- ‹ previous
- 1868 of 7913
- next ›
Comrade Obama? The Right's "Wealth Redistribution" Straw Man
In attempting to persuade voters that Obama is not American enough to be president, the right has renewed charges that he is a socialist in sheep's clothing. Their newest claim that an Obama presidency would usher in an era of "wealth redistribution" seems a thinly veiled attempt to associate Obama with history's socialist revolutionaries and communist dictators.
But before you start worrying that Obama will take your money and impose socialist redistribution mandates, it's worth taking a moment to scrutinize the basis for the right's hackneyed accusations.
According to an analysis by the technically non-partisan Tax Foundation, which has been called out in the past for propagating misleading information, Obama's income-tax plan would "redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1% of taxpayers to all other taxpayers." They conclude by asking if such policies were enacted, what would be the "consequences for our democratic system"?—a not-so-subtle insinuation that an Obama presidency could be ruinous for America's cherished democracy.
Similarly, an op-ed in this week's Wall Street Journal asserts that IRS data due out in a few weeks will likely show that "the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden." The WSJ argues that unfair tax increases on the wealthy will dampen economic growth as it leads to "reduced work and investment," and the "redeployment of money into tax shelters" (something McCain adviser Phil Gramm may know something about).
Yet, upon closer inspection, these analyses prove deceptive. "Focusing on income taxes alone is cheating," explains UT economics professor James K. Galbraith, a featured writer in our current issue and author of the upcoming book The Predator State. "The very rich shoulder a very small proportion of the payroll tax," Galbraith told me, "and their share of sales taxes and property taxes is much smaller, as a share of income, than it is for poorer people."
"Why are the very rich shouldering such a large part of the income tax burden?" Galbraith rhetorically asks. "Easy—they are very much richer than they ever were before. The income tax merely evens things out a bit."
Galbraith also refutes the WSJ's argument that increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans will hinder economic growth, insisting that "there is absolutely no serious evidence that higher tax rates on the wealthy has adverse effects on investment or work effort."
As we face skyrocketing fuel costs, plunging housing prices, and a stuttering job market, it's not the ordinary American's who deserve to be called "whiners." But, quips Galbraith as he considers those complaining about Obama's so-called "wealth redistribution" plans, "the word certainly describes the McCain chorus at the Wall Street Journal."Photo used under Creative Commons license.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
This comment is not quite on point with the article yet I felt I should make anyway because it does relate. It seems that the more one hears about the reporting in the Wall Street Journal since it's recent acquisition by Rupert Murdoch, the more it seems that a once great newspaper is being reduced to little more than a front for Mr. Murdoch's right wing views. The same can be said for the change in the NY Post and the Fox Network. There are reasons why there used to be a law against a corporation owning two many media outlets in the same major market. Now you can see why!!
Obama talks a good talk, but in practice, he is a puppet of the rich and the NY money people. Vote for Ralph Nader if you want real change.
Go McCain - Vote Nader!
Maybe the richest should pay the most. They do receive the greatest benefits from our system. Who is profiting from the war? It sure does not hurt he likes of Jack Welch, Eric Prince or the members of the Exxon board.
And if increasing taxes directly correlated to scaled back investments that would kill the economy, then why did the Clinton tax hike (the biggest in history) precede the greatest growth in our economy and why has the Bush tax cuts done NOTHING!!!
Start thinking for yourselves.
Obama is all talk. He will not rock the boat. Look, in 2006 the Democrats promised that they would vote against war funding when they took control of the House and the Senate. They lied. They still vote for war funding and we are still in Iraq, and soon to go onto Iran for Israel. Vote for Ralph Nader for a real change.
In the Eisenhower years, the top marginal income tax rate was 90%. How do the right wing doomsayers explain our democracy not falling apart then?
John Q, just out of curiosisty, what percentage of American taxpayers would have fallen into that 90% bracket?
John Q, just out of morbid curiosity, what percentage of US taxpayers would have fallen into that 90% bracket?
Why I will be staying home again this November:
Way back in early 1968 I had just been discharged from the Marines (I was drafted), after taking a government sponsored walking tour of South East Asia. In thirteen months I was transformed from a spoiled middle class kid into a person who, forced by the realities of war, did some nasty stuff ( I can fully sympathize with what those kids in today's military are facing in Iraq). I was going to support Gene McCarthy in that years' Presidential election, but he lost the primary to a child of privilege, who, much like Mr. Obama, had taken the nation's temperature and became the candidate everyone was looking for. Like his famous brother, however, "Bobbie" overplayed his hand and scared the folks who really run things in this country into leaving his brains splattered all over the kitchen floor of some hotel in LA.
