Republicans and their love of redistributing the wealth:
The Obama campaign had the PERFECT answer given to them on a silver platter. I thought David Gergen on Anderson Coopers was brilliant when talking about this "issue" and it is certainly something the Obama campaign needs to broadcast immediately.
Here is the answer (from Anderson Cooper 360 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/27/acd.01.h... ):
COOPER: It's certainly a question the McCain campaign has kind of been hammering at, portraying Obama as a socialist. You hear that on -- on the Palin campaign as well.Is it working?
GERGEN: They may be making some modest progress with it, Anderson. We did see some evidence of McCain coming up a point or two here and there. I don't think it's anywhere near close enough to win an election. And more importantly, I don't think the Democrats have really answered it appropriately.
You know, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was very much an advocate of what's called progressive taxation. And that is the rich pay more than the poor in terms of taxes.Now, one of the most effective popular programs we've had in the last three decades. It's called the earned income tax credit. It's a program whereby, if you're a working person, a working couple and you're below the poverty line, the government will actually give you money.
That's a redistributed program. It's a program which takes money from the upper classes and gives it to the lower -- to the working poor.Now who started that program? The earned income tax credit? Ronald Reagan. It was one of the -- it was an achievement of the Reagan administration that Bill Clinton then built on.
So I think that these arguments are -- you know, some of them get so carried away that they don't recognize the realities of what we've been going through in public policy and the big arguments about why the wealth over the last 30 years has been redistributed.
It's been redistributed upwards.
Other Republican Presidents who supported "redistribution of wealth":
"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax increasing rapidly with the size of the estate.”- Theodore Roosevelt.
“Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt. The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."- Dwight D. Eisenhower
In 1986, Reagan signed legislation greatly increasing the earned income tax credit, a credit for low-income workers that reduces the impact of payroll taxes in order to boost take-home pay above poverty levels. When the credit is more than the amount of federal income taxes owed by an individual, that person receives a tax “refund.”“It's the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”- Ronald Reagan
7 comments:
Personally, I think we should redistribute a lot of wealth back from the rich to the middle class and the poor. I suspect that when "Keating Five" McCain claims that Obama will redistribute the wealth, it actually helps Obama. Most people would gain under those circumstances.
the only thing i know is that when i personally give a poor person a dollar, that poor person has a dollar to spend. when i give the government a dollar and they give it to a poor person that poor person may end up with only 50 cents to spend. i prefer giving that poor person a dollar myself.
besides as a founding father said,
"“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison
and i think he would know what the meaning of the Constitution better than all of us.
"“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison
and i think he would know what the meaning of the Constitution better than all of us.
At the time Madison made this statement, the population of the US was under 10 million, slavery was still legal, and only propertied white men could vote.
That is not the "meaning" of the Constitution in the 21st century.
And we are NOT the same agrarian economy that we were in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
But more to your point: I wonder how many people, during the Great Depression, would have had the means to give the millions and millions of Americans who were out of work a dollar to help them get through that dire situation.
And I thought "the griper" would be interested in this bit of hypocrisy from McCain/Palin campaign:
After Calling Social Security An ‘Absolute Disgrace,’ McCain Says Safety Nets Are ‘What America Is All About’»
In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity last night, Sen. John McCain claimed it was a “far-left liberal view that you need to take money from one group of Americans and give it to another.” Yet in the same breath, McCain praised the social safety net system, in particular Social Security:
McCAIN: Now, of course we have an obligation to take care of citizens in our society who can’t care for themselves. That’s why we have those programs, those Safety Net Programs. But you know, the Safety Net Program, a lot of Americans pay in to Social Security, they pay in to a number of those programs. So the point is, yes, a society and government takes care of citizens who need our help. That’s what America is all about.
nope, we are not the same aquarian economy as we were back then but the government and Constitution is the same Constitution. the words are the same as they were then and the contract is the same. and the last time i heard contracts maintain their same meaning unless both paties agree to an amendment. contracts cannot be changed when only one party decides to, both parties must agree to it. if they didn't contracts could not be enforced. and i see no amendment in the Constitution that would change what Madison said.
your living Constitution declares that the federal government can change the meaning to suit itself without states approval. and that contract was a contract between the states. only they have the right to change the meaning of it. the federal government was not, is not a party of that contract. it was a creation of the states. the last time i heard it is the creator that commands the created not the crreeated commanding the creator. that would be like man giving the commandment to God to be obedient to.
it is a direct violation of the 10th amendment and if the federal government has the right to violate that amendment it has the right to violate any part of the Constitution it deems fit to. if you want the federal government to be a charity organization, fine, pass an amendement permitting it to.
remember this shaw, if you insist on interpreting the CONSTITUTION YOUR WAY YOU ARE GIVING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A BLANK CHECK TO VIOLATE EVERY RIGHT WE HAVE AS CITIZENS. REASON, IF IT CAN CHANGE THE MEANING OF IT FOR ONE PURPOSE IT CAN CHANGE THE MEANING FOR ANY PURPOSE IT DECIDES TO. AND YOU AND I WILL HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? ARE YOU WILLING TO RISK THAT FOR YOURSELF, YOUR KIDS, YOUR GRAND KIDS YOUR FAMILY? I KNOW I'M NOT WILLING TO RISK FOR THEM.
First of all, let's talk about the EIC, which I know about, having received it the last 3 years.
The EIC highlights exactly what is wrong with hour tax system. To explain, let me talk about it in terms of the FairTax.
The reason we have the EIC is because, no matter what Obama or McCain say, we do tax the poor. This requires understanding the concept of embedded taxes. Embedded taxes are the taxes paid by consumers for the cost corporations incur in taxes, and compliance with those tax laws. Corporations do not pay taxes. instead, they add all those costs in the form of higher prices. In essence, all these asinine ideas for redistributing wealth (making the "rich" "pay their fair share") do is raise the cost to all of us, then giving the government a reason to redistribute it.
On a side note: I'd come out about the same if we chucked the tax insanity and went with the FairTax, except that the government wouldn't be swirling that money around for up to a year before I "got it back."
Libhom: Out of curiosity, at what point should people who have earned their money have it taken away? What's fair? And who is the arbiter of what's a "fair" maximum income?
Griper: Amen
Shaw: That is not the "meaning" of the Constitution in the 21st century.
Are we going to start redefining "is" again?
The reason we are in such a mess is because both parties decided to start redefining what the Constitution said, adding things that benefited their particular constituencies, and kept empowering the government to do things it should have never even though to do.
But I expect that from you. And I expect that from Obama, and his Supreme Court nominees.
There's a reason the Founding Fathers created a limited government. When a government ceases to be of laws, but of men, then the capriciousness and evil of men can consume it. (Ooh, I like that line. I'll have to quote me on that)
As for McCain's mouth: Again, he's on his own.
I see no reason for any governemt to take the wealth from anyone. The only people that should get any on my hard earned money would be my wife and kids. You can keep your hands out of my pocket libhom. You are all a bunch of petty thieves.
Mike Cochran
Post a Comment