Barack Obama's America
When Barack Obama announced that he was running for president he was very clear that, if elected, he planned "not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation". Twenty months after that statement in Springfield Illinois, we now have a much clearer view of what he means by "Change We Can Believe In". In a campaign of soaring generalizations on mostly centrist themes, Barack Obama has described the details of the transformation he would bring with almost surgical precision. What he offers may be, in substance and in spirit, a radical departure from the principles of the American Dream that has defined our nation over the last two centuries.
In the guise of a "middle-class tax cut", Senator Obama is actually adding a new tax in order to create a new welfare program that will add to the annual $400 billion that we currently spend on our welfare system. According to the Tax Policy Center, each year Barack Obama will take $70 billion from the 2% of small businesses and individuals who create over 16 million jobs and will send checks for almost $100 billion to over 40%, or approximately 60 million Americans, who pay no taxes at all. Cleverly, Senator Obama has called his transfer a "refundable tax credit" instead of "income redistribution". Indeed, to label as a "refund" a payment which the recipient has never funded is wordsmithing on steroids.
When Bill Clinton turned "welfare" into "workfare" in 1996 and created twenty two million jobs for Americans, he said, "We are taking an historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life". At the time, then State Senator Obama called this highly successful policy "disturbing". No wonder that the Chicago New Party, an affiliate of the Democratic Socialist Party, endorsed State Senator Obama in 1996 after he signed the pledge that was required in order to receive the endorsement. Now, if elected president, he will re-create a failed welfare system while calling it "tax reform". No candidate has ever been cleverer with words than Mr. Obama. But, does America want to "spread the wealth" as Mr. Obama advocates? According to the June Gallup Poll, Americans, by a margin of 84-13%, want our government to fix the economy and create jobs, not to redistribute wealth.
The fundamental problem with Senator Obama's stealth economics is that his dogma will not make America stronger or fairer. Today, the top 1% of earners contributes 40% of the nation's $2.6 trillion tax intake and the bottom 50% pay 2.9% of our nation's total needs. It has been shown that reductions in tax rates increase tax revenues because private enterprise strengthens the economy which in turn creates a larger tax base. For example, in 2003 the richest Americans paid $136 billion in taxes and after the Bush tax cut in 2006 they paid $274 billion.
During our last devastating global economic crisis, Franklin Roosevelt protected this country from the statist dictatorships that were emerging in the rest of the world. He protected capitalism by creating programs and institutions to protect innocent people but did not raise taxes and did not remove incentives for private wealth creation. In another era, with real fiscal deficits larger than we face currently, President Kennedy reduced taxes. The historical evidence is clear that nations that stifle private enterprise have less robust economies with slower growth and less innovation, opportunity and diversity.
In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Mr. Obama stated that "eking out a bare Democratic majority isn't good enough." Indeed, if the pollsters are correct and the Democrats win overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, Senator Obama, if elected, would easily implement both his promises for $307 billion of new federal spending per year and his punitive tax policies. The truth is that with the level of spending in the Obama plan, either taxpayers between $40,000 and $250,000 per year will have to fund the massive costs for the new programs he is promising, or the promises will be abandoned.
Perhaps more sinister is Obama's reconfiguration of the American Dream. My father made an inflation adjusted income of about $50,000 per year. He never took a handout but he worked two jobs. He taught us that if we worked hard and played by the rules there was no limit to what we could become in America. Now, Barack Obama is changing that compact with America. In Barack Obama's America, there is a ceiling to the American Dream. He decides the level at which our money becomes the government's money.
There is a reason why immigrants fly to America to achieve their dream. Now, in the guise of a "middle class tax cut" Barack Obama is threatening that dream. If he succeeds, Barack Obama will bring the kind of radical transformation that this country does not need and never has. And the country will be in for a shock.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Qu'ils mangent de la brioche?
This lady actually had to work for her obscene wealth -- she married it, unlike Cindy McCain, who inherited hers.
