The Redistribution Solution

[Elvado]

Is anyone really surprised by the revelation that Barack Obama has long favored "Redistribution of Wealth"?

I for one am not. The most telling part of the radio interview from 2001,in my opinion (jaded and right wing in the interest of full disclosure) is the open discussion of how best to achieve redistribution of wealth: Via the courts or via Legislation?

The fundamental question as to whether to redistribute never entered the discussion.

[Bando]

Well, Republicans favor nationalization of industry, so I guess we're even there.

I guess you see the 16th Amendment as a dirty socialist plot, huh?

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

And I'm not surprised you made up facts to suit your argument.

Fox News has the entire - poorly transcribed - script of the discussion: www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/#50041ecb,2008-10-27

The audio is here: www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp (January 18th for those that want to listen to the whole thing).

The discussion is about the Civil Rights movement and the Warren Court strategy of the movement. Obama discusses that positive liberties such as economic rights could only be granted by the legislature because the Court was constrained by the constitution which is written in terms of negative liberties. The phrase "redistribution of wealth" is mentioned. Obama doesn't say he favors it. He sounds - like he was at the time - like a Con law professor talking about the Warren Court and the Civil Rights movement.

The discussion is not about how to achieve redistribution of wealth - its not mentioned that that's the goal. The discussion is analytical and historical. The question never entered the discussion because the discussion was not responsive to the question.

Next time you try to make up facts, carve a B on your face, you get more attention and you're just as likely to be correct.

[Elvado]

The Sixteenth Amendment, like so many ideas, social programs, etc, has gone far beyond its useful and/or fair life.

Unions were once a fine idea, too.

The point of my post was not to debate the merits of Redistribution of Wealth. Mr. Obama has been given the ultimate in free passes on this and many other issues. Maybe people just don't care and want to elect him. So be it.

I am curious as to why Cindy McCain's prescription problems are of interest, but Barack's own nose candy habit is off-limits. Full disclosure, I understand GWB probably tooted as well.

Is the media completely asleep? Seriously, regardless of candidate of choice or outcome, do you believe the playing field is level media wise? I'm curious to know.

[Elvado]

St. pete:

He called it a tragedy that the Court did not go further in the Redistribution of Wealth. He then took a question as to whether it was too late to achieve it and stated his preference for a legislative solution.

[strummer8526]

I'm not going to mull through the transcript, but just because I want to, I'm going to believe St. Pete and leave the burden on Elvado to reference that "redistribution" support in the actual transcript or recording.

As for the playing field, I honestly hadn't heard about Cindy's prescriptions until right now reading this thread. So I wouldn't exactly say it's being splashed around (unless that's happened in the last 3 hours while I was in class). I think the media has been fair about this "redistribution" nonsense b/c the media, like many of us here, think that both Dems and Republicans "redistribute," just in different ways and with different rhetoric.

Example: A lot of my money (alright, until May, it's still my parents' money) is "REdistributed" to large companies w/ strong ties to REpublicans, so they can REbuild the country that we needlessly REinvaded. But we consider the goal of a free Iraq a positive, and so something that the US is REsponsible for funding. How is it any less REasonable for us to decide that ensuring all of our own citizens have access to necessary goods and services any more REpulsive?

[Elvado]

Strummer :

Kudos for admitting that you've not yet earned what Mr. Obama and his ilk wish to give away. When you're working, paying a mortgage and raising children, you might have a different perspective on the cradle to grave nanny staty we are approaching.

[Cambridge]

Oct 27, 2008 11:59:27 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Strummer :

Kudos for admitting that you've not yet earned what Mr. Obama and his ilk wish to give away. When you're working, paying a mortgage and raising children, you might have a different perspective on the cradle to grave nanny staty we are approaching.

That is just bombastic hyperbole that undermines your otherwise valid criticisms. It only makes you look like a crackpot.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Does someone on the right (preferably someone who's been beating this "Obama is a socialist" drum) care to explain what this "redistribution" might look like?

