"SPREAD THE WEALTH" IS NOT PROGRESSIVE TAXATION/update
Conceptually there is a major difference between progressive taxation and spreading the wealth socialism. Progressive taxation assumes that the richer should pay more of the government's expenses than the poor. It does not mean that it is the role of the government to redistribute the wealth to reduce the wealth differential between rich and poor.
That is as McCain noted a Socialist tenet and that is the principle to which Obama is wedded not as he implied in his answer to Joe the plumber because such redistribution is needed to provide opportunity to the poor but because as he told Charlie Gibson, it is fairer. And so important, Obama believes, it is to diminish wealth differentials that he would do it EVEN IF it would end up doing what it has done everywhere it has been tried, hurt the economy:
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote,"I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
Why fairer? Not because it rewards hard work or success. He believes it is fairer because for one reason and one reason only, it reduces the gap between rich and poor. If such a reduction will make all of us poorer, so be it.
Indeed, the European experience demonstrates that Socialism, as well as Communism, stifle economic growth. Of course, no one gets hurt more by reduced economic growth than the poor. This has been proven by the economic histories of three so different ex British colonies as India, Ireland and Israel. All three adopted Socialist confiscatory tax policies and languished. All three dropped those policies and are booming.
It should be noted that the income differential between rich and poor in all three countries has grown. Still, the poor are doing better than ever.
Unfortunately, since Barack Obama who admits in his book Dreams of My Father that he sought out the most radical (read Socialist/Communist) professors he could find, he has learned to ignore the facts and opt for discredited economic theories of his radical friends.
He can afford to do so. He is sure that economic stagnation or no economic stagnation, there will always be future convicted felons like Rezko ensuring that he and his family will have everything they want, be it a larger house or a larger yard. The lower Middle class knows that campaign promises not withstanding, directly or indirectly, sooner or later they will end up footing the bill. That is the reason they resist MSM's attempt to brainwash them and agree instead with Joe the Plumber. You see, they do know what is good for them.
P.S., As I have previously noted Obama's philosophy does not end at the water's edge. Obama wants to spread American Wealth to the World through global taxation. Only one such tax implied in a legistalation supported by Obama means that"for each year between 2002 and 2015, the United States would have to cough up roughly $65 billion over-and-above its current foreign aid distributions. This amounts to a staggering commitment of at least $845 billion – all of which is to be given to the notoriously incompetent and corrupt United Nations to manage."
And the irony of it is that just as national socialist policies have made countries poorer, internationalist socialists policies are bound to make the world poorer. Who would benefit? Notoriously corrupt UN officials and local elites tied to them. Who will pay? The poorest of the poor.
Also see, Adam Lerrick, Obama and the Tax Tipping Point. Lerrick wonders how far wealth producers can be pushed and notes that European countries faired poorly under the system. Indeed, the US has long been the beneficiery of their failed experiment as the best and brightest made their way to America including Europeans.
Lerrick fails to note that the Asians have learned from the American experience. If Obama wins, the best and the brightest are going to go to Asia. They have enough fairness to last them for decades.
Yes, my friends, voting for Obama is voting for a weaker, less secure America economically as well as militarily. Bin Laden and company must be getting ready to celebrate along with the tenured radicals who taught Obama that the world would be better off with a weaker USA.
comments powered by Disqus
- National Anthem Protests by Black Athletes Have a Long History
- The National Security Agency's own history of tracking of U.S. Citizens is flawed
- Before Trump vs. the NFL, there was Jackie Robinson vs. JFK
- Saudi Textbook Withdrawn Over Image of Yoda With King
- Israelis are celebrating the Kurds’ bid for independence
- Religion strong on Cundill History Prize longlist
- Historian Anne Applebaum Details Stalin's War Against Ukraine
- Conservatives are blaming Howard Zinn for “birthing” the "Anti-Columbus Crusade”
- Jelani Cobb unloads on Trump’s double standard of patriotism in the New Yorker
- Lonnie Bunch is astonished the African-American History Museum has become a pilgrimage site so fast