Word Twisting to the Max
Brian once again shows his unique talent to twist words. He wants to believe that every utterance out of Barack Obama’s mouth is somehow code for socialism or communism. When Barack says “spread the wealth around” he means it as most sane people who use the expression mean it…there’s enough prosperity to go around in this country, and yet the gap betwen the haves and the have nots is getting wider. He’s not talking about policies to re-distribute wealth as Brian wants to believe, he’s talking about policies that will ensure that everyone has the opportunity to prosper, not just the privileged few.
And as a side note…if Brian believes that everyone is rich because they have talent and ability, then I want to have a nice long discussion about the inheritance tax with him. I’d be much more inclined to support his point of view if those who did the work to earn their wealth gave it up when they died so that their children had to do the same, rather than just ride on the family nest egg that then got passed down to another generation who didn’t earn it either. Be consistent for God’s sake.
These scare tactics will not work and it’s making conservatives like Brian ill…welcome to what the rest of us had to live with for the last eight years.
Flashpoint Blog Archive >> The cat is officially out of the bag.
Sphere: Related Content
October 27th, 2008 at 5:11 am
Yeah, that was crazy of me to think that he supports redistributing wealth. It’s not like he has actually talked about doing it before or anything.
A side note on language. Unique means one of a kind. It is a binary term that sorts all things into one of two groups, one of which consists of only a single “thing”. I googled the following phrase:
obama “spread the wealth around” “redistribution of wealth”
and had over 71,000 hits. I guess I wasn’t the only one who interpreted Obama’s comment as a very thinly veiled promise to redistribute wealth. If Obama only wants to allow you to prosper then I have to ask, specifically, which policies in place currently prevent you from prospering?
BTW, why do you bring up inherited wealth? Obama isn’t talking about just taxing inherited wealth and “spreading” that around. He is talking about taking from all the haves and giving it to the have nots. In any event, why should the government have more claim to someone’s assets when they die than a family member? The very notion is predicated on the belief that wealth is controlled (and distributed) by the government.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I didn’t say you were crazy, I said you twisted his words.
Now we’re using Google hits to define whether or not there is truth? My God…I could put together a whole lot of phrases that would get more than 71,000 hits, my friend. And of course some people believe it, because the McCain campaign pushed that intrepretation of the remarks, when there are many ways you could intrepret it.
There are any number of policies currently in place that prevent people from prospering…from lack of finanacial support for No Child Left Behind, to lack of funding for higher education, to investment in new technology that will create more job opportunities in a struggling economy.
The idea that the assets accumulated by someone during their life should not be given, in it’s entirety, to a relative is NOT predicated on the belief that wealth should be controlled by the government, it’s predicated on the belief that in a democratic capitalist society, you should have to compete for wealth, not have it gifted to you.
If America wants to remain the greatest country on earth, we cannot continue to have a widening gap between those at the top and everyone else. It’s an untenable situation. Success and achievement are the basis of a great society, but excessive accumulation of wealth amongst a very small percentage of the population is a recipe for disaster.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
You completely ignored Obama’s own words about redistribution. It isn’t word twisting - it is his beliefs. Ignoring it doesn’t make you right.
You didn’t directly call me crazy. You argued that most sane people would not have arrived at my conclusion, hence you implied that I may not be sane.
I cited Google stats not to validate my view point as the truth (as a matter of opinion such an endeavor would be impossible). I did it to chide your imprecise usage of the word unique - it is a pet peeve of mine. I was pointing out that my “talent to twist words” wasn’t unique since so many others obviously came to the same, or similar, conclusion.
Have any of the impediments to success that you mentioned actually kept you, not some arbitrary construct of a disadvantaged individual, from prospering? I wasn’t born wealthy. I seriously doubt my parents will leave me enough money to begin to approach the death tax threshold. Unless you encountered particularly challenging circumstances we faced the same challenges to prospering. I feel that I have done well with my life so far and thus disagree with the notion that there are insurmountable impediments to succeeding. The single largest impediment to success is the individual.
Beyond your own beliefs that inherited wealth is dangerous, what justification, legally speaking, would you find for confiscating privately earned income upon someone’s death?
If you have more time or resources than me (which is likely) why don’t you research what portion of wealth in this country is inherited. Conventional wisdom is that most wealth is not earned. I’m sure that I’ve seen stats that refute that point.
The whole inheritance thing is off topic anyway, more of you superimposing your own thoughts onto Obama’s tax plan. He isn’t talking about punishing only heirs. He will punish all “wealthy” people irrespective of how the money got into their bank accounts. (I can’t wait until I find out, much to my alarm, that I am considered wealthy and get punished for working hard.) Now, justify taking more and more from those who earned it on their own.
(BTW, I abhor NCLB - or as I call it, No Child Gets Ahead)
October 29th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
No, you completely misunderstood what he was talking about. There was a great story in Slate on that topic today: What Obama really meant by “redistributive wealth”. What he said had nothing to do with what you think it did.
I never said all people got wealthy because of inheritance, you are the one who said people got wealthy because of talent and ability. I was simply refuting what you said. I also don’t have to prove most wealth is not earned, as I never said I believed that.
Obama isn’t talking about punishing the wealthy. He is talking about giving tax relief to 90% of Americans. That is his tax plan. If you want to view an increase on those who are most able to pay when the rest of the country is seeing a reduction, that’s you superimposing your thoughts on his plan.
The idea that every tax increase on the wealthy is somehow passed down to the rest of us is simply ridiculous and completely unproven. As for the largest impediment to success being the individual…I don’t even know where to begin. That belief is why it’s so difficult for you and I to find much common ground. We approach this debate from completely different understandings of reality. I firmly believe and know people who are just as skilled and capable as I am who for any number of reasons (poor health, a family member’s poor health, downsizing, etc.) struggle to get through the day. The fact that you don’t see that in your reality is baffling to me.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:09 am
Over 30% of Americans already have no federal tax liability. How, then, is Obama going to “cut” taxes on 90% of Americans? Through “refundable” tax credits similar to the earned income tax credit, which result in that 30% (actually he will push it over 40%) not only not owing federal taxes, but getting a larger check than they currently receive.
If he is increasing taxes on the evil rich and simultaneously increasing refundable tax credits (i.e. payments) for the poor then what, prey tell, do you call that if it is not wealth redistribution? I would love to hear the term you use for that.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:07 am
I’m not calling the “rich” evil. My argument, and Obama’s, is that those who are most able to pay should carry a larger share of the load. When 30-40% of the country is living in poverty I don’t have any problem whatsoever in ensuring that group pays nothing in taxes. So, if you want a name for it, that’s it, asking those who can most afford to pay to bear the burden in a more equitable way.
It’s interesting how you immediately jump to the bottom 30%…what about the 60% in the middle, the majority, who pay federal income taxes now? Also, Obama is proposing reducing taxes overall, the amount that will be gained from increases on those making over $250,000 is not going to offset the amount of the decrease for those under $200,000. His plan will give a net reduction in the overall tax burden of the country from what it’s been under W.
You want a name for it, I call it ensuring people can afford healthcare and to support their children. If a low-income person doesn’t have any children and doesn’t own a home the only credit they get under Obama’s plan is for healthcare.