This presidential election is about the future direction of our country. It is a referendum on what type of country we want in America. There are fundamental differences between the progressive (Obama/Biden) view and the conservative (McCain/Palin) view. As I see it, the differences are fairly stark, and are illustrated clearly by looking at tax policy. The progressives view tax policy as a moral issue, to be used to implement social change. Therefore they favor higher taxes on the wealthy to "spread the wealth around" to the less wealthy, as Obama puts it. It is a redistributive policy. Conservatives, on the other hand, view tax policy more as an economic calculation, to be used to stimulate the overall economy in the best possible manner. Conservatives feel economic growth is best accomplished by keeping taxes low for everyone, and in McCain's case, lowering tax rates for business and capital gains to create jobs and growth.
It is only natural to consider progressive tax policy as more socialist in nature, and to consider conservative tax policy as more individualist in nature. When you look at the economic state of our country, with $700 billion bailouts for the financial industry, a $165 billion stimulus package being passed, another $300 billion stimulus package being proposed by the Democrats, the federal government buying up shares of the largest banks in the nation, bailouts for automobile manufacturers, $53 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities, $10 trillion in national debt….
It is therefore entirely proper to ask the men and women who are vying to lead this country about the direction in which we're heading. Everyone I know is concerned about it.
Enter Joe Biden's interview with a local television newswoman from Florida, Barbara West.
West: Senator Obama now famously told Joe the plumber he wanted to spread his wealth around. A Gallup poll showed 84% of Americans prefer government focus on improving economic conditions and creating more jobs in the U.S., as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth. Isn't Senator Obama's comment a potentially crushing political blunder ?
Biden: Absolutely not. The only person who has spread the wealth around has been George Bush and John McCain's tax policy. They have devastated the middle class. We, for the first time since the late 20's, we have 1% of the people make over 21% of the income in America. That wasn't the way before George Bush became president. All we want is once again to have the middle class to have a fighting chance. That's why we focus all of our efforts on restoring the middle class and giving them a tax break..
Timeout. Let's take a reality break from Biden's talking points. First of all, George Bush did NOT "spread the wealth around" with his tax cuts. Bush cut taxes across the board for everyone, allowing all taxpayers to keep more of THEIR OWN money. That goes for both the wealthy and the middle class. Middle class taxes were far lower under the Bush administration than under the previous Clinton administration. How does giving the middle class more money devastate the middle class, as Biden put it ? Despite all Obama's talk of growing the economy "from the bottom up" with his middle class tax cuts, if you look at Bush's tax cuts realistically, they amounted to growing the economy both from the bottom up and from the top down, because he cut taxes for all. When Obama/Biden talk about returning to the tax policies of the Clinton era, those policies taxed the middle class MORE. Obama/Biden are being dishonest in their portrayal of the Bush tax cuts.
West: You may recognize this famous quote, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around ?
Biden: Are you joking ? Is this a joke ?
West: No.
Biden: Is that a real question ?
West: That's a question.
Biden: Ha, ha, ha. He is not spreaking the wealth around. He is talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have.
Huh ? Giving the middle class back the tax breaks they used to have ? That's a lie. As I just said, Bush CUT middle class taxes, and Biden is acting like Bush raised taxes on the middle class. Utter dishonesty from Biden.
Biden: We think the people should be getting a tax break, and not continue to distribute the wealth up…it's a ridiculous comparison, with all due respect.
Here Biden talks about wealthier people keeping their own money as a "distribution of wealth up", which it plainly isn't. It's THEIR OWN MONEY. That's not redistribution. Someone should tell Biden that other people's money doesn't belong to Joe Biden or the federal government. It belongs to the people who earned it. Regardless of our view of what constitutes fair tax policy, we need to at least be honest in our uses of terminology. Biden isn't being honest.
West: Getting back to the spreading the wealth question, what do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country, much like Sweden ?
Biden: I don't know anybody who thinks that except the far right wing of the Republican party.
