That’s Barack Obama talking to a plumber who had complained to him about his tax plan. Story here.
All righty, then! So who has the hot, focus-group-tested spin for this one? Lay it on me. Give me a nonthreatening, that’s-not-what-he-really-meant reading of “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Hey, how about another quote?
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” – Karl Marx
You might also like:
- “You can keep your plan”? Obama’s known it was a lie since 2010
“If you like your current health plan, you can keep your current health plan.” – Barack Obama How ma… - Obama: We have “absorbed” 9/11
Quoting Bob Woodward’s new book Obama’s Wars: “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything… - “What we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed.” – Barack Obama
That’s what our esteemed president is telling us today. That’s how he’s explaining when he said “if … - On free enterprise, Romney must hit our divider-in-chief and keep hitting
On the way back from lunch with Saintseester earlier this week, I unloaded on her my frustration at … - Obama’s new story on government health care
I’m going to hit Obamacare again tonight. Apologies to those looking for something lighter, but I’m …
It is too bad the Libertarians cannot seem to get a real foothold in national politics. Now that Bush seems to be at the helm of the most overt act of socialism in my lifetime, I think our only hope for reason is a strong 3rd party in the mix.
Here’s the thing (and I recognize that I should probably just shut the hell up and not prove, by opening my mouth, that I have no idea what I’m talking about)…. no – you know what? This is me, shutting up.
I miss you over at the hsv.* Bo.
So you saying Mr. Obama is a commie? Socialist?
I think that’s really a stretch, and distributing the wealth is what created the middle class, if I remember well. Not government spreading the wealth, but an economic system spreading the wealth.
If anyone is concerned about socialism, they would, naturally, be an advocate of no tax incentives for any purpose whatsoever, no social security, no subsidies to any individual/business/corporation, etc., etc. We are well past the day when anyone can whine about government basically running the economy–the government already does. Socialism for the wealthy already exists.
Besides, I do not think Mr. Obama was advocating socialism and outright government redistribution of wealth any more than Mr. McCain was being racist when he said “that one.”
‘seester: I understand. I also understand that there’s “bad” and “less bad.” McCain is less bad.
Lee: Thanks. You do know you’re too big for that pond, right?
Gerry: No, I’m not saying that. Barack Obama himself is. Or do you have an alternate reading of “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”? Saying you don’t think he’s advocating socialism and outright government redistribution of wealth fails to imbue any of these simple words with new meanings. He’s a scary, confiscatory son-of-a-bitch. (Oh my dear Lord, is that racist?)
The freedom of an individual to pursue his own interest is what created the middle class. You can call it “an economic system spreading the wealth” if you like, but an individual working for a better life is the engine.
If you have a plausible explanation for what he really meant, then please consider me highly receptive to it.
That kind of quote is what is leading me to vote for McCain. And God help us with him in charge…
And I’ll agree with Lee… hsv.* misses ya. Actually it’s missing a lot of posters.
Combine that comment with Biden’s proposal that people in foreclosure be able to negotiate down the principal they owe. Then, it paints a broader picture of their combined philosophy. Basically, I bought home that I can afford and have been making on-time payments since 1993. While someone who buys something beyond their means can be rewarded by having their debt forgiven? I am certainly not opposed to temporary freezes on foreclosure to allow someone to come up with a strategy to get back on their feet, but just *poof?*
Scott: Thank you, sir. Again, nice to hear, though I plan no return to Usenet.
‘seester: Uh, yeah, me too–sub 2000 for 1993. The bank begged us to buy more house. (And don’t forget, Fannie Mae is incentivizing suicide attempts.)
I was as appalled as you were at Biden cavalierly rattling off that bit about negotiating principal. The scariest part of all is that hardly anybody fucking noticed. That’s just the way we do it now. If you’re hurting, it’s somebody else’s fault, and dammit, the government’s here for you.
It’s okay. Barack will save us. I know this to be true, because he gives a good speech.
We’ll soon find out how long it takes for the absolute power handed over to the Democrats to absolutely corrupt them. I’m sickened with the thought that our country is going to be steered towards being more like socialist Europe. Sigh…I’ll still go do my duty on the 4th to try and prevent the power monopoly.
