Obama: Civil Right Movement Failed to Redistribute Wealth

[MattW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck


Interview from 2001.

MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.


OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.

Now, this stuff comes as no surprise to me, but I wonder how much of what Obama believed back then was scrubbed from his agenda by bringing his platform to the center of the Democratic party. For all the Obama supporters, is this what you signed up for? Or is this not enough?

His interpretation of the constitution is spot on (even if he's criticizing it) - it is exactly a list of what the government powers cannot do to you, not a laundry list of every want and need that should be managed by big brother and not the individual.

And he implies that judges on the Supreme court should not only be "activist" they should disregard the bound of the Constitution when necessary to promote "Social justice."

[dmytryp]

An article (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI=) on the subject. The interesting bit (though somewhat unrelated to Obam's words):
I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.

I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.

I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.

I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.

snip

There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.

That hell — your own personal hell — is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.

You’ve earned it.

[maestrowork]

Wealth has been redistributed well enough -- just not down, but up. When you have corporate executives making millions in salaries plus multimillion-dollar golden parachutes and company-supplied jets and $400K corporate retreats at five-star resorts while their employees couldn't even afford insurance or retirement, and stockholders rather laying off workers or outsourcing to India to increase profits -- yup, we already have wealth redistribution.

[mscelina]

McCain brought this up at his rally last night. The concept was not well-received by the audience.

[dmytryp]

Wealth has been redistributed well enough -- just not down, but up. When you have corporate executives making millions in salaries plus multimillion-dollar golden parachutes and company-supplied jets and $400K corporate retreats at five-star resorts while their employees couldn't even afford insurance or retirement, and stockholders rather laying off workers or outsourcing to India to increase profits -- yup, we already have wealth redistribution.
The difference it is not government sponsored. And many believ it shouldn't be

EDIT: this starts gathering momentum. We'll see how it plays out. There is no Joe the plumber to discredit this time.

[mscelina]

Yes, it is gathering momentum--and on a day when the first checks from the federal bailout are being cut by the Treasury. It will be interesting to see where this ends up.

[maestrowork]

Yes, it is gathering momentum--and on a day when the first checks from the federal bailout are being cut by the Treasury. It will be interesting to see where this ends up.

If we're going to have government-sponsored redistribution, then at least I'd like it to be redistributed to the middle/working class. Give the employees raises, better healthcare and retirement plans, and take away all the golden parachutes for top executives and lavish business spending that they can get a tax write-off with.

Our government already does that -- you don't see Senators making 100 times more than the county clerk. You don't see principals making 10 times more than public school teachers. You don't see CIA directors making 50 times more than the agents. Even the President of the United States gets only $400K a year (of course, he does have all kinds of executive privileges), and not $4 million. What is happening in the private sector is a sickness, and a sickness that helps get us in this mess to begin with. If there's any government-mandated redistribution, then distribute it down. And let's see how that works out...

Meanwhile, McCain is proposing a $300B buyout of bad mortgages. I wonder whose pockets that money will go to...

[MarkEsq]

The difference it is not government sponsored. And many believ it shouldn't be



Not so sure. Ethanol subsidies to Big Ag, the quick bail-outs to the banks while homeowners are still losing their homes. All kinds of tax loop-holes that the rich can exploit. Seems pretty government sponsored to me. Ray's right, we have wealth redistribution, it's all going to the top.

[dmytryp]

If we're going to have government-sponsored redistribution, then at least I'd like it to be redistributed to the middle/working class. Give the employees raises, better healthcare and retirement plans, and take away all the golden parachutes for top executives and lavish business spending that they can get a tax write-off with.

Our government already does that -- you don't see Senators making 100 times more than the county clerk. You don't see principals making 10 times more than public school teachers. You don't see CIA directors making 50 times more than the agents. What is happening in the private sector is a sickness, and a sickness that helps get us in this mess to begin with. If there's any government-mandated redistribution, then distribute it down. And let's see how that works out...

Meanwhile, McCain is proposing a $300B buyout of bad mortgages. I wonder whose pockets that money will go to...
First, the redistribution is largely going to be to the bottom, not the middle class (By the way, do you consider a single person making 100k to be rich?)
Second, what happens in the private sector in terms of salaries is none of gov's damn business (unless it takes over in part as it does with some of those firms and then taxpayers money is involved). The private sector is governed by laws of supply and demand. And it should be that way. Complaining about how much a CEO of a privately owned company makes is class envy, pure and simple. People should strive to help the poor get richer, not tear the rich down.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I'm confused. I thought civil rights was about equal treatment under the law and an attempt to eliminate prejudice and bigotry and being sent to the back of the bus and not having "White Only" bubblers and restaurants?

When did redistribution of wealth come in to play?

Or am I just naive?

[dmytryp]

I'm confused. I thought civil rights was about equal treatment under the law and an attempt to eliminate prejudice and bigotry and being sent to the back of the bus and not having "White Only" bubblers and restaurants?

When did redistribution of wealth come in to play?

Or am I just naive?
Apparently Obama disagrees. He thinks it should have been about redefining Constitution.

[mscelina]

And the economic justice that didn't happen as a result of the civil rights movement? Whose pockets would that come from? The issue discussed in the OP goes far beyond the private sector. Granted, the private sector and the incredible financial benefits shared by CEOs and executives on Wall Street is out of control big time. It is a situation that needs to be addressed strongly. But, I fail to see how it is possible on any level for the government to take the wealth of one subgroup within our culture and redistribute it to another.

[dmytryp]

Not so sure. Ethanol subsidies to Big Ag, the quick bail-outs to the banks while homeowners are still losing their homes. All kinds of tax loop-holes that the rich can exploit. Seems pretty government sponsored to me. Ray's right, we have wealth redistribution, it's all going to the top.
I posted a study. Twice. Top 40% put into the treasury more than they recieve. Bottom 60% recieve more than they put in. Bottom 20% recieve eight times more than they put in. The upper 20% recieve 40% of what they put in. How is it redistribution upwards?

[mscelina]

Well, aside from the way they already do it, I should have said. After all, the welfare program still exists.

[maestrowork]

First, the redistribution is largely going to be to the bottom, not the middle class (By the way, do you consider a single person making 100k to be rich?)


Where do you get that $100K number? I made over $100K and I was merely middle class. And why do you say redistribution goes to the bottom? Cite, please.

Second, what happens in the private sector in terms of salaries is none of gov's damn business (unless it takes over in part as it does with some of those firms and then taxpayers money is involved). The private sector is governed by laws of supply and demand. And it should be that way. Complaining about how much a CEO of a privately owned company makes is class envy, pure and simple.


I never argued this point, but I'm surprised you don't see how this capitalist system, where top corporate executives are making 100 times more than the guy on the shop floor, is not out of control. I worked at IBMs, we even during our heydays our top execs never had $400K retreats or $85K hunting trips or $65,000 dinners.

And like Mark said, we already have government-sponsored welfare through tax breaks, loopholes, etc. You can spend $500K on a "business trip" and write the whole thing off. That's government-sponsored wealth redistribution, but only you and I don't see a dime of that. Well, maybe if you're a stockholder...


People should strive to help the poor get richer, not tear the rich down.

I don't think it's tearing the rich down. The rich are doing just fine in this country. It's still a land of opportunities and no one is whining about and preventing the Facebook or Google guys building multibillion$ empires and reaping the financial profits from their work and innovations. It's the people making $50,000 a year that are struggling. Are we, as a country, saying, "It's your own damn fault -- you're just not smart enough, hardworking enough to be rich, and even if you're smart enough, it's your parents fault that you can't go to college and do anything about it"?

It's not class envy. It's about bridging the gap between the ridiculous that extremes, sometimes at the expense of the middle class and poor people. We've seen that in history. It didn't work.

[MarkEsq]

I posted a study. Twice. Top 40% put into the treasury more than they recieve. Bottom 60% recieve more than they put in. Bottom 20% recieve eight times more than they put in. The upper 20% recieve 40% of what they put in. How is it redistribution upwards?


And did those studies account for the tax loopholes and the hand-outs the corporations get on top of their profits? Didn't think so.

[dmytryp]

Not so sure. Ethanol subsidies to Big Ag, the quick bail-outs to the banks while homeowners are still losing their homes. All kinds of tax loop-holes that the rich can exploit. Seems pretty government sponsored to me. Ray's right, we have wealth redistribution, it's all going to the top.
Thought about this some more -- with the exception of the bail-outs (which was geared by other reasons, but it doesn't matter) it is not wealth redistribution. Allowing a person to keep more of his money is not equal to transferring of said money from others. If there were no loop-holes, those not using them wouldn't pay less.

[dmytryp]

And did those studies account for the tax loopholes and the hand-outs the corporations get on top of their profits? Didn't think so.
Those studies accounted for the total taxes (federal and local) paid by individuals and total gov spending (local and federal) per person.

EDIT: Look, you can make an arguement that the gov spending or tax burden is not "fairly" distributed (though this would be an opinion), but it doesn't equals wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution is taking money from one group and giving it to the other. Not taking less from the other, but actually giving. It is a fundamental ideological difference. The money made by a person is his, not the government's. And giving him a tax cut doesn't constitute a handout. It constitutes taking less from him

[sulong]

First of all, supply and demand are not “laws”, they are principles.
Second, supply and demand are governed by yet higher principles. Those are “fear and greed”.

Fear and greed can, and are manipulated on the masses by the wealthy elite. The goal of which is the accumulation of power.

Just look at the cache phrase “consumer economics” for verification.

[odocoileus]

All mainstream politicians in the West are redistributionist, including all but the most extreme US Republicans. Staunchly Republican Alaska, for example, redistributes oil company profits to every resident of Alaska. Only the most extreme Republicans oppose progressive taxation, for example, which is redistribution plain and simple.

The US is less redistributionist, generally, than any other advanced Western nation. Britain, France, Germany, Canada, almost all of the major nations of the West are to the left of the US on this issue. In France in particular, these policies have led to major economic stagnation. The French enjoy a very high quality of life, but they also have entrenched, nearly perpetual rates of high unemployment.

Obama and most Democrats support returning marginal tax rates - the taxes big income earners pay on the top fraction of their incomes - to Clinton era levels. That's Obama's stated proposal.

I'm sure if he thought he could pull it off politically, Obama would support making marginal tax rates even higher, going back to the astronomical (in my opinion) levels under Truman and Eisenhower.

