Spreading the Wealth

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 04:46:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Calling Barack Obama a liberal did not advance John McCain's cause, so he's trying out a more sinister word: socialist. Never mind that McCain voted for a bailout plan that creates a degree of government ownership of private financial institutions. That's socialism we can believe in. It's Obama's offhand remark to Joe the Plumber that a tax increase on upper incomes will "spread the wealth" that marks the socialistic tendency McCain has seized upon as the distraction of the day.

As always, Obama responded quickly, calmly, and forcefully.

"John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people ‘welfare,’” Obama told a massive crowd under the infamous St. Louis arch. “The only ‘welfare’ in this campaign is John McCain’s plan to give another $200 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest corporations in America.”

[more ...]

“George Bush and John McCain are out of ideas, they are out of touch, and if you stand with me in 17 days they’ll be out of time,” Obama added to wild applause.

Taxation redistributes wealth. In the ideal Republican world, it redistributes wealth from the bottom 80 percent to the top 5 percent. You won't see Dick Cheney griping that taxes paid by working people are redistributed to Haliburton. Obama is right (although maybe not smart to say so publicly) that spreading the wealth and reversing the income gap that widened during the Bush years is good policy. The answer he gave today was good politics.

< Saturday Open Thread | World Medical Assoc. Expands Ban on Physician Assisted Executions >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Spreading the Wealth | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Spreading the wealth: Red States vs. Blue States (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by jerry on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 05:47:23 PM EST

Red States are notorious for taking more Federal money than they give. Blue states the reverse.

Joe Plumber (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by stevea66 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 06:29:59 PM EST

I just want to mention how interesting it is that McCain chose Joe Plumber as his poster child, believing that he would be a man who would make more than $250,000/year. That's a poster child? Please. I figured out that at a 250,000 profit, his increase in taxes under Obama's plan would be less than one paycheck, assuming he got paid every two weeks. Is this McCain's idea of 'struggling?' And now, even as the truth about Joe is out, McCain still asserts that Obama would raise his taxes. Sorry, but even if he did purchase that particular business, he would receive a tax cut under Obama. Very strange, all this.

: OK (none / 0) (#19)
by cal1942 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 08:49:16 PM EST

Here's the assessment from CTJ.

In any event, even if Mr. Wurzelbacher earns $280,000, as he says he hopes to do, he'll still get a substantial income tax cut under Obama's tax program. That's because Obama proposes to extend the Bush reductions in the bottom four tax brackets, which are the rates that apply to almost all of Mr. Wurzelbacher's taxable income. To be sure, McCain wants to give Mr. Wurzelbacher an even bigger tax cut, but that would save him at most only $900 a year.

[ Parent ]
: It's... (none / 0) (#20)
by CoralGables on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 09:08:59 PM EST

an additional 3 cents on the dollar after deductions on earnings over a quarter of a million. Not what anyone would call redistribution of wealth and a long way from paying off the 11 trillion in debt that we are facing when the current administration is sent out to pasture..

[ Parent ]

Nice line going around (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by blogtopus on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 07:25:47 PM EST

Not sure where it came from:

Republicans believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses.

I guess Socialism (to Republicans) means never having to say you're sorry.

NO NO NO (1.00 / 4) (#3)
by happs23 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 05:59:35 PM EST

I am sorry, but CA takes the most money! Also that state is always broke because of their vast "social programs" that the rest of America has to pay for. CNN keeps talking about Race in the Race, when will they look at the "white guilt" vote? I think a lot of independents that don't care one way or another, would like to see "The Rev J. Jackson" and his likes shut up for good. I'm calling it the "white guilt" vote!

CA gets $0.79 in Fed spending per fed tax dollar (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by FreakyBeaky on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 06:23:51 PM EST

... paid as of 2004. That's in the bottom ten out of fifty. The rest of America does not pay for CA (which does not have "vast social programs," thanks).

Say, you wouldn't perchance be from Alaska, would you? $1.87 per dollar paid. That's second.

[ Parent ]

: That's another (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by cal1942 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 08:26:34 PM EST

untold story.
Sarah Palin's state would be destitute without federal subsidies.

