Thanks for writing this. Sometimes I feel like the only person left who is perfectly okay with having to work hard to pay for my food and medical care.
Have you studied Austrian Economics at all? If not, you should... it's right up your alley. (Email me and I'm happy to share some resources!)
Dominick
· 1 year ago
I'm more than willing to work hard to pay for what I can, but then again I'm not losing a job I'd assumed I'd have my entire life only to have it sent to China or Mexico. Some people work their tails off only to get shot down in the end, so why should they have to suffer for something that isn't their fault?
Sure, they might have savings, but with milk at $4 a gallon many of these people are burning through savings faster than they expected.
ted murphy
· 1 year ago
"I'm not losing a job I'd assumed I'd have my entire life only to have it sent to China or Mexico".
This is my exact point. Why would you assume you are going to have a job your whole life? A job is not a right, it is something you compete for.
Dominick
· 1 year ago
If you've had a job that your father had all his life and his grandfather and so forth, why not assume you'd have it all your life? Being one year shy of retirement (or a few years) I'd expect to finish out my job, too.
ted murphy
· 1 year ago
If people are that blind to the world around then I'm sorry but perhaps there is a reason why they don't have a job. Right or wrong the world simply doesn't function like that. Nobody should expect to remain employed indefinitely, that sounds like entitlement to me.
Dominick
· 1 year ago
In the Midwest, where I'm from, many learn what their "Daddy taught them". Heck, one guy was raised from a young age to work in the factory. I grew up in Jeep town and now live in former-GMville. This entire area is suffering because jobs keep going elsewhere. These jobs built the American dream in the 1950s. These parents raised their kids to share in their dream and now they're suffering from outsourcing.
Dominick
· 1 year ago
The trickle down system doesn't work, nor does giving tax breaks only to the rich. There needs to be a better system in place where tax breaks apply to all equally.
In this current economy, eventually, the rich will be affected by the poor and middle class by not being able to make a living. You say earn the wealth, but try telling that to a man who had a good job at GM for nearly 20 years and just got laid off. Living in a GM town, I've seen this first hand. These people know nothing but what they did at GM. Are they asking for a hand out? Some need the help, and some are too proud to ask for it, but since their job is now being outsourced to Mexico, they have no choice but to find another job, like the one they now have at the local Sonic. To me, there is no way for these men to earn the wealth easily because the job that was earning them a decent living up and left them.
Just because Barack Obama wants to charge more taxes based on the more you make doesn't mean he's a socialist. The term is used too loosely these days. A socialist would be working towards achieving another concept (communism) and would expect everyone to earn the same amount equally. That isn't going to happen under Obama. What he's saying is we cannot charge the poor more taxes and the rich none. You still have to pay so much in taxes (minus deductions) but paying no taxes for making practically nothing makes sense. You can't make nothing out of nothing.
His point is that the trickle up works better. Think of it this way. Those who are wealthy often are that way because they have some product or service to offer (such as owning hotels or even providing services to teach people how to make money). These things cost money. If the poor and middle class can no longer afford to pay for these services, then the rich no longer make money. Therefore, the downward economic slump WILL eventually get to the rich, just not as fast.
Wouldn't you rather pay a little extra in taxes and allow the poor/middle class to save money so they can use said services because if poor/middle class have the money they will stay in the hotel, buy the e-book, eat at the restaurant or use any number of services that actually make more money for the rich, in the end.
A socialist wouldn't agree with this system, therefore, Obama is mislabeled a socialist. John McCain is just more Bush and we soon won't have a middle class after this political regime. It will only be poor, poorer and rich if you're lucky
ted murphy
· 1 year ago
There are many fine points here, but at bare minimum I think it is at least safe to say Obama is not a Capitalist.
jeremyhilton
· 1 year ago
Ted,
Barack Obama is a reformer. The notion that he is anything else was birthed by the McCain campaign's fear and smear machine.
MarinaMartin
· 1 year ago
It's better for America as a whole to outsource production to other countries that can do it more efficiently (read: cheaper). Then America can focus on producing what *we* do most efficiently, and trade accordingly. Does this leave some people at a disadvantage? Yes. It sucks to work hard and lose your job because another group of workers elsewhere can do it better. But that's what's necessary for economic growth. Many farmers lost their livelihoods due to the Industrial Revolution. Would we be better off as a nation if those farming jobs were "saved"? As some jobs are lost, many new jobs are created.
What stats are you using to claim that the poor pay more taxes and the rich none? The top 1% of income earners account for 19% of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid 37% of the income taxes. (Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07winbul.pdf) Last year Exxon Mobil - one single company - paid more income tax than the entire bottom 50% of American taxpayers. The more you make in this county, the more you are taxed. Who creates the jobs? Who makes it possible for the vast majority of Americans to even HAVE jobs? That's right, the higher-income earners. Take more money away from them, and they create fewer jobs.
ted murphy
· 1 year ago
"Take more money away from them, and they create fewer jobs."
As someone who owns multiple businesses I can tell you this is true.
Dominick
· 1 year ago
That truly depends on the field. I used to work as a tech writer. I am born in America. English is my native language. I can't tell you how many prospective clients would pay a lower fee to "outsource" to a non-native English speaking worker just to pay a lower price. The quality of their articles was often quite terrible, so said client would have to come back to me and do what they should of done to begin with; they paid me a higher rate to do a better job.
In truth, you get what you pay for, so just because it is cheaper doesn't mean it is the same quality.
MarinaMartin
· 1 year ago
I'm an efficiency consultant, and I've seen many clients initially outsource their tech writing only to return to doing it domestically. In your example you did not actually lose work. In that case, the foreign country did NOT do it more efficiently and outsourcing is not a good option, which they realized and remedied. There are still many things that foreign countries can do better than us, in terms of quality and price.
Dominick
· 1 year ago
I didn't say i lost work. I said outsourcing isn't always the right option.
