On Oct 26, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Bryon Daly wrote: > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:39 PM, John Williams > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Anecdote seen on the internet: >> >> Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that >> read >> 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant >> my >> server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given >> away his >> political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the >> bill came I >> decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was >> exploring the >> Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief >> while I >> told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I >> deemed >> more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily >> stormed from my >> sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to >> thank the >> server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The >> homeless guy >> was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution >> experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money >> he did not >> earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he >> did earn >> even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess >> redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept >> than in >> practical application. >> > > The analogy is full of crap: > 1) Obama's proposal raises the top two marginal tax rates and > capital gains > rate by a few percentage points, back to the Clinton-era level. At > best, > this is not taking the waiter's entire $10 - it'd be more like maybe > $.50, > and even then, only if the waiter was in the top few percent of the > richest > people in the country, and that money for the "homeless person" also > went to > pay for things like his town's police force, fire dept, hospital and > schools. > > 2) Our current tax system under Bush, which McCain supports, is > ALREADY a > progressive tax system. The wealthy CURRENTLY pay more in taxes. > Redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation is already > going on > and has been going on for probably at least 40-50 years. The > argument here > is about how much is appropriate, a debate about a few percentage > points. > And yet the republican reaction is like this: > Top marginal tax rate of 35% on the richest 2% of Americans? Hell > yeah, all > god-loving America supporters stand behind this! > Top marginal tax rate of 39.6% on the richest 2% of Americans? It's > socialism! The freedom-hating commies are coming to take our > livelihoods > away! > > You can make an honest case that these tax higher rates are bad for > the > economy (though I'd disagree); there's certainly room for discussion > and > debate there. But these straw-man attacks like your anecdote and > those > calling Obama a socialist make reasoned debate impossible and > frankly make > it seem that those making the attacks are afraid they don't have a > legitimate argument and have to resort to these tactics instead.
I'm inclined to agree with that. We tried this experiment in the 1980's -- it was better known as Reaganomics, which depended on the "trickle down effect", and as experience has taught us, very little that trickles down is fit to consume. (And I could extend the analogy further and allude to certain wealthy party shills p***ing on our heads and trying to convince us that it's raining, but that would be too cheap to do the extraordinary irony of the situation justice.) We've been told by Republicans at least since the beginning of the Reagan administration, if not much earlier, that Taxes Is Bad, been sold that line for so long people who actually have the most to lose from GOP-style economic policy have begun to believe it. The truth is, the Republican mantra of downsizing government and cuttng taxes has historically and consistently led to deficit spending to keep the government operating, which just mortgages the future to live high on the hog in the present. Bush II started his administration with a balanced budget and a revenue surplus, and is going to end it with the most astronomical national debt in this country's entire history, the credit-default swaps that are the main market powering the current economic crisis were legalized by a Republican controlled Congress that was basically reversing laws passed to forbid similar "gambling" practices 100 years ago. The laws Congress reversed in the late 1990's were the ones passed in the wake of the Panic of 1907, which was partly due to the extensive gambling in off-exchange houses that basically just took bets on stocks, which made the market so unstable that it progressively collapsed under the strain of a failed bid to corner the copper market. (Note: The credit-default swap market is, even now, completely unregulated, completely unaudited, and with so little official oversight that even the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even years into the future.) I hear the same argument time and time again: lower taxes, deregulate, the financial industry is made up of mature adults who know what they're doing so we should trust them and not get in their way .. and you know what? I don't trust them, because we have proof right in front of us that when they're turned loose to do things their own way, sooner or later someone takes one risk too many with too large an amount of money for anyone to cover their bets when they screw up, and if there aren't official and procedural safeguards set up to contain the damage when they implode, we get chain-reaction collapses like this. This happens every time we deregulate industries and rely on the corporate honor system, and I'm tired of hearing the argument that it won't happen again if we just cut them some slack. And by extension, I'm tired of hearing that we're somehow slaves to the government if we actually pay for services the government provides that nobody else will touch, and pay for enough regulation and oversight to keep the infrastructure that ensures our survival stable. I'd lose count of the number of things I depend on local, state, and federal governments for every day that, quite honestly, I'm OK with paying for. As long as the government does its job and works for me more than I work for it, I don't mind paying taxes, and when McCain gets the ominous tone in his voice when he says Obama will raise taxes, my response is, "So?! And you claim you won't?!" I'd rather have taxes up front and government doing the jobs nobody else will do to keep the system stable and functioning smoothly, and keep people from gaming the system exactly the way the credit-default swap players were doing just to make a quick million or two here and there off of us, than empty claims that cutting taxes for the wealthiest 1-2% in the country and leaving me to sink or swim on my own is somehow better for me .. "I don't think we should remind people how friendly we were with dictators who oppressed their people while stealing their money." -- Toby Ziegler _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