I don't see Obama doing this, because it would be wildly unpopular, and so much of his base and loyal donors are tech sector entrepeneurs, as well as managerial and professional types. So I expect Obama to make a precise calculation as to just how far left the country is willing to go on tax and economic policy, and try to aim a little past it. (If he gets everything he wants - he won't, no one ever does - we'll still be to the right of Canada on most issues of taxation and economic policy. Not so good for unfettered economic growth, but not disaster either.

One of the basic ideas that's gained currency among Democrats over the past couple of decades is that redistributionist policies aimed specifically at the poor are unworkable politically. In this view, the most succesfull policies are those that take from the rich, and give to everyone.

Cash handouts to the poor are out of the question, but then, these pretty much ended during the Clinton administration's welfare reform. I don't see Obama having a problem with government subsidized public service jobs, though. He's talked up rebuilding the country's infrastructure throughout his campaign, so he's likely to make training and employing the poor a major part of this.

The issue is complicated by the fact that we face a huge entitlement crisis. We will probably use all the additional revenue from increased taxes and the anticipated economic upswing to pay off our current obligations.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_rise_of_fantasy_politics.html

[mscelina]

Oh, I don't know about that. I think the concept of supply and demand is insurmountable. If we're going to have an argument about semantics, I'd support the term 'law.'

[sulong]

OKay, I don't wish to have an argument over anything. It's just that one term lends itself to black and white perception, whereas the other allows a broader insight to the issues.

//shrug// To each their own.

[robeiae]

...Staunchly Republican Alaska, for example, redistributes oil company profits to every resident of Alaska...That's not really how it works. It's not "oil compnay profits," it's profits from a trust fund (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1039347&postcount=54) established for exactly this purpose: to allow citizens to profit from the businesses profiting from Alaska. Personally, I think it's great concept.

Regardless, it's not "redistribution" in the sense meant by Obama or in general. EVERYONE in Alaska, REGARDLESS of wealth or income, get's the same cut.

[maestrowork]

Regardless, it's not "redistribution" in the sense meant by Obama or in general. EVERYONE in Alaska, REGARDLESS of wealth or income, get's the same cut.

Sounds like communism. ;)

[robeiae]

Sounds like communism. ;)
It would be, if the trust fund was Bill Gates' bank account...

[odocoileus]

That's not really how it works. It's not "oil compnay profits," it's profits from a trust fund (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1039347&postcount=54) established for exactly this purpose: to allow citizens to profit from the businesses profiting from Alaska. Personally, I think it's great concept.

Regardless, it's not "redistribution" in the sense meant by Obama or in general. EVERYONE in Alaska, REGARDLESS of wealth or income, get's the same cut.

Where would the money go if it weren't going into the trust fund? Aren't the owners and/or shareholders of the oil companies being deprived of the full value of something they own? The money is being redistributed from the shareholders to the general public. Cash handouts. The general public didn't finance the exploration and drilling. Why do they deserve a share?

Do the inner city poor in Chicago deserve a cut from all the banking, investment, commodity transport and sales which go on in the city of Chicago? Do they not, in the same sense that the residents of Alaska "own" their oil, "own" the land on which the business takes place?

Sounds like a redistributionist, Democrat idea to me:

One of the basic ideas that's gained currency among Democrats over the past couple of decades is that redistributionist policies aimed specifically at the poor are unworkable politically. In this view, the most succesfull policies are those that take from the rich, and give to everyone.

[robeiae]

Where would the money go if it weren't going into the trust fund?
There's isn't any "going" into the trust fund. It's already there. The money people are getting is profits from the trust fund monies, from investments, not the actual trust fund monies.

You're laboring needlessly to make this fit. It doesn't. Just let it go.

[odocoileus]

A bit about marginal tax rates. (http://s38.photobucket.com/albums/e101/FogerRox/?action=view&current=toprategraph4.jpg)



[

[whistlelock]

Maybe I'm missing something here- where does he talk about taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people?

I see the part where he talks about the courts reluctance to order school reform because of the costs it would bear on that school.

And I see where his regret was the Civil Rights movement became court focused and lost its footing in the civic areas.

I see the bolding where the court did not enter into the ideas of wealth redistribution. However, I'm not seeing where he's gonna take your money and give it to the people in the trailer park.

I'm not seeing that. It could be there's not a definition of redistribution of wealth. And there's not a context with the quote.

It could be I have a blind spot since I believe society should help those who are economically and educationally disadvantaged.

[robeiae]

Maybe I'm missing something here- where does he talk about taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people?
...
I see the bolding where the court did not enter into the ideas of wealth redistribution. However, I'm not seeing where he's gonna take your money and give it to the people in the trailer park.
Couple the part in bold with Obama's answer to Joe the plumber.

And "economic justice" is code.

[odocoileus]

There's isn't any "going" into the trust fund. It's already there. The money people are getting is profits from the trust fund monies, from investments, not the actual trust fund monies.

You're laboring needlessly to make this fit. It doesn't. Just let it go.

No. Someone's still being deprived of value. The profit from the investments is profit that would go elsewhere, and not to the general public.

It's redistributionist, period.

[robeiae]

No. Someone's still being deprived of value. The profit from the investments is profit that would go elsewhere, and not to the general public.

It's redistributionist, period.
WHO is being "deprived of value"? The State of Alaska?

Look, blacbird explained it better than I could in the thread I linked to. Here's more (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1036485&postcount=43):

Details:

When Alaska became a state in 1959, virtually nothing was known of the oil potential of the North Slope region. There was some minor production near Barrow, for local consumption, and similarly in a couple of other places. There was relatively minor production in southern Alaska, the Cook Inlet region, also for local consumption. The Navy held a vast swath of essentially unexplored territory in northwestern Alaska as the Naval Petroleum Reserve.

A compact was signed between the state and the Feds which specified royalty percentages on all mineral exploration on state lands. These remain in effect, and are pretty generous, but at the time they were negotiated, nobody had any idea what resources would ultimately be involved. Back in the late 1960s the head of Arco, the company that eventually made the discovery of the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field, the largest in North America, said, before that discovery was made: "I'll drink every drop of oil that is discovered on the North Slope."

Well, oil was discovered on the North Slope. Quite a lot of it. It continues to be discovered, and produced. And the mandated oil royalties started rolling into state coffers. Initially, nobody knew what to do with it. But back in the early-mid 1970s, the state was blessed by the best governor in its history, a man named Jay Hammond, who lived in a remote rural locality on a lake in the southwestern part of the state. Hammond was a Republican, so never let anyone say I don't say good things about Republicans. He established a thing called the "Alaska Permanent Fund", which mandated a variety of uses for this money, the major part being an endowment, which a few years later began to pay an annual dividend to every resident of the state who had lived here for at least one calendar year.

The dividend is based on a fraction of investment earnings during a given year. I've lived here for 17 years, and it has varied from about $700 to nearly $2000. Last year it was around $1200. It goes to everyone having resided a calendar year, including kids, so it pays to have a big family. It is irrespective of income. If Bill Gates lived here, he would get the same amount as the homeless dude freezing on the street (provided both completed the simple application involved).

Obviously, that's a very poor way to proceed, damn un-American in fact, not giving the bulk of the money to the most wealthy, and the least to the least wealthy, but that's the way it is up here. Deal with it.

Now, regards "nationalization": The state (and the Feds) own nothing in the way of actual oil infrastructure. All they have is land (as they have in many other places). The major oil producers in Alaska are Conoco-Phillips and BP. With them, Exxon is a co-owner of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Some smaller but still significant companies are actively exploring, with some recent success, in areas previously unexplored on the North Slope.

That's the way it is. To characterize this as "nationalization" is ridiculous.
Now obviously, he was demonstrating how the fund did not constitute a nationalizing of the oil business. But the fund isn't "redistribution of wealth," either. It can't be, because it functions IRRESPECTIVE of income/wealth.

[kuwisdelu]

Now, this stuff comes as no surprise to me, but I wonder how much of what Obama believed back then was scrubbed from his agenda by bringing his platform to the center of the Democratic party. For all the Obama supporters, is this what you signed up for? Or is this not enough?

I am a little surprised, since I've considered Obama fairly conservative for my tastes. However, I'm pleased that he used to be more liberal, and I hope he'll come back further to the left, eventually, but I understand he'd never get elected that way.

In related news, I do think the Constitution has its limitations when one considers the size and complications of the US's current populace. The Founding Fathers could not have foreseen so large a country, nor how technology would progress, and I think the Constitutions reflects this.

[MattW]

I am a little surprised, since I've considered Obama fairly conservative for my tastes. However, I'm pleased that he used to be more liberal, and I hope he'll come back further to the left, eventually, but I understand he'd never get elected that way.So you hope for dishonesty when it increases electability?

In related news, I do think the Constitution has its limitations when one considers the size and complications of the US's current populace. The Founding Fathers could not have foreseen so large a country, nor how technology would progress, and I think the Constitutions reflects this.We do have a wonderful process for amending the Constitution. It does not involve anyone from the Executive or Judicial Branches. It also means to take into account differences between states as well, but states rights have been pushed so far down by the federal that it hardly matters what the constitution grants to either.

[MattW]

And "economic justice" is code.To me, it sounds a little like code for "socialism" with a pinch of "reparations."

[mscelina]

To me, it sounds a little like code for "socialism" with a pinch of "reparations."
*winces*

Wow, man. Just lay it all out there.

[MattW]

*winces*

Wow, man. Just lay it all out there.:) It hurt to hit submit, but you gotta stand for what you believe to be right.

He was talking Civil Rights in the same breath as ignoring the Constitution and redistributing wealth.

It may have been 7 years ago, but it seems a very considered position.

[odocoileus]

To me, it sounds a little like code for "socialism" with a pinch of "reparations."

There's no evidence that Obama supports or has ever supported reparations.

In fact, redistribution targeted towards a small minority group which votes overwhelmingly Democratic anyway is the least likeliest thing to happen. What does it get Obama that he doesn't already have?

It's working class white people that Obama needs to win over, especially the union members who've done so much groundwork for him in key states like PA. So redistribution would be aimed at primarily at them, though anything that benefits union members and working class people also benefits black Americans.

[kuwisdelu]

So you hope for dishonesty when it increases electability?