As for hsv.*, I too have pretty much given it up. I haven’t stopped by there in months. I basically got bored with the utter obtuseness of Rev. Bob and Bob Dubya.
I’m having a good laugh this morning. It looks like all your liberal readers don’t want to face reality. Obama IS a socialist ! He does believe in redistributing income. He believes that very hard working successful achievers should support people who don’t want to get educated or learn a skill. With ideas like this our great nation will cease to be great. It’s like JFK said: ” Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You, Ask What You Can Do For Your Country”
Gerry brings up the word racist. Give me a break. This is the liberals way to defect every criticism of Obama. Every legit comment against Obama is racist ? I guess Gerry would like Obama since the Dems will surely support lawyers. Everyone will be suing everyone and the lawyers will get rich. What a great use of resources – suing each other.
Mr. Obama was talking about nothing more than adjusting taxes so that the well-off pay a bit more, and the not-so-well-off pay a bit less. If you consider that socialism, well, then, I’m in favor of socialism.
Of course, it isn’t socialism. No more than it is socialism when the most prosperous business concerns in America, like oil companies, get massive tax breaks. Or when financial companies are bailed out. Funny how government measures are only called “socialist” when intended to help ordinary people.
Of course, I would, probably like you, get rid of our present system of taxation, allow no tax system to be used as an instrument of social policy, and completely forbid any government subsidy to any business concern whatsoever.
Frankly, I don’t know how a “social safety net” could be worked into that, but I admit to being uncomfortable with starvation as a solution.
Realistically, the present system of using taxes as an instrument of social policy and subsidies to favor certain businesses/people is not going away any time soon. In that context, I find nothing “frightening” in any boogy-man way about the various candidates’ proposals. After all, the whole lot of them will say anything to get elected, and, truthfully, I despise them all.
It’s not just tax adjustments that spurs fears of socialism. It’s the whole liberal mind set concerning health care, gun control, global warming, etc.
I think bailing the financial system out IS an act of socialism. Not just when ordinary people get breaks. I am opposed to tax breaks for having more kids. I am opposed to tax breaks for mortgage interest. All of that. We need a complete overhaul / dumping of the current tax code. I am very strongly opposed to any form of government health care system. All it takes is one look at No Child Left Behind to see what a federal effort to control something we all use does to it.
How can you decrease income taxes for the low income group? Right now, roughly the bottom 40 percent pay ZERO income taxes and many get an income tax credit ( welfare check ). The bottom 50 percent of all income earners only pay around 4 percent of all the income taxes. Go check it out.
I think the Obama plan is all about taxing the rich to increase the size of government and provide more welfare. It’s LBJ’s Great
Society II.
Pearl, Gerry: Exactly. We’re already at a point at which “the well-off” are just about the only ones paying anything. Dig (2005 data, the most recent year I could find quickly):
The wealthiest 1% pay more than a third of all federal income taxes. Broaden to the wealthiest 5%, and you’re already talking about a group that pays more than half of all federal income taxes. The wealthiest 25% is on the hook for a staggering 83.6% of all federal income taxes.
The top half–the wealthiest 50% of all taxpayers–pays 96.4% of all federal income taxes.
With all due respect, in terms of a federal tax burden (or lack thereof), how much more “help” do you believe these “ordinary people” need? Should we pay them to be alive?
And yes, I’d love to see the income tax phased out entirely. Until then, a flat tax with elimination of all deductions except charitable contributions will be just fine.
Fair Tax: ensures that people who make their $$ illegally or unclaimed also pay their share of tax burden.
By the way, “Joe the Plumber” pictured above turns out to be, as a talking point, an absolute fraud. He has no plumbers license. He doesn’t pay his taxes and Ohio filed a lien against him. There is not chance in the world he can purchase the plumbing business he allegedly works for. Also, this character will actually benefit from Mr. Obama’s tax plan.
Shades of Swiftboat.
Gerry: You forgot to work in a Charles Keating reference.
Yes, I’ve seen the breathless bloviation on the Interwebs about who this guy’s related to, how his name is or isn’t spelled on voter rolls, and whether he used to pick his nose and eat it in the fourth grade.
