Hello everyone.
Sure. It's been a while since my last post, but, fret not, I've been quite busy for our cause. Recently, I've been ingesting and decifering the lastest revised bill to come out of the House. From what I can tell, there's is much to be explained for the layman. In my opinion, that's about 73% of our country's population.
Besides death panels and other outrageous drummed up issues, the opposition, which consists largely of simply uniformed individuals, has no foundation to stand on. Even in the bible, we learn the lesson of the house built on the sand. Because there is no basic principal foundation for the opposition, they will fall in the end.
A strong wind ( liberal uprisig - A.K.A. knowledge ralley) will began to tilt the house that health care reform ignorance was built on. Once this tilting occurs, most of the uninformed will stand with us. i know this because no one wants to be on a losing team. To drive that point home further, would you stand inside a collapsing building?
Therefore, though our work ahead will be strenous, we ought not wait to began bringing down the house that ignorance built. We have a way of bring understaning and confromity to our opponents when we show our teeth and extend our hands ( with the proper test answers scribbled on them). So get out there and turn water into wine. Trust me..., they'll love that.
The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.
Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.
Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when
Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.
Alternative EnergySource: David Apperson
url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger campaigned with Sen. McCain yesterday [October 31, 2008]. Of course they talked about Sen. Obama being a socialist who wants to "redistribute the wealth," as has been done repeatedly recently. The media did not make note of the fact that in early October Schwarzenegger was talking about getting a $7 billion loan from the federal government to cover California's budget shortfall. The shortfall would have left California unable to pay teachers and other state employees. In other words California would have been essentially bankrupt.
California ended up figuring out a way to close their budget shortfall without getting federal help. But Gov. Schwarzenegger didn't hesitate to think about asking for the rest of the country to spread some of their wealth towards California.
Does this make Gov. Schwarzenegger a socialist, and if so how can McCain pal around with a known socialist?
Maybe Schwarzenegger is really a pragmatist (aka liberal) who went out as a Republican for Halloween.
There has been so much too and fro about whether he is or his not. Has no one chosen to listen to the man? Are they all comfortable listening and believing all the divisive slurs on this patriotic man who happens to be Black? I didn’t notice skin color until they all insisted, now they want me to believe their negative things about him. I look and I listen and yes, I do hear his oratory ability although some have criticized that too as his ability to read a prompter. What ever he does, he is criticized by the few that will not listen. None are as blind as those who choose not to see.
This Race
There has been much divisiveness and polarizing ado
He’s been treated unfairly by McCain and Palin too
I listened as they tried to reduce Barack
Slurs of narcissist, terrorist and he’s an elitist Black
Recently he’s a socialist and some even call him
A sexist, misogynist and an unpatriotic Muslim
Call Barack all these divisive terms but they will never derail
Every positive seed he has planted on his Campaign trail
Obama is not taking money from one and giving it to another. This is what McCain wants you to believe.
All Obama is doing is cutting taxes for the majority which just happens to be the middle class. You know... the ones who have been paying an unfair amount of taxes over the past 8 years to support the rich and wealthy Republicans!
You know the same rich and wealthy whom made tons of money off of the middle classes backs via the Wall Street CEOs... the same rich and wealthy whom made ridiculous amounts of money thru the McCain backed de-regulations put into motion in financial institutions and in the oil futures.
McCain is a hardcore supporter of De-Regulation!
The Rich and Wealthy Republicans are DE-REGULATORS!
De-Regulation is the reason for this financial crisis!
Read My Lipsticked Lips...
The Rich and Wealthy REPUBLICANS are the folks to thank for the financial mess that we are in right now!
Remember Phil Gramms, whom just happens to be filthy rich, McCain's buddy and economic advisor whom called us a nation of whiners. He and Enron made a ton of money as did speculators when he created and pushed de-regulation. He's the one you can all thank for the $4.00 - $5.00 per gallon for gas fiasco. Maybe you heard of the Enron Loop hole! After it got passed his wifey pooh received a real nice cushy job at Enron. Gasp! Can anyone spell Corruption?
Obama is simply not going to let Bush's Welfare Tax Plan for the Rich and Wealthy Republicans continue. He is rolling it back to what we had in the Clinton era. Which by the way was a prosperous time. In the past 40 years the ONLY administration to actually have a balanced budget instead of a deficit is Bill Clinton's administration. In fact he had a SURPLUS!