Did I say that? Nope.

For a first term, I expect him to stick to his platform and keep his word. Those are high expectations for any politician, but nonetheless. My own hope is if a hypothetical first term goes well enough, America will soon be ready to re-elect a president with a more liberal platform.

We do have a wonderful process for amending the Constitution. It does not involve anyone from the Executive or Judicial Branches. It also means to take into account differences between states as well, but states rights have been pushed so far down by the federal that it hardly matters what the constitution grants to either.

Yes, we do. Both parties are guilty of this, of course, and no one more so than the current GOP. And although it can easily be argued that the "general Welfare" clause of Article I, Section 8 is merely the equivalent of the enumerated powers that follow, until cases like Butler, Helvering and Flemming vs. Nester are overturned, an amendment to explicitly allow the Federal government to exercise powers not enumerated for the "general Welfare" is unnecessary. Now, you may agree with that or not, but in the words of Justice Cardozo, "Nor is the concept of the general Welfare static . . . What is critical or urgent changes with the times."

To me, it sounds a little like code for "socialism" with a pinch of "reparations."

I don't like the idea of forced reparations, and I don't think that's what Obama was implying anyway, but I don't mind the socialism. ;)

[mscelina]

It's working class white people that Obama needs to win over, especially the union members who've done so much groundwork for him in key states like PA. So redistribution would be aimed at primarily at them, though anything that benefits union members and working class people also benefits black Americans.

Granted. But talking about the lack of economic justice as a result of the civil rights movement is completely different from generic wealth distribution towards the working class.

[odocoileus]

Granted. But talking about the lack of economic justice as a result of the civil rights movement is completely different from generic wealth distribution towards the working class.

Not completely different, no. That was always the intention of the left wing of the Civil Rights movement, to move from Civil Rights issues to a broader "poor people's campaign". They saw wealth distribution from the wealthy to the poor ( the majority of whom were and are white) as an essential part of their program.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/poorpeoples.html

The idea for the Poor People's Campaign grew out of what King termed the "second phase" of the civil rights struggle. After the "first phase" had exposed the problems of segregation through nonviolence, King hoped to address what he called the "limitations to our achievements" with a second phase. In its ideology and style, the Poor People's Campaign demonstrated a merging of the first-phase tactics into second-phase goals. Through nonviolent direct action, King and SCLC hoped to focus the nation on economic inequality and poverty. The campaign also differed from previous SCLC campaigns in that it aimed to address the struggles of a cross-section of minority groups. "It must not be just black people," argued King, "it must be all poor people. We must include American Indians, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and even poor whites."


Their basic idea was that ethnicity was used by the establishment to to divide poor whites and poor blacks, and keep them from uniting to pursue their common interests.

So wealth distribution to the working class is exactly what Obama would be after, if he could pull it off.

[MattW]

Every time a Democrat says "middle class" they mean "lower class and middle class union workers only." And when they target the "rich" they really mean "upper middle class and up" even though the intent is to penalize "corporate fat cats."

But the GOP plays it's own brand of balderdash when it comes to defining their constituents.

No one really wants to help the middle class who might actually need help.

[kuwisdelu]

Every time a Democrat says "middle class" they mean "lower class and middle class union workers only."

What makes you think that?

[mscelina]

Not completely different, no. That was always the intention of the left wing of the Civil Rights movement, to move from Civil Rights issues to a broader "poor people's campaign". They saw wealth distribution from the wealthy to the poor ( the majority of whom were and are white) as an essential part of their program.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/poorpeoples.html

Their basic idea was that ethnicity was used by the establishment to to divide poor whites and poor blacks, and keep them from uniting to pursue their common interests.

So wealth distribution to the working class is exactly what Obama would be after, if he could pull it off.

No, it wouldn't. Obama didn't mention the 'poor people's campaign' he mentioned the civil rights movement. ONLY the civil rights movement. And, for that matter, the civil rights movement never did move in that direction. You'd be hard pressed to cite a portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that would indicate such a premise.

Although it would be nice to tiptoe around the ramifications of that phraseology, I can't. I'm prepared to take him at his word. Period. Now, if someone can explain to me with citation how the civil rights movement somehow moved to the poor people's campaign without my knowledge of it, I'm more than interested.

[MattW]

What makes you think that?The middle class in general does not benefit from big social welfare programs. The voting bloc that has become addicted to handouts and aid is the poor. They are not given jobs, training, or advancement opportunities, but basic needs are cared for in perpetuity. They don't pay taxes and they can vote for more aid. For the able-bodied, it's a tempting alternative to minimum wage.

The jab at unions is entirely about how they are perceived as working class, blue collar, regular folks. What you won't see them portrayed as is making $80/hour, plus guaranteed overtime, middle class workers who plan to take unemployment and disability between work. And while they get hit more often with layoffs and offshoring, often enough you could trace the parent company's issues back to inflexibility of labor contracts.

[Christine N.]

middle class union workers only

Woo hoo,where do I get in line? (hubby's a teamster. Yes, they back Obama.)

[odocoileus]

Obama didn't mention the 'poor people's campaign' he mentioned the civil rights movement. ONLY the civil rights movement. And, for that matter, the civil rights movement never did move in that direction. You'd be hard pressed to cite a portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that would indicate such a premise.


It's clear from the article I referenced that MLK, the leader of the Civil Rights movement at the time, wanted to launch a redistributionist campaign to include all poor people.

He is quoted saying so.

In the article.

[donroc]

Is the phrase, in the context of advocacy, redistribution of wealth ever used outside of Marxist/Socialist circles? I think not. That is a red (pun intended) flag alert for those opposed to Socialism. If it is normal usage for the speaker, it does give us a clue to his belief system.

[odocoileus]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg?printable=true

McCain, socialist?

During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

Palin, socialist?

The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

[mscelina]

It's clear from the article I referenced that MLK, the leader of the Civil Rights movement at the time, wanted to launch a redistributionist campaign to include all poor people.

He is quoted saying so.

In the article.

He WANTED to.

WANTED to.

Not he DID. But he WANTED to. THERE WAS NO REDISTRIBUTIONIST CAMPAIGN TO INCLUDE ALL POOR PEOPLE.

You're comparing apples to imaginary oranges or wished for oranges. As there was no redistributionist campaign to include all poor people, using that as some sort of blind to disguise Obama's opinion of the lack of economic justice resultant from the civil rights movement is just as specious as saying that because GWB WANTED to find WMDs in Iraq excuses the entire Iraq War.

Because, you know, he did want to. That makes it real, right?

[robeiae]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg?printable=true

McCain, socialist?Sure, why not? Buy up all the bad mortgages with federal dollars?!?!? Please...

Palin, socialist?Again, you're barking up the wrong tree, here. It's not the same thing, as I've tried to show you.

[odocoileus]

He WANTED to.

WANTED to.

Not he DID. But he WANTED to. THERE WAS NO REDISTRIBUTIONIST CAMPAIGN TO INCLUDE ALL POOR PEOPLE.

You're comparing apples to imaginary oranges or wished for oranges. As there was no redistributionist campaign to include all poor people, using that as some sort of blind to disguise Obama's opinion of the lack of economic justice resultant from the civil rights movement is just as specious as saying that because GWB WANTED to find WMDs in Iraq excuses the entire Iraq War.

Because, you know, he did want to. That makes it real, right?

Which is why left wing Democrats have consistently advocated for a redistributionist campaign for all the poor. They've always wanted it, and they've never been able to sell the voters on it.

This is all American Politics 101 stuff.

[odocoileus]

Sure, why not? Buy up all the bad mortgages with federal dollars?!?!? Please...

Again, you're barking up the wrong tree, here. It's not the same thing, as I've tried to show you.

collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Collective ownership? Sharing the wealth?

[mscelina]

Which is why left wing Democrats have consistently advocated for a redistributionist campaign for all the poor. They've always wanted it, and they've never been able to sell the voters on it.

This is all American Politics 101 stuff.
__________________


Oh, please. Spare me.

Do me a favor then. Show me the redistributionist plans that the Dems have consistently advocated for the last 20 years. I beg you. Granted, I only had a 4.0 in my undergrad Political Science major but I think even someone as effing clueless as I am would have remembered a redistributionist package of that magnitude.

Being snarky won't make your earlier assertion accurate you know. That's called debate 101. ;) I got an "A" in it too.

[robeiae]

Collective ownership? Sharing the wealth?
Yes. And?

In a corporation, collectively the stockholders own the company and share the wealth.

You're stuck on jargon.

Alaska is selling something on behalf of its citizens, then giving them all an equal taste. That's the way to see it.

If Alaska was confiscating (taxing) this money from some of the citizens and then giving it out to the remainder...socialism.

Or if Alaska was assuming ownership of the business (nationalizing), then doling out the profits (which would begin to spiral downward)...socialism.

[odocoileus]

Oh, please. Spare me.

Do me a favor then. Show me the redistributionist plans that the Dems have consistently advocated for the last 20 years. I beg you. Granted, I only had a 4.0 in my undergrad Political Science major but I think even someone as effing clueless as I am would have remembered a redistributionist package of that magnitude.

Being snarky won't make your earlier assertion accurate you know. That's called debate 101. ;) I got an "A" in it too.

Jesse Jackson's been advocating redistributionist policies for over 40 years. He's been the most prominent left wing Democrat during this time, and he started in the Civil Rights movement as one of MLK's lieutenants. Do you really want to argue that Jackson and other left wing Dems aren't redistributionist?

Left wing Democrats have been unelectable at the national level, so they've never been able to implement any of their goals. If by some weird chance, Jackson had become President in '84, do you think he would have said, "You know, I told you I was going to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund anti poverty and jobs programs, and pander to the labor unions who put me into office, but I changed my mind!"

[mscelina]

You know, I've followed American politics since the eighties and I've never once heard of Jesse Jackson advocating any sort of redistributionist policies that didn't stem directly from and for the civil rights movement. Which is what I'm arguing--not whether left wing Dems are redistributionist. Stick with the original disagreement if you please.

The concept that it's for the 'working class' generically is ridiculous. I'd have to see a citation for that one. Show me the cite where Jackson advocates such a thing and I'll eat crow. I dare you.

[willfulone]

There's no evidence that Obama supports or has ever supported reparations.

No, but he comes close when he spoke at a Unity '08 conference.