I never did get around to voting for President that year, or since. The choices we were allowed just did not seem worth the effort. My daughter talked me into registering this year so I could join generation XY or Z ( I've lost track ) in voting for Barak Obama. He's a different kind of politician, daddy, my daughter told me, with those optimistic eyes only children can have. I did register, but told her firmly that I was not going to vote if he turned out to be a used car salesman like all the rest. These last few days will keep me out of the voting booth once again in November. Usually candidates wait to be elected before they wiggle out of their campaign positions. This guy has reversed himself on the important stuff even before he wins the prize! So as my kids rush to the poles to vote for this years version of a rock star, I will refuse, once again, to play the fool.
Frank Bruno
Why I will be staying home again this November:
Way back in early 1968 I had just been discharged from the Marines (I was drafted), after taking a government sponsored walking tour of South East Asia. In thirteen months I was transformed from a spoiled middle class kid into a person who, forced by the realities of war, did some nasty stuff ( I can fully sympathize with what those kids in today's military are facing in Iraq). I was going to support Gene McCarthy in that years' Presidential election, but he lost the primary to a child of privilege, who, much like Mr. Obama, had taken the nation's temperature and became the candidate everyone was looking for. Like his famous brother, however, "Bobbie" overplayed his hand and scared the folks who really run things in this country into leaving his brains splattered all over the kitchen floor of some hotel in LA.
I never did get around to voting for President that year, or since. The choices we were allowed just did not seem worth the effort. My daughter talked me into registering this year so I could join generation XY or Z ( I've lost track ) in voting for Barak Obama. He's a different kind of politician, daddy, my daughter told me, with those optimistic eyes only children can have. I did register, but told her firmly that I was not going to vote if he turned out to be a used car salesman like all the rest. These last few days will keep me out of the voting booth once again in November. Usually candidates wait to be elected before they wiggle out of their campaign positions. This guy has reversed himself on the important stuff even before he wins the prize! So as my kids rush to the poles to vote for this years version of a rock star, I will refuse, once again, to play the fool.
Frank Bruno
While I do not disagree that the choices for President are, once again, appalling, I will point out the obvious in the discussion on the subject of taxes... because everyone reading this misses the point. Politicians are always wanting to redistribute income tax to satisfy those who vote for them and support their cause financially. Period. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH IMPROVING ECONOMIC OR STANDARD OF LIVING CONDITIONS IN THE COUNTRY... PERIOD! If these politicians, and you readers, were serious, you would take the time to learn about, study and then I assure you... support, the FairTax, which is currently backed by over 70 members of Congress. The Fairtax IS the answer. There is NO OTHER ANSWER to our economic problems. FairTax.org
Komrade Obama is a very fair assessment of the legislation he is using to pander for votes.
A massive redistribution of wealth, from those who produce to those who don't in nearly every case.
Beyond his socialist tendiencies he is economically ignorant of how a capitalist society works.
He needs a new economic strategerist to advise him on matters of money.
He can then come out with a new, revised strategerization on how to remake America into a failed Soviet America Utopia.
Galbraith is as goofy as his dad was. Both the Chicagoans and the Austrians thrashed his father and the Keynesians years ago. Quoting Galbraith is about as relevant as quoting Keynes himself anymore.
Obama's first, second, and third priority is to get elected. If that means pandering to large numbers of unemployed, under employed, those on welfare, illegal aliens, and malcontents, he'll be happy to throw them a few crumbs as a way to get their votes. He will also turn democracy and capitalism on it's head, and villainize the affluent and successful in our society, in order to rally the masses behind him. With evangelical zeal Obama will convince his followers to replace reason with hope and belief ... to blindly follow him ... never challenge him ... and embrace his words as gospel. In the real, and unforgiving world of economics however, when you immediately gratify everyone by feasting on the goose that lays the golden eggs, the economy looses it's ability to continue generating growth and wealth. Obama is promising everyone a piece of the pie, whether they helped bake it, or not ... but, only in a socialistic, or communist state do the non-contributors demand to share equally in the property that belongs to others. Immediate gratification is like a drug to the malcontents, but in the big picture, every farmer knows that you never eat your seed crop. If Obama gets elected, America will turn into a third world country, with massive government welfare programs, unable to generate jobs for it's citizens, and unable to compete in the global markets. Keep America safe, free and strong ... elect McCain/Palin on November 4th.