Ronald Reagan ... A republican president promoted the Progressive Tax system on this video and he also berated the republicans as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFhoM6xZpEQ
Teddy Roosevelt also a republican president ALSO believed in the Progressive tax system!
Both Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt have been listed by McCain as being his hero's. So by damning Obama for the progressive tax system by calling him a socialist aka redistributor also means his hero's Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt were also socialist and redistributors.
The Republican party, John McCain and Palin will go down in history as an absolute disgrace for their fear, hate, lies, racist, smear tactics in 2008.
Juli Norwood
This is what Sarah Palin said two months ago about how evil and horrible sharing the wealth really is. About how "sharing the wealth" is a code name for Socialism, for collective ownership rather than individual ownership. Heck, maybe even Communism.
"And Alaska - we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."
And, she also said:
"Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources.”
It's worth noting that in all of the Alaskan reform Gov. Palin touts, not once has she boasted that she reformed Alaska from being Socialist. So, I guess she's okay with that. Or, maybe, it's just that policies that benefit the majority of citizens isn't really Socialism at all. Maybe that's just fair and balanced government.
The information comes from this article. I invite you to read it, but I suggest you dial down the emotion in the article a bit.
Gotta love Keith Olbermann!
Please DIGG this. It's up to 114. We CAN push it over and get it out!!
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Palin_Alaskans_Share_the_Wealth_Collectively_as_Socialists#
The Republicans have charged the Obama campaign with being socialist because of the comment that Sen. Obama made to "Joe The Plumber." One Florida TV anchor (Barbara West) even brought up Karl Marx (her husband is a Republican strategist) in a sateliite interview with Sen. Biden.
Since the 16th amendment passed in 1913 we have had a progressive income tax that does indeed "distribute" a portion of the wealth:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Federal Income tax funds the Federal budget—at least the portion that isn't deficit. Some of the money goes to provide the safety net in this country. Examples are Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Both cover many people without means. And then there is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which was started under the Reagan Administration. In 1986 Reagan called the EITC, “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.” If Reagan is McCain's hero as he had said he is, then would he call Ronald Reagan a socialist?So it's complete hogwash to label Sen. Obama a socialist since he didn't invent any of these systems.
But if we want to talk about distributing the wealth then let's talk about the Iraq War launched by a Republican president with whom John McCain agreed. How many times did George W. Bush go to Congress with his hat in hand asking for billions and billions of dollars in emergency spending to fund the war? Many of those dollars went into the coffers of companies that back Republicans and that won no-bid contracts. Blackwater is a good example. To make fiscal matters worse these dollars were not included in the budget.
In addition, there had been a redistribution of wealth under Republican rule: the rich have become richer and the poor poorer.
The bottom line it's totally disingenuous for the McCain-Palin campaign to label Sen. Obama a socialist.
Here's a nice post exchange from fivethirtyeight.com -- I laid the educational smack down, so I had to share. (Apologies in advance for high levels of snark and annoyance, but I do grow tired of having to explain that 2 + 2 does indeed equal 4 to these idiots.)
Does saying the words "middle class" actually mean that Obama will help them, or is it just pandering? And does anyone really believe Obama's plan helps the middle class? McCain's plan favors the rich, Obama's the poor, and no one gives a crap about the middle class.Obama is likely going to win for one reason -- he's convinced people that McCain is another George Bush. In fact, there's few Republican Senators further from George Bush. Despite it being essentially a lie that McCain is "McSame," it's worked for Obama.Bring on the Socialism. Yippee.
Matthew said...Does saying the words "middle class" actually mean that Obama will help them, or is it just pandering? And does anyone really believe Obama's plan helps the middle class? McCain's plan favors the rich, Obama's the poor, and no one gives a crap about the middle class.You are such an Ashley Todd.Or, in verificationese, a "praffian."Instead of just making shit up (I know, it's what the right does), how about LOOKING IT UP?(Or, here's a pretty graph if you can't read all those boring words.)Obama's plan helps the middle class 3x as much as McCain's. Yes, he helps working class taxpayers, too, but the bottom two quintiles (0th - 40th percentile) get only about 60% as much as the next two quintiles (40th - 80th percentile). So, in absolute terms, Obama is definitely removing more tax burden from the middle class than anyone else.Matthew said...Bring on the Socialism. Yippee.Hmmm. Let's see here:(1) You're calling Obama a socialist.(2) I'm assuming it's being he's "redistributing wealth" from the rich to the poor, right?(3) Obama's total taxes -- AND EVEN THE TOP BRACKET TAX RATE -- are substantially lower than they were under Ronald Reagan. (Perhaps you've heard of him.)(4) Ergo, Ronald Reagan was a bigger socialist than Barack Obama.(5) Ditto for Nixon and Eisenhower.That's your argument, right? Just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. =)
To "GaMeS" -- Yes, the pretty little graph (yeah, I had to look, despite my bar license, I'm not yet sure what words are) shows that Obama's plan is a percent or two better in the middle class range. However, that's only true if you believe Obama can fully implement all of his programs while still sticking to his quoted numbers. Personally, I do not believe he can, and I believe taxes will be going up for far more than just those making $250,000 or more. We're going to have damn near 60 democrats in the senate, you're crazy if you don't think it's going to be social-program-central the next 4 years.And to be clear, I'm for small government, and believe that GWB is certainly the worst president of my lifetime.