"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said.
"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

He may not advocate about it, but it is clear from his own words he thinks on it.

Christine

[odocoileus]

Keep Hope Alive:Jesse Jackson's 1988 Presidential Campaign (http://books.google.com/books?id=zSis8eWVwvYC&pg=PP1&dq=%22keep+hope+alive%22)


The Table of Contents is linked to the relevant sections on his Budget Plan, Workers' Rights, Saving the Family Farm, Ending Hunger, reviving US industry, etc.

In a nutshell, raise taxes on the wealthy, cut the defense budget, and use the proceeds to feed and employ the poor, revive the family farm and the American factory.

Generically redistributionist. Not specific to the Civil Rights movement.

[willfulone]

Keep Hope Alive:Jesse Jackson's 1988 Presidential Campaign (http://books.google.com/books?id=zSis8eWVwvYC&pg=PP1&dq=%22keep+hope+alive%22)


The Table of Contents is linked to the relevant sections on his Budget Plan, Workers' Rights, Saving the Family Farm, Ending Hunger, reviving US industry, etc.

In a nutshell, raise taxes on the wealthy, cut the defense budget, and use the proceeds to feed and employ the poor, revive the family farm and the American factory.

Generically redistributionist. Not specific to the Civil Rights movement.

Did you just read the table of contents and not the pages offered in the link you provided?

You may find your last statement is not wholey accurate if you read the book pages, rather than just the outline.

Christine

[Inkdaub]

I'm a little bothered by the sentiment that it's fundamentally right to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. I guess what I wonder is...what's so wrong with a 'redistribution of wealth' anyway?

[dmytryp]

I'm a little bothered by the sentiment that it's fundamentally right to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. I guess what I wonder is...what's so wrong with a 'redistribution of wealth' anyway?
There is no right to be rich. Wealth in most cases attained by hard work, luck, talent (in different mixes).

Second, what happens in the private sector in terms of salaries is none of gov's damn business (unless it takes over in part as it does with some of those firms and then taxpayers money is involved). The private sector is governed by laws of supply and demand. And it should be that way. Complaining about how much a CEO of a privately owned company makes is class envy, pure and simple. People should strive to help the poor get richer, not tear the rich down.

[Inkdaub]

Claiming that the problem is that the poor are jealous of the rich doesn't really answer the question, though. Why should the rich stay rich and why should the poor stay poor?

[dmytryp]

Claiming that the problem is that the poor are jealous of the rich doesn't really answer the question, though. Why should the rich stay rich and why should the poor stay poor?
The question should be the opposite. "Why should the government decide this?"

EDIT: and where did I say this was the problem. I only called it by name.

[willfulone]

Claiming that the problem is that the poor are jealous of the rich doesn't really answer the question, though. Why should the rich stay rich and why should the poor stay poor?

Okay, and I am one of the poor here - just so you know I am not providing a slanted opinion.

How can you even ask such a question about poor versus rich? Not as a slam on you, I am just curious how people think such things or on such things - comparing and thinking or wondering such.

Being poor is not a reason for entitlement to more for being poor. It would be grand if the poor did not stay poor. That something could be done to change that would be great.

But, in the doing, the rich should STILL be able to stay rich and not be penalized for their successes and earnings.

The rich should stay rich for it is THEIRS. You would not wish (rich or poor) someone to take from you just because they lack something you have. You cannot honestly answer yes to that. NO way.

I get the reasons the poor should not stay poor - it is a service to all that all people get educated and can earn enough to live so they do not resort to committing crimes and the like.

But, tell me, why should the rich not stay rich? For any reason not of their own doing (they invest unwisely and lose it, commit fraud and lose it, etc.)?

Christine

[kuwisdelu]

There is no right to be rich. Wealth in most cases attained by hard work, luck, talent (in different mixes).

The question, IMO, is how to change the correlation coefficients for each of those variables, as close as possibly, to about 1, 0, and 1.

The question should be the opposite. "Why should the government decide this?"

Because if the government and the People (through votes for the government) don't decide it, the most powerful outside outside of government will--the wealthy. And I think it's pretty obvious what the answer would be then.

Okay, and I am one of the poor here - just so you know I am not providing a slanted opinion.

How can you even ask such a question about poor versus rich? Not as a slam on you, I am just curious how people think such things or on such things - comparing and thinking or wondering such.

Being poor is not a reason for entitlement to more for being poor. It would be grand if the poor did not stay poor. That something could be done to change that would be great.

But, in the doing, the rich should STILL be able to stay rich and not be penalized for their successes and earnings.

The rich should stay rich for it is THEIRS. You would not wish (rich or poor) someone to take from you just because they lack something you have. You cannot honestly answer yes to that. NO way.

I get the reasons the poor should not stay poor - it is a service to all that all people get educated and can earn enough to live so they do not resort to committing crimes and the like.

But, tell me, why should the rich not stay rich? For any reason not of their own doing (they invest unwisely and lose it, commit fraud and lose it, etc.)?

Christine

Personally, I don't propose that the rich don't remain rich. The thing is, though, they can afford to pay a lot more, while remaining rich, and without experiencing much, if any, decrease in their standard of living. I do believe, however, in allowing them to remain rich.

[dmytryp]

The question, IMO, is how to change the correlation coefficients for each of those variables, as close as possibly, to about 1, 0, and 1.
All attempts throughout history failed miserably. There is no evidence it can be done succesfully by government or anybody else. As i said in another thread -- the closest we ever came is rules of supply and demand.



Because if the government and the People (through votes for the government) don't decide it, the most powerful outside outside of government will--the wealthy. And I think it's pretty obvious what the answer would be then.




That way leads to the tyrrany of the majority

[mscelina]

Keep Hope Alive:Jesse Jackson's 1988 Presidential Campaign (http://books.google.com/books?id=zSis8eWVwvYC&pg=PP1&dq=%22keep+hope+alive%22)


The Table of Contents is linked to the relevant sections on his Budget Plan, Workers' Rights, Saving the Family Farm, Ending Hunger, reviving US industry, etc.

In a nutshell, raise taxes on the wealthy, cut the defense budget, and use the proceeds to feed and employ the poor, revive the family farm and the American factory.

Generically redistributionist. Not specific to the Civil Rights movement.

Dude, you linked to a Google Books site. Are you serious right now? You want me to concede based on the Table of Contents to a book that I--and apparently you--haven't read?

:headdesk:

What are you basing this 'not specific to the Civil Rights movement' opinion on? The Rainbow Coalition? I'd research the organization a bit more before I bought wholesale into what Jackson says in what is essentially a propaganda piece. The Jackson campaign in 1988 attempted to take Rev. Jackson from his association as a brilliant orator for the civil rights movement to a position as a populist politician--and it failed. Miserably.

When he called New York City 'himeytown' he wasn't exactly taking a great position as a populist, now was he?

Jesse Jackson wasn't a populist by a long stretch. He was an economic radical with little or no practical experience that would allow him to apply his theories or even make them feasible. The fiscal policies he proposed were closer to socialism--which, I suppose, is why you think his policies were redistributionist. Ande even then, in his position paper on the economy, The Fundamentals of Economic Growth and Economic Justice, Jackson proposed consumer belt-tightening, massive reductions in federal spending and an across the board tax increase to help the economy. (page xxvii of the link you provided) That's hardly redistributionist.

[kuwisdelu]

All attempts throughout history failed miserably. There is no evidence it can be done succesfully by government or anybody else. As i said in another thread -- the closest we ever came is rules of supply and demand.

I don't really recall many attempts outside of social programs within mixed economy countries, which--while not perfect--aren't really "miserable" failures.

That way leads to the tyrrany of the majority

How do you come to that conclusion? Tyranny by the poor over the rich? I find that prospect pretty unrealistic, unless we were to seek reform French revolution style.

Leaving it up to the market doesn't work; the wealthy will always have more power than the poor in such a system. Tyranny of the minority is in no way better.

[dmytryp]

I don't really recall many attempts outside of social programs within mixed economy countries, which--while not perfect--aren't really "miserable" failures.
I meant the different revolutions and basic socialistic and communistic movements throughout history. The underlying philosophy is appealing, but in practice degenerates into other things entirely.



How do you come to that conclusion? Tyranny by the poor over the rich? I find that prospect pretty unrealistic, unless we were to seek reform French revolution style.

Leaving it up to the market doesn't work; the wealthy will always have more power than the poor in such a system. Tyranny of the minority is in no way better.
While I agree that tyranny of the minority is no better, but a majority vote under threat of force on how the money of the minority should be distributed is a form of tyranny of the majority.

[kuwisdelu]

I meant the different revolutions and basic socialistic and communistic movements throughout history. The underlying philosophy is appealing, but in practice degenerates into other things entirely.

Those were more concerned with equaling out the wealth, rather than correlating hard work and talent with income. I have a very fundamental disagreement with communism, since the lack of rewards as an incentive for harder work is its primary flaw; any system masquerading or built out of communistic ideas is stepping further away from the solution rather than closer to it, IMO.

[dmytryp]

Those were more concerned with equaling out the wealth, rather than correlating hard work and talent with income. I have a very fundamental disagreement with communism, since the lack of rewards as an incentive for harder work is its primary flaw; any system masquerading or built out of communistic ideas is stepping further away from the solution rather than closer to it, IMO.
From everyone according to ability, to everyone according to his needs. this implies being proponents of hard work. The rewards supposed are not limited to money (in the end monetary rewards should have been abolished entirely). As I said, this failed miserably.

[mscelina]

True. So are we supposed to make a distinction between those people who pulled themselves up by the coattails and earned their wealth and those who inherited it?

[dmytryp]

True. So are we supposed to make a distinction between those people who pulled themselves up by the coattails and earned their wealth and those who inherited it?
To what are you referring?

[kuwisdelu]

From everyone according to ability, to everyone according to his needs. this implies being proponents of hard work. The rewards supposed are not limited to money (in the end monetary rewards should have been abolished entirely). As I said, this failed miserably.

Being a proponent of hard work and implementing a system that rewards it are different things. No matter how hard one works, if one's needs don't change, there's nothing in it for them.

True. So are we supposed to make a distinction between those people who pulled themselves up by the coattails and earned their wealth and those who inherited it?

In my opinion? Only in taxes, where applicable.