What about all the toys that get recalled because outsourcing was done in unsanitary conditions or the overseas company put "lead" in their product? In many cases, these countries pay their workers a nickel to work and the work is done poorly. I tend to support companies that make their products in the USA because a lot of times, the quality is much better.
That was my point, by the example. Don't expect to pay someone a nickel and get the same quality of work for the item as you would had you paid $5.
MarinaMartin
· 1 year ago
I encourage you to read an economics primer - perhaps Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" or "The Choice" by Russell Roberts. Of course outsourcing is not always the right option. But sometimes it *is* better for the county as a whole to outsource production in certain industries. Consider how much poorer the United States would be if we had to create everything - from food to cars - that we already import. If an industry closes in America because China or India on the whole is doing it better - providing the same or better product for the same or lower price - then that's better for America as a whole.
Dominick
· 1 year ago
Cars aren't really a good example. We weren't originally importing them (unless you're talking fancy, non-American cars). The vast majority of Americans drive GM, Jeep, Chrysler, Ford, etc. All of these companies were (and some still are) all American so the point where you say "we're importing cars anyway" doesn't make sense.
I live in Michigan and grew up in Toledo. Within a two hour vicinity I have GM, Chrysler, Ford, and Jeep. I grew up in a town right outside Toledo surrounded by train tracks, which used to load up the Jeeps and ship them out to other parts of the country. In fact, my paternal grandfather worked on said railroad. This part of the country was thriving under the industrial revolution, back when people produced and bought cars from America because that was where the cars were made. Taking something so American out of America is just plain unjust.
As for food, I would rather pay a little extra to eat organic or choice US meat, etc. than eat food that has been imported. How many cases of salmonella have broken out from food imported from Mexico, China or elsewhere? If food is going to be diseased, forget outsourcing. Bring back good ol' American food.
I support my local farmer's market!
And finally, who, pray tell, is going to pay for all the items being imported when all the poor/middle class folks who lost their jobs due to outsourcing can't afford to pay for them? If you take jobs from America that isn't good for America. It means less jobs, less money and less spending on anything whether it is domestic or imported.
MarinaMartin
· 1 year ago
The point was that we do not make 100% of cars domestically. That would not be in our best interest, because we'd have to divert our resources to meet 100% of our automotive needs, when currently other countries can make some cars better. We do not have enough resources to grow all our own good, make all our own cars, etc.
Also, if we don't buy foreign goods, foreigners can't buy our goods because they don't have access to dollars to pay for them. Would it be good for the county to have zero exports?
The majority of Americans used to be farmers. Some lost their jobs when the Industrial Revolution came around and changed that. Then that changed when computers were developed. Somehow, despite the loss of those jobs, we have MORE jobs now than ever before. Would you prefer that we have saved all those farmers' jobs and never have entered the Industrial Revolution? (Hint: that would mean you'd be out on a farm right now and there'd be no computers and no Internet.)
The people who lose jobs to outsourcing find other jobs, same as the farmers and factory workers found other jobs. Not every single person will, but most will - and the industries that are outsourced will make better, more affordable items that can be more easily afforded by lower-income people. If America made 100% of everything Americans consume, prices would be significantly higher than they are today, and the poor would be far worse off.
PLEASE read "The Choice" by Russell Roberts. It's short, and it explains this in greater length and better than I can. Your intentions are in the right place, but your proposed method actually works against your goal.
Shawn Collins
· 1 year ago
@Dominick
> There needs to be a better system in place where tax breaks apply to all equally.
I agree, we should get rid of the progressive tax system and evolve to the FairTax.
The current system is totally out of whack - according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation (www.taxfoundation.org), the total income tax paid by taxpayers in the various brackets has shifted dramatically.
In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 36.84% of taxes, while the bottom 50% paid 7.0500%.
And in 2006, the top 5% paid 60.14% and the bottom 50% paid 2.99%.
Nice post, Ted. I'll spread the wealth and buy you some drinks at ad:tech.
ted murphy
· 1 year ago
If any candidate supports the Fair Tax in the next election they will have my vote.
Yeeehaww! FREE DRINKS!
missyward
· 1 year ago
I disagree with both you and Shawn but I will still buy you a drink at Ad:tech because that''s what us bleeding heart Liberals do :)
Dominick
· 1 year ago
I agree in a FairTax system, but neither McCain nor Obama has that one supported.
McCain wants to hurt people that need help, like the disabled and children. Children don't choose to be born into a poor household so why deny them healthcare? People with disabilities don't choose to have said disabilities but who has $25,000 or so for a wheelchair?
Speaking as someone with a disability (I'm wheelchair bound due to Spinal Muscular Atrophy), McCain's plan for the world hurts the disabled community far more than helps. He doesn't even plan to help disabled veterans who fought for our freedom, many of whom are now homeless and without healthcare. These men and women deserve better for serving this country. You'd think as a veteran McCain would know this.
Little known fact by those not disabled. Close to 80 percent of the MILLIONS of disabled people (did you know 1 in 5 Americans have a disability of some form?) are without jobs. Something needs to be done to help those with disabilities who pay FAR more than any "normal" person does (did you know it costs me in a wheelchair close to $50,000 to buy a car because it needs to be accessible - who has that kind of money???) to live independent and sustainable lives.
McCain wouldn't even talk to the disability advocates, when asked what he planned to do to address this obvious problem (what would make sense is lowering the price of how much a person can make (right now its around $1500 a month) before they start losing their Medicare/Medicaid since health insurance is a necessity for those with disabilities (and many employers refuse to provide healthcare to someone with a pre-existing condition).
I can't support McCain for this or for many other reasons, forgetting the whole tax thing. I fear for our civil liberties under John McCain and for the state of the world, which he has no qualms about going to war with again and again
Marc
· 1 year ago
Bob Barr supports something along the lines of a fair tax. Look into him if that interests you.