Matthew said...To "GaMeS" -- Yes, the pretty little graph (yeah, I had to look, despite my bar license, I'm not yet sure what words are) shows that Obama's plan is a percent or two better in the middle class range. However, that's only true if you believe Obama can fully implement all of his programs while still sticking to his quoted numbers.By that logic, then, you must similarly discount everything McCain wants to do. Moreso, in fact, because he would face a Congress controlled by the opposition.Matthew said....Personally, I do not believe he can, and I believe taxes will be going up for far more than just those making $250,000 or more.And you have nothing but your own gut reaction to base this on. You think he's a "tax and spend liberal," so you just assume he's lying and will raise taxes on far more people.Because, I don't know, you must think liberals get off on raising taxes or something.Seriously, we don't like it, either. But unlike the moronic right-wing ideologues, we believe in paying our bills.That Tax Policy Center article I linked to projects that McCain would add $1.5 trillion more to the debt than Obama would.For all your talk about Obama's big spending programs, McCain would spend even more -- that tax cut is a giant earmark for the top 1%, welfare for the rich paid for by inflation that effectively taxes the middle & working class and debt that will burden our children and the unborn.So, really, who's being irresponsible here? It's a fact that as your income goes up, you spend more on investment and less on consumption. Taxes are an investment in our nation's future, building infrastructure, protecting our borders, rebuilding after disasters ... all the things that are just too fucking big to be done privately. Because you spend more on investment as you move up the income ladder, so too should you spend more on taxes as a part of that investment. So, here's a question: Why are the right-wingers so damned opposed to investing in their own country?Seriously, I don't get how these jackoffs can scoff at the idea that paying taxes is patriotic. Really? You think supporting our troops is not patriotic? Well, where do you think their body armor, bullet, humvees, etc. come from? The Army Fairy?To me, these assholes are saying they value having an extra couple of percent on everything past the first couple MILLION in a single year more than they value the lives of the soldiers who are overseas being KILLED to defend the rights (and property!) of those same assholes.They're motherfucking ingrates, if you ask me.Matthew said ....We're going to have damn near 60 democrats in the senate, you're crazy if you don't think it's going to be social-program-central the next 4 years.So, again, your argument hinges on phantom programs that no one has suggested, that they will want to add to the budget just for shits and giggles?And you really think that will catch up with the $1.5 trillion of extra debt McCain would add?And, for that matter, what do you consider a "social program"? * All of Obama's tax credits are dependent on the recipient working, so it's certainly not "welfare." * Investing in infrastructure ("green collar jobs," developing alternative energy)? No, that's really "public works" ... so unless the Hoover Dam is a "social program," this isn't it.* Helping to pay for college in return for community service? OK, that's arguably a "social program," but at the same time you're getting them to contribute directly to the community. As far as I'm concerned, that's no different from public works (hiring people to do stuff that the community needs), and it's directed in a way that is investing in infrastructure (i.e. an educated, competitive workforce). But I'll spot you that one if you want to call it a social program. =)* Health care? Well, McCain has a plan for health care, too (and a giant tax hike on benefits to boot!), so it's not entirely fair to single this out. On top of that, the whole reason we need health care reform is because the system doesn't work when left to private industry, as evidenced by our skyrocketing costs vis-a-vis countries with universal programs. So, when you really think about it, this isn't a "social program" so much as an investment: People will have more money to spend elsewhere (good for the economy) and people will get better preventative health care (reduce future costs of medicare). But, again, I'll let you call this one a social program if you really want. =)So, other than health care (which McCain also tries to address) and allowing students to work for tuition (which we already have at a smaller scale in "work-study" programs, and we're already providing Stafford loans, Pell grants, etc. anyway), I really don't see the giant government bogeyman you guys are always talking about. Matthew....And to be clear, I'm for small government, and believe that GWB is certainly the worst president of my lifetime.Well, no disagreement there. The biggest difference between us is that I want "small government" as "not intrusive, not neglectful, and not bigger than necessary to fulfill these two criteria." Some public goods simply cannot be left to the private sector -- it's the prisoner's dilemma, the collective action problem, the tragedy of the commons. Basic game theory predicts it and empirical studies prove it -- and that's why I'm a liberal and fucking proud of it.p.s. squie!
