our founding fathers that show them being against the idea of taking from one and giving to another.

Yeap. You realize you just shot down your own argument, right?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Another lame post by projo...

Anyhow, "redistribution of wealth" is not exactly whats going on here... We are talking about lowering taxes slightly on those that make less than 250k per year and raising tax slightly on those that make more than 250k, back to the levels they were at during the Clinton years. Its hardly a major move, much less a game changer.

Obama makes those gains in the working poor by offering refundable work credits. That means if somebody pays 0 dollars in federal income taxes this year. Under an Obama plan he gets 500. It is redistribution of wealth by taxing the rich to pay the working poor.

Unless Obama has another plan I havent read from his website. All he plans to do is leave the current tax break in place for couples making under 250K while raising the rates on those above 250K to pre-bush tax cuts. Then add in his refundable make work credits for those under 250K. Those credits are paid for by the revenue generated from the tax increase on the top 5%.

I wasnt aware of the details thanks... I like that plan, all the more reason to vote for Obama! =)

On the surface I agree. It does look like a decent way to move the progressiveness of our tax system. My main worries are do we want to hook the middle class onto a govt handout? And what happens when the rich start exclusively paying for govt and give the rest of us small handouts to keep us at bay. Did we just create a small elite with a huge underclass?

Only time will tell. 500 bucks here and there isnt anything. But I have a feeling this is only the beginning as we near a point in our income tax system where a tax cut applies to ~50% of working people. Cant give a cut to people who dont pay.

I dont think you are hooking anyone on a government handout. I think the numbers that people are looking at when it comes to these tax cuts aren't anything other than figures that allow people to take vacations that they have been putting on hold, spend more money during Christmas time, and spend more money on fixits and other odds and ends that get put aside as peoples wallets grow thinner and thinner. We arent talking about handouts that will compete with peoples wages ala welfare and food stamps, or handouts that are attractive enough to lure people off the workforce, that is stupid.

We arent talking about those kind of handouts. What we are really talking about here is spreading around the BUYING POWER that has been slowly eroding because of higher costs of goods, higher costs of living, higher insurance costs etc.

As for "Cant give a cut to people who dont pay" that is bullshit. There are people that don't pay that should be paying all over the income spectrum. On the flip side there are people that pay that would be better off not paying because their income margins are so slim. When it comes to giving people cuts that don't deserve, it, my response is "who the fvck cares?" If money is being put into the hands of people that spend it in this economy, then we all benefit. We exist soley on an economy that spends. Thats why I believe in "trickle up" not "trickle down." I haven't seen trickle down work for sh!t both times we tried it.

 

[ProfJohn]

No, there is a HUGE jump from well-being and prosperity to taking from one and giving to another.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
James Madison

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them."
James Madison

Get the point yet? For our first 150 years our government did not take money from one group of people and give it to another. In the 1920s Federal spending amounted to 3% of GDP today that number is north of 20%. The majority of that is in the form of 'welfare' of one type or another.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Genx87
On the surface I agree. It does look like a decent way to move the progressiveness of our tax system. My main worries are do we want to hook the middle class onto a govt handout? And what happens when the rich start exclusively paying for govt and give the rest of us small handouts to keep us at bay. Did we just create a small elite with a huge underclass?

Only time will tell. 500 bucks here and there isnt anything. But I have a feeling this is only the beginning as we near a point in our income tax system where a tax cut applies to ~50% of working people. Cant give a cut to people who dont pay.

Yes you can.

It is called a tax credit where the government sends you a check.
A better term is tax welfare.

You mean like they did in Alaska??
Winfall profits tax

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I just want the opportunity to purchase affordable health insurance that doesn't exempt me from my pre-existing conditions.. no insurance in my state will cover my family... if this is socialism, so be it. Is that so much to ask?

Move to Venezuela you damned socialist!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
]Yes, hopefully someday you people will learn that it's NOT the job of the gov't to redistribute wealth. There is no Constitutional call for such a thing, nor does having more redistribution make this country "free".

But what if some of that wealth rightfully belongs to the lower classes but it only ended up in the hands of the upper classes as a result of a large oversupply of labor--perhaps as a result of global labor arbitrage? Might it not be appropriate for the government to fix that?

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No, there is a HUGE jump from well-being and prosperity to taking from one and giving to another.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
James Madison

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them."
James Madison

Get the point yet? For our first 150 years our government did not take money from one group of people and give it to another. In the 1920s Federal spending amounted to 3% of GDP today that number is north of 20%. The majority of that is in the form of 'welfare' of one type or another.

You know, besides just pulling out some quotes you can read their letters and their writings to get a better understanding of how they felt. Too often quotes are taken out of context. You can see my earlier post to determine how the fathers felt while in context and not in some soundbyte.

The majority of today's spending is not in "welfare." It is in SS, Medicare, GWoT, DoD, and interest on debt. People pay SS and Medicare specifically to collect those benefits later in life. And I'd hardly call it welfare when there is a limit on wages upon which the tax can be levied.