Amy
· 1 year ago
I'm glad Dominick took the time to type all that out, so now I can just say, "Ditto to what Dominick said." :-)
meritt
· 1 year ago
GOD BLESS YOU MAN!
I voted McCain too. Obama is a charismatic speaker (thanks to lots of help in that department) but looking at what he stands for (very little... check out his voting record! "No vote... No vote... No vote... LOL) - it's this 'socialism' that irks me the most.
"Give a man a fish... he eats for a day. Teach him to fish... he eats for a lifetime."
EARN your living. :)
George
· 1 year ago
Ted - Right on!
Heather in Beautiful BC
· 1 year ago
Well said Ted.
Thanks for working so hard at creating a means of employment for so many - that's truly spreading the wealth - providing a mean for others to apply themselves and earn.
'The harder I work, the luckier I get!'
blm03
· 1 year ago
I wish that work for everyone. Since we have already been told by my husbands employer that if McCain gets in, I no longer will have health insurance from them. Let me tell you, that $5000 McCain is "giving" us. That pays about 3 months of health insurance. Seriously. Sooo again how do I end up ahead? I have small children --- it isn't like I can afford be without insurance. If spreading the wealth means some poor kids get some much needed healthcare, I am all for that.
Second, McCain and Palin have shown their distaste for science. Have you seen her distaste for the "fruit fly research"? Well, that fruit fly research has shown one the genes that is related to autism. Now, if you have any sort of genetic issue in your family (I have both autism and cystic fibrosis is my family), this is welcoming news. Under McCain and Palin, all that sort of research will be squashed and this is according to them.
My husband and I did the Obama calculator. We would get an additional $1800 tax credit which we can definitely use. We aren't millionares -- we don't make over $250,000 -- Instead we are hard working Americans who can't seem to get ahead. I don't know what you make a year Ted but I can almost guarantee its about double or more of what my husband and I make together. So your situation is definitely not most Americans.
Also, we can't afford a spending freeze especially in education. I can't send my daughter to the public school next year because they have no money to pay for adequate staffing levels. Sooo more money out of this Americans pocket for something that everywhere else gets for free.
And don't get me started about the whole prolife thing with them. Being someone who was sexually assaulted when I was 18 years old, I can only imagine what it would be like to become pregnant by a rapist. Also, when I was pregnant with my son, I had a positive triple screen which means he could have had some pretty bad, serious stuff (he ended up being fine). However, one of the things he would have had would have meant he would have been born dead. Now, according to Palin, abortion is out of the question -- doesn't matter the reason. Well, that is just wrong. I've given you two examples above that happen every day to women, and I should have the right to make my own medical decisions about my own health and my own body. No idiot in Washington should be making those for me.
Love ya Ted, but have to disagree with you here. :) Now, I live in Chicago, so I have to prepare my house in case they riot on Tuesday (and unfortunately, I am serious).
ted murphy
· 1 year ago
That's one of the things I love about this country. We can agree to disagree.
Dominick
· 1 year ago
Hi Lisa - I can relate on so many fronts. I'm in a wheelchair. I have a form of Muscular Dystrophy called Spinal Muscular Atrophy. My 13 year old son (stepson) has Asperger's Syndrome and Bi Polar Disorder. What medical care is covered is nice, but there is so much for both of us that we have to pay out of pocket.
I work for myself and have been lucky enough to do that, but if prices keep raising I'm not sure how long that will last. Under McCain's plan, the $5000 wouldn't even pay for my son's medication for the year. It wouldn't even pay for 1/5 the cost of a new wheelchair for me. Luckily, I have insurance (not good insurance, but enough to get a wheelchair if needed), but who knows for how long if McCain gets in?
I'm not asking for any hand outs. I get money from my father (he died) and I also work my tail off (rarely taking a day off) to make a living online. I just know many who are in similar situations aren't as lucky as me. They don't have the skills or guidance to create their own wealth. They fear losing their health insurance if they make too much money. I'd gladly pay a little extra for a child to have health insurance or a disabled person to be taken care of, because I know what it is like to be poor (I was as a kid).
At that time, my dad had just been laid off, my doctors had just diagnosed my disability and we had no insurance. My dad had to use the last of our life savings to pay for an $80 pair of orthopedic shoes (big money in the 80s) I had to wear. I hated them so much, but my dad scrimped to make sure I had the medical care I needed. He ended up going to college on loans and became a state of Ohio Tax Commissioner agent, but our money troubles has piled up so much thanks to medical expenses, we never ever seemed to get ahead.
As for education, the school system here wasn't educating my son (who is very intelligent). They were abusive and never worked with him to get him to do work. They sent all his work home for his mother to do with him. We ended up taking him out because he was getting beat up by a bully and the teacher wouldn't believe my son. We now homeschool him. To give him the best education we pay between $1,000-$2000 a year, all because the public school here is inadequate. Can't imagine what other families who can't afford to homeschool as we do, do in these situations.
MarinaMartin
· 1 year ago
I am chronically ill and have great private insurance in Washington State - the best I've had in the six states I've lived in as an adult. McCain has proposed allowing you to buy insurance across state lines, which increases competition and means you could get better insurance at a lower rate.
I'm not anti-abortion, but I'm not concerned about the issue. If Roe v Wade were overturned - extremely unlikely - then that just means each state could decide for itself whether or not abortion was illegal. Given the advances of technology, particularly the Internet, the resources would be available for women to have safe abortions whether they were legal or not.
I don't like McCain, and I was not under the impression that Ted is out singing his praises, either. Electing McCain over Obama is a matter of preferring "disaster" to "catastrophic ruin" in my book.
Dominick
· 1 year ago
McCain is proposing $5000 for insurance when people are getting it free through work, but could lose said free insurance under his plan. Honestly, $5000 wouldn't buy insurance for someone like me, with a pre-existing condition. I'm better keeping the insurance I get through my dad, which I don't have to pay for. For the average American, insurance costs upwards of $12,000 per year. State line crossing or not, his plan isn't going to help anyone. More people will lose insurance under him than gain it.