Great post, strummer. Couldn't have said it better.

Elvado---very interesting idea re: 16th Amdmt. What would you propose alternatively? For sake of argument, let's assume that we need the same level of revenue we have today.

[TC]

I've been listening to this in the background today, and it is fascinating - especially when you contrast the level of discourse of the campaign over the last two months (lipstick on a pig, speeches about pies, "real Americans", people that can't name a magazine that they read or any Supreme Court Case, etc) to Obama talking about at length of the ethos of the Warren court.

I've listened to most of it, and I need to point out that the Fox transcript omits the first mention of redistribution - which is around 35:00 in. It's important to note this because it lays the context to which Obama is talking about redistribution. To be honest, I think in the Fox transcript it is purposely left out of the "key portions" because it allows them to take the quotes completely out of context for this ridiculous socialist/Marxist argument.

Obama is talking specificly about inequality in education (think : busing / integration) in all three places here, not hypothetical redistribution of wealth from a plumber making $250,000 to someone making $20,000 a year.

[PushyGuyFanClub]

Re: redistribution

money.cnn.com/2008/10/24/magazines/fortune/tully_henrys.fortune/index.htm

Obama's tax policy would increase the burden on folks like this by increasing their marginal rate by 460 basis points, removing eligibility for certain deducations, and increasing their cap gains tax rate 500 basis points.

He then plans to take some of that increased revenue and use it to pay for refundable tax credits that are refundable regardless of your tax liability.

For example, a married couple with two children (one of whom is in college) and $50,000 of taxable income in 2007 would have paid $6,717 in federal taxes.

Under Obama's plan, that hypothetical family could receive a refundable $1,000 "Making Work Pay" credit, a refundable $4,000 credit on tuition, a refundable $500 mortgage credit, a 50% match on $1,000 in savings (read a $500 refundable credit), and up to a $3,000 refundable credit if they pay for child care.

Add tht altogether and this family has now netted $2,300 off the government which was paid for by somone else paying more. That's redistribution.

Now, I'm not saying the $50,000 family doesn't have a more difficult lot in life than someone mentioned in the article linked above, but the HENRYs, as Fortune calls them, IMO, should not be overtaxed in order to pay for both their childcare, their tuition, their mortgage, and their retirement plan...and someone else's.

For what it's worth, I calculated my own increased tax liability under Obama's plan, and it's significant. Obviously, no one needs to cry for me about that, but my wife and I both work 12 hour days, rearrange our schedules around 1 car (I skateboard to work), had to work hard to find the money to pay for Georgetown season tickets this year, etc. I feel like I pay my fair share in taxes and that my work entitles me to some small luxuries. And we don't even have kids. If I had to pay for daycare, soccer, music lessons, etc in the DC area, I certainly would feel far, far from wealthy. Yet Obama thinks they can part with another $10,000 to $20,000 per year. That's enough money to 1) encourage me to get a tax lawyer to build me a shelter or 2) tell my wife not to bother working because all she's doing is paying our tax bill. That either means the government is deprived of revenue or the economy is deprived of productivity. Neither is good.

Sources:
www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html
www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

[quickplay]

So you're saying that it isn't fair for you to pay more taxes because it's going to help someone else and not you?

Can we at least all admit that this current jump on the idea of distributing or redistributing wealth is disingenuous and politically motivated? That's what taxes are.

[PushyGuyFanClub]

My view on taxes is that we all pay for things together that benefit everyone together...roads, national security, etc. It's unclear how taking money from my family to give to someone else's family benefits me at all. If it's altruism, well, that's why my wife and I give to charity. The government has no role in that.

At some point taxes become disincentives to work. The government needs to treat the money of its citizens with more respect.

[hifigator]

Pushyguy, that is entirely unfair of you to use actual facts to support your position ... at least when it differs from the emotionally generated position that those on the other side have.

[hifigator]

Oct 27, 2008 11:18:57 GMT -5 StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) said:

And I'm not surprised you made up facts to suit your argument.