Thanks to the artifice of 'Fractional Reserve Banking' debt has become money, hence a commodity, which value is then speculated upon as it is bundled, bought and sold by wall-street casinos. The bankers wealth, is the borrowers debt; whose burden is multiplied by usury. Cycles of inflation-deflation (adding/subtracting value; saturation-de-saturation of fiat paper) exponentially exacerbates that burden upon the borrower, until the borrower's entire material being is that as a harness, for he has become as a mule in that harness and a debt-slave to the magicians of wealth creation.
On a globalised, electronic scale, in which "money" (value added digits) is traded as a commodity is a very different story in which the conglomerates as well as the individual are harnessed by a system of perpetual debt money to the private banking sector; in other words, one half of the community lives off the toil of the other half simply for the privilege of creating, supplying and handling its "money".
When McCain utilizes the term 'Spread the Wealth Around' in conjunction with the term 'Socialist', its intent is that of a psychological barb; tipped with a dark-poison coloration, stigmatized of a bygone era in which McCain, obviously, still lives. The hope is of rousing sentiment within like minds of a gullible flock. McCain's rhetoric is only a psychological projection of his own crime onto the victim; whose cronies, having gutted the life savings and retirement accounts of the worker bees, certainly do not wish to share the proceeds of their loot. In other words, when McCain accuses Barack of spreading the wealth around, McThief is only deflecting attention away from the reality of his own egregious crime, who has already divvied up the looted booty at the top, while deceptively 'Spreading the Debt Around' at the bottom, with the added blessing from the Grand Plunderer, 'you're on your own', trust me, 'it's the American Way'.
Through exotic, algorithmic, scamming mechanisms such as Enron - Keating S&L - Wall Street Casino Bailout; McRobin-Hood has consistently looted the public trust and is not about to dethrone His Friends in DC - the good old boy network - which he just can't wait to introduce, Plain-Clothes, Palin to.
I guess this would qualify McCain/Palin as Socialist Financial Criminals with psychotic Anti-Social tendencies.
If you continue to beat your head against a brick wall; it's bleeding, and it starts to hurt; don't you think that its time to stop beating your head against the wall!? (Barack Obama)
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
When is a Surge not a Surge? When an Invasion/Occupation is NOT a War!
I found a great article about the Progressive view on taxation and how best to frame that view to the public:
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/progressive-taxation-some-hidden-truths.html
We may want to use these ideas in counteracting McCain's smears, like calling Obama's tax plan "socialist" or "welfare".
I don’t see where the Republicans get off accusing Obama’s policies as socialism (connoting it in a bad sense). As near as I can tell, America does not yet achieve the goal of providing its citizens equality of opportunity. Surely, a major factor of one’s opportunity is an individual’s economic means, i.e. that they can afford food, shelter, clothing. In addition, a gov’t that spends progressive taxation’s revenues on better public primary education, increased access to healthcare, as well as improving our nations, and particularly our inner cities’ and outer rural crumbling or absent basic infrastructure is making long strides in improving our nation’s promise of equal opportunty.
We aren’t talking about creating equality of economic status, but rather a tax policy that helps guarantee equal access to the engines of personal advancement - that’s what our government should be looking to enable.
This is another lengthy post I made on from fivethirtyeight.com, and I wanted to share it here.