[dmytryp]

Being a proponent of hard work and implementing a system that rewards it are different things. No matter how hard one works, if one's needs don't change, there's nothing in it for them.




Again, you are limiting yourself to monetary return. I think, discounting it, was the major pitfall of the underlying philosophy.

[Jcomp]

He WANTED to.

WANTED to.

Not he DID. But he WANTED to. THERE WAS NO REDISTRIBUTIONIST CAMPAIGN TO INCLUDE ALL POOR PEOPLE.

You're comparing apples to imaginary oranges or wished for oranges. As there was no redistributionist campaign to include all poor people, using that as some sort of blind to disguise Obama's opinion of the lack of economic justice resultant from the civil rights movement is just as specious as saying that because GWB WANTED to find WMDs in Iraq excuses the entire Iraq War.

Because, you know, he did want to. That makes it real, right?

Well, in MLK's defense, he kind of got fucking shot before he could actually get around to doing it...

[kuwisdelu]

Again, you are limiting yourself to monetary return. I think, discounting it, was the major pitfall of the underlying philosophy.

What other rewards would one offer?

[mscelina]

Well, let's look at it this way--we're talking about the redistribution of wealth, right? A big problem with the concept of such things would be penalizing the citizen who worked his/her rear off and now is reaping the rewards of that work. I'll make it specific even--my parents. They owned a business which they started when I was ten. By the time my mother passed away, both of my parents were worth several millions of dollars each. (they were divorce, thank the gods). So now, my father and my younger brother are in the same income class--one who worked for it and one who inherited it. With me so far?

So--if the government decides to redistribute their wealth, are the two men treated the same? Is the man who owned a business for thirty years and has retired on the benefits of all his hard work going to be penalized for that drive to succeed? Will he be held to the same standard as his son, who simply inherited his money instead of earning it?

Politically, the general American public isn't going to have as great a problem with redistributing inherited wealth as it would taking the efforts of a man who made the American dream work for him. One can be considered redistribution while the other would be construed as a punishment. But, if we're worried about 'equaling out the wealth,' to paraphrase kuwisdelu, then how can the government justify taking the money of the first man? He earned it. It's his reward for that hard work.

Just pointing out the differences between the two subgroups within our upper tax bracket. Any redistribution plan will run into a red light when it comes to removing a citizen from his/her just rewards. Just sayin'...

[mscelina]

Well, in MLK's defense, he kind of got fucking shot before he could actually get around to doing it...

And I agree. I was just pointing out the logical inconsistency of comparing this situation to one that never occurred--for whatever reason.

Not casting aspersions on MLK by any means.

[robeiae]

In my opinion? Only in taxes, where applicable.
The Death Tax. I'm all for it.

[kuwisdelu]

But, if we're worried about 'equaling out the wealth,' to paraphrase kuwisdelu, then how can the government justify taking the money of the first man?

Hey now, that's pretty out-of-context. I said that's what communism's concerned with. Redistribution of wealth isn't the same as equaling it out.

[mscelina]

Okay, then what is redistribution of wealth if not the equaling out of wealth? Are we going to redistribute to make things unequal? Cause if we are, then I really don't understand.

*it's apparently take things out of context day in P&CE, btw.*

[kuwisdelu]

Okay, then what is redistribution of wealth if not the equaling out of wealth? Are we going to redistribute to make things unequal? Cause if we are, then I really don't understand.

Technically, it could mean redistributing it to make things unequal. But if we're talking Obama's tax policies, it's to use tax money--of which the rich pay much more--to fund social programs (for everyone) and tax breaks to the lower and middle classes. He'd have to tax them a lot more to "equal" out the wealth. The rich will still be rich. The middle class will still be middle class, but suffering under economic duress less, hopefully. The lower class (for the most part) will still be lower class, but with a greater chance of making it to the middle.

[odocoileus]

The book is Jackson's 1988 political platform. Sections of the platform are excerpted on the site. They show clearly, and without question Jackson's redistributionist agenda. They also show, clearly and without question, that the scope of the proposed redistribution encompassed the entire US. Family farms, industry, jobs programs, anti hunger programs, etc.

Redistributionist? Check.

(Taxing the wealthy for anti poverty, hunger relief aand job creation is redistributionist by definition.)

Not specific to the civil rights movement? Check.

(Unless reviving the family farm, reopening rust belt factories, and feeding poor people in Appalachia were part of the movement I never heard about.)

You're missing the big picture. Politicians like power. Politicians like popular acclaim. There's a lot more power and acclaim available if you sponsor handouts to the majority as opposed to a small minority who will vote for you anyway. That's the point.

[dmytryp]

What other rewards would one offer?
The underlying philosophy would eventually abolish monetary system. It seeks "spiritual" rewards. I think we've strayed off topic:)

[benbradley]

...
I never argued this point, but I'm surprised you don't see how this capitalist system, where top corporate executives are making 100 times more than the guy on the shop floor, is not out of control.
See my question further down about a ceiling on income.
I worked at IBMs, we even during our heydays our top execs never had $400K retreats or $85K hunting trips or $65,000 dinners.

And like Mark said, we already have government-sponsored welfare through tax breaks, loopholes, etc. You can spend $500K on a "business trip" and write the whole thing off. That's government-sponsored wealth redistribution, but only you and I don't see a dime of that. Well, maybe if you're a stockholder...
Here's a shocker:

Businesses Do Not Pay Taxes.

Businesses COLLECT taxes by setting the prices of their products and services to make up for the taxes the government collects from them.

I don't think it's tearing the rich down. The rich are doing just fine in this country. It's still a land of opportunities and no one is whining about and preventing the Facebook or Google guys building multibillion$ empires and reaping the financial profits from their work and innovations. It's the people making $50,000 a year that are struggling. Are we, as a country, saying, "It's your own damn fault -- you're just not smart enough, hardworking enough to be rich, and even if you're smart enough, it's your parents fault that you can't go to college and do anything about it"?
I've heard at least one story of someone putting themself through school and becoming an MD by working at fast food restaurants. I sure should have done something like that myself and got my degree. Hmm, maybe I still can.
It's not class envy. It's about bridging the gap between the ridiculous that extremes, sometimes at the expense of the middle class and poor people. We've seen that in history. It didn't work.
So, just how much money is too much for one person to be making? How about setting a ceiling on income, and make it enforcable by law. What would that amount be?
OKay, I don't wish to have an argument over anything. It's just that one term lends itself to black and white perception, whereas the other allows a broader insight to the issues.

//shrug// To each their own.
Soeaking of, it looks like the real growth opportunities these days are in getting government jobs (whether general administration or increasingly, the medical and financial fields, and who knows what's next), not in starting or running one's own business ... Shrug.

[billythrilly7th]

This is the issue that will dominate the next week and might cost Obama everything if the Republicans and the McCain campaign can pound it home in the swing states.

And maybe rightfully so.

He better come out and say "I was only kidding!!!"

[Monkey]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/obamas_redistribution_bombshel.html

Snipping for brevity and to avoid infringement of copyright:


Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!!" runs the YouTube headline from the conservative video blog Naked Emperor News. "This video exposes the radical beneath the rhetoric."

On closer inspection, the "bombshell audio" turns out to be a rather wonkish, somewhat impenetrable, discussion of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren. Obama, then a University of Chicago law professor and Illinois state senator, argued that the courts have traditionally been reluctant to get involved in income distribution questions. He suggested that the civil rights movement had made a mistake in expecting too much from the courts -- and that such issues were better decided by the legislative branch of government.

<snip>

In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. <snip>

While there are sharp differences between the two candidates on economic issues, they both favor a progressive income tax system in which people with high incomes are taxed at a higher rate than people with low incomes.

[Monkey]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mccain-to-attac.html

(I'm quoting a blog only because it's the only place I found the Obama camp's full response to the interview in question.)

Burton continued: "In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama’s point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better.

Not that you can necessarily trust either camp's PR guys to be spin-free (that's a laugh!) but seriously, when you read the whole interview with this in mind, it makes much more sense.

[Inkdaub]

I think that the 'hard work = wealth' ideal is more a myth than anything else. There are people who have achieved solely by their own blood, sweat and tears...but they are far more rare than the wealthy would have me believe. The truth is the vast majority of us...rich and poor...have had help at some point and in some way in our lives. Some forms of help are obvious...like inheriting wealth...while some are less so. I know many people who take it completely for granted that their parents paid their college tuition or/and let them live at home while attending. Doesn't seem like much but if you don't have those options it looms large. Of course people do it and it's far more complicated and reliant on the gray areas of psychology, but I do tire of hearing people talk about how hard the wealthy have worked for what they have.

[dmytryp]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mccain-to-attac.html

(I'm quoting a blog only because it's the only place I found the Obama camp's full response to the interview in question.)



Not that you can necessarily trust either camp's PR guys to be spin-free (that's a laugh!) but seriously, when you read the whole interview with this in mind, it makes much more sense.
Here is what he said again. I bolded the relevant parts
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical.
It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. ...And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was -- because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. ... The Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day. ... The Framers had that same blind spot ... the fundamental flaw of this country."
Obama states why the courts didn't go into the redistribution, not why the shouldn't. He also calls it a blindspot of the Constitution that it describes only the restrictive laws and thus lead to this interpretation by the courts. I think the spin is waaay off. Others might think otherwise.

[donroc]

I think that the 'hard work = wealth' ideal is more a myth than anything else. There are people who have achieved solely by their own blood, sweat and tears...but they are far more rare than the wealthy would have me believe. The truth is the vast majority of us...rich and poor...have had help at some point and in some way in our lives. Some forms of help are obvious...like inheriting wealth...while some are less so. I know many people who take it completely for granted that their parents paid their college tuition or/and let them live at home while attending. Doesn't seem like much but if you don't have those options it looms large. Of course people do it and it's far more complicated and reliant on the gray areas of psychology, but I do tire of hearing people talk about how hard the wealthy have worked for what they have.

The founder of Rexall Sundown Vitamins, a one-semester college dropout, whose bio I helped write, went from stock boy to drugstore manager while failing at T-shirts and wigs, until he found a vitamin niche and started his own company from his home.

Over the decades from 1976 to 2001, the company grew. prospered, went public, and he sold it for 1.8 billion. His sons and wife also worked in the company, heading different divisions as it grew. They shared in the millions by earning it.

Because many of his employees (1,500 at the end) bought shares and later stock in his company, they also became millionaires, including his secretary.