Nobody said that Ted is singing McCain's praises. I believe that both myself and Lisa were pointing out there are many other reasons NOT to Vote (or to vote depending on your belief in the issues) for McCain as opposed to deciding to vote for him based on one issue (taxes). If I mistook Lisa's intent sorry about that, but I believe she was saying that she was voting against McCain due to all the reasons she listed.
ted murphy
· 1 year ago
"McCain is proposing $5000 for insurance when people are getting it free through work, but could lose said free insurance under his plan."
There is no such thing as free insurance. If your employer pays for it you pay for it one way or another.
blm03
· 1 year ago
Right, but my husband's salary is not going up what they were paying for health insurance. So I'll end up worse off than I am now (which I didn't believe would be possible)
blm03
· 1 year ago
You got exactly what I meant :)
Frank
· 1 year ago
Spread the Wealth is what all taxes are. That's the funny part -- people are for spread the wealth when it helps them. It's funny, because John McCain certainly didn't show up as a capitalist when it came to government bailouts of companies that ran themselves ragged. (Obama supported the bailouts, too.) Does that make McCain a socialist? It would appear that way, if the definition of "socialist" were applied in the sense of collective ownership of major industries. You, your friends, and I own a bit of a lot of banks and financial institutions. Soon, we'll own GM and Chrysler. We own AIG to the tune of $130 billion.
I own a small business. I make much more than Obama's threshold for the tax rollback. And I have been helped all along by tax benefits. I am taking a much longer view of this world than how many bucks can go in my pocket. A marginal increase in my taxes will not make me hire fewer people. I mean, seriously, it's a marginal 3% on the income above $250,000. That keeps me from hiring? If that were the case, I'd be running on the ragged edge and looking for a bailout. Hardly.
We started our business with bootstrap funding. Ours, and ours alone. We've been profitable and we're going to do better when America's status in the world improves. You're right -- we do live in a global economy. I'll be glad to have a president in Barack Obama who graduated at the top of his Harvard Law class than John MCCain who graduated at the bottom of his military school that his father got him into.
It's about temperament and a worldview. I'm willing to pay my fair share. Spreading the wealth works for me because I don't have enough money to build a fence tall enough to keep out eveyone who doesn't look like me.
Brian Combs
· 1 year ago
I think the USA would be a better place if more of us were small business owners. It really changes your perspective.
That said, I don't like either Obama or McCain all that much.
ted murphy
· 1 year ago
"That said, I don't like either Obama or McCain all that much."
I am with you.
Steve Rosenbaum
· 1 year ago
i'm a bit surprised to see all this focus on taxes, given what seems to me to be so many more urgent and potentially life-threatening situations. I would suggest that the impact of global warming and the war and iraq combined to create any number of potentially world ending scenarios. Weather disasters, nuclear war, and the rising anger of a global underclass makes the debate about tax policy somewhat moot. At the end of the day - either candidate is going to be faced with staggering deficits and unbalanced budgets. States are going to look to the Federal Government for help, unemployment is going to rise, and crime is going to go up. I'm a lifelong entrepreneur, having built 3 businesses. But I can't help but look at the rising profits at Exon/Mobile and the rapid unraveling of the US economy and wonder if the price of oil couldn't somehow be tied to the challenges faced by average American's. Given McCain's public support of big oil ("Drill, baby drill") and his VP, I'm not sure how comparing tax policies makes any difference at the end of the day. The Republican's have run on a platform of small government, less taxes, and more personal responsibility while overseeing the largest growth in Government in modern history. What makes you that McCain will be any different? Can McCain's 'anti-pork' policies really change anything as long as we're in Iraq, and as long as Big Oil and Big Military rule the day? Ted, your taxes are going up. Unless you've found some way to get inside the protective bubble of a handful of industries - someone is going to pay the bill for the check we just wrote to the Banking Industry. I'd bet it's going to be you and I. Can you come up with any other candidates to pay that bill?
BrianCombs
· 1 year ago
I could get more on board with your arguments if I believes that Obama was really going to get us out of Iraq. I hope I wrong, but I don't see him pulling the troops very soon.
TripTheLady
· 1 year ago
I voted McCain too. While I don't agree with everything he stands for I do agree with him more than Obama. I work damn hard for my money, often putting in 60-80 hours a week. Then I have employees come tell me to cut their hours because they're making too much and they're going to lose their food stamps? WTF? I busted my ass to get where I am and I am proud of it and I don't want to share my earnings to support those less aggressive at supporting themselves.
Tina Kubala
· 1 year ago
People who play the system drive me nuts. I'm all for a safety net, but the system is bankrupted by those folks who make it a lifestyle.
Aaron
· 1 year ago
Your argument contains a couple of rhetorical fallacies here. First off, you provide a definition of socialism which is as good as any (it is, after all, Wikipedia), and then conclude that because socialism wants to evenly spread wealth, any attempt to "spread the wealth" must be socialism. This is an associative fallacy. Socialism is much more than seeking to "spread the wealth"- socialism in its raw form charges that the only way to "spread the wealth" as it were, is for the state or collective to own the means of production. That means, that the state controls all of the factories, all of the companies, etc.
When parsing someone's words, it is important to keep in mind the context of what they're saying. Robin Hood of legend also wanted to spread the wealth, but he was hardly socialist: the reason he spread the wealth was because John of England and the Sheriff of Nottingham were oppressing the commoners and stealing their wealth.
When Sen. Obama said he wanted to "spread the wealth" he was speaking with respect to his tax policy. Sen. Obama's proposed tax plan would cut taxes for most people, especially those in the middle class, and the tradeoff is that for families making more than $250k, their tax rates will revert to pre-Bush levels, specifically from a 36% to a 39% marginal tax rate.