To keep the actual discussion going, here's a point a non-troll made earlier:broberts said...The lower income earner pays far more of their income, as a percentage, towards the essentials of life, however you may want to define them (typically food, shelter, clothing, health), than the higher income earner. This means that while their tax rate may be lower, it is actually a higher percentage of their income after essentials.Nicely stated -- this is something the Repugs refuse to acknowledge in their specious flat-tax arguments.Here's another way I would illustrate it: Imagine that a person has absolutely no possessions and no income, and there is no social network to provide aid. As long as this state persists, every waking hour will be spent on subsistence, i.e. acquiring basic sustenance and shelter.Now, let's say that person finds a nice stash of food that provides more than necessary for survival, allowing some to be stored. He can now spend some time investing in himself -- building a better shelter, sharpening a new spear -- to make it easier to subsist. (You can also invest in yourself in the form of downtime, relaxing and recuperating both physically and mentally, making it easier to operate at peak capacity when needed -- ultimately, this is the origin of entertainment.)This investment grows geometrically, making it easier and easier to survive while allowing a greater and greater share of his time to be spent on further investment. Put another way, investment is not directly proportional to income or wealth. A hunter-gatherer might spend 10% of his time on investment; a pastoralist might spend 20%; a farmer might spend 50%.Now, it's pretty clear how this translates to modern life: The more money you have (in income and wealth), the greater percentage you're able to invest rather than simply spend on consumption (rent, food, car, etc.).And where do taxes fit in? Well, by now it should be obvious: Taxes are investment in the nation. They pay for improvements in infrastructure, police, rescue, and so forth, making it easier to earn dividends in other pursuits. (For example, it's very hard to earn money in transportation if there are no good roads, and it's hard to keep your investments safe if there are no police.)And before any of the right-wingers make a "free market" argument, even the dimmest free marketeer knows about economies of scale. It's not feasible to build just one lane of an interstate highway, or just enough military to protect your own house. (You either defend all the borders, or you're effectively defending none of them.)So:* We have the need to invest in public goods (i.e. nonexcludable, or nearly so) that are subject to economies of scale that make private ownership woefully inefficient.* Individuals with greater resources spend a greater percentage on investment.* Ergo, progressive taxation is the best way to handle these common needs. Since investment is nonlinear, so too must taxation be nonlinear.And that's why the rich get larger tax bills. Any proposal for "flat taxes" is ultimately a case of either woeful lack of understanding or gross intellectual dishonesty.Related note: This is also why the Reaganomics trickle-down concept doesn't work. Dollar-for-dollar, tax cuts given to the rich will be spent on things other than consumption. (Remember that my broad definition of "investment," in this context, includes luxuries and such.) Since consumption drives demand, and demand is what makes suppliers willing to invest in greater capacity, tax cuts to the wealthy will have far less effect in a slow economy than tax cuts to the middle class and working class.Now, why is it best not to give tax cuts to the wealthy in addition tax cuts for the middle and working classes? Well, you still need to pay the bills -- if you keep running up deficits, you devalue your currency (compare the US dollar to the Canadian dollar over the past few decades), and that is effectively a tax hike on everyone (and it disproportionately affects those who spend most of their income on consumption rather than interest-bearing investments).Ah, but why not simply reduce spending and cut taxes for the rich? Well, that government spending creates jobs, closing a recessionary gap to reach full employment and efficiency in the economy. If you were to cut spending just to give a tax cut to the rich, unemployment would skyrocket, and now you have a real depression.Proof?Let's say that Y is the point at which you're in equilibrium (full employment, no recessionary gap from unemployment and no inflationary gap from overspending and scarcity). If you have an economy with, say, $2.5 trillion in fixed spending (essentially subsistence) and that spends 80% of discretionary income on consumption (the other 20% on savings), then you can solve for the point of equilibrium:Y = $2.5T + 0.8(Y)Y = $12.5TNow, let's add government -- let's say you take out $3 trillion in taxes and spend the whole thing (balanced budget):Y = $2.5T + 0.8(Y - $3T) + $3TY = $15.5TSee that? Even though you have a balanced budget, you're increasing the equilibrium income for the economy. If you're in a recessionary gap, this spending provides jobs and reduces structural unemployment.Now, you don't want to overshoot or you create an inflationary gap, devaluing your currency. In fact, this is one reason that it's such a bad idea to run a really large deficit for a long period. Let's see what would happen if you only taxed $2.5 trillion instead of $3 trillion:Y = $2.5T + 0.8(Y - $2.5T) + $3TY = $17.5TSee how that works? If your "full employment" level is less than $17.5 trillion, then your currency will