Monday, October 20, 2008

Wasn't it "Spreading the Wealth" Eight Years Ago with the Bush Tax Cuts for America's Wealthiest 1%?

In the final 15 days before the November 4th election, we're going to endlessly hear the phrase "Spread the Wealth," which seems to have quickly replaced "Drill Baby Drill" as the latest campaign mantra of Republican nominee Sen. John McCain. And we're going to hear an awful lot about how Sen. Barack Obama, his Democratic opponent, is a socialist, who middle and upper class taxpayers should fear as the tax Bogeyman. But this tactic is not only standard Republican hypocrisy, it's backfiring big-time. A look at all the major polls and the electoral map, where Obama is pulling away with leads in virtually every swing state, is a loud rejection by voters of McCain's various smear campaigns.

As any student of economics will tell you, there's absolutely no logic or truth in McCain/Palin's "spread the wealth" attacks on Obama. I've yet to meet a Republican who can explain how reversing the Bush tax cuts is spreading-the-wealth-socialism, while enacting them in the first place was not. I suppose, according to our friends on the right, that reducing the tax burden on the nation's wealthiest citizens and corporations is to be considered just and patriotic, while undoing them is an act if taxation heresy....worthy of old Karl Marx himself.

Was it not a redistribution of wealth eight years ago when President Bush took billions out of the tax pool and gave it back to America's richest citizens? Was that an act of socialism? Or is it only socialism when the little guy benefits? Republicans can't have the argument both ways. If raising taxes on the rich is considered socialism, then lowering their taxes is also a redistribution of wealth.

The irony of McCain's "spread the wealth" attacks is that he is an ardent supporter of not just the $1-trillion quasi-nationalization of America's banking and financial industries, but also wants to "redistribute" our tax dollars to subsidize homeowners by buying their troubled mortgages and refinancing them back to them at more favorable rates. Wait, doesn't that make McCain a...socialist?

On another subject......TICKETS ARE NOW ON SALE for the November 17 Second Annual Adrienne Shelly Foundation Fundraising Gala at New York University's Skirball Center for the Performing Arts. Join us for a terrific evening of music, comedy and film, with scheduled appearances by Paul Rudd, Jeremy Sisto, Ken Burns, Cheryl Hines, Mary Louise Parker, Kristen Bell, Lili Taylor, Ally Sheedy, Marisa Tomei, Keri Russell, Gina Gershon and others. To learn more about our mission, to make a tax-deductible donation, and to purchase tickets, please visit our website. Every contribution helps preserve Adrienne's legacy, allows us to help others, and creates something positive out of the tragic loss two years ago of an incredibly loving and talented woman.


Athena Smith said...

It is pathetic that politicians aspiring to such a high office do not even google the meaning of the word "socialim" before they open up their mouths.
What kind of idiots do they think they are talking to?

Anonymous said...

The difference with Bush's tax cuts and Obama's wealth redistribution plan is simple:

1. People who earn the money, deserve their money.

2. Half of Obama's 95% that will be getting a 'tax cut' don't pay any taxes. The only way to cut zero is to take from someone else and give it to the zero.

3. Obama will stifle innovation because he is going to take away the incentive to work. Why work more than 40 hours per week when the government can take from someone who does and give you a handout?

Sidney Condorcet said...

Hey 10:42am,

Obama wants to adjust tax rates generally back to where they were set under Bill Clinton. How much innovation was stifled in the 1990's? Oh yeah, entrepreneurs didn't have much of a problem in terms of start-up capital and we sure didn't have a deficiency of creativity and innovation.

Sounds like more Republican scare mongering on your part...

Anonymous said...

Yet another example of McCain's campaign in utter chaos and disarray. Since McCain cannot effectively argue the issues, and since character assassination of his opponent hasn't worked, he's reduced to namecalling. McCain is clearly desperate, hoping that something will work for him! So, in "honor" of the McCain campaign, I offer the following:

With all due apologies to David Letterman, here are the “Top Ten Signs of Desperation in Your Presidential Campaign:”
10. Your chief economic advisor proclaims that Americans are a “nation of whiners” who suffer from “a mental recession.” He is forced to resign shortly thereafter.
9. Your new chief economic advisor, formerly the CEO of a well-known technology company which she almost ruined due to an ill-considered merger, candidly admits to the press that you don’t have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to run a Fortune 500 company. She never appears in public again.
8. You confidently proclaim that the American economy is fundamentally sound, even as the banking industry, the mortgage industry, the stock market, and just about every economic indicator is in the toilet.
7. When asked how many houses you own, you have to defer the answer, saying “I’ll get back to you on that.”
6. In an attempt to appear more “presidential,” you announce that the economy is in a crisis and that you’re suspending your campaign activities to return to Washington to ensure passage of a bipartisan financial rescue package. You invite your opponent to do the same, but he declines. The legislation fails by a wide margin. A subsequent package passes without your grandstanding.
5. When asked by the press what significant legislation you’ve authored, one of your senior advisors pulls his BlackBerry from his pocket and asserts that you’re responsible for this device, obviously unaware that a Canadian company developed and marketed it.
4. You continue to insist that you’re a political “maverick,” despite your voting record which shows you’ve supported the current administration 90% of the time.
3. After having served in Congress for well over twenty years, you claim that you represent clear and unmistakable “change” from current policies, despite your voting record which shows you’ve supported the current administration 90% of the time.
2. You continue to question the character, experience, and judgment of your opponent, conveniently believing that few will remember that your own judgment was found by a congressional inquiry to be poor in supporting a charlatan who almost single-handedly brought down the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
And the number one sign of desperation in your political campaign is—
1. In an ill-considered, ill-advised, and ill-conceived decision, you selected as your running mate an opportunistic, inexperienced mock populist who, by her performance in the few press interviews she has given, is completely and utterly unfit to clean the Office of the Vice-President, much less occupy it.