Is a 39% marginal tax rate socialist? If so, then Eisenhower must have been a socialist, because during his presidency, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. After Reagan's first term, the top tax rate was 50%. Compared to them, Senator Obama must seem like Gordon Gekko.
Given a "wealth spreading" litmus test, all progressive taxation would be considered socialist, because it calls upon those of higher incomes to draw a greater percentage of their income to fund the government. Is that a reasonable conclusion then? Well, that might be news to Adam Smith, the celebrated proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, who wrote in support of a progressive tax in his Wealth of Nations.
Another fallacy here is the naturalistic fallacy. Your assumption is that everyone who is wealthy must have earned it, and everyone who is not wealthy must be deficient. You call the American workforce "complacent, lazy and self righteous" and blame them for our economic downturn; but in fact our current economic crisis was brought about by rich investment bankers creating risky derivatives and then over-leveraging their companies in exchange for fat bonuses. They were creating wealth alright- by spreading it from the market, and their own employers, to their personal bank accounts, and then leaving the credit market for the tax payers to clean up.
I think we would agree that preserving entrepreneurial incentive, driven by private risk and reward is important for our society to thrive. Where we differ, however, is that I recognize that there is value in society preserving for people the opportunities for them to seek those incentives, regardless of the strata of society in which they were born. I am not a proponent of egalitarianism, but neither am I proponent of devil-take-the-hindmost.
When it comes to tax policy today, I believe that reducing taxes for the middle class is more important and offers more benefits than for the rich, even if that means a slight increase for the rich. The middle class is where that industrial spirit thrives the most- this is where our workers, our inventors, our small business owners live. This is where people have to achieve in order to make a good life, and increasingly under the Republican fiscal policies, this is where the people have been squeezed to an unacceptable point.
On the one hand, we have a candidate who is proposing to offer a significant tax cut for the middle class, and on the other hand, we have a candidate who is offering a tax cut that primarily benefits the rich and barely touches the middle class. For me, the choice is clear.
Carri
· 1 year ago
"You, your friends, and I own a bit of a lot of banks and financial institutions. Soon, we'll own GM and Chrysler. We own AIG to the tune of $130 billion."
Yes, this is exactly the point. I don't think anyone believes that this is Obama's ultimate goal. But I also don't think most people fully realize that under true socialism, you and your friends would NOT own a bit of this and that, the STATE would. There would be no such thing as personal wealth or intellectual property or dividends or private ownership or patents or rights or royalties. The job you do, how you do it, what you can learn and acheive and how quickly, becomes meaningless once it is devalued by the fact that you will never acheive better than the drooling moron asleep at the desk next to you. So, while I don't think this extreme is Obama's ultimate plan, and I don't love McCain, McCain it's going to have to be because I just cannot help but feel that Obama opens the door. He's the gateway politician to socialism and in a few years, no one will notice that they are slowly ceding more and more control because the masses are lulled by the dulcet tones of his golden voice...
Dominick
· 1 year ago
Obama is not the gateway to socialism and you confuse socialism with communism. Socialism is a stepping path to communism, where everyone makes the same amount and no one wants for anything. True communism could and would NEVER work in this world. People are too greedy for that.
The real issue is people assume their taxes will be lower under McCain. It's all about Me, Me, Me. What do I have to pay? What break do I get? In the end, what it becomes is nobody makes any money and everyone suffers because there is no money to be made and there are no people to support those making money.
I'm hearing more and more people say they can no longer afford cable TV. Next it will be the internet. Hollywood will fall apart because no one will be going to see movies or buying DVDs. The Internet will have fewer travelers so everyone with online jobs won't be making ad money, money from marketing, etc. because no one will be online to use said services.
Most everyone agrees that Bush has helped to ruin America. The country is falling apart and has been for the last eight years...and you want to elect a man who has a proven record of voting 90% of the time with this moron? You reap what you sow. If McCain gets in then we all suffer and I'm seriously considering moving from the U.S. because I fear for my safety and the safety of my child.
Tina Kubala
· 1 year ago
Socialism or capitalism is the only real issue in this election. I'm for the freedom to make it or not based on my own work.
One thing no one has mentioned is that the government isn't very good at doing the jobs they already have. The roads? We had a major bridge collapse in Minnesota a couple years ago. Social Security? My generation isn't going to see a dime of the money we've paid in due to mismanagement. And people want to give them more money and power. No thanks.
Kelly Feller
· 1 year ago
Unfortunately you have bought into the Republican rhetoric that incorrectly defines Obama's tax plan as "socialism." Don't you know they have conjured up that idea to scare you? His plan simply revokes Bush's corporate welfare of the last 8 years, funded in part by the Asian government. You want to see socialism at work? Check out Alaska where oil profits are taken and redistributed to citizens.
Right on Ted. The whole system's screwed. Neither candidate will be able to fix it, It's doubtful anybody will be able to fix it.
Ron Paul!
ted murphy
· 1 year ago
I find the political focus of these comments fascinating. I barely mention Obama or McCain in my post, because I don't really like either choice. There is so much passion on both sides of the fence, right or wrong I love how supportive people are of their candidate.
blm03
· 1 year ago
I'm not 100% thrilled about Obama either, but for my family, he's best for my family. though I have to applaud everyone here that these comments didn't turn into a screaming namecallling match.
Penny Raine
· 1 year ago
Amen and Amen, you work, you eat
blessings, Penny Raine http:/pennyraine.com/blog
jeremyhilton
· 1 year ago
Which of you who received a economic stimulus check sent it right back to the government and said "No thanks, but I don't take government handouts. It is against my political beliefs."?
And please be honest. If you kept the check, let everyone know.
I'm interested to see how many of you actually put your money where your mouth is.
steveedee
· 10 months ago
Capitolism is the only way to go. Without it like you said, it's the single most reason why the world wants to live in America. That's enough for me to be proud to have been born here in the first place. YOU ROCK TED!!!