After he went public, he hired the "educated" capable of being CFOs, CEOs and the like, who also came from non-wealthy backgrounds, and they made millions.

The U.S. Government could not do that except by allowing it to happen.

Assume nothing about the wealthy. I need not go into the countless immigrant success stories as well.

True there are the trust babies, and there is a private club in Palm Beach County that asks on the application to join: "Have you ever been an employee?"

Interesting, we do elect the latter to office (sometimes welathy through marriage) even when they are Demorats. No class envy there.

As Baron Rothschild is said to have remarked: "You can marry more money in 15 minutes than you can earn in a lifetime."

[Monkey]

Dmytryp,

Everyone is bolding what they consider "the relevant parts" and then making assumptions based on what they bolded.

If you read the entire thing, it's typical Obama: wonkish, lecturing, going into detail on both sides of an issue while not necessarily choosing a side, other than to say that courts don't get involved in things like redistribution of wealth.

:shrug:

That's my opinion, though. We can go through and highlight and argue exact wording and projected meanings as if we were trying to parse through religious text, or we can just look at what the man said, without trying to guess at motives, intention, or "between the lines" and see that at no time did he say that the Civil Rights Movement SHOULD have redistributed wealth; only that it tried to and failed, and failed because it attempted to do it through the courts.

The discussion was not about financial redistribution. The conversation was about the courts. So Obama focused on the courts.

Here's another link concerning this issue:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810280021

And here, more of the conversation is given. It's clear that Obama is talking about the courts NOT getting involved with things like redistribution of wealth and that he's DEFENDING that decision.


OBAMA: You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.

You know, you just said -- look at very rare examples wherein, during the desegregation era, the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to a local school district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.

SUSAN BANDES (DePaul University law professor): I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I think it also depends on -- much of the time what we see the court doing is ratifying the status quo, and, in fact, the court makes redistributive decisions or distributive decisions all the time --

OBAMA: Right.

BANDES: -- and it --

OBAMA: But, but, but --

BANDES: Let me give you an example, which is that the court considers whether it's OK to take a program, a federal Medicare program that provides -- you know, that recompenses people by insurance for every medical procedure they can have except abortion. And it upholds that --

OBAMA: Right.

BANDES: -- and says we can except abortion from that. Well, that's a decision about what kinds of subsidies we're willing to uphold and what we're not.

OBAMA: Although, typically, I mean, the court can certainly be more or less generous in interpreting actions and initiatives that are taken by the legislature, but in the example of, for example, funding of abortions or Medicare and Medicaid, the court's not initiating those funding streams. I mean, essentially what the court is saying is, at some point, OK, this is a legitimate prohibition or this is not. And I think those are very important battles

[dmytryp]

Dmytryp,

Everyone is bolding what they consider "the relevant parts" and then making assumptions based on what they bolded.

If you read the entire thing, it's typical Obama: wonkish, lecturing, going into detail on both sides of an issue while not necessarily choosing a side, other than to say that courts don't get involved in things like redistribution of wealth.

:shrug:

That's my opinion, though. We can go through and highlight and argue exact wording and projected meanings as if we were trying to parse through religious text, or we can just look at what the man said, without trying to guess at motives, intention, or "between the lines" and see that at no time did he say that the Civil Rights Movement SHOULD have redistributed wealth; only that it tried to and failed, and failed because it attempted to do it through the courts.

The discussion was not about financial redistribution. The conversation was about the courts. So Obama focused on the courts.

Here's another link concerning this issue:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810280021

And here, more of the conversation is given. It's clear that Obama is talking about the courts NOT getting involved with things like redistribution of wealth and that he's DEFENDING that decision.
You are missing the point. I agree that what Obama says is that the courts acted according to the Constitution and thus shouldn't be involved in this issue. What he says later (and this is what I highlighted) is that by concentrating on the courts the Civil Rights movements missed the opportunity to go into redistribution of wealth (which they would've done if concentrated on community organizing). He then implies that the restraints on the courts in this regard are a blind spot of the Constitution. I fail to see why would he raise the issues at all if he didn't think they were important.

[Monkey]

That "blind spot" in the constitution could easily be read to mean that while the constitution is a - as Obama said - "charter of negative liberties", it does not spell out how the government CAN interfere with people's lives. This is a blind spot because it leaves a huge area uncovered.

What Obama is doing here is taking a quite conservative, non-radical view of the role of the court. He is arguing that courts shouldn't get involved with stuff like redistribution of wealth...that they shouldn't legislate from the bench. He does talk about the Warren Court, which he feels wasn't that radical because it stayed within the constraints of the constitution. The Warren Court didn't make a ruling on "redistribution of wealth"...it ruled on seperation of church and state, the Miranda laws, and did handle some Civil Rights issues, such as desegregation of schools and making sure blacks could vote.

You're taking 7-year-old conversation about the courts' jurisdiction, cherry-picking out the word "redistribution", and trying to make a case that Obama is...what? a socialist? fighting for reparations?...out of it. It's nonesense.

[dmytryp]

You're taking 7-year-old conversation about the courts' jurisdiction, cherry-picking out the word "redistribution", and trying to make a case that Obama is...what? a socialist? fighting for reparations?...out of it. It's nonesense.
I am coupling this with his other comments his proposed tax policies and to a smaller extent people with whom he assosiated to conclude that he is indeed very left wing when economic issues are concerned (the very use of "redistribution of wealth" as an issue is somewhat telling to me). It's you who want to ascribe him some label.

[Monkey]

Ok. So long as we are agreed that Obama was discussing the courts and not saying that we need reparations or some nonesense.

;)

BOTH candidates are, to one degree or another, "redistributing wealth". They both want to raise taxes and spend the proceeds, and even to fund things like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. If your whole argument is that Obama is the more liberal of our choices, the one furthest ot the left, then there's no way I can, or would want to try to, argue that point. :D

[robeiae]

Both candidates suck.

[dmytryp]

Ok. So long as we are agreed that Obama was discussing the courts and not saying that we need reparations or some nonesense.

;)

BOTH candidates are, to one degree or another, "redistributing wealth". They both want to raise taxes and spend the proceeds, and even to fund things like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. If your whole argument is that Obama is the more liberal of our choices, the one furthest ot the left, then there's no way I can, or would want to try to, argue that point. :D
I am saying that the underlying philosophy is very much different. I said it more than once -- Obama's tax proposals are based more on his beliefs of "fairness" than on economics in general (imo). McCain's (at least as far as taxes go) based on standard guidlines to spur economic growth.

[Monkey]

http://www.slate.com/id/2203237


In that interview, Obama was talking in law professor-speak, and in a couple of places in his discursive remarks he refers to "redistributive change." When he used the term, he was speaking against the backdrop of an old debate in the legal academy, which was not about who should pay higher taxes. So, what's the real context for Obama's remarks? It is both storied and, in the end, ho-hum.

I'm quoting this for two reasons: it links to the full interview and it explains the term "redistributive change" which doesn't actually mean what the original post seems to imply.

[Inkdaub]

The founder of Rexall Sundown Vitamins, a one-semester college dropout, whose bio I helped write, went from stock boy to drugstore manager while failing at T-shirts and wigs, until he found a vitamin niche and started his own company from his home.

Over the decades from 1976 to 2001, the company grew. prospered, went public, and he sold it for 1.8 billion. His sons and wife also worked in the company, heading different divisions as it grew. They shared in the millions by earning it.

Because many of his employees (1,500 at the end) bought shares and later stock in his company, they also became millionaires, including his secretary.

After he went public, he hired the "educated" capable of being CFOs, CEOs and the like, who also came from non-wealthy backgrounds, and they made millions.

The U.S. Government could not do that except by allowing it to happen.

Assume nothing about the wealthy. I need not go into the countless immigrant success stories as well.

True there are the trust babies, and there is a private club in Palm Beach County that asks on the application to join: "Have you ever been an employee?"

Interesting, we do elect the latter to office (sometimes welathy through marriage) even when they are Demorats. No class envy there.

As Baron Rothschild is said to have remarked: "You can marry more money in 15 minutes than you can earn in a lifetime."

We'll balance De Santis against the millions of people who work their asses off and receive minimal returns. Okay. And his family...they earned it? Or maybe did they work in their family business and get lucky when it became incredibly successful? Hmmm...they worked harder than other people in the same situation that failed? Please.

[donroc]

Better he had not started a company? Point deliberately missed.

He created 1500 well paying jobs too, gives bigtime to charity, saves endangered species in Africa at his photographic safari and game preserve, funded buildings on several college campuses, and so on.

He worked hard for others for 17 years for minimal returns, but it seems some would prefer to have kept him down so he would not make the rest look like failures. People often fail to succeed financially because they lack an entrepreneurial bent, because of addiction, lack of ability, too many kids, poor choices including whom they wed, financially ruinous divorces, and so on.

We make our luck much of the time and need the guts to seize the day. Hard work usually is rewarded if one has the initiative to break out of a working-stiff rut. But, as I said above, one can be encumbered by poor choices made in terms of marriage and having too many children.

Bad luck, excluding severe illness or accident, is usually the result of poor choice and lack of planning ahead.

It is the same in writing -- this is still essentially a writing site -- we make choices in deciding the direction of the story, the characteristics of our MC, and even the ending.

[dmytryp]

http://www.slate.com/id/2203237



I'm quoting this for two reasons: it links to the full interview and it explains the term "redistributive change" which doesn't actually mean what the original post seems to imply.
Here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_true_meaning_of_historic_v.html) is an article that expresses exactly the underlying philosophical differences I was talking about.

[Monkey]

It's an opinion piece, and I disagree with the opinions expressed. For instance:
Push past the historic candidacy, however, and one sees something even larger at stake in this vote. One sees what Joe (The Plumber) Wurzelbacher saw.

What Joe (the Plumber) saw? Joe admitted that he only asked Obama the question he did because he was hoping to "trip him up". Obviously, Joe couldn't actually buy the business he was discussing, as he's not really a licensed plumber. And the business didn't pull in over 250,000 a year in profit anyway. When Obama gave him an answer that included his current percentage, the dollar amount at which the percentage would rise, what that percentage would rise to, and the fact that it would be a progressive tax - which he explained - Joe "the Plumber" said he "tap danced around the question". How much more specific should Obama have been?