 

[Vic]

Suppose we cut all social and entitlement programs TODAY... no more food stamps, no more welfare, no more medicaid and Social Security. Shaniqua doesn't get her govt check next month, and neither does your grandmother.

What next?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic
Suppose we cut all social and entitlement programs TODAY... no more food stamps, no more welfare, no more medicaid and Social Security. Shaniqua doesn't get her govt check next month, and neither does your grandmother.

What next?

That's probably what Marie Antoinette should have asked, when told the rioting peasants of Paris had no bread, before answering, "Let them eat cake." :Q

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: sandorski
Go ahead. That's exactly what needs to be done to bolster the Middle Class.

We need socialism? Move to Venezuela. I'll buy the ticket.

Progressive taxation is not socialism.

Bullshit. Even a FLAT TAX could even be a vehicle of wealth redistribution. Rich guy pays $200m in tax, poor guy pays $200 in tax. Each person gets the same government benefit (one could argue the poor guy might get more because of his need, but let's just keep it simple). That government benefit totals $2,000. The rich guy has been "overtaxed" based on his usage of government services. The poor guy has been undertaxed. Yes, this is a very callous and heartless example of how any tax structure that does not result in equal taxs bills for everyone is redistributive of wealth, but it is what it is.

Now to the progressive model...

"You are more successful, so we will take MORE of your money (as a percentage of the total) than this guy over here who isnt so successful. In fact... this guy over here may not pay anything. Oh yeah, he gets refundable tax credits that actually net to him getting money from the government without paying taxes. No, you cant have those tax credits because you MAKE TO MUCH."

That is redistribution of wealth, also known as SOCIALISM, through the PROGRESSIVE tax code. You can say it isnt, but it doesnt change the fact that it is.

Wealth redistribution and socialism are NOT the same things. The former is just an inevitability in any economic system (if wealth wasn't constantly on the move, there would be no economy), the latter is an economic system which proposes public ownership of production (which I am very opposed to BTW). Take an econ or polisci class someday, maybe finish your GED finally, and see a doctor about your stress levels.

Oh, we are back to being assholes to each other. Okay. You uneducated, illiterate, arrogant pimple-popper. If you had half a brain, you could interpret what you were able to read in those books into a bigger context. Since it seems your only skill is being a dickwad, dont bother reading any further as you might hurt yourself.

Yes, weatlh resdistribution happens in any economy. Yes, that is how an economy works. When you interject GOVERNMENT into it (or in this case, put the government in charge of it), then it becomes a political system called socialism. Yes, the United States currently operates with socialist tendencies (even before they started buying bank stocks). Government does not hold the reigns to all means of production in ANY society... never has, probably never will. So by your definition, there are NO socialist states... never have been. That is false. Therefore, that cannot be the overriding definition of socialism.

Socialism revolves around the idea that the government is needed to distribute resources "farily" amongst the population. Part of that equation is some level of ownership of the means of production, but the overriding concept is that you are required to provide not only for yourself, but for the rest of society. Thus Joe the Plumber being told that the higher taxes me might be paying were because other people didnt have as much, and the wealth needed to be spread around. Are we fulfledged socialist? No... but we are marching down that road.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Vic
Suppose we cut all social and entitlement programs TODAY... no more food stamps, no more welfare, no more medicaid and Social Security. Shaniqua doesn't get her govt check next month, and neither does your grandmother.

What next?

Taxes drop by 80%, people take charge of their lives, pull themselves up by the boot straps, and start working for themselves? I know... crazy freaking idea... people being responsible for themselves.

No no... that's just crazy talk. Who would want that?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Vic
Suppose we cut all social and entitlement programs TODAY... no more food stamps, no more welfare, no more medicaid and Social Security. Shaniqua doesn't get her govt check next month, and neither does your grandmother.

What next?

Racist.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: darincm

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: darincm

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Helping your brother = gov't taking from some and giving to others?

Unless you have a better way to do it...i'm all ears

Uhhh... redistribution is not "helping your brother". It's the gov't taking from some and giving to others.

its the same thing if the system is designed to help all.....wow

But the system is not supposed to be the Federal gov't doing that. Where is the gov't charged with redistributing wealth? It's no where to be found except in the heads of the class warfare "robin hood" people.

Try looking up the phrase "to promote the general welfare"

The Preamble to the Constitution is little more than a mission statement, with no binding legal authority that I've ever seen. I've yet to read a Supreme Court case which actually cited the Preamble as legal authority, but I'd welcome any citations to that effect.

 

[heyheybooboo]

LOL @ the Righties Socialism smoke screen.

Maybe Wall Street will rebate those $30+ billion in bonuses they get each year to the collective.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No, there is a HUGE jump from well-being and prosperity to taking from one and giving to another.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
James Madison

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them."
James Madison

Get the point yet? For our first 150 years our government did not take money from one group of people and give it to another. In the 1920s Federal spending amounted to 3% of GDP today that number is north of 20%. The majority of that is in the form of 'welfare' of one type or another.