Swing Trading
· 2 months ago
Interesting post. I have made a twitter post about this. My friends will enjoy reading it also.
All Comments
Have you studied Austrian Economics at all? If not, you should... it's right up your alley. (Email me and I'm happy to share some resources!)
Sure, they might have savings, but with milk at $4 a gallon many of these people are burning through savings faster than they expected.
This is my exact point. Why would you assume you are going to have a job your whole life? A job is not a right, it is something you compete for.
In this current economy, eventually, the rich will be affected by the poor and middle class by not being able to make a living. You say earn the wealth, but try telling that to a man who had a good job at GM for nearly 20 years and just got laid off. Living in a GM town, I've seen this first hand. These people know nothing but what they did at GM. Are they asking for a hand out? Some need the help, and some are too proud to ask for it, but since their job is now being outsourced to Mexico, they have no choice but to find another job, like the one they now have at the local Sonic. To me, there is no way for these men to earn the wealth easily because the job that was earning them a decent living up and left them.
Just because Barack Obama wants to charge more taxes based on the more you make doesn't mean he's a socialist. The term is used too loosely these days. A socialist would be working towards achieving another concept (communism) and would expect everyone to earn the same amount equally. That isn't going to happen under Obama. What he's saying is we cannot charge the poor more taxes and the rich none. You still have to pay so much in taxes (minus deductions) but paying no taxes for making practically nothing makes sense. You can't make nothing out of nothing.
His point is that the trickle up works better. Think of it this way. Those who are wealthy often are that way because they have some product or service to offer (such as owning hotels or even providing services to teach people how to make money). These things cost money. If the poor and middle class can no longer afford to pay for these services, then the rich no longer make money. Therefore, the downward economic slump WILL eventually get to the rich, just not as fast.
Wouldn't you rather pay a little extra in taxes and allow the poor/middle class to save money so they can use said services because if poor/middle class have the money they will stay in the hotel, buy the e-book, eat at the restaurant or use any number of services that actually make more money for the rich, in the end.
A socialist wouldn't agree with this system, therefore, Obama is mislabeled a socialist. John McCain is just more Bush and we soon won't have a middle class after this political regime. It will only be poor, poorer and rich if you're lucky
Barack Obama is a reformer. The notion that he is anything else was birthed by the McCain campaign's fear and smear machine.
What stats are you using to claim that the poor pay more taxes and the rich none? The top 1% of income earners account for 19% of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid 37% of the income taxes. (Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07winbul.pdf) Last year Exxon Mobil - one single company - paid more income tax than the entire bottom 50% of American taxpayers. The more you make in this county, the more you are taxed. Who creates the jobs? Who makes it possible for the vast majority of Americans to even HAVE jobs? That's right, the higher-income earners. Take more money away from them, and they create fewer jobs.
As someone who owns multiple businesses I can tell you this is true.
In truth, you get what you pay for, so just because it is cheaper doesn't mean it is the same quality.
What about all the toys that get recalled because outsourcing was done in unsanitary conditions or the overseas company put "lead" in their product? In many cases, these countries pay their workers a nickel to work and the work is done poorly. I tend to support companies that make their products in the USA because a lot of times, the quality is much better.
That was my point, by the example. Don't expect to pay someone a nickel and get the same quality of work for the item as you would had you paid $5.
I live in Michigan and grew up in Toledo. Within a two hour vicinity I have GM, Chrysler, Ford, and Jeep. I grew up in a town right outside Toledo surrounded by train tracks, which used to load up the Jeeps and ship them out to other parts of the country. In fact, my paternal grandfather worked on said railroad. This part of the country was thriving under the industrial revolution, back when people produced and bought cars from America because that was where the cars were made. Taking something so American out of America is just plain unjust.
As for food, I would rather pay a little extra to eat organic or choice US meat, etc. than eat food that has been imported. How many cases of salmonella have broken out from food imported from Mexico, China or elsewhere? If food is going to be diseased, forget outsourcing. Bring back good ol' American food.
I support my local farmer's market!
And finally, who, pray tell, is going to pay for all the items being imported when all the poor/middle class folks who lost their jobs due to outsourcing can't afford to pay for them? If you take jobs from America that isn't good for America. It means less jobs, less money and less spending on anything whether it is domestic or imported.
Also, if we don't buy foreign goods, foreigners can't buy our goods because they don't have access to dollars to pay for them. Would it be good for the county to have zero exports?
The majority of Americans used to be farmers. Some lost their jobs when the Industrial Revolution came around and changed that. Then that changed when computers were developed. Somehow, despite the loss of those jobs, we have MORE jobs now than ever before. Would you prefer that we have saved all those farmers' jobs and never have entered the Industrial Revolution? (Hint: that would mean you'd be out on a farm right now and there'd be no computers and no Internet.)
The people who lose jobs to outsourcing find other jobs, same as the farmers and factory workers found other jobs. Not every single person will, but most will - and the industries that are outsourced will make better, more affordable items that can be more easily afforded by lower-income people. If America made 100% of everything Americans consume, prices would be significantly higher than they are today, and the poor would be far worse off.
PLEASE read "The Choice" by Russell Roberts. It's short, and it explains this in greater length and better than I can. Your intentions are in the right place, but your proposed method actually works against your goal.
> There needs to be a better system in place where tax breaks apply to all equally.
I agree, we should get rid of the progressive tax system and evolve to the FairTax.
The current system is totally out of whack - according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation (www.taxfoundation.org), the total income tax paid by taxpayers in the various brackets has shifted dramatically.
In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 36.84% of taxes, while the bottom 50% paid 7.0500%.
And in 2006, the top 5% paid 60.14% and the bottom 50% paid 2.99%.
Nice post, Ted. I'll spread the wealth and buy you some drinks at ad:tech.
Yeeehaww! FREE DRINKS!