It's really only the people who have loads of money, and with a surname such as Rothschild one could almost presume this, could feel threatened by Obama's new tax deal. As a non-American, I'm holding thumbs that Obama gets this. After years of Bush embarrassment to the American people, and such a wonderful people, it's time to get this country back on its feet and back to the position of world power it so rightly deserves.
of course, i am not an american, so maybe my perception is wrong. but in my opinion, the "american dream" does not consist in low taxes but in an environment, where anyone can "make it" if he is ambitious, resourcefull, dynamic and entrpeneurial enough. this means that he would not be worn down by nay-sayers and over-regulation, that he would not be held up by conventions like preferences for higher education, descent etc. that is what i think constitutes the "american dream".
based on my experience, taxation is definetely part of a companys considerations before making an investment. but usually they first think about qualified workforce, legal environment, political stability and logistics. at least when it comes to at least medium sophisticated products and services.
just my two kokus worth.
looseantz
How ridiculous is it to argue for a tax policy that benefits only 1% of this nation's citizens? Seriously? How much more ridiculous does that same argument become when it's posted on the internet as opposed to being communicated over champagne in some country club dining room?
Most ridiculous of all is the absurd notion that poor people's votes can be won by arguing for policies which make them even poorer.
There are exactly two kinds of power in this world: that based on having money and that based on a mobilized populace. When Obama wins the presidency tomorrow we'll finally be seeing that latter kind of power once again. As the pendulum swings in that direction, those who defend the idea of power-by-wealth would do well to keep their heads down.
As is always the case with people like Rothschild, she has twisted the facts until they resemble not a bit of the truth of a situation nor the intent of the original. Her pathethic attempt to portray the down-trodden rich as paying an ever-increasing tax burden while the working class pays ever less VERY CONVENIENTLY OMITS the simple truth that the already ultra-rich INCREASED THEIR PERSONAL WEALTH by leaps and bounds while real income under bushit's & cheney's watch has shrunken exponentially as jobs are lost to overseas workers. Those same rich are NOT creating jobs here, they are buying manufacturing set-ups in China, India, Pakistan and elsewhere so they can pay their workers pennies per hour and reap the high profits in the States. "Trickle-down", that favorite of ronnie raygun, has been proven false over and over again. The stinking rich pay high taxes because they have over ninety per cent of the nation's wealth, while the bottom half does 96% of the work for subsistence wages. Plenty of us work hard and play by the rules. The ones with the money can and do change the rules so the profits remain in THEIR wallet. Education has been priced out of the reach of many, the rich kids get a degree whether they are smart or not, gwb being the most glaring example of THAT particular bit of cronyism, so the good jobs go to them without regard for their ability to do the work.
Let's talk freedom.
The NeoCon Rove Repubs are always eager to send young men and women into war for our so-called "Freedom", but are the first to complain about higher taxes which improve our domestic standards.
If you want to be a patriot, put down the rifle and pull out your wallet. WE NEED better schools, new "green" technology, college for all, better standards of living for the poor and middle class, and we need to pull ourselves out of DEBT!
We owe over 4 trillion to China. That's not "Freedom". Clinton was the only Prez since Reagan to decrease our national debt. Raegan raised our debt by about a trillion to outspend Russia, Bush Sr. spent another trillion. BUT WORST OF ALL Bush Jr. has doubled our debt. He has spent what Reagan and his dad spent combined. DEBT IS OUR LOSS OF FREEDOM! NOT HAVING SCHOOLS THAT COMPETE AGAINST OTHER COUNTRIES EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS IS OUR LOSS OF FREEDOM! AND CHOOSING TO FIGHT IMMORAL WARS OVER INVESTING IN PROGRAMS FOR OUR FUTURE LIKE RENEWABLE ENERGY IS OUR LOSS OF FREEDOM!
WE NEED TO BE GREAT AGAIN! Just because people like this Rothschild woman are filthy rich, does not mean that this is a great country. Our greatness will be measured not just by the success of our Rich Elite, but also by the standards of life that the poorest and hardest working of us have. LOVE AMERICA. FEED AMERICA. NO MORE FEAR TACTICS.
OBAMA 08'
Beautifully eloquent post, thank you. And I don't see a single tr0ll post in response. Interesting.
Eloquent if you don't analyze the words and see that it is twisted logic in a post with an agenda and untruths and not an agenda for the majority of Americans.
Scratch an aristocrat, find a Republican.
Nothing here that's necessarily new or interesting.
"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages
- Rothschild Brothers' of London communiqué to associates in New York June 25, 1863
Another thought -- I pay about $10 for a uniform shirt for my daughter. It's most likely made in a textile mill in Asia for pennies. Let's say $1. Then it's boxed and shipped over here. That adds to the cost. It's marketed. That adds to the cost. So let's say it cost $4 to make, ship and market a shirt.