Really ? Barack Obama's plans for universal health care, to nationalize pre-school, greatly expand government spending, redistribute wealth, and greatly increase taxes, don't bring to mind european-type socialism, such as that practiced in Sweden ? Of course they do, to any thinking person. Again, this election is about the fundamental direction this country will take in the future. These are just the type of questions that should be asked of our candidates.
But Biden objected. Biden addressed the interview at an event in North Carolina – saying it’s one more example of how “mean” the campaign has gotten. “I was on a television station the other day doing a satellite fed to a major network in Florida, and the anchor quotes Karl Marx, and says in a sense, isn’t Barack Obama Karl Marx,” Biden said. “I mean, folks, this stuff you’re hearing, this stuff you’re hearing in this campaign, some of it’s pretty ugly. And some of the innuendo is pretty ugly.” According to the Orlando Sentinel, the Obama campaign pulled an appearance by Biden's wife from the Florida television station, and also limited access of other Obama campaign members.
Are you kidding me ? Hasn't one of the complaints from Democrats about the Bush administration been that the Bushies won't answer any hard questions, and that they limit access to reporters ? Now we have the Obama campaign doing the very same thing in response to fundamental questions about which direction our country is heading. And Biden calling these fundamental questions "mean" and "ugly" ? I don't think so. Biden's arrogance is off the charts.
With all due respect, Mr. Biden, you work for us, the people. We can and should ask you any damn question we please, and you are supposed to answer it. That's how the public becomes informed and reaches a decision. I only wonder why these questions weren't being asked earlier than one week before the election. It would also help if you told the truth, Mr. Biden, at least once in a while. You aren't doing much of that either.
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Good post, King. The West interview of cluess Joey should get more airing.
But it is no surprise the Obama/Biden reaction to this interview. The Dims have an aversion to being questioned and they lack tolerance for being criticized.
This is no surprise.
Today’s Dims are more like fascists than they are JFK Democrats. Just listen to B. Hussein Obama’s speeches — he’s a fascist to his rotten core. A case can be made on Biden’s behalf, however, that he’s more stupid than evil but I'm not so sure.
I'll tell you people in Sweden have things pretty good. People in France and Norway have things pretty good. Do you know when a woman gives birth in France a nanny comes to help them the first few days. They don't have to worry about job layoffs they will have health care coverage.
This is called HUMANITY taking care of us. The GOP philosophy is taking care of ME ONLY .
But with all that aside Obama isn't proposing socialism he proposing a plan to cut the huge deficit Bush made. McCain plan is to ignore it and help the deficit grow to a HUGE AMOUNT.
You cant pay for a war without taxes ..and you cant pay for social security or medicare without them. Mccains plan is to make cuts ..cuts will come out of the middle class pockets. In return the rich keep their tax cuts.
I suggest you take a trip go to one of those socialist countries you fear like Sweden ..ask the people how they are doing ..did you know Norway was ranked #1 best places to live ..I think USA was down below like #11 . This is the rich mans propaganda ..try to scare us on taking on some programs to help the middle class and fear anything that might be sort of resembling socialism . However when we do programs like social security that helps everyone ..we welcome it . Well that's no different than a health care plan that is resonable and affordable for all.
But under Mccain watch your social security go , he will privitize it ..and you knwo where the markets been lately. God forbid later on in life you need to go into a nursing home and hes made cuts and you have to spend all your money on it.
Hey Andrea,
Were you also aware that France had a 10% unemployment rate before this economic downturn started? Or that gasoline is around $9.00 per gallon? Why do you think most European manufacturing jobs are going to Asia and Eastern Europe? And as for all of you fear mongering about social security, George Bush had a republican congress and couldn't get Social Security changed. Are you really that naive to belive a democratic congress would let John McCain change it?
Bubba,
You're right.
Furthermore, whatever Europe's standard of living is, it is that high ONLY because the U.S. provides for their national defense since … well, since 1945.