Fox News has the entire - poorly transcribed - script of the discussion: www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/#50041ecb,2008-10-27

The audio is here: www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp (January 18th for those that want to listen to the whole thing).

The discussion is about the Civil Rights movement and the Warren Court strategy of the movement. Obama discusses that positive liberties such as economic rights could only be granted by the legislature because the Court was constrained by the constitution which is written in terms of negative liberties. The phrase "redistribution of wealth" is mentioned. Obama doesn't say he favors it. He sounds - like he was at the time - like a Con law professor talking about the Warren Court and the Civil Rights movement.

The discussion is not about how to achieve redistribution of wealth - its not mentioned that that's the goal. The discussion is analytical and historical. The question never entered the discussion because the discussion was not responsive to the question.

Next time you try to make up facts, carve a B on your face, you get more attention and you're just as likely to be correct.

That is a bunch of fluff. You conveniently selected certain parts of the interview(s) to conjure up a convenient explanation, that -- at least on the surface -- seems relatively reasonable. There was zero doubt that Obama is in favor of (relatively major) redistribution of wealth. For you to try to somehow dismiss this as him actually meaning something else, is incredible wrong. Once again, I think you know that.

[quickplay]

It would be basically impossible for taxes to only pay for things that benefit everyone. And I do understand your view on taxes, but I think it's a much neater theory than it is a practice. How would you decide what is something that benefits everyone, and what is something that doesn't benefit enough people for taxes to go to it? A progressive tax system is by definition going to have people paying proportionately more for things they won't necessarily benefit more from.

Would you be in favor of something more along the lines of a flat tax without deductions? I think it's an interesting idea, and I've heard compelling arguments on both sides.

[TC]

Oct 27, 2008 15:02:46 GMT -5 hifigator said:

That is a bunch of fluff. You conveniently selected certain parts of the interview(s) to conjure up a convenient explanation, that -- at least on the surface -- seems relatively reasonable.

There's no doubt in my mind that you are just talking Drudge points and that you've made absolutely no effort to listen to the complete interview.

[PushyGuyFanClub]

I used to care about how I was taxed -- flat tax, VAT, graduated income tax, etc. -- but don't really much care any longer. The system for collecting taxes matters so much less than electing a government that believes they should only ask taxpayers to pay for things the government actually needs to pay for and that will be valuable, IMO. And for that, we have to trust the judgment of elected officials.

Ultimately, I'm not voting for Obama because I don't believe the government deserves another $10,000 to $20,000 of my money. They've shown over decades to be inept at managing it, and I believe I can allocate it more responsibly than they can (including giving more to organizations that are actually effective in what they do to help people).

[hifigator]

I think that the flat tax, the fair tax and the oft-mentioned universal consumption tax are all better ideas than the current tax plan. Fundamentally, "progressive" taxes in general seem to be unfair. The nature of a percentage, is that automatically, those that have more/earn more will, in fact, pay more. Similarly, it is not intuitively obvious why someone should pay an ever-increasing percentage as he or she earns more and more.

One explanation that I have heard is that some aspects of life are really only available to wealthier people. While that statement alone doesn't address is why? On one end of the spectrum would be the poor, who can't afford the same things. But there is a second angle on this. Why "should" a poor person pay taxes to cover the costs of a program which they will never be able to benefit from? But even a progressive tax doesn't totally anser that question.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Hifi - where did I pick out convenient facts or take things out of context? Cite specific examples. I posted a link to the entire audio clip which as has been pointed out is an incredibly detailed and lucid discussion of the effecacy of the civil rights strategy of using the warren court after the second Brown decision. Obama seems to take the position that the extension of a positive right to education was an example of courts being ill-equipped to provide the remedy that the civil rights litigants were seeking - this shows obamas temperment on constitutional issues to be more measured than one might think.

Elvado - explain how this quote shows that a meticulous consensus-seeking Harvard Law Review editor in chief was a radical liberal before becoming a careful consensus-seeking US Senator.

These attacks are increasingl desparate, transparent, and sad.