I don't agree with the argument that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is a one-off, that good old nonideological American pragmatism will temper their ambitions. Not true. With this election, the U.S. is at a philosophical tipping point.


So his argument is that we'll have a permenant Dem majority? I don't buy it.

The goal of Sen. Obama and the modern, "progressive" Democratic Party is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its "social market economy." Under this notion, business is highly regulated, as it would be in the next Congress under Democratic House committee chairmen Markey, Frank and Waxman. Business is allowed to create "wealth" so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.
(bolding mine)

He's just taking the "Socialist" charge and running with it, now. Nothing Obama has actually proposed goes anywhere near this. This is taking his own interpretation of Obama's plan and drifting into hyperbole.

I don't want to quote too much of the article, but it's riddled with logical problems, IMO.

Still, this is all a bit of a derail. We're no longer discussing the OP, and are instead comparing McCain and Obama's "Liberalism" (which some people are trying to hyperbolise into "Socialism")...and yes, Obama is more Liberal. :D

[Susan Gable]

We'll balance De Santis against the millions of people who work their asses off and receive minimal returns. Okay. And his family...they earned it? Or maybe did they work in their family business and get lucky when it became incredibly successful? Hmmm...they worked harder than other people in the same situation that failed? Please.

That's life. As someone pointed out, there is an element of LUCK involved.

Nobody promised life was FAIR.

Since this is writing board, let's put this in terms of writing.

Two writers work hard at writing manuscripts. One writer's book, while not as beautiful prose as the other, is more commercial. He sells his novel for a nice advance. (Let's just say $100K, because it's a good sized, round figure.)

But hey, the other writer worked just as hard. It's not FAIR that he didn't sell his book.

So, we will take half of Commercial Writer Novelist Guy's advance, and give it to the other writer.

Redistribute the wealth. Because it's not fair that the other writer toiled and worked hard, and didn't get a piece of the pie.

Other writers become aware of this plan. They write sucky manuscripts (Like, say, Atlanta Nights <G>) and line up to get THEIR piece of the writing money pie. And then, some unscrupulous writers go even further, padding their manuscripts with blank pages because they know the Writing Money Redistribution Staff don't have time to actually READ the whole manuscript.

Meanwhile, Commercial Novelist Guy has decided he's not going to write anything decent anymore, either. Why should be bust his butt, toiling away to create a compelling story, when he can get the same money for padding his crappy manuscript with blank pages???

Life's not fair. Get over it. You're not entitled to the sweat of someone else's brow just because you are "less fortunate."

Just like no writers are entitled to publishing contracts.

Susan G.

[kuwisdelu]

Life's not fair. Get over it. You're not entitled to the sweat of someone else's brow just because you are "less fortunate."

Saying it like it is. I'll inform my local homeless guy.

[Susan Gable]

Saying it like it is. I'll inform my local homeless guy.

I VOLUNTARILY give money to my local City Mission to help the homeless and less fortunate.

That's a whole different story, pal.

Susan G.

[Monkey]

Well, there aren't any politicians running for president this cycle that would suggest "redistribution" on the scale that people are continually railing against.

Both Obama and McCain support "redistribution" on a MUCH smaller level...the level where they take money from people through taxes and spend it on programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and public works.

They BOTH want to give tax breaks to the population. The difference is Obama's tax breaks go largely to those making under 250,000 a year, while McCain's disproportionately gives to the top earners.

And where will they spend the money they do raise? McCain is focusing right now on buying up bad mortgages, just to name one of the suggestions he's been stumping on lately, and his running mate is stumping on more funding for research into autism and Down's. Obama wants to put a lot of that money into a healthcare plan.

Socialists, the lot of them. :D

[robeiae]

You know, when the top earners are disproportionately paying the bill, it's kinda hard for them not to get a bigger break when taxes are reduced.

[mscelina]

You know, when the top earners are disproportionately paying the bill, it's kinda hard for them not to get a bigger break when taxes are reduced.

Quoted for truth.

[MoonWriter]

Susan - you're being to kind regarding Obama's plan. He doesn't intend to reward the hardworking writer who failed to get published. What he intends to do is reward the "writers" who have yet to write a single word.

I kid you not, just this morning, Obama has jumped on the McCain bandwagon. He actually said he wants to offer a tax break to small businesses. But he did have a disclaimer - not small businesses that send jobs overseas, just those that keep jobs here. Funny thing, companies of all sizes will do what it takes to make a profit or they'll shut the doors and lay off yet more workers. Then, he wants to help GM and Ford. How much of a car or truck is made overseas? How big are those companies? Yet he complains about Exxon's record profits and how McCain wants to lower their tax burden. Really? Only theirs? And how many people benefit from Exxon's stock price and dividends? Or does the CEO keep all of those billions for himself? And how many jobs does Exxon farm out to workers in other countries?

[Monkey]

Actually, most small businesses pull in less than 250,000 per year in profit. Not total, mind you, but after deductions and such. So yes, they'd be getting a break. He also has been talking about various different breaks specifically targeted to small businesses. He mentioned them at the third debate, remember?

No, he doesn't want to give extra credit to companies that send jobs overseas. Sounds good to me.

Susan - you're being to kind regarding Obama's plan. He doesn't intend to reward the hardworking writer who failed to get published. What he intends to do is reward the "writers" who have yet to write a single word.


Any sources for this? I mean, sources that don't apply equally to Obama and McCain?

[MoonWriter]

Any sources for this? I mean, sources that don't apply equally to Obama and McCain?


Only what Obama has promised to do in every speech - increase the tax on those who are already paying the most taxes and giving credits to those who don't pay taxes, some of which don't even work.

[Monkey]

Ok...so it's the EIC and other tax credits that you have issue with. McCain will also give tax credits to those who don't make enough to pay taxes as it is.

[MoonWriter]

Which tax credits are you referring to, Monkey. I'm not aware of any.

[Monkey]

For instance, you get a credit for each dependent child, regardless of how much you paid in. That means that someone below poverty level actually gets a check for each child they have, despite not making enough to pay taxes to begin with.

Neither candidate wants to change that system, much less do away with it.

[MoonWriter]

That's a good example, but I thought we were talking about new proposals. Are you sure that everyone gets a credit for each dependent child, or is it a deduction? I thought it was a deduction.

[benbradley]

Here's a really interesting case of "hard work" and living frugally, a guy saved up $59,000 over 11 years by working as a ... but then he tried to take the money home:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/immigrant.money/index.html

[benbradley]

We'll balance De Santis against the millions of people who work their asses off and receive minimal returns.
That's because they work their asses off as employees, rather than starting businesses of their own. Many or most new businesses fail, but enough succeed to make it worth trying.

It's sort of like writing novels and trying to get them published, but the chances of "getting published" in business is better.
Okay. And his family...they earned it? Or maybe did they work in their family business and get lucky when it became incredibly successful? Hmmm...they worked harder than other people in the same situation that failed? Please.
They took a risk by working in the family business, and especially by accepting stock in the same business that gave them jobs, but to attribute their good fortunes solely to luck is really over the top.

[Monkey]

MoonWriter,

It's actually a credit. If you make enough money, the credit comes out of what you would normally have to pay, and so it's functionally a deduction. But if you are below poverty level, you still get the money. I know, I've been below poverty level and supporting a young child, and that money really came in handy. :)

Tax credits aren't new, and usually apply only in very specific situations. Obama isn't exactly cutting edge in this department; IMO, his most "radical" tax credit is for small businesses that aren't outsourcing and are providing health plans for their workers, which I like. I think it's a little different than the usual credits, because he's obviously trying to use it to influence employer behaviour, not just granting someone extra cash because they have kids or whatnot.

[Joe270]

It's sort of like writing novels and trying to get them published, but the chances of "getting published" in business is better.

I wonder what Obama's tax plan will do with 'windfalls', such as when a writer finally gets published. Right now, that 'windfall' can be put out over several years, even going back in time, to reduce the tax load.

Anyone know about any 'windfall' provisions in Obama's plan?

[Monkey]

Palin put in a "windfall" tax for oil companies when she was governer of Alaska, and I know that various people have pushed for such "windfall" taxes in the rest of the US, including Obama, but I've never heard of such a tax being levied outside of the oil industry.

[Inkdaub]

Better he had not started a company? Point deliberately missed.

He created 1500 well paying jobs too, gives bigtime to charity, saves endangered species in Africa at his photographic safari and game preserve, funded buildings on several college campuses, and so on.

He worked hard for others for 17 years for minimal returns, but it seems some would prefer to have kept him down so he would not make the rest look like failures. People often fail to succeed financially because they lack an entrepreneurial bent, because of addiction, lack of ability, too many kids, poor choices including whom they wed, financially ruinous divorces, and so on.

We make our luck much of the time and need the guts to seize the day. Hard work usually is rewarded if one has the initiative to break out of a working-stiff rut. But, as I said above, one can be encumbered by poor choices made in terms of marriage and having too many children.

Bad luck, excluding severe illness or accident, is usually the result of poor choice and lack of planning ahead.

It is the same in writing -- this is still essentially a writing site -- we make choices in deciding the direction of the story, the characteristics of our MC, and even the ending.

I understand what you're saying, donroc. I truly do.

I'm saying that it isn't good enough. I'm not saying De Santis and others like him are bad(even if they are rare and incredibly lucky)...I'm saying it isn't good enough that that the poor outnumber the wealthy a hundred thousand to one. I'm saying they have earned some but nowhere near all of their near limitless good fortune. I'm saying they are NOT entitled to a billion dollars and should stop pretending that they are.

Why is it so important that only a very few succeed?

[Inkdaub]

You know, when the top earners are disproportionately paying the bill, it's kinda hard for them not to get a bigger break when taxes are reduced.

Then we'll spread the wealth around. That will result in spreading the burden around.

[donroc]

I understand what you're saying, donroc. I truly do.

I'm saying that it isn't good enough. I'm not saying De Santis and others like him are bad(even if they are rare and incredibly lucky)...I'm saying it isn't good enough that that the poor outnumber the wealthy a hundred thousand to one. I'm saying they have earned some but nowhere near all of their near limitless good fortune. I'm saying they are NOT entitled to a billion dollars and should stop pretending that they are.

Why is it so important that only a very few succeed?