Anonymous said...

By their tactics, we shall know them. Republicans are just plain disgusting. They use lies, smears and fear to motivate voters instead of tell them what they are for. A couple of posters above are pathetic with their same old same old warn out talking points.

But my fear is that the Republicans will steal the election like in 2000 and 2004.

Do not think it is won. Everyone must vote if we want to win.

Anonymous said...

You should start with yourself if you want to see more of that. You verbally attack the character of anyone that disagrees with you.

Anonymous said...

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

2. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Anonymous said...

The Black Liberation Theology is a form of Marxism.

Collecting money from one person and giving it to another is socialism, or some might say, robbery.

In his speech at the Wellesley graduation Obama said our salvation is not individual but in the collective.

Who knows where his ideology and theology will take us. He will get whatever he wants with a majority of Dems in Congress. Most of them have no idea what he really thinks, or, if they do, they are as scary as he is. Does anyone think Ted Kennedy really probed and tried to understand Obama's background?

Some of his supporters quizzed on TV don't even know who is running as his v.p. His supporters have been mesmerized and charmed into taking everything at face value. Change, charm, charisma.

Anonymous said...

To Anononymous who wrote at 10:01AM, don't you have the guts to at least sign your name to this? Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean that you can spread lies about the candidate. Please look up and research the topics before blasting off about which you don't know. Read and understand before you critize any candidate. Your hatred and biogotry is also showing with your statement.

Athena Smith said...

Anonymous 7
Exactly. "Collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Where exactly did anyone see collective ownership? We had a partial acquisition of banking stock amounting to a lousy 3% of the bank's value for crying out loud. (A fact sheet on the program said banks can qualify for stock purchases up to $25 billion or 3 percent of their assets, ranked on a risk-weighted basis) see this article in Salt Lake Tribune

Unless you think that $700 billion can purchase all banks in the US.

Now, as to the second prerequisite. Collective administration of goods. For those who had travelled to the socialsit countries it simply means that the government owns all assets. Like houses and cars to mention a couple, and distributes them to society's members according (supposedly) to their needs.

I did not expect Sarah Palin to know what socialism is. Actually she was not even referring to the purchase of the 3% stock. She was referring to the higher taxes for those netting over $250,000 that would be like redistributing wealth.

Excuse me again, but what taxes do but redistribute wealth directly or indirectly? They finance highways and public schools, financial assistance to needy students, various stimuli packages to jump start the economy, subsidizing products and services that would be too expensive for the average six-pack Joe, maintain the strongest military force on the planet, pay for Medicaid and Medicare and the health coverage of our congressmen and senators, so greatly used by those who do not want the rest of us to have the same privilege or right if you wish.
NO, Sarah does not have a clue as to what is the purpose of taxes. Does she have to flaunt her ignorance like that? Just to prove that the average six pack Joe could govern a huge nation that has the largest military and nuclear capabilities, a huge economy with thousands of parameters and global interconnections?

Athena Smith said...

The "word verification" of the BLogger has stopped me a few times from posting as it requires that I verify the word over and over (despite the fact that I copy it correctly). At times I gave up.

I really do not see what the purpose is.

Anonymous said...

2008: The year that Americans looking for handouts from the government out number Americans who want to earn their own living.

Welcome to Socialist America ... please check your wallet at the door.

Anonymous said...

7"42 What is your point? You're talking about the situation now -- The point is we fear the future under Obama's socialist presidency. All the socialist/communist dots are being connected. Black/Liberation Theology/Pfegler/Ayers and revolution/ACORN and Obama's plan to raise taxes on some to give checks to others who pay no taxes. And, that's just what he's told us about.

However, all of his connections in the past are socialists, communists, or revolutionaries.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget about the Fairness Doctrine, which will seep into blogs and the internet after talk radio is attacked. Anything that can be interpreted in the slightest way as political speech will be controlled by the Socialist Democrats in the Government.

We might even be taught to refer to Obama as "Dear Leader". Any other reference to Obama will of course be racist.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

Andy Ostroy,

I thought nothing you said would make me drop my jaw in amazement, but this post certainly has. It has been truly said that Liberalism is a mental disorder and brother, you've got it. Only in the most crazed mind under the fullest moon would somebody claim that somebody being allowed to keep more of their own money would be considered wealth redistribution.

Do you even think before your fingers start flapping on the keyboard. What the heck! There is absolutely no other way to interpret your remarks than that you believe when I go out and earn money that the money I earn does not really belong to me. It belongs to the state or society in general. So if I am taxed at 40%, then the 60% I was so graciously allowed to keep is actually the state giving me something.

Every dollar earned by everybody goes into a big pie (as Barack and Michelle Obama like to talk about). If I am then "allowed" to keep 65% instead of 60% of MY OWN MONEY this is wealth redistribution?

Anonymous said...

The trouble with the two party system is that people think it there is any difference between the two parties. They should be abolished. It doesn't really matter anymore which party is in power. The federal government is addicted to growth, and once a government becomes big enough and powerful enough it will begin to abuse its citizens. We are already in this phase, but are unwilling to see it. Without a grass roots awakening and activism America is finished.