It is that fact which has allowed those European freeloaders to have their quasi-socialistic welfare state with a relatively high standard of living. Without the free ride, European welfare policies would have lead to poverty … and likely enslavement by Russia.
If what Andrea says is true, why is it wrong to ask Biden about it and why would Biden deny it so strongly?
The questions by the ringer teevee person were typical FOX-Rush-Sean inspired questions. The woman's husband is a GOP political analyst….what would you expect?
About the "run everybody…run from the socialist" bull….
Bush-Cheney cut taxes deeply WHILE our nation was a war. Totally unacceptable.
Bush's capital gains tax cuts and dividend tax cuts were STRICTLY for the wealthiest in the country. Want to dispute that?
And most important of all…..all of those tax cuts which allowed millionaires to keep, as King puts it, "more of their own money", kept $90,000 of their own money while middle class folks kept…what?…hundreds.
The problem King's argument has here is monumental….and here's why…
All those Bush tax cuts…and they are historic….did not IN ANY WAY lead to surging economic growth of our nation. Want to dispute that?
Unemeployment is up considerably, so too foreclosures and bankruptcies,…. industrial output, consumer confidence and spending are crashing. If there was ever a national case study on how voodoo supply side economics does not, and I would say cannot, work, it's the last 8 years under Bush-Cheney.
King calls for more of the same and labels a tax increase on the wealthiest while simultaneously cutting taxes on 95% of Americans…..socialism.
The blog emperor….umm…..has no clothes.
The difference in many European countries is their middle class , they have less stress . Not having to worry about health care if they loose their job. And the people in Europe drive gas efficient cars. So their $9 goes alot further than it would here for most of our US cars.
But anyway Obama is not proposing socialized health care. Well Bubba How will Mccain pay for the war and do his tax cuts ?
What will he cut or is he going to give us a huge increase in the already big BUsh deficit and borrow money from China?
How's the US dollar doing lately ?
His proposal to cut pork which we know will not happen is peanuts anyway.
John McCain's tax plan cuts taxes without paying for them.
The bottom-line is that while Barack Obama will pay for his tax cuts for the middle class by raising taxes on the super-wealthy, John McCain doesn't pay for his tax cuts and that means the burden will be shifted to the next generation of taxpayers our kids. This means financial disaster down the road.
I heard people expressing their concerns about a clean sweep by the Democrats in this election. If you recall it was when the Democrats controlled Congress that we passed the Civil Rights Bill, the Medicare Bill, and Social Security. I don’t see any Republicans returning their Social Security checks, or paying their own medical bills when they are qualified for Medicare.
Under President Obama and a Democratic Congress we would get access to health care for all people in this country. McCain says he doesn’t believe in government sponsored health care, that it would hurt the insurance companies. Obama says hard-working Americans are hurting. When my friend lost his job last February, he also lost his health care. His wife was diagnosed with cancer two months later. They cannot pay her skyrocketing medical bills. They are losing their home and everything they worked for their whole lives. There are desperate people all over this country. Obama gives us hope that we can change. Obama believes in pay-as-you-go budget, not the Chinese VISA card.
If a Democratic President Obama and Democratic Congress will help my friend and millions of others get the health care they need, I say vote straight democratic!
Lear, it isn't hard to feel sorry for your friend but I don't see Obama doing a great lot to help with him already in the toilet. Now McCain has talked about partial buyouts for house owners who can't afford what they bought. Maybe a vote for McCain and Palin would work better. I will post some real serious things to think about concerning the Obama and Congress getting along and see just how well you really believe the will settle all our problems in time to save your friend.