Now let's say we hire Americans to go back to our textile mills and get paid a LIVING WAGE. Since we pay them better the shirt will cost more to make -- let's say $3. With the advent of online stores, the mill could be its own distributor which will save costs. Online buyers would pay the shipping fee.
My guess is that, once word got out that there was an American company making children's uniform shirts for the same price as what we'd pay walmart or target, sales would be strong.
Now, I have nothing at ALL against the people of China, India, Sri Lanka, Mexico or any other poor country whose people are trying to work to feed their families as well. But we need our textile workers back at work. We need our steel workers back at work. We need to put American blue collar workers back to work.
Someone please explain to me ... why isn't this idea workable?
It IS workable, but it doesn't further enrich the already filthy rich. Hopefully in the years to come we will be bringing our industries back to our own country, and buying American.
In fact, if we all start trying to buy American, and when possible to 'buy local', we will be able to affect a change.
Obama's idea of penalizing companies that outsource jobs overseas while giving tax credits to businesses that create new jobs here in America is a good step in the right direction.
Let's be patriotic and Buy American!
It is workable. However, the companies get a tax break for finding cheaper labor overseas.
This is one of those great sound bites that is completely devoid of meaning. Companies who are based and manufacture in America are subject to US tax policy. Companies that pick up and move their operation overseas pay taxes in their new country. If the tax rates are lower in that country, they pay lower taxes, but the implication that the US is giving them a BREAK for moving their operations is misleading at best.
But why aren't Americans more conscious about buying their own goods? Toyota is on the doorstep of delivering the most cars in the US. If you drive an import, then you are guilty! And don't try to justify it by thinking it's ok because it assembled in the US. You are only supporting a small portions of workers, but if you buy from GM or Ford, you support many thousands of employees and retirees.
One reason General Motors has struggled this decade is because over $3000 per vehicle delivered goes directly to retired employees pension and healthcare.
Buy a Toyota and support Japan.
Also, as reported by a Kelly Blue Book study, buying American autos is a concept that seems to be practiced by the GOP rather than the DEMS.
Here in Mass. the labor unions strongly support Obama, and mostly buy American. But I'm willing to bet that most of Obama's supporters drive Subaru's and Hondas.
Toyota manufactures cars in the United States! They employ 34,675 of our US citizens! It has in total 10 plants, purchased USD $28 billion in parts and supplies from 30 states, and created around 386,000 jobs in the United States as result of Toyota's spending and demand from suppliers.
Give me a break. The car companies, especially GM have knowingly put out cars with significantly less quality than the Japanese and then blamed Americans for not buying them. The Unions, having to deal with this lack of integrity, play ball. In either case, my Camry had 220,000 miles on it before I sold it to my friend 3 years ago and is still running with no major problems. My Prius has 60,000 miles with no major problems. Now my Fords and Cevy's had major defects which my master mechanic friend tells me were knowingly left in to save money.
And who has not been for universal health care (think Republican)? But let us not forget who also killed a good electric car and got municipalities to get rid of and lower the standards for public transportation. Who did not developed technologies to go hybrid or increase CAFE standards? The auto industry was given enough rope to hang itself. It is unfortunate that the workers will be the ones to pay the most in loss of jobs and not the incompetent management and compromised congress (mostly Repbulican) who let the American people down. Do you know who are among the heads of Cerebus (owner of Chrysler)? The incompentent John Snow (Bush fmr Treasury Secy) and Dan Quayle. Now do you think these two should be making decisions for any portion of the auto industry. What we don't know is are they reflective of the incompentence of the whole industry.