Joe could be a phantasmal energy being from the planet Zarkon, and you know what would remain?
“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Those of you who prefer facsism to socialism, be careful what you wish for. You dismiss truth in favor of some ephemeral ideal. I knew about the Keating connection, but I don’t blame “Joe” for his relative’s criminal activities.
It is good for everybody, that’s what you fascists don’t get.
You wouldn’t know a diamond if you held it in your hand.
Any comment on the taxation facts with which I’ve presented you?
“Reeling in the Years,” indeed.
Did you just call me a fascist? Care to retract that?
Hummmm, is Gerry saying we are a fascist because we believe that all people ( except the elderly and the sick ) should carry their fair load in this country ? I know lawyers are trained to twist the facts to favor their clients, but you can’t fool everyone. It seems like most people back east have a warped sense of life.
The left tends to throw “fascism” around like it is the domain of the right without realizing that, historically speaking, increasing socialism culminates in fascism. The colony doesn’t function without iron rule!
I don’t think saying most people in the east have a warped sense of life is any more valid than calling someone fascist because they disagree with you on tax policy. I think that political discourse is a very good thing to pursue, but blanket statements are not going to help us.
Saintseester – I agree with you. Blanket statements on either side of the debate don’t make for good open discussions!
Lee – I was very confused with a Facist label for Bo, too. I couldn’t figure out how a Libertarian (that advocates a smaller federal government) be called something that stood for a larger and imposing government. I thought that I’d somehow misunderstood what facisist meant. (It HAS been awhile since I’ve actually studied comparative politics!)
Lee: Indeed. Of course, I’m disappointed that any name was thrown around.
Pearl, ‘seester, Lea: Agreed. It’s not productive to make any assumption about “most people back east,” nor is it even necessary. All of the components of a stimulating discussion are before us without such.
Alas, it seems Gerry has decided that his best course is to call names and storm off, even going so far as to delete WmWms from his blogroll last night. I checked periodically today to see if he would undo that (perhaps deciding it was a hasty decision made in anger), but no.
For now, for what it’s worth, I shall not retaliate in kind.
And that blogroll deletion is a shame. We have much more to learn from those with whom we disagree than we do from those who are essentially like us ideologically. I know enough of Gerry to know that he and I don’t agree on much politically, and I enjoyed what he brought to me for consideration. Until last night, such discussions had never even approached devolving into name-calling.
I’m not saying it’s the case here (because I don’t know), but I have encountered reactions like Gerry’s before that I suspect are results of spending too much time unchallenged. Frames of reference erode until it is eventually unthinkable that any reasonable person could possibly disagree on (insert issue here), and it becomes excessively difficult to respect anyone holding an opposing view.
Bring your arguments with spirit and passion. Honestly, I’m not much interested in tussling with you if your heart’s not in it. But if you feel yourself getting sincerely upset, take a step back. I’ve been online for 15 years, and I’m telling you it’s a damned rare thing that something that someone wrote (on a blog, in Usenet, on a board, or whatever) is worth genuine anger.
I think a national sales tax is the only way to really have a flat (and fair) tax. But that means that everything bought is taxed the same. I don’t care if it’s a bicycle or a yacht. I paid as much sales tax on my Focus as my parents paid on their Mercedes because they capped sales tax in SC. I cry foul! If you can afford a Mercedes you can afford to pay the taxes on it.
A. I was really down in the dumps when one or more of my comments above were made, and I apologize.
B. I was trying (in a lame and a little drunk way) by slinging the term “fascist” as casually as some do “socialist” to make a point. What it was, I’m not sure, but I’m guessing it was that slinging labels is kind of useless. When it comes to government programs of any kind, they should be considered on their merits, not dismissed by (in my view) labels which are pretty much empty of content.
C. My host deserves better of me.
Cheryl (and ‘seester): I might be all right with a national sales tax, but it has to come with a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, or we’ll just have both. Believe it.
Gerry: Thank you for coming back and for what you have said. I appreciate it. I look forward to further exploration with you.
I am Joe.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/10/i-am-joe.html
Bob: Love it. That’s worth two weeks and two days of sidebar time. Thanks for the link.
Repeal of the 16th is a significant aspect of the fair tax plan.