McCain wants to hurt people that need help, like the disabled and children. Children don't choose to be born into a poor household so why deny them healthcare? People with disabilities don't choose to have said disabilities but who has $25,000 or so for a wheelchair?
Speaking as someone with a disability (I'm wheelchair bound due to Spinal Muscular Atrophy), McCain's plan for the world hurts the disabled community far more than helps. He doesn't even plan to help disabled veterans who fought for our freedom, many of whom are now homeless and without healthcare. These men and women deserve better for serving this country. You'd think as a veteran McCain would know this.
Little known fact by those not disabled. Close to 80 percent of the MILLIONS of disabled people (did you know 1 in 5 Americans have a disability of some form?) are without jobs. Something needs to be done to help those with disabilities who pay FAR more than any "normal" person does (did you know it costs me in a wheelchair close to $50,000 to buy a car because it needs to be accessible - who has that kind of money???) to live independent and sustainable lives.
McCain wouldn't even talk to the disability advocates, when asked what he planned to do to address this obvious problem (what would make sense is lowering the price of how much a person can make (right now its around $1500 a month) before they start losing their Medicare/Medicaid since health insurance is a necessity for those with disabilities (and many employers refuse to provide healthcare to someone with a pre-existing condition).
I can't support McCain for this or for many other reasons, forgetting the whole tax thing. I fear for our civil liberties under John McCain and for the state of the world, which he has no qualms about going to war with again and again
I voted McCain too. Obama is a charismatic speaker (thanks to lots of help in that department) but looking at what he stands for (very little... check out his voting record! "No vote... No vote... No vote... LOL) - it's this 'socialism' that irks me the most.
"Give a man a fish... he eats for a day. Teach him to fish... he eats for a lifetime."
EARN your living. :)
Thanks for working so hard at creating a means of employment for so many - that's truly spreading the wealth - providing a mean for others to apply themselves and earn.
'The harder I work, the luckier I get!'
Second, McCain and Palin have shown their distaste for science. Have you seen her distaste for the "fruit fly research"? Well, that fruit fly research has shown one the genes that is related to autism. Now, if you have any sort of genetic issue in your family (I have both autism and cystic fibrosis is my family), this is welcoming news. Under McCain and Palin, all that sort of research will be squashed and this is according to them.
My husband and I did the Obama calculator. We would get an additional $1800 tax credit which we can definitely use. We aren't millionares -- we don't make over $250,000 -- Instead we are hard working Americans who can't seem to get ahead. I don't know what you make a year Ted but I can almost guarantee its about double or more of what my husband and I make together. So your situation is definitely not most Americans.
Also, we can't afford a spending freeze especially in education. I can't send my daughter to the public school next year because they have no money to pay for adequate staffing levels. Sooo more money out of this Americans pocket for something that everywhere else gets for free.
And don't get me started about the whole prolife thing with them. Being someone who was sexually assaulted when I was 18 years old, I can only imagine what it would be like to become pregnant by a rapist. Also, when I was pregnant with my son, I had a positive triple screen which means he could have had some pretty bad, serious stuff (he ended up being fine). However, one of the things he would have had would have meant he would have been born dead. Now, according to Palin, abortion is out of the question -- doesn't matter the reason. Well, that is just wrong. I've given you two examples above that happen every day to women, and I should have the right to make my own medical decisions about my own health and my own body. No idiot in Washington should be making those for me.
Love ya Ted, but have to disagree with you here. :) Now, I live in Chicago, so I have to prepare my house in case they riot on Tuesday (and unfortunately, I am serious).
I work for myself and have been lucky enough to do that, but if prices keep raising I'm not sure how long that will last. Under McCain's plan, the $5000 wouldn't even pay for my son's medication for the year. It wouldn't even pay for 1/5 the cost of a new wheelchair for me. Luckily, I have insurance (not good insurance, but enough to get a wheelchair if needed), but who knows for how long if McCain gets in?
I'm not asking for any hand outs. I get money from my father (he died) and I also work my tail off (rarely taking a day off) to make a living online. I just know many who are in similar situations aren't as lucky as me. They don't have the skills or guidance to create their own wealth. They fear losing their health insurance if they make too much money. I'd gladly pay a little extra for a child to have health insurance or a disabled person to be taken care of, because I know what it is like to be poor (I was as a kid).
At that time, my dad had just been laid off, my doctors had just diagnosed my disability and we had no insurance. My dad had to use the last of our life savings to pay for an $80 pair of orthopedic shoes (big money in the 80s) I had to wear. I hated them so much, but my dad scrimped to make sure I had the medical care I needed. He ended up going to college on loans and became a state of Ohio Tax Commissioner agent, but our money troubles has piled up so much thanks to medical expenses, we never ever seemed to get ahead.
As for education, the school system here wasn't educating my son (who is very intelligent). They were abusive and never worked with him to get him to do work. They sent all his work home for his mother to do with him. We ended up taking him out because he was getting beat up by a bully and the teacher wouldn't believe my son. We now homeschool him. To give him the best education we pay between $1,000-$2000 a year, all because the public school here is inadequate. Can't imagine what other families who can't afford to homeschool as we do, do in these situations.
I'm not anti-abortion, but I'm not concerned about the issue. If Roe v Wade were overturned - extremely unlikely - then that just means each state could decide for itself whether or not abortion was illegal. Given the advances of technology, particularly the Internet, the resources would be available for women to have safe abortions whether they were legal or not.
I don't like McCain, and I was not under the impression that Ted is out singing his praises, either. Electing McCain over Obama is a matter of preferring "disaster" to "catastrophic ruin" in my book.
Nobody said that Ted is singing McCain's praises. I believe that both myself and Lisa were pointing out there are many other reasons NOT to Vote (or to vote depending on your belief in the issues) for McCain as opposed to deciding to vote for him based on one issue (taxes). If I mistook Lisa's intent sorry about that, but I believe she was saying that she was voting against McCain due to all the reasons she listed.