devalue due to inflation; worse, you racked up $500 billion in debt, which will increase your necessary spending next year, accelerating the problem.After a while, you have runaway debt -- which is pretty much where Bush & Co. have left us.Now, it doesn't hurt to carry some debt, just as it doesn't hurt to have a mortgage ... if you can afford the payments. In fact, the best reason for deficit spending is to help pull out of a recession or depression -- but it has to be done carefully to avoid overshooting and wrecking your currency, and thus it's best not to cut taxes on the wealthy during such times. And if your debt is truly out of control, you must bring it back in line, even if it means raising taxes on the rich.One last point that the Repugs love to overlook: Obama's budget costs $1.5 trillion less than McCain's, according to the Tax Policy Center. (Giving away $300 billion in tax cuts to the rich is essentially a massive earmark that provides welfare for the rich as the expense of a giant tax hike -- inflation -- on everyone else.) Therefore, Obama's plan results in smaller deficits (and thus less inflation) while simultaneously generating more jobs and higher employment rates with pay-as-you-go spending. Obama's plan is exactly what you should do during an economic downturn, and McCain's is a guaranteed trainwreck.So, the next time some idiot right-winger starts spewing his talking points without having ever taken a class in economics, feel free to copy and paste this. =)
(Posted to the Washington Post, October 19, 2008):
The following exchange between Barack Obama and a small business owner regarding his tax policy and the concept of progressive taxation should be watched by all because its fascinating and revealing in several respects:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA
First, I think Obama makes a compelling case for the sensibility and equity of his tax policy and progressive taxation principles in general.
Second, I think this exchange provides great insight into what kind of leader Barack Obama is and how he walks the walk on his promise to elevate the civility and discourse in this nation and rise above politics. In short, he was confronted by a person obviously opposed to his policies and rather than shun him or ignore him or call him names/stupid, Barack engaged him, respected his views and tried to explain in very real concrete ways, ways that the person himself can relate to, as to why his policies were good ones and might in fact be beneficial to the questioner. In the end, even if the man was not converted (unsure), it was clear they both walked away from the exchange better informed and with more respect for each other. Related to the last point, it's a great contrast to how we see the right and McCain/Palin treat their opponents. If a person opposed GOP tax policies, he/she's either ignored altogether or just demonized as a socialist in favor of income redistribution - there is simply no acknowledgment by McCain/Palin that there may be merit to the position or respect warranted. This civility in discourse is something we've seen in all Barack's appearances, including the debates. I do not think we can underestimate how important a "Change" this is and how much further it'll bring us as a nation as we aspire to bridge divides and heal wounds of partisanship.
Third, I think this shows that Barack is not scared to tackle tough issues, where others may run away from these challenges. Dems have often run away from frank discussions of tax policy or arguments for "progressive taxation" because they were afraid of making the case for it. Barack made a good case for it in a realistic context.
I have always thought that Progressive Taxation is a no-brainer for any civilized society that wants to be successful in the long term. I think the struggle has always been over how to frame the issue and explain it in a way that makes sense. As I said, I think Barack did a good job above. But I also think beyond appeals to fairness and equity, another line of argument can be that Progressive Taxation is misbranded as socialism. In reality, it's actually a capitalistic enterprise that we see play out in all walks of life.
One way to think of this and explain it to every day folks is through an analogy to how a sports franchise runs its business - no doubt a capitalistic endeavor. Think of what we see in ticket pricing all over the map. A sports franchise sets its policy with a set budget (expected revenue) in mind. It realizes that some seats are better than others and offer more amenities (better views, more comfort, proximity, etc.). It recognizes that its constituents are not all equally positioned from a financial perspective. It recognizes that if its cost is too severe in either direction, it risks alienating the top or the bottom and losing revenue. It recognizes there is alternatives to doing business with it (cable, other franchises, minor leagues), albeit remote (just like a taxpayer can be potentially disincentivized and choose to do less/no business or take his/her business out of the country - things that are possible, though they require effort). And it's key to realize that this is just illustrative and not meant to be exact, but the counter-argument that one has the choice to say no to higher prices with regard to buying tickets is really not a valid distinction or inapposite here, because just like that - I'd argue that the ones who are complaining (i.e., the rich) do not have to benefit from the great US economy (or make millions of dollars so as to qualify for higher taxes) if they don't like the tax consequences.