The south and the midwest. Up to 3 dollars of federal aid for every 1 dollar in taxes paid. America could solve a lot of its problems by cutting them from the union. Capitalism will take care of them, food prices will drop to match the lower wages.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Vic
Suppose we cut all social and entitlement programs TODAY... no more food stamps, no more welfare, no more medicaid and Social Security. Shaniqua doesn't get her govt check next month, and neither does your grandmother.

What next?

Taxes drop by 80%, people take charge of their lives, pull themselves up by the boot straps, and start working for themselves? I know... crazy freaking idea... people being responsible for themselves.

No no... that's just crazy talk. Who would want that?

:roll:

yeah, that is what would happen. Enjoy the 10000% increase in crime overnight. See how this works..

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: darincm

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: darincm

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Helping your brother = gov't taking from some and giving to others?

Unless you have a better way to do it...i'm all ears

Uhhh... redistribution is not "helping your brother". It's the gov't taking from some and giving to others.

its the same thing if the system is designed to help all.....wow

But the system is not supposed to be the Federal gov't doing that. Where is the gov't charged with redistributing wealth? It's no where to be found except in the heads of the class warfare "robin hood" people.

Try looking up the phrase "to promote the general welfare"

The Preamble to the Constitution is little more than a mission statement, with no binding legal authority that I've ever seen. I've yet to read a Supreme Court case which actually cited the Preamble as legal authority, but I'd welcome any citations to that effect.

Considering how much of this discussion is based around the 'intent of the founding fathers', certainly their mission statement at the beginning of the document in question is useful as such.

 

[Balt]

It's funny in this country that:

If you are rich and vote for someone like Dubya because he will lower your taxes you are just "looking out for your own interests".

If you are anyone else (not rich) and vote for someone who will lower your taxes you are vilified as a "communist" or "Marxist".


People aren't going to vote for Obama because they want anyone taxed MORE, but they might vote for him because they personally will see lower taxes. Maybe they aren't commies they are just looking out for their own best interests like everyone else.

 

[Fern]

Did Barack "Spread the Wealth" Obama Just Blow the Election?

First, our habit here is debate among ourselves as to whether "spread the wealth" is good or bad (In our oponions).

We're a little to self-obsessed sometimes.

The real question is not how do we feel about it, rather it is how does the greater electoriat feel about this? Is this comment something that wil resonate among them? Will it significantly affect the election?

I've read that "spread the wealth" is suprising unpopular among huge groups of middle and lower class even though they are the ones expected to benefit. It seems many Americans are optimistic and don't wanna raise taxes on the rich because they expect to become one of them.

I think this possibly could give McCain an opening (but as usual the question always remains can he take advantage of it?). I suppose we'll have to wait a little to see if polling shows anything. I don't think any post-debate polls are out yet, much less anything where this might show up.

I still the the Dems and the (perceived Dem-leaning) MSM should lay-off Joe the Plumber. I don't see how attacking some hard working blue collar guy in the Mid-Wast is of any help.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Vic
Suppose we cut all social and entitlement programs TODAY... no more food stamps, no more welfare, no more medicaid and Social Security. Shaniqua doesn't get her govt check next month, and neither does your grandmother.

What next?

Taxes drop by 80%, people take charge of their lives, pull themselves up by the boot straps, and start working for themselves? I know... crazy freaking idea... people being responsible for themselves.

No no... that's just crazy talk. Who would want that?

I'm a free market libertarian, and that really is nothing but crazy talk. What you suggest would be possible (and I strongly support it as an ends) if we phased in such a thing (over the course of decades probably, and with a greater level of economic justice and opportunity than we have now), but I said TODAY as in overnight.
In which case, you're as irrational as any revolutionary communist, just from the opposite (reactionary) perspective.
Hell, we'd probably have martial law within days, collapse of govt and economy not long after. In your idealism, you just don't understand why these things are in place. Welfare, etc. is how the wealthy bribe the poor so that they can stay wealthy, both by pacifying them and by giving them increased means to participate in the consumer economy.

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Vic
Suppose we cut all social and entitlement programs TODAY... no more food stamps, no more welfare, no more medicaid and Social Security. Shaniqua doesn't get her govt check next month, and neither does your grandmother.

What next?

Taxes drop by 80%, people take charge of their lives, pull themselves up by the boot straps, and start working for themselves? I know... crazy freaking idea... people being responsible for themselves.

No no... that's just crazy talk. Who would want that?

hmm, i don't think it works like that. don't get me wrong, i wish it did, but there are lots of social issues that will need to addressed if someone gets their govt check cut off. most importantly, they will need to find some skillz for a job, and the time to learn those skills, which may be hard if they already have kids. I would like to think that most people who are receiving gov't checks (besides the retired) are doing this for themselves though.