[ Parent ]
: FreakyPeaky Preach on!!!! (none / 0) (#7)
by samtaylor2 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 06:36:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]

8 of the top 10 food stamps states (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 07:31:26 PM EST

are red states

State, food stamps recipients, population, % of population

LA    650300    4293000    15%
wv    269300    1812000    15%
DC    86500    588300    15%
MS     426000    2919000    15%
KY    602000    4241500    14%
tn    865000    6157000    14%
Mo    824000    5878400    14%
AR    384500    2840000    14%
Sc    545300    4408000    12%
ME    162600    1317000    12%
MI     1200000    10010000 12%
Nm     234000    1970000    12%
Al    546000    4627900    12%
Or    438500    3748000    12%
Ok     421000    3617000    12%
tx    2422000    23904000 10%
Ga     950000    9545000    10%
Nc    883000    9061000    10%
Il     1246000    12853000 10%
Oh     1100000    11467000 10%
Ny     1800000    19298000 9%
IN     587000    6345000    9%
Pa     1100000    12433000 9%
AZ    544700    6400000    9%
vt     52500    621254    8%
Mt     80000    958000    8%
wa     536300    6468400    8%
AK     56600    683500    8%
IA     238000    3000000    8%
DE     67200    865000    8%
Sd     60200    796200    8%
Ri     76300    1058000    7%
Ma     456200    6450000    7%
Nd    45100    640000    7%
Hi     90000    1284000    7%
wi     382800    5602000    7%
Ne    121000    1775000    7%
FL     1232200    18251000 7%
va     515000    7712000    7%
KS     182400    2776000    7%
CT     212600    3502000    6%
Id     87000    1500000    6%
MD    317800    5618000    6%
CA     2048000    36600000 6%
MN     276400    5198000    5%
CO     250700    4860000    5%
Nj    414500    8686000    5%
Nv     122000    2565400    5%
ut     123500    2645000    5%
Nh     59000    1316000    4%
wy    22600    523000    4%

[ Parent ]

: or, 16 out of the top 20 (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 07:35:44 PM EST

are red states. the right is right, let's end food stamps!
Craziness.

[ Parent ]

Perhaps a compromised can be (none / 0) (#2)
by ThatOneVoter on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 05:48:03 PM EST

reached: Raise tax rates on the rich, but give them modest bailoputs of $1 trillion every few years.

McCain's 'socialist' tactic (none / 0) (#6)
by stevea66 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 06:34:52 PM EST

This just isn't going to work. McCain is trying to get voters to believe that Obama wants the government to 'take over' health care. Simply not true. Like you current policy? Keep it - it'll just cost you a bit less, that's all. Don't have insurance, you can buy into a plan similar to the one senators have. Yea, this sounds like socialism to me. Right!

When are the Republicans going to realize that they just need to take this like a grown up and change their ways, because their ways don't serve 99% of the American people. That's it. Take the defeat, which you deserve, and figure out how to find a bit of integrity.

: Ummmm No (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by WS on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 07:53:47 PM EST

Only the wingnuts cared about that line.

[ Parent ]

Socialism? (none / 0) (#9)
by Doc Rock on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 06:51:51 PM EST

McCainiacs: Wall Street, Yes? Mainstreet, no?

: why yes, it is. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by cpinva on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 08:30:05 PM EST

When you spread the wealth it is socialism.
so the bailout for the rich (read: banks and mortgage backed securities investors) is, well, um..................socialism. but in a good way. oh, wait, they rarely if ever pay taxes either (ever audited a large bank? i have.).
see, taking from the poor and middle class, to pay for the mistakes of the rich is ok. it's taxing the rich, to help pay for the fiscal disasters caused by, well, them, that's bad!
repeat that three times fast!

[ Parent ]
: You're (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by cal1942 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 09:14:07 PM EST

a bit confused Summit.
No one is cutting checks for people who've paid nothing.
There is a very fair item in the Obama plan that rebates some FICA paid by low income workers who make so very little that they do not pay federal income tax.
Everyone pays 6.2% into FICA on wages, salaries and tips up to earnings of something in the mid 90 thousand range. It's the same rate for everyone.
Under Obama's tax proposal a small number of very poor workers (I believe making less than $6,000 per year) would get a portion of the FICA they've paid refunded.
If you really want to see welfare in action Summit I'd suggest you get worked up over oil companies who get large checks from the federal government after having paid no taxes at all. Now that's welfare.
If you really want to get worked up even more how about getting enraged about the average 5% federal taxes paid by oil companies making billions or the 15% flat rate paid on dividend income regardless of the total amount. That 15% rate is lower than all but the lowest federal tax rate of 10% on the first $6,000 (as I recall) of income.

[ Parent ]

Socialism...? (none / 0) (#16)
by drkent3 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 08:01:15 PM EST

It is obvious that the people who are parroting the 'socialist' mantra have absolutely no idea what socialism is, and why it is 'bad'. They just know that it is 'bad', and therefore anyone called a socialist must, therefore, be 'bad'. Sounds an awful lot like McCarthyism, doesn't it?

Socialism is essentially based upon 4 beliefs - that the individual is less important than society, that the public owns property (not individuals), that the government plans the economy (no free market), and that all citizens should have the same level of prosperity.

It is this last idea that people are latching on to and calling it 'socialism'. They completely ignore the fact that we just saw the nationalization of a number of large financial institutions, and McCain is proposing 'public ownership' of mortgages. That sounds socialist too, doesn't it?

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'