The key here is that in every instance, what you see as the solution that emerges is a progressive (not proportional or flat) pricing policy that charges significantly higher prices for the better seats and lower prices for the worse seats so that it can keep these seats affordable for all. A flat rate simply wouldn't work because of the reality that the landscape is unequal. A proportional rate simply won't work for much of the same reason, because too many folks get priced out at the bottom end. So in effect, what you get is redistribution/subsidizing. The pricing is tweaked (by reacting to the market reactions - free market) to hit the spot that you achieve your revenue goal and sell-out the place.
At the end of the day, despite gripes (nothing is ever easy) most recognize the inherent necessity and fairness of this concept in this context - so hopefully they can see the translation. The tax policy can be likened to this in every respect. The progressive tax rates are tweaked to achieve rates that invite maximum participation and obtain the desired budgetary revenues. The benefit of the bargain is still worth it, and more people get to benefit/participate.
Dear John:
Amid the misinformation on Senator Obama's positions throughout your speeches you intersperse the occasional plank from your own platform. One point that your supporters seem to love is the promise to cut government. Spending, people, programs all get demonized.
Since the various bipartisan attempts to minimize the damage wrought by financial collapse you have come up with the idea of buying up all those failing mortgages. I won't argue the merits of your plan - because a one-line plan is merely an idea and an idea can not be discounted without analysis.
I will however suggest that in following throught on that idea, you have only two choices:
Most people, even Republicans, would probably agree the first choice is unwise. That leaves the second. Basically do what the banks are doing or should have done. That requires people. People cost money. Your mortgage plan would increase the size and cost of government. It would be a new additional program.
I'm not even going to make you admit it is, at the very least, liberalism in banking, even though I believe it is more like socialism in banking.
But it definitely is opposite to your "less government" pledge.
C'mon, Senator. The path goes left or right. Make up your mind and let us know who you are. Is the real John McCain a laissez-faire conservative or a closet liberal?
When we (Americans) walk into the poles on November 4th this year, most of us who consider our selves to be progressive, or left of center will vote for Barack Obama. Obama provides “hope” and offers “change”. Before we cast our ballots we must think about what hope and what change Obama really provides. It would be foolish to argue that there is really no difference between Obama and McCain. It is undeniable that if McCain were elected there is a good chance Americans could lose their right to abortions. Up to 3 supreme court justices could retire in the next four years, and it is a safe bet that Obama will not replace them with judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade. It is also true that Obama has never used a racial slur in public, while McCain openly referred to his Vietnamese captors as “gooks”. While Obama does not offer any specific policies to further social issues such as racial and gender equality, at least he is more likely to prevent the loss of past victories. It is also true that Obama is more likely to provide more funding for some basic social programs like welfare and education. While this will do nothing to change the overall system, having this extra funding makes a significant difference in many peoples daily lives. There are even a few things actually progressive about Obama. Obama’s tax plan (tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor through graduated income tax) would make the American tax system more progressive. Finally, electing the first Black man to office IS progress (just as electing the first woman vice president would be).
All of that being said, there is nothing about Obama’s presidency that would actually lead to progress, or would better our (the American people’s) condition in the long run. While electing a Black man president would be indicative of progress, it does not have anything to do with what will happen after Obama is elected. It is merely an indicator of an important change in our collective attitude toward race. While there is undoubtedly social issues that work to keep minorities oppressed in this country, economics is the driving force maintaining the superiority of white people. There is no law restricting minorities to ghettos, it is economics. Unemployment and poverty are the plight of black people in the 21st century, not segregation or slavery. Unlike McCain Obama is not likely to role back social progress, but he is also not very likely to drive it forward. Obama, though he supports civil unions for homosexuals, opposes gay marriage (didn’t we decide in Brown v. Board that separate but equal was not equal?). If Obama really wanted to create progress in this country it would be in the economic realm. It is in this area that his proposed policies do not only lack the promise of progress, but in all likelihood will make things worse for us than they already are, never mind people living in the developing world.