This is a thought exercise on the future of this nation, that is if:
Barrak Obama is president, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House, Reid is Senate majority leader and the Senate is more than 60 seats Democrats
So Do you Think:
1. If Congress repeals the Bush Tax cuts and institutes an across the board tax increase, Obama will veto it?
2. If congress passes legislation, nationalizing health insurance that Obama will veto it?
3. If congress passes a new "fairness doctrine" effectively ending freedom of the press and speech, Obama will veto it?
4. If congress re-institutes it's ban on offshore drilling, will Obama veto it?
5. If congress passes a carbon tax, will Obama veto it?
6. If congress passes harsh gun control laws or taxes on ammunition, will Obama veto it?
7. If congress passes a bill to eliminate the 401k/Ira tax relief and nationalize 401k Ira plans will Obama veto it?
8. If congress votes to nationalize the oil industry (already proposed) or any industry will Obama veto it?
So what is the answer I see where so many of you think the president has extraordinary powers, so will he exercise them, or will he support any of these?
If Cotton was a monkey….would Obama veto that too? (Little Rascals pun)
Obama will have a solid Dem majority, roy, and as the Pilot said….it's only when Dems have solid majorities and the presidency that any progress is made in America.
Sit back in your Laz-e-Boy and enjoy the progress.
Andrea says "Obama isn't proposing socialism he proposing a plan to cut the huge deficit Bush made. McCain plan is to ignore it and help the deficit grow to a HUGE AMOUNT."
Wrong. Obama's tax vs. spending plans don't do anything but increase the deficit, which btw, will be an estimated $1 trillion next year with the Democratic congress, more than doubling this year's record deficit under a Democratic congress. Obama himself has said balancing the budget is not a priority for him, because there are too many things he wants to "invest" in. McCain is the one who is pledging to decrease federal spending and balance the budget.
Rev says "The woman's [West's] husband is a GOP political analyst….what would you expect?"
Nice try, Rev, but West's husband worked for both the GOP and the Democrats in the past, and it was years ago. Barbara West also asked John McCain the same types of tough questions she asked Biden, as a good journalist should. The difference is, McCain didn't throw a fit and act like he was too superior to be asked basic questions.
I do agree with you about Bush cutting taxes and jacking up spending at the same time, though. That was deeply irresponsible, and Obama is going to continue the trend of deficit spending by all indications and his own words, also deeply irresponsible.
Rev also says, "All those Bush tax cuts…and they are historic….did not IN ANY WAY lead to surging economic growth of our nation. Want to dispute that?"
Yes, I will surely dispute that. We had 4 straight years of surging economic growth following the Bush tax cuts, until the housing bubble burst. The housing bubble was separate from the the tax cuts. The tax cuts, isolated unto themselves, definitely helped our economy. It's just that they aren't the ONLY factor in our economy. You are attempting to conflate different economic factors into one.
Also, if you don't think Bush's tax cuts for the middle class helped the middle class, why are you trumpeting the Obama line that his LESSER tax cuts for the middle class will help ? You are saying yourself that they won't work. You're talking out both sides of your mouth.
To be fair, the Reverend knows Obama is lying about the middle class tax cuts, King.
Rev also says, "it's only when Dems have solid majorities and the presidency that any progress is made in America."
Really ? A person such as yourself might consider these following things as "progress" – Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, ended slavery. Richard Nixon started the EPA. Bush started the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit. Republicans started the SCHIP program for poor children's health care. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. The 1960 Civil Rights Act was proposed by a Republican, Everett Dirksen. A number of Democrats actually filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Roaring 20's roared under Republican rule (3% unemployment), and the ensuing Great Depression lasted a decade here under mostly Democratic policies, while it was over in 2 years in the rest of the world. Democrats did start the ponzi scheme scam known as Social Security that keeps people poor and runs up the tab on unfunded liabilities while Congress steals people's trust funds and spends the cash on whatever they like. That is the biggest ripoff of the american people in history. Medicare and SS have us in debt to the tune of $53 trillion in unfunded liabilities and are going to sink this country economically in the very near future. Congressional Republicans brought about welfare reform during the Clinton era, and were also primarily responsible for balancing the federal budget in the 1990's (with Clinton's at first reluctant help). Desegregation of schools happened under the Republican President Eisenhower, and the Brown v Board of Education opinion was written by a Republican judge. The Cold War was won under Republican President Reagan. Republicans led the fight for women's voting rights and passed the Women's Suffrage Amendment. Democrats opposed it. A Republican placed the first woman on the Supreme Court. Republicans led the integration of professional sports. Teddy Roosevelt gave us the Food and Drug Act, which led to the FDA. I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the picture.