Great question - American companies pay on average 64 cents an hour for Chinese labor. Average minimum wage in US is $6.55 per hour. Let's assume that the company makes a net profit of 10% and there is a 50% margin for the retail portion (ie the company selling the shirt markets it up 100% of what they purchased it for to cover their overhead, sales, marketing etc. (pretty standard in the industry) You can assume they pay at LEAST 50% of the taxes they'd pay in US (it depends on what incentives the country will offer) So we have today:
Revenue /shirt - $5.00 (shirt is bought by Target for 5.00 and sold to you for $10)
Total Expenses - 4.375
Taxes - 0.125
Net Profit - $0.50
We'll assume all other costs are the same you just go from .64 in labor to $6.55 and double the tax rate maintaining the same profit margin:
Revenue - $11.12
Expenses - 10.28
Taxes - .333
Net Profit - $0.50
Your cost: $22.24 versus $10 today but companies are judged on profit margin not pure profit, so to maintain their 10% margin they would need:
Revenue - $12.35
Expenses - $10.28
Taxes - .826
Profit $1.24
Your cost: $24.70. This is for minimum wage workers - no benefits. For $15 hour and include standard benefits - we'd see:
Revenue - $28.90
Expenses - 23.99
Taxes - 1.97
Profit - $2.95
And you would purchase the shirt for $57.80
Reaganomics (voodoo economics per G.H.W. Bush) does not work and never has. Only intelligent economists know this, unlike Alan Greenspan, Phil (Nation of Whiner’s) Graham and all other republican “so called economists”. It is a lie sold to low information people who are too lazy to do some research or study history. America has once again reaped what the rich sowed, a world economy that is collapsing. Change will come after November 04, 2008 in America for the better. The rich love cheating the average person.
Americanwhocares, you are right, but we as Americans have to look inward to also see that we got the leadership we deserved. Too many succumbed to wedge issues and did not care about self or US interests ("What's the matter with Kansas" brought this to our general attention). Too much guns, God, gays, national security , and wanting leaders "just like us or who we could have a beer with" diverted our thinking and attention and we lost track.
I really am tired of pundits and others acting as if W's enormous tax breaks for breathtakingly wealthy Americans and corporations are an entitlement they've had since, oh, say 1776, and not a temporary give-away. And it's also very tiresome to hear them squeal like stuck pigs (elephants?) to realize that their lock on ruling MY country is slipping. Yes, I hear Barack Obama's siren call for us middle class folks to rise up and reclaim our country from the greedy few. Is this socialism? Who cares. Bring it on.
You greedy fearmongers who have used 9/11 the "war on terror" to bring this country to its knees, financially and otherwise, should be afraid. Because your day is over, as of tomorrow night. So long and good riddance.
You do of course realize that income taxes are a recent phenomena from a historic perspective right? We managed the first 137 years of our country with NO income taxes. And I'm sure you also realize that W's tax breaks were for all income levels - I don't hear anyone calling to return to Clinton's income rates at ALL levels. I also see you're another one of those Obama supporters who is all about hope and bringing us together.
I trust that Lynn Forester de Rothschild will soon write an article about "corporate welfare"-- and how these government-funded entitlements dwarf the tiny fraction of the budget we spend on helping those who are struggling at the fringes of society to secure a modicum of dignity.
There is a reason that "trickle-down" economics is not called "pour down" economics.
Lady Lynn's arguments would have more credibility if unemployment was at an all-time low or at least at an average level, if we didn't have a trade deficit, and if real income hadn't decreased over the past eight years.
Look, I'm all for academic discussions about taxes and the economy, but frankly the Bush tax cuts didn't do what they were supposed to do. If they were so good, as Clara Peller once said, "Where's the beef?" It's like we tell our quarterbacks in football, if you are throwing the ball and constantly hitting the receiver in the feet, we can argue all day about whether the receiver has good hands or not, but it's not going make any difference at all. The problem most likely lies with the quarterback.
While Lady Lynn might have all of the time in the world to contemplate economics, there are several who don't have the time anymore to "experiement" with trickle down economics; at least the way that it's been practiced by the last three Republican presidents. Maybe it does actually work, but the problem has been with the quarterbacks and right now we can't afford being two touchdowns down goign into the fourth quarter to try it again.
Well said, thank you.
"Today, the top 1% of earners contributes 40% of the nation's $2.6 trillion tax intake and the bottom 50% pay 2.9% of our nation's total needs."
My personal feelings about you aside, you've got a good knack for throwing out republican numbers.
The top 1% of the nation owns 40 percent of the nation's wealth, which has gone up because over the past 8 years have gotten 50% of the monetary gains from the economy. Now you tell me, WHY SHOULDN'T THEY PAY 40 PERCENT OF TAXES WHEN THEY'RE MAKING MORE THAN 40 PERCENT OF ALL THE MONEY IN AMERICA.
In fact, that clearly shows they aren't paying their fair share. Thanks for pointing that out, Lynn.
No matter if Obama wins or not, will we never be able to unite under just one leader? Will we ever find the Perfect Leader, or the Perfect Leadership Style? These questions are also discussed in this film that I' found:
http://www
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