Obama’s tax plan moves the federal income tax in the right direction but it does not make any fundamental change. The national income tax is already a “progressive” graduated income tax (it taxes the rich more than the poor). Obama wants to make it a little more progressive, but he is not bringing anything new to the table. Here is where Obama’s politics become more than simply lacking, but down right dangerous. Obama is an advocate of “free trade”. He trusts the capitalist market both nationally and internationally to distribute the worlds goods and resources in a just way. There was a major shift in US economic policy lead by Milton Freedman and Reagan in the early 80’s and solidified by Clinton in the 90’s. This was the shift toward “neo-liberalism”. The belief that by increasing international trade through deregulation, eliminating trade tariffs quotas and subsidies, and promoting privatizations, all the woes of the economy could be fixed. In other words, trust the market and the captains of industry who run it, and all will be well. Since this economic model has been in practice the gap between the rich and the poor has grown tremendously both in the United States and internationally, labor standards have fallen, and the environment has been ravaged. This system, although spearheaded by our government, is enforced on us and the rest of the world through organizations like the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF, and through treaties such as NAFTA. Obama’s rhetoric is not without criticism of this system. He emphasizes the need to place a few labor and environmental protections within these organizations and treaties, and to offer some assistance for the billions of people who come out as the “losers” in this neo-liberal system. While these measures may do a little (and I mean a very little) to mitigate the effects of “free trade” Obama’s policies will expand the reach and the power of the system as a whole. This will mean greater freedom for companies to move jobs overseas to place where the workers are easier to abuse and where the environment is easier to exploit. This will mean more competition instead of cooperation between us and our working brothers and sisters in foreign countries. It will mean fewer high paying manufacturing jobs and more unemployment and low paying service industry jobs for us. It will mean more subjugation to U.S. companies for the people of the developing world. Thanks for offering the relief packages Obama but I think we would rather just keep our jobs.
According to a CNN pole, 48% of Americans think the economy is the most important issue for the upcoming elections, followed by the war at 18% and healthcare at 13%. It is clear that Obama does not represent our interests as far as the economy goes, so what about health care? There was a time when Obama advocated universal coverage. He used to advocate a system where, instead of health insurance companies, the government insured every person in the country regardless of income, where healthcare was a right not a privilege. He even participated in the fight for universal coverage in his state of Illinois back in 2003. This was before the health insurance lobby got to him. After having the health insurance lobby at his ear he backed down. Universal coverage was no longer the goal. Now he proposes creating a public health insurance company, which would be offered alongside private companies, and sliding scale subsidies for people who do not qualify for Medicaid, to purchase private or public health insurance. Here’s the problem. This plan will still leave people uninsured (maybe 15 million), it still treats our health as a commodity, not a right, and the subsidies will function as giveaways for private HMO’s, the very people who have created the problem in the first place. While Obama has not taken any donations from the healthcare industry during his presidential campaign, he took money from health insurance lobbyists in both his state and federal senatorial races.
Obama’s plans for the our troops do not represent our interests either. Obama supports the war in Afghanistan. So far in that country there have been 953 coalition death (CNN) and, although there is no agreed upon number, there have been thousands of civilian deaths, including 540 in the first seven months of 2008 (human rights watch). Obama better be sure that that war is going to end terrorism forever (and not just make more recruits for Al-Qaeda) to make that many deaths worth it. As far as Iran, while he suggests we use diplomacy, he recommends that we leave the military option “on the table”. It is also worth noting that almost all of the major wars on the past century (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam) were started by Democrats. The two gulf wars were started by republicans, but lets not forget that Bill Clinton bombed Iraq too. Finally as far as Iraq goes, Obama wants to pull out. This is better than McCain without a question, but with Obama’s plan, we will be in Iraq until 2010. That’s two more years of our children, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers dying in foreign countries for no reason, not to mention billions of more dollars that could be used to fund education, transportation, disaster relief, or even a real universal healthcare plan. Things that would actual benefit us.
In the end the Obama’s great shortcoming is that he is just another capitalist candidate. All of these things that Americans are concerned about, the economy, healthcare, the war, are not isolated problems, they are part of the capitalist system. It is the free market, i.e. capitalism, that ravages our economy. Even in times of “prosperity” there is unemployment and poverty. It is capitalism that allows healthcare companies to charge absurd prices and pressures them to deny treatment. It is capitalism that allows our government to be pressured by Bechtel and Haliburton to invade foreign countries and throw away the lives our soldiers and innocent civilians. Obama offers to make small amendments to this system while leaving the overall problems intact. In fact he aims to strengthen this system that keeps us all in chains. So what can we do? We don’t have to vote for one of the two major parties parties. The Socialist Party USA is putting forward our own candidate, Brian Moore. We have the opportunity to vote for real change especially those of us who live in states like Vermont or Tennessee where our votes will not matter. If capitalism is an iron cage we are all locked in, Obama is offering us a pillow to keep our heads off the hard cold floor, while putting another padlock on the door. Voting socialist, is voting for the tools to pick the lock.