There is no such thing as free insurance. If your employer pays for it you pay for it one way or another.
I own a small business. I make much more than Obama's threshold for the tax rollback. And I have been helped all along by tax benefits. I am taking a much longer view of this world than how many bucks can go in my pocket. A marginal increase in my taxes will not make me hire fewer people. I mean, seriously, it's a marginal 3% on the income above $250,000. That keeps me from hiring? If that were the case, I'd be running on the ragged edge and looking for a bailout. Hardly.
We started our business with bootstrap funding. Ours, and ours alone. We've been profitable and we're going to do better when America's status in the world improves. You're right -- we do live in a global economy. I'll be glad to have a president in Barack Obama who graduated at the top of his Harvard Law class than John MCCain who graduated at the bottom of his military school that his father got him into.
It's about temperament and a worldview. I'm willing to pay my fair share. Spreading the wealth works for me because I don't have enough money to build a fence tall enough to keep out eveyone who doesn't look like me.
That said, I don't like either Obama or McCain all that much.
I am with you.
When parsing someone's words, it is important to keep in mind the context of what they're saying. Robin Hood of legend also wanted to spread the wealth, but he was hardly socialist: the reason he spread the wealth was because John of England and the Sheriff of Nottingham were oppressing the commoners and stealing their wealth.
When Sen. Obama said he wanted to "spread the wealth" he was speaking with respect to his tax policy. Sen. Obama's proposed tax plan would cut taxes for most people, especially those in the middle class, and the tradeoff is that for families making more than $250k, their tax rates will revert to pre-Bush levels, specifically from a 36% to a 39% marginal tax rate.
Is a 39% marginal tax rate socialist? If so, then Eisenhower must have been a socialist, because during his presidency, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. After Reagan's first term, the top tax rate was 50%. Compared to them, Senator Obama must seem like Gordon Gekko.
Given a "wealth spreading" litmus test, all progressive taxation would be considered socialist, because it calls upon those of higher incomes to draw a greater percentage of their income to fund the government. Is that a reasonable conclusion then? Well, that might be news to Adam Smith, the celebrated proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, who wrote in support of a progressive tax in his Wealth of Nations.
Another fallacy here is the naturalistic fallacy. Your assumption is that everyone who is wealthy must have earned it, and everyone who is not wealthy must be deficient. You call the American workforce "complacent, lazy and self righteous" and blame them for our economic downturn; but in fact our current economic crisis was brought about by rich investment bankers creating risky derivatives and then over-leveraging their companies in exchange for fat bonuses. They were creating wealth alright- by spreading it from the market, and their own employers, to their personal bank accounts, and then leaving the credit market for the tax payers to clean up.
I think we would agree that preserving entrepreneurial incentive, driven by private risk and reward is important for our society to thrive. Where we differ, however, is that I recognize that there is value in society preserving for people the opportunities for them to seek those incentives, regardless of the strata of society in which they were born. I am not a proponent of egalitarianism, but neither am I proponent of devil-take-the-hindmost.
When it comes to tax policy today, I believe that reducing taxes for the middle class is more important and offers more benefits than for the rich, even if that means a slight increase for the rich. The middle class is where that industrial spirit thrives the most- this is where our workers, our inventors, our small business owners live. This is where people have to achieve in order to make a good life, and increasingly under the Republican fiscal policies, this is where the people have been squeezed to an unacceptable point.
On the one hand, we have a candidate who is proposing to offer a significant tax cut for the middle class, and on the other hand, we have a candidate who is offering a tax cut that primarily benefits the rich and barely touches the middle class. For me, the choice is clear.
Yes, this is exactly the point. I don't think anyone believes that this is Obama's ultimate goal. But I also don't think most people fully realize that under true socialism, you and your friends would NOT own a bit of this and that, the STATE would. There would be no such thing as personal wealth or intellectual property or dividends or private ownership or patents or rights or royalties. The job you do, how you do it, what you can learn and acheive and how quickly, becomes meaningless once it is devalued by the fact that you will never acheive better than the drooling moron asleep at the desk next to you.
So, while I don't think this extreme is Obama's ultimate plan, and I don't love McCain, McCain it's going to have to be because I just cannot help but feel that Obama opens the door. He's the gateway politician to socialism and in a few years, no one will notice that they are slowly ceding more and more control because the masses are lulled by the dulcet tones of his golden voice...
The real issue is people assume their taxes will be lower under McCain. It's all about Me, Me, Me. What do I have to pay? What break do I get? In the end, what it becomes is nobody makes any money and everyone suffers because there is no money to be made and there are no people to support those making money.
I'm hearing more and more people say they can no longer afford cable TV. Next it will be the internet. Hollywood will fall apart because no one will be going to see movies or buying DVDs. The Internet will have fewer travelers so everyone with online jobs won't be making ad money, money from marketing, etc. because no one will be online to use said services.
Most everyone agrees that Bush has helped to ruin America. The country is falling apart and has been for the last eight years...and you want to elect a man who has a proven record of voting 90% of the time with this moron? You reap what you sow. If McCain gets in then we all suffer and I'm seriously considering moving from the U.S. because I fear for my safety and the safety of my child.
One thing no one has mentioned is that the government isn't very good at doing the jobs they already have. The roads? We had a major bridge collapse in Minnesota a couple years ago. Social Security? My generation isn't going to see a dime of the money we've paid in due to mismanagement. And people want to give them more money and power. No thanks.
Resources:
"Is Obama A Socialist?" http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/31...
"Sarah Palin The Socialist: Spreading The Wealth in Alaska" http://teamsugar.com/group/2385592/blog/2440509
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23852.html
Ron Paul!
blessings, Penny Raine
http:/pennyraine.com/blog
And please be honest. If you kept the check, let everyone know.
I'm interested to see how many of you actually put your money where your mouth is.