It is not the few rich vs. many poor. There is a broad range of middle who lead comfortable lives and receive fair wages-- unless they make the stupid choices as I posted above. Not all of us want the private jet, the yacht, and having our asses buffed by people who want something from us.

Pick a wage you think is fair -- then add kids to the max, payments for a fancier car, a bigger house, plus credit card debt for non-essential adult toys, and 50% chance you will divorce becoming a single mom or a male paying alimony and losing half. Then you will feel poor. No bad luck there.
Bad choices.

[cethklein]

It is not the few rich vs. many poor. There is a broad range of middle who lead comfortable lives and receive fair wages-- unless they make the stupid choices as I posted above. Not all of us want the private jet, the yacht, and having our asses buffed by people who want something from us.

Pick a wage you think is fair -- then add kids to the max, payments for a fancier car, a bigger house, plus credit card debt for non-essential adult toys, and 50% chance you will divorce becoming a single mom or a male paying alimony and losing half. Then you will feel poor. No bad luck there.
Bad choices.

Amen.

[Susan Gable]

Two brothers set out to Trick or Treat. After a few houses, the younger brother began to whine that walking around the neighborhood was hard work. And his shoes hurt.

So he decided to just sit on the curb.

The other brother, even though his shoes also hurt his feet (the economy was such that his parents couldn't afford new shoes for them just yet) continued to walk and walk and walk, collecting a lot of candy.

The two boys went home, one with a very pathetic bag of candy, one with a very large bag of candy.

When they got home, the younger boy, seeing the older boy's overflowing bag, began to whine and complain. "Give me some of your candy!"

"No," the older brother said. "I walked (worked) a lot for this candy. You sat on the curb and didn't do anything."

The boy's mother, hearing the commotion, came into the dining room. Seeing how much more candy the older boy had than the whining younger brother, she took the older boy's bag.

And redistributed the wealth of candy, rewarding the younger boy for sitting on the curb, and penalizing the older boy, who'd walked so much even though his feet hurt. "We must be FAIR," she said to the older boy.

But the older boy didn't think it was fair at all.

So the next year, he sat next to his brother on the curb. And neither one of them got any candy.

The End


Susan G.

[dmytryp]

Fun little piece (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/if_it_redistributes_like_a_duc.html). Loved the following bits

If you believe that "fairness" -- a childishly subjective idea that ought to be quarantined to playgrounds and Berkeley City Council meetings -- should be meted out by the autocrats inhabiting Washington, D.C., your faith will be duly rewarded.

snip

It was Joe Biden who said (not long ago, when he still was permitted to speak in public), "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people." The only entity that "takes" money from the middle class -- or any class for that matter -- is the Internal Revenue Service. Other than that, there is nothing to give back.

[Monkey]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27466667/

Two independent analysts go over both Obama and McCain's tax plans.

Here's basically what they find:

Those who make under 150,000 a year benefit most under Obama.
Those who make between 150,000-250,000 a year benefit about equally under either candidate.
Those who make over 250,000 a year benefit under McCain.

Fewer than 3% of households fall into that last category.

How do they give their tax breaks? Largely through credits, as I mentioned earlier. BUT I WAS WRONG when I said that neither of them wanted to change the credit that people got for having dependent children; Obama wants to raise it slightly and McCain wants to DOUBLE it.

McCain gives his tax cuts largely by keeping the Bush tax cuts intact.

Obama proposes several credits, but like his small business credit, a couple are clearly aimed at influencing behavior (I hadn't realized this before):
* $500 for each person in the household who works
* $4,000 each year for the first two years of college

He also wants to eliminate taxes on people over age 65 who make less than 50,000 a year.

So how does this end up affecting families?
The median household income nationwide is $50,233, according to the Census Bureau. The Tax Policy Center found that, for married couples with incomes of $50,000, two children and both parents working, income taxes would be cut by $284 more under Mr. Obama’s plan — by $1,005, compared with $721 under Mr. McCain’s plan.

Deloitte also examined such a couple and found similar benefits; a $700 cut under Mr. McCain’s plan and $1,000 under Mr. Obama’s.

For married couples with incomes of $500,000 with two children and both parents working, the Tax Policy Center found that Mr. Obama would raise income taxes by $3,363, from $110,955 now, while Mr. McCain’s plans would leave taxes unchanged. Deloitte found that a $500,000-a-year couple would pay $3,100 more under Mr. Obama, with no change under Mr. McCain.


Basically, under Obama, the poor get a little more, seniors under a certain income pay no tax, and there are rewards for things like working and going to college. The rich pay a small percentage more - tacking an additional 3,000 on to the 110,000 they already pay.

Under McCain, the poor still benefit, although they pay about $300 more than they would under Obama. There are no tax incentives for working or going to college, nor is there a point at which seniors don't have to pay. The rich keep the tax cuts they have now.

“What Obama’s doing,” said Mr. Stretch of Deloitte, “is he’s taking more money from people like me, and spending it on exemptions for the elderly and on tax credits for education.”


But is that so bad? Of course, Obama has said that he doesn't mind paying a little more...but McCain, not too long ago, also said that the rich "can afford to pay a little more". I personally like Obama's plan.

Either way, no one's talking about levelling the economic playing field. No one's going to make sure we each get the same amount of candy. Everyone is leaving some "redistribution of wealth" in place...the choice isn't between a "socialist" and a "real American", it's between a more conservative or a more liberal tax plan.

[kuwisdelu]

Four boys go trick-or-treating.

One boy lives in a wealthy neighborhood in a gated community that's known to give out tons of candy. He only has to visit two or three houses before he has a whole bag full of candy. He goes home and eats his.

The second boy lives in a poor neighborhood, where the houses can only afford to give out a very small amount of candy. He walks all through the neighborhood, visiting many houses. His feet begin to hurt, and it's getting late. Eventually, a group of older boys find him, and beat him up, and steal all his candy. The boy doesn't give up, and keeps visiting more houses, even though his feet hurt. He's very tired. Eventually, he gets some more candy and goes home and eats it, but it's a lot less candy than the first boy.

The third boy is one of the kids who beat up the second boy. He has lots of candy. He goes home and tells him mom all the houses were very mean and didn't give him any candy. The mom goes out and buys the boy a big box of candy. The boy doesn't have as much candy as the first boy, but much more than the second boy, for much less work.

The fourth boy lives in a neighborhood full of Pentecostals who don't celebrate Halloween. He sits at home and throws a party and makes everyone watch Left Behind. Her atheist friends get upset and leave. No one gets any candy.

Sorry, had to throw in the fourth one, because it actually happened to a friend of mine....she was one of the "friends."

[robeiae]

Then we'll spread the wealth around. That will result in spreading the burden around.
No it won't. Ever. To think that it will is to be hopelessly naive.

If every bit of wealth in the country was totalled up, then distributed evenly to every citizen, what do you think would happen?

[robeiae]

Either way, no one's talking about levelling the economic playing field. No one's going to make sure we each get the same amount of candy. Everyone is leaving some "redistribution of wealth" in place...the choice isn't between a "socialist" and a "real American", it's between a more conservative or a more liberal tax plan.
It's a choice between more government theft or less government theft.

[donroc]

Booze, broads, sex, drugs, and rock and roll for many. Flashy cars, MacManshions, and bling, and other superfluities for most of the rest.

You mine for gold. I'll sell the food, clothing, and shelter and take your gold.

People are what they are. Marxists and group sociologists think they can create a new society by denying our humanity/human nature. And kill/"reeducate" those who do not fit into their ideal. Even then, new cream rises to the top. And their kids become the new trust babies.

[LaceWing]

One girl dressed up as a witch every year, only it wasn't really a costume. She cast spells with magic incantations and talked all the other kids into letting her take care of their candy -- she called it "banking" -- and promised she could protect them from others who might steal it -- which she called "Neighborhood Defense."

On Halloween every year, she stacked up a bunch of bags of candy, and when each kid came for his or her share, she said, "Here, one for you, and one for me. That's fair, right?"

[donroc]

But ... but... that's not fair! :cry:

Dumb-da-da-dumb.

[benbradley]

No it won't. Ever. To think that it will is to be hopelessly naive.

If every bit of wealth in the country was totalled up, then distributed evenly to every citizen, what do you think would happen?
Bigger and bigger government, to keep the redistribution going from the "lucky" who seem to somehow keep getting more and more money back to the "unlucky" who seem to always be in need.

[Christine N.]

Two brothers set out to Trick or Treat. After a few houses, the younger brother began to whine that walking around the neighborhood was hard work. And his shoes hurt.

So he decided to just sit on the curb.

The other brother, even though his shoes also hurt his feet (the economy was such that his parents couldn't afford new shoes for them just yet) continued to walk and walk and walk, collecting a lot of candy.

The two boys went home, one with a very pathetic bag of candy, one with a very large bag of candy.

When they got home, the younger boy, seeing the older boy's overflowing bag, began to whine and complain. "Give me some of your candy!"

"No," the older brother said. "I walked (worked) a lot for this candy. You sat on the curb and didn't do anything."

The boy's mother, hearing the commotion, came into the dining room. Seeing how much more candy the older boy had than the whining younger brother, she took the older boy's bag.

And redistributed the wealth of candy, rewarding the younger boy for sitting on the curb, and penalizing the older boy, who'd walked so much even though his feet hurt. "We must be FAIR," she said to the older boy.

But the older boy didn't think it was fair at all.

So the next year, he sat next to his brother on the curb. And neither one of them got any candy.

The End


Susan G.

But what about the brother who DID work just as hard and still didn't get a lot of candy? It's not always black and white. There are A LOT of people in the US who DO work hard, multiple jobs sometimes, and still don't have enough candy. So he decided to quit trick-or-treating and collect welfare treats, because in the end he got more candy than he did by walking and collecting it himself.

Our system is very unfair to those at the bottom, even moreso than to those at the top. People in the middle just get squashed.

[MoonWriter]

Candy? I want some candy. Chocolate. Where's Susie? Let's steal her chocolate - she's got more than she needs.

[donroc]

Candy? I want some candy. Chocolate. Where's Susie? Let's steal her chocolate - she's got more than she needs.

Candy is dandy
But liquor is quicker.
Ogden Nash

[Susan Gable]

Candy? I want some candy. Chocolate. Where's Susie? Let's steal her chocolate - she's got more than she needs.

Touch my chocolate and somebody's gonna get hurt. <G>

Susan G.