The Carter years were the last full term of undivided Democratic rule, and they were an unmitigated disaster. Reagan rescued America from that too.
Try reading something other than left-wing propaganda, Rev. You are not well served by it.
Roy,
I don't think Obama would veto any of the things you asked about, not even nationalizing the banks and 401K plans. That is the direction he'd probably like to go, so he could keep the people safe from that nasty thing….what do they call it ? Oh yeah…free market capitalism.
to da king,
Are you on crack? Yes there were 4 years of growth in corporate profits, Wall Street stocks and CEO compensation. Also in those for years America lost at least 500,000 manufacturing jobs. Because of those losses if America was forced to go to war on a global basis we do not have the manufacturing base to allow us to compete.
Why is China running the world economy? Because they are now the world's manufacturing base not the US. We are the service base for the world. What generates more GNP service or manufacturing? Manufacturing by a 3:1 factor. We need manufacturing and if that means a lower return for the rich so be it. My personal solution would be a tax on all items not manufactured in the US of at least 45%. Force the multi-nationals to bring the jobs back to the US. I don't care if that makes a Camry cost $36,000 and a Malibu only $25,000 we would have more tax revenue, more high paying manufacturing jobs, and more profitable American companies.
Big Mac says, "Because they [China] are now the world's manufacturing base not the US. We are the service base for the world. What generates more GNP service or manufacturing? Manufacturing by a 3:1 factor."
This is economically false.
Manufacturing, especially the low end manufacturing that is done in China, captures little of the wealth creation of the product.
That's because the giant share of the profits of a product come from the initial phase of its life cycle –that's called the design phase, Big Mac — and then in the sales, distribution, and servicing of the product.
Many economists make a strong case that the size of the U.S. economy is far greater by this outsourcing of low-end manufacture to China and elsewhere than if we keep that work here.
These economist argure — and with a good bit of merit — that the loss of low end manufacturing by this outsourcing has more than been made up by increase number of jobs in design, sales, marketing, advertising, and servicing.
And as if to conform his economic ignorance, Big Mac says, "My personal solution would be a tax on all items not manufactured in the US of at least 45%. "
This is called a tariff, and such a one as Big Mac just described is what brought on the Great Depression in the 1930s.
What will you do for an encore, Mac, suggest wealth distribution along B. Hussein Obama's socialistic model?
Big Mac,
Vince is exactly right about tariffs (Smoot-Hawley under Hoover) on foreign goods being a primary cause of the Great Depression. The last thing America wants to do during an economic downturn is to shut off our exports and markets, and if we erect trade tariffs against foreign countries, they will do the same right back to us, denying us of foreign markets for our products and worsening our economic problems. We don't have to speculate on this matter, history provides a clear guide.
Regarding those manufacturing jobs, yes, we have been losing them (since the 1970's), but the question is, which president will get them back, one like McCain who promises to reduce taxes and costs on businesses, or one like Obama, who promises to increase taxes and costs on business ? The answer should be obvious. McCain's policies will create jobs. Obama's policies will lose jobs.
And I don't do crack, just cough syrup right now.
I read King's list of "progressive" policies accomplished by Republicans.
Do you have any that aren't, like, 50 years ago? Anything recently? Plan D doesn't count because of, you know, donut holes and no government negotiation on pricing.
Anything?
Pretty weak answer, Rev, but about what I expected. You got nuthin'.
Hay,I like your posting friend and i would like to link exchange with your blog if you want.this is my blog Unsecured credits And also dont forget to come.i will happy if you come .Good bye friend